Tennessee Valley Authority Privatization Act

[minionofmidas]

This has been set upon in a totally wrong order.

This is the order in which things like this should be done:
Step one - Find out what the operation is worth.
Step two - Find out whether there's anybody who wants to have it all, and actually can shoulder it too.
Okay, I can do that for you. No, in all likelihood not, unless maybe if they have to pay 1% or less of what it's worth.
Step three - find other ways to raise money with it. (This has already been largely done by you in discussion here.) Like, selling shares for part of it, or some corrupt lend-lease deal whereby you sell it, lease it back, and keep managing it.
Step four - calculate how much you get from that in the short run and how much someone else is getting in the long run.
Step five - understand you're utterly screwing yourself and your country over.
Step six - (this and only this is where it gets difficult) think about whether reducing the budget deficit, and more to the point the amount of interest out of tax dollars that you'll be paying to banks less, is worth it.

Goes for all privatization issues really, in my experience.

[minionofmidas]

Y'know I hadn't thought of the crooked lend-lease deal option...

A sure money loser in the long run...

[minionofmidas]

Y'know I hadn't thought of the crooked lend-lease deal option...

A sure money loser in the long run...

True actually. It's one of the scams you play if you know your party hasn't got more than a term or so left that it can win...

Or your finances are really desperate.

[minionofmidas]

4-2-2 so far.

[minionofmidas]

Just thinking this over again ... could you at least amend Clause 3 out and rewrite Clause 1 in such a way that it now merely states we're looking at potential buyers, but doesn't commit us to anything at all?
Looking at my own Senators here to introduce this...

[minionofmidas]

If so, how will it "put a dent in the deficit"?  Won't it just do so for one single year and then actually raise the deficit in later years since we won't have the $800 million in revenue from the TVA?

From the perspective of bond holders (one of the most important groups of economic actors when we talk about deficits), what really matters is long term deficits.  They're not going to be impressed by a one time payment.  What they want is long term stability in spending levels.  The point about it being a one time deal is pretty relevant to the economic impact.

^                ^                    ^

[minionofmidas]

Whoa. 0-9. Bring out the champagne!