The word is an atrocity, but the most appealing notion in President Reagan`s 1986 program is ”privatization.” Selling some of the government`s facilities or functions to private enterprise or individuals is a jim-dandy idea.
I am attracted to it in part because one of the things Reagan has in mind selling soon is the Bonneville Power Administration on the Columbia River, and I have been a Bonneville freak since I was 16. That summer, two buddies and I celebrated the end of the war and our escape from home by bumming around the West. Bonneville Dam was the biggest thing I`d ever seen–a marvel to behold. In the summer of 1969, when my own family was on the mandatory Western trip, I dragged my four sons off to see the dam for themselves. They complained bitterly on the drive over that they hadn`t had time enough to gallivant around on Mt. Hood. But when we descended into the great dam and felt the pounding of its power-plant turbines, they were as awed as I had been years before.
The sale, to be honest, does not come up at a convenient time. I have some unexpected expenses around the house and the car has not been running smoothly. But if there is a chance to buy Bonneville, I`m going to buy it. In megalomaniac moments, I think what fun it would be just to stand there with my hand on the switch and say, ”Good night, now, Portland,” and turn out the lights.
Sen. Mark Hatfield (R., Ore.) was quoted as saying that Bonneville would be sold ”over my dead body.” But you know that in politics, money talks, and I figure Hatfield just wants to be sure Reagan gets a good price.
It did bother me some that Fortune magazine, which might have been thought likely to understand the attractiveness of privatization, had an article by Lee Smith saying, ”The administration`s plan to sell off the government is a political, not an economic, measure.” But as I thought about it, his proposition became less offensive and more accurate.
Indeed, nothing so clarifies the question as to whether something should be done by the government as to ask: Is it something you`d want if the government were offering it for sale?
There are many things beyond Bonneville I`d like to buy from the government, but ”nonlethal aid” to the contras in Nicaragua would not be among them. Far more appealing to me are a couple of lighthouses in northern Michigan or that underwater national park off St. John`s in the Virgin Islands.
If the notion catches on, it could produce some healthy competition among Cabinet members. Suppose President Reagan established an incentive program in which the more a department sells, the more money it will have to buy some new things. Cap Weinberger would have funds for Star Wars lasers only if he could peddle several hundred of his Bradley Fighting Vehicles as being for freeway and RV use in California.
Similarly on the domestic side, there is much to recommend the privatization strategy. If the Department of Transportation underwent privatization, there might still be subsidies for mass transit–but not for any city with so little pride that it tolerated graffiti on its subway cars or Mayor Ed Koch at the controls.
The Treasury Department would give out toaster-ovens to those patriotic enough to buy bonds. The Department of Justice could sell its own brand of affirmative action certificates reading: I`m so sincere in my belief in equality, I don`t have to prove it.
There really is no limit to the privatization strategy. Except at the White House fence. I don`t think we should sell the White House, no matter what complaints we may have about the way Donald Regan runs it. There has to be someone in America tough enough to fire Lee Iacocca, and Don Regan just proved he is the man.
Any week that liberates Anatoly Shcharansky from the Soviets` grip and the Statue of Liberty from Iacocca`s embrace is a great week for
privatization.
