Can the private sector do a better job than government?

While the presidential candidates impugn each other's character, I'll try to expose a sliver of reality that might be useful.  Since the anemic recovery began in 2010, 93 percent of the gains have gone to the now famous 1 percent.  Corporations have more cash and profits than they've had in the last 60 years.  The mega wealthy are stashing between 21 and 32 trillion dollars in offshore institutions.  I suspect that this is the situation referred to by Mr. Obama when he said the "private sector is doing fine."

But let's consider Mr. Romney's economic plans: reduce taxes on corporations and the rich and jobs will suddenly appear.  Go back and review where the wealth is going and ask yourself what will change if they keep more of it.  Or better yet, where are the jobs? 

Please don't misunderstand me.  I’m not criticizing the mega-wealthy or how they got it or whether they should keep it all.  I'm not promoting more taxes on anyone.  When I think that I should be taxed more, I'll stand for taxing the rich more.  As of this writing, that's not the case. 

The government has enough.  It's a matter of priorities and political will.  I'm saying that this whole "jobs thing" is a red herring that neither candidate can fix.  It is being used by both parties to gain seats at the government banquet that we pay for.

About the most honest statement Mr. Obama has made is "you didn't build it" all alone.  Unfortunately, the context was obliterated by his critics. He was referring to the many support systems that you and I pay for in the form of public services; from employee education to the infrastructure so vital for a society to exist.  And if you can't see that, then remember, "there are  none so blind as those who WILL not see."

Don’t take it from me, read the great conservative economist, Milton Freidman’s famous book, “There is No Such Thing as a Free Lunch.”  Even though he was referring to the private sector, his wisdom applies to the public sector as well.  Our societal infrastructure didn’t appear from nowhere.  We, the public paid for it.

Adding to the election cycle confusion is how politicians use the looming budget deficit, as a distraction.  We went into a recession in 2007 and started an anemic recovery in 2010.  We should expect a deficit.  It is normal in these times.  And we cannot judge the size of the deficit as a percentage of GDP unless we think our economy will never, ever grow again. 

Using the metaphor of a family budget to explain our country's budget deficit is like using a Monopoly game to explain the complexities of international macro-economics.  The concept of supply and demand is where the similarities end.

The real issues are: 1. The Republicans want to reduce the size and power of the Public sector and replace it with the Private sector.  2. The Democrats want to balance the power of the Private sector with that of the Public sector.

I like the Democrat’s position:  I, for one, don't want private corporations running this country.  Talk about a loss of our precious American individual freedoms!  Just remember, when corporations take over public services, you have no vote.  You may not like the current cast of political characters now, but you have a vote.

I can’t imagine a country where corporations run vital services.  Oh wait!  There was that case when Bolivia privatized the water services and gave the contract to Bechtel Corporation.  The whole thing ended in a riot and siege of the government facilities when people found out that they couldn’t collect the rain water from their own roof.

If you believe nothing else in this column, believe this: you do not want your vital services to be subject to the profit motive.

Robert DeFilippis