Tennessee Valley Authority Privatization Act

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Auctioning it off? No. Not good. Crazy actually. Simple privatization would be a different issue (I'd still disagree, but for admittedly ideological ones) but this is (and no offense is meant to anyone here) just plain daft.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I suppose as a compromise we could sell off half (or a third or whatever) of it, while keeping a majority stake or summet like that.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Nay on both

===
Missed this. Sorry.
Look, this bill and the amendments are totally unrealistic; you will not find a buyer (unless the GM waves a magic wand or something) at the sort of price that the TVA is worth (which is why the intially auctioning idea was so absurd).
If you want to make a quick buck out of the TVA, then your best bet would be to sell off (say) a third or so of it's value to shareholders or something... and if it works maybe sell more off. And so on.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Aye to both, I guess.  I'd still be up in the air about this bill either way.  I would really like to know who might be interested in buying it before voting for something that would require us to sell it.

Why the magic of the free market will find a magic buyer...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This is increasingly looking like a vauge declaration of some sort...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

You just repeated what I said

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Some questions that need answering (and if they aren't answered in a satisfactory I will try to get the bill tabled. Sure it won't succeed. Not the point)...

Oh and I'd like a Senator to give the answers. No one else. And please do not give meaningless ideological cliches for answers

1. What is the current value of the TVA? An estimate will do.
2. Do you know how the current financing of the TVA works?
3. How do electricity prices in the area compare to other areas?
4. Are you aware of anyone (individual, corporation, whatever) who would be interested in buying the TVA for what it is worth, and who would actually be able to run it on a sound financial footing?
5. What would the longterm effects of privatizing the TVA be on (for example) consumers, public safety, the environment and so on?
6. How much money do you think that this will save us, and on what basis do you make that claim?

Thank you.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

[loaded questions]

They are not loaded questions. They are questions that you should know if you intend to privatize the TVA.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The article mentions neither the worth of the TVA nor how much it costs the government.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh huh...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh huh...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right.

So... you don't know who would be willing to buy the TVA, you don't know what the various longterm (and pretty damn important to residents of the Tennessee Valley) costs or benefits of this would be... and you don't even know how much money this would raise.

Right?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You know you're supposed to be civil in Senate debates

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hmm? I've seen no evidence that, by the standards of energy companies, that the TVA is misrun.
And the fact that I am generally opposed to privatisation is completely irrelevent to my argument.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, not really. I've just been doing my job. Scrutiny a bad thing now?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since 1959 the TVA has been self-financing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, because no such corporation exists.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See my answer to question 1.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think the GM would be more qualified to answer a lot of those questions, especially 4 and 5.

Ah yes... but he has enough on his plate right now. Besides this is the sort of thing that the Senate *should* really be able to do on it's own; we've all got a bit lazy of late...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not as such; more like trying to find out if you [as a collective whole] know what you're talking about on this.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Abstain on both

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Hey, you aren't a Senator

...but by this point answers would be fine from anyone...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No energy company would agree to that sort of thing; running the TVA really wouldn't be worth their while if that had to agree to profit sharing.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It was just a thought considering that I expect them to do very well out of it

Ah, but they wouldn't do very well out of it if they had to agree to profit sharing

===
O.K... a question to Senators only (let's not have anyone else do your job for you...)

Can any of you come up with a reason to sell the TVA that doesn't boil down to:

a) "the Government shouldn't be running this sort of thing anyway"
b) "we can get a one off payment that we aren't certain of the value of and that would make only a small dent in the deficit" (and, without putting too fine a point on it, that anyone thinks that this is a good reason to sell the TVA is a genuinely damning indictment of the [lack of] knowledge about public finances here).

Because so far I've yet to see one

[Filuwaúrdjan]

How come you keep trying to exclude citizens from these debates?

I'm not. They've actually contributed to this more than most Senators have. It would just be nice for Senators to do their jobs for once...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps, but I'm mainly opposing this from a non-ideological viewpoint; I take an interest in the energy industry and how it operates. Have done for a while.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...which privatising the TVA won't actually do... in fact in won't even come close to doing that, even if (and it's a huge if) it is sold for the sort of money it's actually worth. What could be thought of as the money raising argument for privatisation is a complete red herring. And it's a one off payment too. Useless.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not meaning to be rude here (and I mean that), but that's because most people don't understand much about the TVA or the energy industry in general. The arguments in favour have been extremely weak and are either based in ideology (and no matter how well reasoned and well argued an ideological argument is, it is still always a weak argument in this sort of situation) or a mistaken belief that flogging off the TVA will act as some magic bullet to whatever financial problems we have.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which isn't actually much is it? Besides it would be for One Year Only. There are much better ways of raising the money needed to reduce the deficit; and maybe they would actually make a genuine difference rather than a paper one. How about (and I'm thinking somewhat randomly as I'm typing) a national sales tax on the sale of alcohol and so on? You probably wouldn't need more than a small rate to raise a lot of money. Could do a similer thing with tobacco. Or pornography. Or wigs. Or windows. And so on...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, not really. Little things for one year only make little difference. Big things is different o/c.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because it would be a bad idea

Basically unless there is a case for doing something (as there would be if the TVA was leaking money all over the place and was no longer self-financing), then in policy terms it is a very good idea to keep things as they are.
TVA=Doing a good job+not costing us money+actually making us money+would not actually make much of a dent in the deficit if sold off+all gains would be for one year anyway+effect on flood control, the environment, the local economy, electricity prices in what remains a low income area etc+add a few more etc.'s here=no case for selling off.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

*Sigh* Al, being Senator doesn't mean that you're all knowing, only that you've been elected to serve the people of a certain Region or District.

True... one thing that you could do would be to have a thread where constituents ask you to raise points in debates and stuff. Not sure if that'd work, but it might do. Something I've always done is introduce bills written by constituents.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Outside budget time? Yes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bureaucratic overhead is the main thing. Administration costs in general actually. IIRC we were supposed to have appointed a commision or summet to look into waste. Something like that. Dimly recall it from the balanced budget row...
Merging programmes, merging departments and so on... is something I've always thought is a good idea.

There is another way of raising money o/c... might be worth a try... see you in the intro thread...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Nay

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I would like to thank the Senate for listening to the arguments made by myself and others against this failed bill, and voting accordingly... I'll be honest when I say that it's good to go out on a high note.

I hereby resign from the Senate