Why So Socialist?

[American X]

Coming soon to an internet near you. See it first at XavierHoops:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/Obama-socialism%20Joker.jpg

Discuss.

[golfitup]

Am I way off base for thinking there's a weird sort of culture war going on this country? It's basically people of the east/west coasts versus everyone in the middle. Obviously, that is a sweeping generalization but I feel as though there sort of could be a little merit to that.

[GuyFawkes38]

That's really creepy. Maybe too creepy.

But kind of edgy and cool. I've heard such posters are popping up in LA.


Am I way off base for thinking there's a weird sort of culture war going on this country? It's basically people of the east/west coasts versus everyone in the middle. Obviously, that is a sweeping generalization but I feel as though there sort of could be a little merit to that.

I think the best hope for the Republican party is to ignore all of that cultural stuff for a while and focus on its libertarian roots. Obama is going to give fiscal conservatives a lot of material to launch a campaign against which the people in Alabama and New York can agree on.

If Obama wants to pass his health care plan, he will have to raise taxes on the middle class. There's no way around that. He might try to do it in a sneaky way by taxing health care benefits or creating a VAT. When he does that, it'll provide republicans a great opportunity to attack.

[PM Thor]

Am I way off base for thinking there's a weird sort of culture war going on this country? It's basically people of the east/west coasts versus everyone in the middle. Obviously, that is a sweeping generalization but I feel as though there sort of could be a little merit to that.

Maybe, but, as you noted, it's a gross generalization, and overstates it. You would have to throw in the rust belt and the upper midwest into the west/east coast thing, and the south into the "midwest" thing too. The last pres election by state...

I HATE dayton.

\
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/

[Stonebreaker]

Socialism is what we're currently practicing. A trillion dollars at a time.

[spazzrico]

Socialism is what we're currently practicing. A trillion dollars at a time.

Except that it's not.

[sirthought]

You'd have to travel a far distance to get to real socialism.

[Xpectations]

I think the best hope for the Republican party is to ignore all of that cultural stuff for a while and focus on its libertarian roots.

I'm not sure I can name 5 fiscal conservatives on either party. I couldn't stand the last administration, and I'm liking this one even less on the fiscal front. As I've said before, Bush and Obama are both buffoons when it comes to the economy.

This version of the Democratic Party is all about Spend and Tax. There is no arguing that. The latest incarnation of the Republican Party is all about Spend but Don't Tax.

I'm not certain which is more idiotic. Sure, Obama's the budgets and programs dwarf Bush's, but Bush's spending was totally off the hook as well.

This notion that "deficits don't matter" (Chaney's exact quote) is absurd.

If anything, the past couple decades have proven that gridlock is good, not bad. The mistakes that Bush and the Republicans made from a spending perspective will haunt us for a long time. Now, Obama and the Democrats are hell-bent on one-upping them.

I would take any combination of Ronald Reagan and a Democratic Congress or Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress. I'm convinced that Bush and Obama were born to make idiotic decisions.

Both major parties have become a complete embarrassment.

[Xpectations]

You'd have to travel a far distance to get to real socialism.

That is very true in the purest sense. So yes, by definition, Obama is not a Socialist.

However, if you looked at where this country was on the "Socialistic" scale (even pre-Bush), you cannot argue that we have slammed the accelerator in the directon of Socialism. That is what bothers me.

Ironically though, Bush, a Republican, began the process by pushing the tax code so that fewer Americans than ever were paying taxes and by socializing the risk while privatizing the reward as the answer to the economic crisis (a very strange and disturbing "moral hazard" when you think about it).

It makes me cackle aloud when I hear someone refer to Bush as a conservative, especially when they're serious.

I cannot help but think that for Bush, becoming President had a child-like, fun, fantasy feel -- much like when I wanted to be a cowboy when I was five years old, except that I grew out of it. For Obama, becoming President has become a dangerous fiscal / social science experiment. It's almost like he knows it won't last and cannot last, so he has to push this stuff through as quickly as possible.

[Xpectations]

One more comment regarding the current Republican approach of Spend but Don't Tax ... Somehow the "Don't Tax" mantra has become the new definition of fiscal conservatism for voters in this country. If you say you plan to reduce taxes, you are a fiscal conservative. How stupid is that?

The idea of reducing taxes was never the cause of something -- such as the "cause" of being able to label oneself a fiscal conservative.

Tax reduction is an effect. It is the effect of true, classic, fiscal conservatism, which means reducing spending. You spend less therefore you require less tax income, allowing citizens to keep more of there hard-earned money.

True fiscal conservatism is definitely NOT reducing taxes while greatly increasing spending and running up deficits at breakneck speed.

[DC Muskie]

I wonder what the Founding Fathers think of all of this.

Surely someone knows...

[Pete Delkus]

Am I way off base for thinking there's a weird sort of culture war going on this country? It's basically people of the east/west coasts versus everyone in the middle. Obviously, that is a sweeping generalization but I feel as though there sort of could be a little merit to that.

I agree that this feeling has intensified since the Democratic nomination of Obama. I think the “elitist” term plays out for both parties though, not just uppity Liberals, who think that Middle America clings to their guns and religion and can’t make rational decisions for themselves.

However, I do think the DC – Boston corridor, Ivy League 'elites' are the most nauseating by a landslide.

[DC Muskie]

I agree that this feeling has intensified since the Democratic nomination of Obama.

How do you figure? Have you no knowledge of history, or are you just choosing to ignore it?


However, I do think the DC – Boston corridor, Ivy League 'elites' are the most nauseating by a landslide.

I always find it funny how many people hate the Ivy League, but I bet I couldn't find one person who would not jump if given the chance to study at any of them.

[spazzrico]

Not to mention the many Ivy League economists who would give many of you your libertarian wet dreams.

[American X]

Socialism is what we're currently practicing. A trillion dollars at a time.


Except that it's not.


You'd have to travel a far distance to get to real socialism.

Fine, but the point is not about proper nomenclature. The point is not about at what percentage of the economy government spending consists is it allowable to label it socialist.

The point is government intrusion into the market is destructive of prosperity and individual freedom. An intrusion must be for a compelling reason such as anti-fraud regulation.



True fiscal conservatism is definitely NOT reducing taxes while greatly increasing spending and running up deficits at breakneck speed.

No, it is not. Many erroneously conflate spendthrift Republicans with conservatism (Thomas Frank, Paul Krugman, etc.).

However, tax reduction remains a Republican pillar because reducing marginal rates increases tax revenues and economic growth. Holding otherwise is an indication of a desire to use the tax code for purposes other than funding government.

[mohr5150]

I ran into this quote and thought of it as a very interesting slant on democracy. Or is the person being quoted really describing socialism? I don't want to state who said it or what their occupation is because I don't want your opinion of what is being said to be warped, but it is not anyone famous or in a high-powered position in society. Most likely, no one on this board knows this person. Read and discuss...

"...democracy was not an empty shell, nor was it based on the vulgar notion of a free marketplace of competing alternatives from which people choose whatever suits their self-interest and their bank accounts. Instead, democracy was to involve intelligent, collaborative participation in society. Creative individuality was to be balanced with concern for the welfare of others and a desire for a common good. Human dignity, equity, justice, and caring were to serve as both ends and means in our political, economic, and social relations."

[Jumpy]

I ran into this quote and thought of it as a very interesting slant on democracy. Or is the person being quoted really describing socialism? I don't want to state who said it or what their occupation is because I don't want your opinion of what is being said to be warped, but it is not anyone famous or in a high-powered position in society. Most likely, no one on this board knows this person. Read and discuss...

"...democracy was not an empty shell, nor was it based on the vulgar notion of a free marketplace of competing alternatives from which people choose whatever suits their self-interest and their bank accounts. Instead, democracy was to involve intelligent, collaborative participation in society. Creative individuality was to be balanced with concern for the welfare of others and a desire for a common good. Human dignity, equity, justice, and caring were to serve as both ends and means in our political, economic, and social relations."



I'm pretty sure it was Joe the Plumber that said that.

[mohr5150]

Not Joe the Plummer. It was someone who actually has working brain cells.

[boozehound]

I'm not sure I can name 5 fiscal conservatives on either party. I couldn't stand the last administration, and I'm liking this one even less on the fiscal front. As I've said before, Bush and Obama are both buffoons when it comes to the economy.

This version of the Democratic Party is all about Spend and Tax. There is no arguing that. The latest incarnation of the Republican Party is all about Spend but Don't Tax.
I'm not certain which is more idiotic. Sure, Obama's the budgets and programs dwarf Bush's, but Bush's spending was totally off the hook as well.

This notion that "deficits don't matter" (Chaney's exact quote) is absurd.

If anything, the past couple decades have proven that gridlock is good, not bad. The mistakes that Bush and the Republicans made from a spending perspective will haunt us for a long time. Now, Obama and the Democrats are hell-bent on one-upping them.

I would take any combination of Ronald Reagan and a Democratic Congress or Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress. I'm convinced that Bush and Obama were born to make idiotic decisions.

Both major parties have become a complete embarrassment.

The bolded part sums up my thoughts. That is why I think that the republican party is in big trouble. They aren't even republicans anymore in my opinion. Most of them want to spend almost as much as the liberals, they just don't want to raise taxes to pay for it. The problem with that is that you have to pay for it somehow.

[vee4xu]

How's everyone's stock portfolio done since March 2009?

[bourbonman]

How's everyone's stock portfolio done since March 2009?

Very nice. But our savior didn't deliver it.

[vee4xu]

Very nice. But our savior didn't deliver it.

Glad to see you're finally willing to admit that about 43. :D

[Strange Brew]

I always find it funny how many people hate the Ivy League, but I bet I couldn't find one person who would not jump if given the chance to study at any of them.

Easy DC, I had an offer from Brown and turned it down to go to X. Not everyone wishes to study in the Northeast.

[Snipe]

You'd have to travel a far distance to get to real socialism.

I think we already have socialism and have had socialism for quite some time. I think Obama is a tride and true socialist.

I guess it all comes down to how you define socialism and what country you think is the real deal when it comes to socialism. I think if you look at the tax side, we tax our corporations about as much as anyone, and tax hikes are coming. If you look at the tax side, the top 1 percent pay as much as the bottom 90 percent. At what point will it be fair? Please be generous. We already have socialism.

That is just the tax side, look at the spending side. We have a massive government and it's reach knows no bounds. Our government owns banks, the auto industry. It is pushing to own the health care industry, and the cap and tax bill that passed the house puts the government in charge of energy. And I still can't get good service at the BMV. Can't imagine how satistified I will be with the government in charge of everything.

Why don't we all just embrace socialism?

Government housing has worked so well. Everyone wants to live next to government housing. And you know everyone wants to send their kids to government schools. I can't wait for government health care. This is going to be fantastic.

We have big government republicans like Bush and McCain, and we have big government liberals like Obama. They aren't all that different in a way. But in one way they are. Obama and Pelosi are breaking the records in spending. I was critical of Bush's spending. I said so. Obama is off the charts.

I think that the dollar will one day fail. I fear for the end of days. I don't have enough resources to protect my family when the whole system collapses. I don't know how to hunt or grow my own food. If I had the resources, I would bunker down. I wouldn't stay in that bunker, but I would own it.

I was talking about this during Bush. At some point I think our whole system will collapse. I think the dollar will fail. When the dollar becomes worthless, our government will no longer have the ability to spend the money. There will be no stimulus package then, because the paper that they print will be worth nothing. It is my biggest fear and always has been. I think Obama has exacerbated that fear, but George Bush did too. Obama is the record holder in spending, and he has only held office for six months. He has no idea about monetary limits or fiscal responsibility.

"Things that can't go on for ever, don't"

It is simple logic in which I base my claim. Huge deficit spending is not sustainable. My 8 year old can grasp that. We live in an age of denial.

The collapse of Western Society is going to be spectacular. I need to get out of the hood before everything falls apart. I think we all have some time if we plan accordingly. You need to start planning now.

[SixFig]

The collapse of Western Society is going to be spectacular. I need to get out of the hood before everything falls apart. I think we all have some time if we plan accordingly. You need to start planning now.

"Introduce a little anarchy. Upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos. I'm an agent of chaos." - The Joker

Hmmmm

[Snipe]

"Introduce a little anarchy. Upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos. I'm an agent of chaos." - The Joker

Hmmmm

Don't know about The Joker, but I guess at some point it all comes together. In my opinion we are all just one step away from anarchy and fachism. It is almost like one breeds the other. Like a lack or rule breeds the attainment of totolitariansim.

"Introduce a little anarchy. Upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos. I'm an agent of chaos." - The Joker

Hmmmm

Don't know about The Joker, but I guess at some point it all comes together. In my opinion we are all just one step away from anarchy and fascism. It is almost like one breeds the other. Like a lack of rule under anarchy breeds the attainment of totalitarianism.

I view the political spectrum in terms of government control, which is not a traditional left or right bias. Republicans and Democrats that favor large government fall on the same side of that spectrum. They like big government. So do fascists and socialists and communists. They all favor big government. Those people think the government can solve you problems. Government is the answer.

I could make the argument that there is not much different between a fascist and a socialist. In reality, that is the case in my opinion. They both choose the government to do their bidding. The Nazis were called National Socialists for a reason.

In our future I see fascism making a comeback.. I think it will start on the left but attract people from the right. Newsweek said “We Are All Socialists Now” on the cover. I wonder if fascism will be the same.

National health care is going to determine who lives and who dies. That is what the fascists did. We may have different rules, but when the government decides it makes the systems remarkably similar.

And if we don’t make those judgments, we don’t get any of the cost savings that we were looking for in the first place.

My own blather gets confusing even to me, but I am convinced that tough history is coming.

[PM Thor]

Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, VA.....

I HATE dayton.

[Xpectations]

How's everyone's stock portfolio done since March 2009?

You're not equating this with politics are you? I can promise you that stocks have not done well because of things like budgetary excess, universal healthcare, government control of banks, etc. And even other plans like Cash for Clunkers give the typical VERY temporary, totally unsustainable boosts.

No, the stock market is up primarily because it had plummeted so big, valuations had actually become lower than they had been in two decades and due to recession cycles. You or I could have been President, and the rest of Xavier Hoops could have been the Congress and this several-month turn in the stock market still would have occurred.

This had far more to do with the timing and magnitude of the drop than Wall Street championing the moves we've made.

[Xpectations]

Glad to see you're finally willing to admit that about 43. :D

My huge dislike of 43 is as well known as my dislike for 44, but stock performance under Bush had FAR more to do with the significant overvaluation of the market in 2000 when he took over rather than his policies.

Valuation drives market performance more than any other single factor when you look over the long haul. In fact, it drives it more than any 10 factors combined, and I'm not exagerrating that. It sure as hell isn't government policy.

The S&P 500 reached a valuation of over 36x peak earnings in September of 2000. To put that in perspective, the highest valuation ever prior to the 1990s was 21x peak earnings. When was that you might ask? ... 1929. We all know how that ended.

I always love it when people from either party credit their party with stock market performance.

Hand a wildly overvalued stock market to a new President, any President (take your pick: Clinton, Reagan, Kennedy, Lincoln) and I will assure you that stock market performance will suck under them by the end of their second term, assuming they get there.

Hand an undervalued stock market to a new President, and you get very different results.

You can find that in the data itself. Simply extend normalized earnings 10 years into the future and assume a PE of 14 on those 10-year future earnings and you can predict what 10-year stock returns will be like with amazing accuracy.

Apply that data series today and you'll see that the S&P 500 can be forecasted to generate 7% total returns over the next 10 years based on current normalized valuation (you can't use recession level earnings or peak channel earnings because 1-year earnings are noise). The odds that the number will wiggle by even 2% either direction are actually pretty slim.

[DC Muskie]

Easy DC, I had an offer from Brown and turned it down to go to X. Not everyone wishes to study in the Northeast.

But you still wanted to attend there, or else you wouldn't have applied.

That's great that you turned down Brown by the way. I was immediately rejected by GW. Thank God they did me that favor.

[danaandvictory]

I think Obama is a tride and true socialist.

I don't think you would recognize socialism if it bit you on the taint.

[Snipe]

Coming soon to an internet near you. See it first at XavierHoops:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/Obama-socialism%20Joker.jpg

Discuss.

It appears to the Washington Post that this picture is racist.

American X is a racist pig.

Obama as The Joker: Racial Fear's Ugly Face (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/05/AR2009080503876.html)
'Political' Poster Turns On Violent Symbolism


So why the anonymity? Perhaps because the poster is ultimately a racially charged image. By using the "urban" makeup of the Heath Ledger Joker, instead of the urbane makeup of the Jack Nicholson character, the poster connects Obama to something many of his detractors fear but can't openly discuss. He is black and he is identified with the inner city, a source of political instability in the 1960s and '70s, and a lingering bogeyman in political consciousness despite falling crime rates.

The Joker's makeup in "Dark Knight" -- the latest film in a long franchise that dramatizes fear of the urban world -- emphasized the wounded nature of the villain, the sense that he was both a product and source of violence. Although Ledger was white, and the Joker is white, this equation of the wounded and the wounding mirrors basic racial typology in America. Urban blacks -- the thinking goes -- don't just live in dangerous neighborhoods, they carry that danger with them like a virus. Scientific studies, which demonstrate the social consequences of living in neighborhoods with high rates of crime, get processed and misinterpreted in the popular unconscious, underscoring the idea. Violence breeds violence.

It is an ugly idea, operating covertly in that gray area that is always supposed to be opened up to honest examination whenever America has one of its "we need to talk this through" episodes. But it lingers, unspoken but powerful, leaving all too many people with the sense that exposure to crime creates an ineluctable propensity to crime.

Superimpose that idea, through the Joker's makeup, onto Obama's face, and you have subtly coded, highly effective racial and political argument. Forget socialism, this poster is another attempt to accomplish an association between Obama and the unpredictable, seeming danger of urban life. It is another effort to establish what failed to jell in the debate about Obama's association with Chicago radical William Ayers and the controversy over the racially charged sermons of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Obama, like the Joker and like the racial stereotype of the black man, carries within him an unknowable, volatile and dangerous marker of urban violence, which could erupt at any time. The charge of socialism is secondary to the basic message that Obama can't be trusted, not because he is a politician, but because he's black.

That is some outstanding claptrap if you ask me.

[Jumpy]

It appears to the Washington Post that this picture is racist.

American X is a racist pig.

Obama as The Joker: Racial Fear's Ugly Face (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/05/AR2009080503876.html)
'Political' Poster Turns On Violent Symbolism



That is some outstanding claptrap if you ask me.

That is quite a reach, identifying the Ledger makeup as "urban" and thus it was used because Obama is black. A more logical (yet still ridiculous) argument would have been that the Ledger version of the Joker is a terrorist by definition and Obama's name/heritage strikes fear as resembling modern day terrorists. In reality, it was simply used because the movie is a famous piece of pop culture that most people will easily identify.

[American X]

American X is a racist pig.


He is an asshole too.

This coming on the heels of L'Affaire Crowley-Gates, racism in my consideration has jumped the shark.

Racism is reflexively charged in every situation. I can no longer take it seriously.

Obama will only inadvertently make America post-racial, because no one will listen to this crap any longer.

[UCGRAD4X]

I think the Post article referenced says more about the racial stereotypes held by the author and, perhaps, the Post editors. The ideas expressed were not what I got from the pic at all.

Not being a particular fan of the movie, or the Ledger sympathy-led admiration, I did not even make that connection at first. So maybe I'm in the minority on this. [does that give me protected status?]

In this paper's scenario ANY negative or derogatory comment about Obama could be construed as racist.

This is a very danagerous track. With so-called Hate Speech legislation running rampant, it could quickly become illegal to criticize this president of the USA and his policies. Scarey stuff indeed.

[mohr5150]

I will be honest, the very first time I saw this poster, my initial thought was, "Oh shiet, people are going to think back about the cartoons and comic strips from the late 1800's and early 1900's that depicted African-Americans with the white face, black eyes, big lipped look, and people are going to go nuts." In my opinion, it is supposed to depict solely The Joker, but how stupid is the creator of this poster when the Joker was for no government, anarchy, chaos, and socialism is supposed to be more government involvement in our lives? In my opinion, it's just an attempt at humor and poorly thought out political commentary that can easily be taken in many directions.

[DC Muskie]

Does anybody really take this sort of thing seriously?

Take a popular movie character, throw in the word socialism, and boom...something stupid that people can talk about.

[UCGRAD4X]

Does anybody really take this sort of thing seriously?

Take a popular movie character, throw in the word socialism, and boom...something stupid that people can talk about.

Absolutely. I think the original product is more of a, HUH? So what?

What I think is interesting is the reaction. Where there should be none - the race card gets played so easily.

[DC Muskie]

What I think is interesting is the reaction. Where there should be none - the race card gets played so easily.

Exactly. Who looks at that and then writes a commentary about it's meaning and agenda?

It's like watching people claim Obama isn't a citizen.

Just as stupid as it is to create the picture, it's commenting how racist it is.

[blobfan]

...For Obama, becoming President has become a dangerous fiscal / social science experiment. It's almost like he knows it won't last and cannot last, so he has to push this stuff through as quickly as possible.
That experimentation element scares me as much as the money rolling out the door. Do you know the White House has a Department of Social Innovation?

I ran into this quote and thought of it as a very interesting slant on democracy. Or is the person being quoted really describing socialism? I don't want to state who said it or what their occupation is because I don't want your opinion of what is being said to be warped, but it is not anyone famous or in a high-powered position in society. Most likely, no one on this board knows this person. Read and discuss...

"...democracy was not an empty shell, nor was it based on the vulgar notion of a free marketplace of competing alternatives from which people choose whatever suits their self-interest and their bank accounts. Instead, democracy was to involve intelligent, collaborative participation in society. Creative individuality was to be balanced with concern for the welfare of others and a desire for a common good. Human dignity, equity, justice, and caring were to serve as both ends and means in our political, economic, and social relations."
I don't think this accurately reflects what the framers of our constitution intended. More important, the reference to equity would not refer to outcome, which is what is being pushed on us now. Since when does it make sense to force the same outcome on people regardless of the effort they put into it?

[DC Muskie]

i don't think this accurately reflects what the framers of our constitution intended.

finally!!!!

[Snipe]

Our Constitution is phucked.

Car Czar? What is a Car Czar?

It wasn't Obama though, and his act isn't new. This isn't new. Nobody cares about the Constitution.

We have no Constitution.

[Juice]

Our Constitution is phucked.

Car Czar? What is a Car Czar?

It wasn't Obama though, and his act isn't new. This isn't new. Nobody cares about the Constitution.

We have no Constitution.

It must be a coincidence that we are now using the term Czar, which was made popular by Russia and other Eastern European countries.

[Strange Brew]

Our Constitution is phucked.

Car Czar? What is a Car Czar?

It wasn't Obama though, and his act isn't new. This isn't new. Nobody cares about the Constitution.

We have no Constitution.

That is up to US.

[sirthought]

Speaking of socialism... I came across this on Facebook today. Not sure if this is serious or a joke, but I thought some people here might find it interesting.

1 Million Strong Against our SOCIALIST Fire Departments (http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/group.php?gid=111256528714&ref=share)

[BBC 08]

Speaking of socialism... I came across this on Facebook today. Not sure if this is serious or a joke, but I thought some people here might find it interesting.

1 Million Strong Against our SOCIALIST Fire Departments (http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/group.php?gid=111256528714&ref=share)

http://www.adamriff.com/images/facepalm.gif

[sirthought]

Looking at it further it clearly is satire. I posted before reading the whole thing. Some people know how to hit the right buttons no.

[Snipe]

Speaking of socialism... I came across this on Facebook today. Not sure if this is serious or a joke, but I thought some people here might find it interesting.

1 Million Strong Against our SOCIALIST Fire Departments (http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/group.php?gid=111256528714&ref=share)

Some smaller towns have privatized fire departments (http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/26/how-private-fire-departments-success-undermines-obamacare/).


For example, the Elk Grove district in rural Illinois put together a private fire service when they faced an imminent loss of protection by a nearby municipal fire department. They found that the private company was able to provide the service far cheaper than contracting with another local government. The private provider explains why:


“Our first-year contract was $300,000, and we were providing the same level of service the consultant said would cost $1 million,” Jensen said. “We continue to provide service as good as that of our municipal neighbors, but because we are private, we can operate more efficiently. We save 30 to 40 percent over what a similar municipal department would cost to operate.”
The savings come mainly in personnel. The fire district has 14 full-time firefighters and 28 paid-on-call firefighters, all of whom are privately employed. None is a union member.
“We don’t pay the insane salaries that our municipal neighbors pay,” Jensen said. “Our benefits are more in line with traditional industry. We are non-union, which gives us a lot more flexibility in dealing with our employees. Salaries and benefits are the big savings, but we [also] have a shop where we can rebuild and refurbish fire apparatus for our own use.
“We save money in purchasing almost anything a fire department would use, just by shopping around. We’re very cost-conscious. We watch every penny we spend,” Jensen added.

Many more cities would probably follow this road if it were not for the strong union opposition. Privatizing fire departments is not a high priority for many people, because the cost of public fire service is not a large portion of each year’s taxes paid. However, those who have studied it have found that—just as Elk Grove saved through private sector provision—private fire services are cheaper and more efficient.

The experiement didn't work so well in Westchester County New York, where the wealthy village of Rye Brook decided to hire it own fire department (http://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/13/nyregion/experiment-in-private-fire-protection-fails-for-a-westchester-village.html?pagewanted=all).


But from the start, the arrival of the profit-making company encountered resistance that sometimes included protests, threats and vandalism.

Officials here say there were many causes of Rural Metro's problems, including hostility from unionized firefighters across the New York region who conducted a campaign intended to make residents of Rye Brook fear that they were being inadequately protected by the company. There was also hostility from volunteer firefighters who saw the company as a threat to old social traditions in many small towns.

For firefighters everywhere, the arrival of the company was a fundamental threat, said Anthony Pagano, president of the Yonkers chapter of the International Association of Firefighters, a union.

That doesn't surprise me when you go up against the union. Most of the cost savings is associated with breaking the union in the first place.


In what Mayor Cresenzi said was an effort to sabotage the experiment here, Port Chester said it would not to respond to calls for help from the private Rye Brook firefighters...

The Port Chester fire chief, William M. Barnes, acknowledged that he was ordered by village officials not to respond to calls from Rye Brook. He said there were safety and financial reasons, but he declined to comment further.



That is sad, but not surprising.


The reserve firefighters living near Rye Brook kept resigning because of the pressure, Mr. Krumperman said, and the company was forced to look farther and farther away to maintain adequate staffing.

Mayor Cresenzi said Rural Metro had promised that at least 25 reserve firefighters would respond to emergencies.

These nagging problems turned into a crisis during the fire at the $1 million house on Rocking Horse Trail last December. Six full-time firefighters responded. But instead of the 25 reserve firefighters, there were only three. Port Chester did not respond to calls for help.

Mayor Cresenzi said that a crowd gathered at the fire, and that its members seemed to include firefighters from neighboring communities who were willing to let the fire burn to prove a point. He said he heard someone in the crowd say, ''Let the Jews burn,'' which he took to be a sign of the generalized animosities between the village and some of its neighbors. The residents of the house were not Jewish.

LET THE JEWS BURN!

Indeed. Wonder what political party they belonged too. Greater NYC Union members and all, fighting against private competition. They show up at a fire and "were willing to let the fire burn to prove a point".

Probably some right-wing extremist. Let The Jews Burn!

Toasty Toasty!

Private Fire Departments and Ambulance services (http://www.ruralmetro.com/index.asp)are not as uncommon as you think:


Rural/Metro Corporation is a leading provider of emergency and non-emergency medical transportation services, fire protection and other safety-related services to municipal, residential, commercial and industrial customers in approximately 400 communities throughout the United States.

According to a dated study I read from the Reason Foundation, the United States paid a higher percentage of GDP for fire prevention than any European Nation. Denmark paid the lowest percentage, and they had lots of private competition in the fire prevention market.