The author responds:

Merriam Webster defines a diatribe as “a bitter and abusive speech or piece of writing.” In pointing out fairly universally recognized weaknesses with both the composition of this board and ideological privatization in general (as well as providing copious links to the original sourcing of many of the findings) I hardly think I was being either bitter or abusive. however, I ultimately leave it to the readers to make that determination.

To your points:

1.) the last time I checked, a board of directors was the governing body of a company or organization — unpaid though it may be — with a fiduciary duty to the group, that institutes and directs overall policy, including the hiring and firing of management. while, on reflection, to say Sen. Toomey was one of eight people who headed the Commonwealth Foundation may have been technically more explicit, since the intent of mentioning it at all was simply to draw an ideological link between a group many readers are likely not familiar with to someone they are familiar with who shares that ideology, the semantic distinction is hardly relevant to the message of the piece and, sadly, was brought up solely as a gratuitous attack on my credibility.

2.) to suggest the governor’s Advisory Council on Privatization and Innovation is not partisan is frankly laughable and I considered not even entertaining this point, but here goes: Of the 24 members, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette identified 17 who contributed to the governor’s campaign either personally or through PACs. (I already noted in my piece that I don’t find anything particularly striking about that fact in itself; but registered Democrats don’t typically contribute to GOP candidates – especially those that fall to the right side of their party’s line). Of the remaining seven members of the panel not identified as donors by the Post, a rudimentary Internet search turns up GOP campaign finance records or other evidence of Republican Party affiliation for six of them (including, by the way, Dennis Yablonsky, whose party affiliation was misidentified as Democrat in an early story on the panel). Only Varsovia Fernandez, of the Greater Philadelphia Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, could not be easily tied to the GOP, and I didn’t really dig that deep. the point is, simply, we are not talking about a bipartisan commission here.


3.) You rightly point out that privatization is “not a panacea, but something that can be done well or done poorly.” but that applies to just about everything. the question that is not raised by you or your report, as far as I can tell, is should it be done at all. You go on to say privacy advocates don’t want to “privatize everything,” (which, by the way, I never suggested) yet the report itself states: “Virtually every service, function and activity has successfully been subjected to competition by a government somewhere around the world at some time.” to a reasonable person that suggests nothing is off the table. further, I make it very clear that I agree with your group on a number of areas, like golf courses, fitness centers and liquor stores (please, can we get that one done first?) but where we disagree is when it comes to essential life- and health-sustaining services that I believe are too important to be left to the profit motive for guidance. That’s what we pay our government to do. If they do it poorly, it’s up to us voters to fire them. That’s part of the social contract. how exactly do I go about firing a private corporation with which I have no contract?

And yet, even with essential services, I will concede that I am not entirely convinced privatization is not sometimes the way to go. I am not, nor do I pretend to be, an expert on the subject; my point is simply that I (and from the looks of it many other Pennsylvanians) would feel more comfortable if there were a few dissenting skeptics on the panel. My problem is with ideological privatization (or anything in which ideology replaces critical discourse to solve a problem) because it typically begins with a solution and then creates the dialogue that leads to that solution, when it should be the other way around.

4.) You cite some information on the details of the Chicago Skyway lease and then some comparative numbers regarding the PA Turnpike presumably to show me as a dullard that has not done his homework. what you forget is that I am not the expert on privatization. I don’t have to be. My job is simply to point out the red flags and weaknesses, which I believe have done. further, I don’t work for government. I don’t have to prove that government works; it’s up to you to prove that privatization works better. to show that under both scenarios the costs to consumers go up doesn’t especially make that case regardless of the details of how or why, especially when you add in the element of accountability (remember, my objections are not all cost based).

5.) As to your final assertion that we focus on “how to properly implement privatization” you have made my point better than I could have myself. the governor’s panel is tasked with “how” not “if” to institute privatization. I repeat: I believe some things should be privatized. I only suggest that a reasoned assessment takes place that includes a range of experts representing the various (and conflicting) positions on this issue. to create a panel of people who already believe something works and then present a plan showing it does won’t convince me. And I don’t think I’m the only one who feels that way.

Sincerely,Christopher Moraff

How Will Tom Corbett Privatize Pennsylvania?