As The Public Gets Distracted With Other Descriptions, Biden Is About To Pass The Worst Kind of Infrastructure Bill- One That Privatizes Our Public Assets

We are not even hearing about it, but something really awful is about to happen: It looks like we are about to pass the worst kind of “infrastructure bill,” one that will be privatizing public assets.  It’s being set up so nobody is supposed to notice.

If you really don’t pay attention to anything, maybe the only thing you’ll notice that they are describing the bill as a “Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal”– “Bipartisan” sounds sort cooperative and friendly, like something everybody should agree on as good.

If you think you are paying attention they might have successfully distracted you by highlighting other asserted flaws in the bill, flaws that may, or may not, be taken care of to some extent before the bill is passed; the flaw that the bill lacks measures to address climate change; flaws that it doesn’t meet social and racial justice standards by, for example, failing to spend on neglected public housing.

The New York Times coverage of the bill, including virtually no policy analysis, ruminated about its potential passage mostly as a political jockeying and horse race story, and referred to how the spending being planned was not addressing:

“human infrastructure”: education, child care, paid leave and tax credits to fight poverty, among other initiatives.

(See: Biden Kicks Off Sales Tour to Salvage Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal- An event in rural Wisconsin was meant to show liberals that the agreement was sufficiently ambitious — while assuring moderates that the president remained committed to the deal.  By Jim Tankersley, June 29, 2021.)

Democracy Now opened up its Tuesday, June 29, 2021 coverage as if the major part of the story would be how would be linked to how western states are battling record-breaking heat waves, (Portland hitting “116 degrees Fahrenheit Monday, making it one of the hottest places in the world”).  Starting into the story, we heard that:

Members of the Sunrise Movement called on Biden and congressional Democrats to pass an infrastructure bill that includes major investments in green energy, including a fully funded Civilian Climate Corps.

The Democracy Now story also pushed to the fore public housing that is being allowed to deteriorate.  (See: Rep. Jamaal Bowman: We Need Climate & Racial Justice Addressed in Broader Infrastructure Package, June 29, 2021.)

But then, as David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect, was being interviewed as part of that Democracy Now story, he did an important pivot that had not been Teed up at the beginning of the segment and maybe wasn’t planned for.  He brought up that privatizing public assets was distressingly a “key piece” of the bill.

Here’s how it went in Dayen’s exchange with Democracy Now cohost Juan González:

DAVID DAYEN: . . .  But what’s the key piece of the bipartisan bill, to me, in addition to the lack of climate measures and, as you correctly point out, the fact that nature, from Seattle to Miami, where sea level rise may have been a large contributor to the collapse of the condo building, is just screaming for a change in priorities in America because of the climate crisis and a need to upgrade our infrastructure to reflect this new reality — but the other thing that’s in that bipartisan bill is privatization. So, it’s really the selling off of infrastructure to private companies, and really the substitution of public tax collection, where we pay for these common assets that we all use and share, to private tax collection, where you sell the infrastructure assets to a private company, whether for toll roads or privatized water systems, privatized parking meters, or what have you, and that private company gets to effectively tax the public. And inevitably, that tax goes up, because they have to build in their layer of profit. So, I think that’s something that progressives like Representative Bowman need to focus on, because it’s a very dangerous part of the bipartisan bill.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: But, David Dayen, are those concerns sufficient for many progressives to say, “No, let’s kill this thing altogether”? Because, clearly, the move to privatize public assets has been part of the neoliberal agenda now for about four decades.

DAVID DAYEN: It has been. And that’s why it’s incumbent to take a stand at this point. I mean, you have a representative on; you can ask him if that’s sufficient or not. But it is a serious issue. I mean, we have examples of this, as you say, Juan, all over the country — water systems that charge exorbitant rates, parking meters in places like Chicago that have gone up 800% in their rates over a number of years, and every time the street is shut down for a street fair, the private company gets to recoup lost revenue from that day. It’s not just the gouging of the people who use the infrastructure; it’s the loss of democratic control. So, a private company is in charge and says when the street will be shut down or not, and the private company is in charge of when a certain toll road is open or not. So, that’s, I think, at the core of the issue with privatization, which, as you correctly point out, was part of this neoliberal project. But we’re in a new era, and I would hope that there would be very strong pushback against it.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And what about that, Congressman Bowman, in terms of, in Chicago, for instance, a private parking meter company, whenever the city wants to shut down a street for a parade, it has to reimburse the private parking meter company for its lost revenues? . . .

It seems we are not supposed to be paying attention to these very important privatization provisions.  Read the New York Times coverage, scan it as hard as you can, you’ll find no mention of these important privatization provisions.  They are just not there. . .

. . . And oddly, the next day, Democracy Now did a follow-up on the infrastructure deal proposals interviewing Congressmember Nikema Williams of Georgia, and in that follow up totally neglected to have any mention or discussion about the privatization provisions.  Democracy Now host Amy Goodman set up the very limited discussion going right back to making it seem that the only flaw in the bill to focus on is its deficiency with respect to climate change provisions:

AMY GOODMAN: . . .It [the bill] does not include funding for major programs championed by progressives, including investments in green energy jobs and funds to combat the climate crisis, as we are experiencing the worst heat ever in this country, not to mention Canada, as well. Portland broke every record, one of the hottest places on the planet right now. That’s Portland, Oregon, just to name one place. In a moment, we’re going to talk about what happened in Florida with the catastrophic collapse and its connection, possibly, to the climate crisis. But what about this, the demand that the — linking the bipartisan infrastructure plan with the much larger one that Bernie Sanders and others are crafting?

In part, the horse race and political jockeying story being told (the Times story is such a prime exhibit in this regard) is another version of the corporate Democrats always winding up inexplicably incompetent to win anything they say they stand for when faced with the mysteriously always effective thwarting maneuvers from the corporate Republicans (who are nominally the corporate Democrats “opposition”).  It is yet one more example of Biden scaling back to seek far less than the very meager things he promised when he ran for office. . . forget about the public option, forget about minimum wage and now this infrastructure spending will be far less than what Biden talked about when he sought office.
                                            
Other than this lack coverage of the privatization aspects of the “bipartisan” infrastructure deal, the coverage has been about how inadequate the funds now being made available are versus how dire the need is to spend on our roads, bridges, water projects, replacing our lead water pipes, and other major projects, along with how great it would be to deploy reliable high-speed broadband internet in all our rural areas to reach “every American home” (NY Times).  This is the kind of narrative that regularly precedes and sets up an excuse for privatization and the sell off of public assets. . . `because he public just can’t pay for them'. .  `So the private sector has to take over to supply the funds while making a profit in doing so'. . . Blah, blah, blah.

Here is a link to the Citizens Defending Libraries page (including valuable information and further links) about the last forum we had on selling off public assets, Saturday, April 8, 2017:

Fourth Forum on Selling Off Public Assets, Presented by First Unitarian Congregational Society of Brooklyn's Weaving the Fabric of Diversity & Citizens Defending Libraries, April 8, 2017

What’s happening is very real.  This Biden infrastructure “deal” reflects continuity with what was underway in the Trump administration. Traveling with Trump to Saudi Arabia in 2016, NYPL library trustee Stephen A. Schwarzman brought back $20 billion from the Saudis for his Blackstone investment group as seed money for the selling off and privatizing of American public assets.  This is not just because Schwarzman has such good relationships with the likes of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (remember the dismemberment killing of Jamal Khashoggi- the illegal siege war and bombing of Yemen?); others like Goldman Sachs are busy raising funds for the same thing.

Thankfully, there are those who are being more forthright and honest than Democracy Now and the very deceptive New York Times.  Take this statement (‘Bipartisan’ Infrastructure Plan is a Privatization-Promoting Disaster– Wall Street takeover will cost ratepayers and must be rejected) released by Food & Water Watch Public Water for All Director Mary Grant:

“This White House-approved infrastructure deal is a disaster in the making. It promotes privatization and so-called ‘public-private partnerships’ instead of making public investments in publicly-owned infrastructure. Communities across the country have been ripped off by public-private schemes that enrich corporations and Wall Street investors and leave the rest of us to pick up the tab.

“Privatization is nothing more than an outrageously expensive way to borrow funds, with the ultimate bill paid back by households and local businesses in the form of higher rates. The White House identifies privatization as a means to finance infrastructure investment is disappointing and outrageous. Communities need real support, not privatization scams.

“The most sensible infrastructure solution is to provide robust public funding for publicly-owned projects, which would discourage price-gouging by corporate interests, protect public control over these precious assets, and save everyone money. The most comprehensive funding solution on the table is the WATER Act (HR1352, S916), which would provide $35 billion a year to fully fund the state revolving funds and other programs at the level that is needed.

“This package does not provide adequate funding to rebuild and repair our country’s infrastructure, nor does it do nearly enough to combat the climate crisis. Lawmakers can and must press for a better deal.”