Gov. Walker to hand out state assests in no-bid contracts

[Thump553]

post 110 summarizes it since you are lazy.

Thank you-finally. Turns out I already responded to that, but the way you kept crowing about already posting your explanation led me to believe you posted something with a tad more substance to it than that.

 

[Jhhnn]

The doublespeak from our Righties about this is obvious. If they're not valuable, why sell them? And if they're not valuable, why buy?

The answer is obvious. It's an attempt to downplay the value of captive customers, the state facilities who depend on these plants. The new owners will always be able to find reasons to raise rates, and can simply threaten shutdown if their demands are not met.

It's the same song and dance privatizers have used to screw municipalities wrt trash collection and a variety of other services. Grease the right palms, Republican palms, ease in, and then put the wood to 'em...

What else will the people of Wisconsin do about it? It's not like they'll have a choice, which is the whole point of the exercise.

The fact that it's being done on a no bid basis is a strong indicator that the right people have expressed an interest, and that Walker will give 'em a really nice deal, too... basically, a license to steal.

 

[Fern]

-snipped the usual worthless drival.

Hey dumbass,

My post is based on an article I linked.

Unless you wanna say that Dem members of the committee lied, I've proven it's been discussed by both parties.

Edit: Added to illustrate more partisan ass-hattery:

So your argument is, the corrupt selling of public assets doesn't matter because it's not sexy

Fail. I never said it was "corrupt" selling. The reason nobody gave a damn before because it wasn't "sexy". Now, make an unsubstaniated nonsensical claim using the Koch bros name and you get the lefty nuts all in a lather.

-And you just toss in your baseless assumption about "worthless" assets for convenience -..

My "assumption"

"Baseless"

It's not my assumption. You can't really be THAT reading impared? I quoted people in field. It's their opinion, not an "assumption" on my part.

Unless you wanna argue with their credentials, you can hardly call it "baseless" either.

You can't even admit the Dems on the Joint Finance Committee would be aware of this.

LOL @ watching Craig's head explode as the whole Koch bros FUD evaporates.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

I guess you would know about this, eh?

Prove your claim, liar. Cite 3 things I've ever said that back up your claim.

You can't, because you are a liar. I'll add in scumbag as well for your slandering.

 

[Craig234]

Hey dumbass,

My post is based on an article I linked.

Unless you wanna say that Dem members of the committee lied, I've proven it's been discussed by both parties.

Fern

Which, idiot, isn't what I pointed out, but welcome to a long-overdue ignore.

Edit: can't ignore a moderator it turns out, so back to the manual method.

 

[Fern]

The doublespeak from our Righties about this is obvious. If they're not valuable, why sell them? And if they're not valuable, why buy?

The answer is obvious. It's an attempt to downplay the value of captive customers, the state facilities who depend on these plants. The new owners will always be able to find reasons to raise rates, and can simply threaten shutdown if their demands are not met.

It's the same song and dance privatizers have used to screw municipalities wrt trash collection and a variety of other services. Grease the right palms, Republican palms, ease in, and then put the wood to 'em...

What else will the people of Wisconsin do about it? It's not like they'll have a choice, which is the whole point of the exercise.

The fact that it's being done on a no bid basis is a strong indicator that the right people have expressed an interest, and that Walker will give 'em a really nice deal, too... basically, a license to steal.

Yeah, the answer is obvious.

I guess I needed to make it plainer for you political hacks.

If the state leaves those assets on their books, when the maintenance and captial improvements etc become necessary it'll make their annual budget look really bad.

The solution? Get them off your books. That way the excess costs for all those repairs and upgrades will only dribble into the state's budget over a long period of years via higher energy bills for the affected agencies.

Then you can have the convenient current 'fix' to the budget by recognizing the revenue from the sale immediately.

FFS, it's an obvious financial gimmick type trick that both political parties play every chance they get. It's an Enron type bookkeeping gimmick. In essence the sale transaction is a loan booked as revenue and kick's expenses off the current budget/P&L out into future years. It's classic, and I should think quite obvious.

How is it a loan? You give us a chunk up front and we'll pay you back over a period of years with a guaranteed rate-of-return.

How does it get current expenses and liabilities off the budget? You take the assets off the books you lose the corresponding liabilities etc. Oh, you'll pay them eventually, but the other party will finance it and let you spread them out over a bunch of years. Ever heard of a sale - leaseback transaction? That's what this is.

Goverments are always doing this - kick the problem down the road far enough until it's someone else's/other administartion's problem.

And don't tell me the Dems don't that too. We all know better. And again, they knew about this in advance.

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh. You forgot to mention how profit and a captive customer play into it, Fern, along with the whole no-bid aspect of it.

And you admitted it was a flimflam at the same time. The fact that Daley did it in Chicago wrt parking meters really makes no difference. It's just another "They're just as bad!" non-argument.

 

[Craig234]

Heh. You forgot to mention how profit and a captive customer play into it, Fern, along with the whole no-bid aspect of it.

And you admitted it was a flimflam at the same time. The fact that Daley did it in Chicago wrt parking meters really makes no difference. It's just another "They're just as bad!" non-argument.

We really have to spell it our for people, and even then it's all too rarely understood.

It comes down to, 'betrayal of the public trust can be in the short-term corrupt interest'.

When a person in a third world country is willing to screw his country by letting a powerful nation have access to its resources, and/or labor, far more cheaply than it should - say, worth $100 billion in discount - that person suddenly finds a lot of resources available to THEM to help them become the country's leader - money in the millions, the help of groups like the CIA, and much more. This is the formula that's widespread. Sometimes it's massive and obvious (e.g., Pinochet, the Shah), sometimes it's deal by deal.

Sometimes it's the 'privatization' mantra of the right - screw the people by selling off public assets on the cheap to private interests, and the big bucks involved make it easy for the buyers to overwhelm the public interest - ad campaigns, political donatins, bribery, whatever will help.

Sometimes, in the US, it's in the form of 'lobbyists' who offer essential campaign funds, expertise for drafting legislation, 'consulting' or lobbying gigs after leaving office, etc.

There are a lot of variations on it, and what they have in common is private interests having the profit available to justifyin spending to get the public interest betrayed.

And this whole anti-governnment ideology that gets spread to get the citizens to CHEER these people is part of the manipulation. "Yay, the evil government sold off its assets!"

I don't know the whole history of the rewards for what happened under Yeltsin, but it's clear there was some form of this, as several new billionares were made overnight simply from the unloading of state assets for a fraction of their value (all with the encouragement of the US), and now they're about the worst in the world for organized crime.

What's happening in the US is simply the irresponsible behavior of many politicians it seems, who might be doing no more than the selling out of the public for short-term cash for their term, screwing their city or state for decades to come - and some of those deals might also involve more, like big political donations.

This whole 'starve the beast' thing is always ugly, and there's a lot more ugly on the way.

 

[Phokus]

I'm not sure i've EVER seen a sale of public assets where the public hasn't gotten raked over the coals, especially since investment banks are usually involved in the deals. I remember there was a sale of some roads, i think in Indiana maybe, where even libertarians were bitching about how far below market value the sale was to the private entity.

 

[wirednuts]

let me clear this up, it seems to be the common denominator of every post.

neo democrat- hairy eco lovin smug piece of shit

democrat- hard working community supported american

independant- smart american

republican- hard working self-sustaining american

neo republican- corporate cock suckin dyslexic fat turd.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Which, idiot, isn't what I pointed out, but welcome to a long-overdue ignore.

Edit: can't ignore a moderator it turns out, so back to the manual method.

Hah! You even fail at ignoring. Pathetic.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Prove your claim, liar. Cite 3 things I've ever said that back up your claim.

You can't, because you are a liar. I'll add in scumbag as well for your slandering.

Really, I'm a scumbag? I think you take your Internet "prowess" a little too much to heart, sad li'l man.

Edit: BTW, why in the hell would you attempt to derail this thread with "big pharma", and then ignore the fact that I called you to the carpet on your hero silently leaving "big pharma" out of the healthcare bill? You are a hack - nothing more, nothing less.

 

[werepossum]

Yeah, the answer is obvious.

I guess I needed to make it plainer for you political hacks.

If the state leaves those assets on their books, when the maintenance and captial improvements etc become necessary it'll make their annual budget look really bad.

The solution? Get them off your books. That way the excess costs for all those repairs and upgrades will only dribble into the state's budget over a long period of years via higher energy bills for the affected agencies.

Then you can have the convenient current 'fix' to the budget by recognizing the revenue from the sale immediately.

FFS, it's an obvious financial gimmick type trick that both political parties play every chance they get. It's an Enron type bookkeeping gimmick. In essence the sale transaction is a loan booked as revenue and kick's expenses off the current budget/P&L out into future years. It's classic, and I should think quite obvious.

How is it a loan? You give us a chunk up front and we'll pay you back over a period of years with a guaranteed rate-of-return.

How does it get current expenses and liabilities off the budget? You take the assets off the books you lose the corresponding liabilities etc. Oh, you'll pay them eventually, but the other party will finance it and let you spread them out over a bunch of years. Ever heard of a sale - leaseback transaction? That's what this is.

Goverments are always doing this - kick the problem down the road far enough until it's someone else's/other administartion's problem.

And don't tell me the Dems don't that too. We all know better. And again, they knew about this in advance.

Fern

I don't disagree with your analysis, but I don't think the government ever comes out ahead on these sale and lease back arrangements. I suspect each one is done not for the benefit of the state and the taxpayers, but primarily for political and/or ideological reasons. The only caveat in this case might be that Wisconsin is looking to refinance a butt load of debt and might need to get these plants off their books in a hurry. However this can still be done with an open bid process.

 

[theeedude]

Fortunately, our new CA governor, Jerry Brown, blocked any such asset sales. If Republican plans went through, it would have cost the state a lot more to lease back those assets over a few years, than it would make on the sale.

 

[Fern]

I don't disagree with your analysis, but I don't think the government ever comes out ahead on these sale and lease back arrangements.

I don't think so either.

I was trying to express that I think in the medium-to-long run it would be cheaper if they managed the plants themselves.

I see this as basicaly a loan, which mean they're going to be paying an interest cost. I don't think anybody yet knows how much that might be.

I suspect each one is done not for the benefit of the state and the taxpayers, but primarily for political and/or ideological reasons. The only caveat in this case might be that Wisconsin is looking to refinance a butt load of debt and might need to get these plants off their books in a hurry. However this can still be done with an open bid process.

I do think it should be open, but I'm not sure if it lends itself to the usual open bid process. I'm inclined to agree with Dem official appointed to the Division of State Facilities which oversees this stuff.

After thinking about this a little more I don't believe I wrote about this as clearly as I could have.

I think it's important to understand that these assets are old, they are fully depreciated; accordingly they are likely decades old.

They are also built into existing structures (buildings).

IMO, this is important to fully grasp. This cannot be treated as a typical sale where you pay for it, back up the semi and load it up, then leave.

This stuff will not be moved.

The fees/expense to move large equipment are huge. In this case they would have to demolish some part of a building, dissasemble and extract the power equipment, pack and load, transport, then unload, reassemble, test etc. You're talking expertise, not Mexican day laborers, and cranes and other heavy equipment. This cost would exceed the value of the equipment. This stuff won't be moved unless it's gonna be scrapped.

So, they need to find someone who is going to operate it 'in place'. Accordingly, this is more of a partnership than a sale. The partner is going to be providing power etc to the state universities and hospitals. An agreement on rates etc is going to have be negotiated and agreed upon for the long-term.

So, I understand why they are saying this transaction, this so-called 'sale", does not lend itself to the regular bidding process. But whatever they do, I also think it needs to be open. And actually they claim it will be, the Joint Finance Committe has to approve it.. The only ones saying otherwise are those screaming about the Koch Bros.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

I don't think so either.

I was trying to express that I think in the medium-to-long run it would be cheaper if they managed the plants themselves.

I see this as basicaly a loan, which mean they're going to be paying an interest cost. I don't think anybody yet knows how much that might be.

I do think it should be open, but I'm not sure if it lends itself to the usual open bid process. I'm inclined to agree with Dem official appointed to the Division of State Facilities which oversees this stuff.

After thinking about this a little more I don't believe I wrote about this as clearly as I could have.

I think it's important to understand that these assets are old, they are fully depreciated; accordingly they are likely decades old.

They are also built into existing structures (buildings).

IMO, this is important to fully grasp. This cannot be treated as a typical sale where you pay for it, back up the semi and load it up, then leave.

This stuff will not be moved.

The fees/expense to move large equipment are huge. In this case they would have to demolish some part of a building, dissasemble and extract the power equipment, pack and load, transport, then unload, reassemble, test etc. You're talking expertise, not Mexican day laborers, and cranes and other heavy equipment. This cost would exceed the value of the equipment. This stuff won't be moved unless it's gonna be scrapped.

So, they need to find someone who is going to operate it 'in place'. Accordingly, this is more of a partnership than a sale. The partner is going to be providing power etc to the state universities and hospitals. An agreement on rates etc is going to have be negotiated and agreed upon for the long-term.

So, I understand why they are saying this transaction, this so-called 'sale", does not lend itself to the regular bidding process. But whatever they do, I also think it needs to be open. And actually they claim it will be, the Joint Finance Committe has to approve it.. The only ones saying otherwise are those screaming about the Koch Bros.

Fern

Good points. My only point would be to add that when government and private industry partner on something, it's a good idea for the taxpayer to lube up the back forty and assume a comfortable position. None times out of ten that lube will be well worth the investment.

 

[Jhhnn]

And actually they claim it will be, the Joint Finance Committe has to approve it..

That approval doesn't need to be unanimous, however, so Walker &
cronies will just do what they want anyway, right?

Negotiate longterm rates? On what sort of terms, all things considered? Cost Plus, where the more it costs, the more the contractor makes?

 

[Fern]

That approval doesn't need to be unanimous, however, so Walker &
cronies will just do what they want anyway, right?

Possibly, but it sure as heck won't be done secretly

Negotiate longterm rates? On what sort of terms, all things considered? Cost Plus, where the more it costs, the more the contractor makes?

Well, that's the complicated part isn't it?

As a finance professional, I think of it being more alongs the lines of a RoR thing. But that may be difficult because it would require a pretty good estimate of maintence, repairs and upgrades.

OTOH, seems to me the current regulatory system allows power generaters to change rates for a changing situtations. If expenses go up more than expected, the can petition to raise rates. If expenses are less then expected, they must reduce them. This type of model is what I would expect.

Cost plus? I wouldn't think so. On cost plus you charge them right through to the customer. That sounds like it would keep the maintence, repairs and upgrades on the state's books, withe state having no control when they occured and hit their budget. I think they're trying to get them off their books, spread them out over a longer period by paying them (evenly) as (increased) utility costs.

Difficult deal IMO. In a normal asset sale all you really care about is the buyer's check clearing. After that, 'out of sight out of mind'. In this deal they need to carefully choose a buyer (partner really). They need to be sure they have the expertise and experience to actually run these things so the universities and hospitals have power. They need to be sure they won't just go out of business one day, too. (These are more reasons why I think the normal bidding process is inapplicable. If you have to choose the best bid and end up with a bad partner this could be a huge and expensive mess)

Too complicated, too risky, too difficult for my tastes. (Likely to be too expensive as well.)

Fern

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

There's plenty more evidence that Soros runs the Democratic party... but hey... the whole moral self-justification of the left thing... well you know.

Oh please because the "master manipulator" conspiracy is more believable than economically motivated shenanigans?

Really?

REALLY?

 

[Atreus21]

Empty threats and bills with loopholes large enough for a Southerner to fit through.

Wow. You're an asshole.