A PRIVATELY-OWNED FIRE DEPARTMENT MEANS GREATER SAFETY FOR ALL

AMERICAN ENTREPRENEURS' SERIES

By : Mr. F. Harrison Feuerbach, M.B.A., C.P.A., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Wellstone Solutions & Financing Co., Inc. (a Delaware Corporation specializing in service to private-sector incursions into public markets) (1991-present); Member, the Princeton Club of Greater Washington, D.C. (1975-present); Spokesman, Investors for Freedom, a private-interest organization committed to deregulation and economic self-sufficiency (2003-present); Antique Coin Collector; Owner, Harry's Red-Hot Frank Stand (1983-present), Chicago, IL; Victoria's Secret Enthusiast.

It is hard to read the newspaper without encountering a story about brave firefighters. We hear about daring rescues and self-sacrifice. We hear about fearless men who risk everything to pull children away from deadly flames. We even hear touching tales about firefighters who save treasured pets from certain death. On 9/11, firefighters' sacrifices elevated them to near-mythic status in our society. In New York, they even publish a calendar in which they model their flawless bodies for all to admire. Put simply, firefighters enjoy hero status.

People like firefighters because they fight for everyone. They do not distinguish between rich and poor. They risk their lives to save people from burning buildings. That is a noble enterprise. And they do it because it is "a public service." The public likes firefighters because they think firefighters are "working for them," not just for a paycheck. There is a "firefighter spirit" that many find extremely appealing. After all, most people in life just want more money. Firefighters, by contrast, take fulfillment from saving lives, not expanding their bank accounts.

But do you have any idea how expensive it is to maintain a fire department? Fire trucks and fire stations cost money. Every time a fire truck goes out on a call, it costs hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars. Every time an ambulance hauls some burn victim to the hospital, that's another few hundred grand. And that's not all. Just keeping firemen fed and ready costs a fortune--those guys can eat. In this sense, while people may admire firefighters for their public service, they sure are paying for it.

In the final analysis, we maintain fire departments because we trust them to keep us safe. Expressed in market terms, fire departments sell safety and safety-related services. If a fire department cannot keep us safe, it is not doing its job. A fire department is "good" if it delivers effective safety-related services in a timely manner. That is really what it's all about. All the mythology and hero worship are really just secondary to the main issue: Selling safety.

In America, it is always more efficient to entrust market activity to private actors. Yet for some reason, municipalities all over the country have decided that fire departments should survive on the public dole. This makes no sense. If municipalities want greater safety, they should open up the market to private entrepreneurs who can compete to deliver more safety to the buying public. At the same time, when private entrepreneurs compete, they have a direct financial interest in satisfying the consumer. That leads to greater innovation and development. Think about it: Because firefighters never faced private competition, they just kept using the same fire-fighting technology that their great-great-grandfathers used: They just spray water on them. But if private firms compete to fight fires, who knows what miraculous new fire-squelching technologies they will discover.

It is time to break the hypnosis surrounding public fire departments. It is time for innovation and customer satisfaction. It is no excuse to say that fire departments have "always been public organizations." In America, we do not rely exclusively on tradition to light our way on modern questions. Rather, when it comes to product delivery, we trust the market. Fire departments deliver a product to market. There is no reason why private firms should not have a chance to deliver a better one at a better price. When they do, the public will receive better fire protection. Consumers will also have greater choice in deciding which fire companies to hire for their safety needs. And firefighters will have a real financial interest in putting out fires. What better way to motivate a fireman to put out a fire than to promise him a healthy profit for a job well done?

We believe that private fire departments will stop fires far better than public ones. No longer will citizens wait for fire trucks to show up. No longer will they tolerate antiquated firefighting methods. And no longer will they pay exorbitant taxes to sustain outmoded "public servants." In a word, when private enterprise competes for business in any area, the public always wins. In this case, the public will benefit from competition in fire protection because the public will be safer. Hiring private fire departments is the answer.

We recognize that it will take some time for the public to adjust to private fire protection. After all, people are accustomed to free public fire protection services. When their houses catch fire, they expect the fire department to show up, put out the fire and charge in to save their lives. They do not expect a bill for those services. After the fire, they simply thank their rescuers. Then they start picking through the ashes to put their lives back together.

But private fire protection services require different protocols. Efficient safety delivery services are not free. In order to enjoy top-notch fire protection technologies, private fire department customers will need to pay first. When a house catches fire, the owner must come downstairs to negotiate a price with the firm's fire safety delivery sales representative. Private fire safety delivery personnel will not begin work until the affected homeowner signs a contract promising to pay the firm's rate, as well as to indemnify all firm employees against harm or injury. Firm employees will not begin fighting the fire until they verify the homeowner's credit and back account information. Homeowners with insufficient funds or credit will not be able to obtain professional fire protection services.

These protocols may surprise citizens accustomed to free public firefighting services. After all, it may seem callous that firefighting professionals would let children burn to death simply because their parents cannot pay the firefighting bill. But timely payment is essential to private enterprise. The entire system would collapse if private businesses do not receive timely compensation for their services. No business would have an incentive to deliver top-notch private fire safety services if it were not assured that customers would pay. As we saw, it is not cheap to run a fire department. Unless customers pay fair market rates for fire protection services, private enterprise would not effectively do its work. Thus, affected homeowners must pay in advance for fire protection services, even if that means their family burns in the meantime. Ensuring payment is the only way to assure vigorous, efficient free market competition.

In the end, firefighting is about safety. Safety is a market product like any other. Private enterprise always delivers products more efficiently than public bureaus. Just as private security firms sell security more efficiently than the police department, so too will private fire protection firms sell fire protection more efficiently than the fire department. Some may find it unfortunate that private services cost money. But money makes things get done so much better.

And the fact remains that better services go to those who can pay for them. Private firefighters do their jobs twice as hard as public firefighters because they actually stand to gain something beyond a bum city paycheck; if they work hard, they might even earn shares in the company. That means private firefighters deliver much more safety than comparable public firefighters. In sum, then, private fire departments will deliver greater safety than public ones.

Privatizing fire departments is an American solution to a genuine national problem. While some say that public service is its own reward, we must disagree. For every critic who claims that a public fireman comes home happy that he "helped people" on the job, we will show you a private fireman who comes home far happier that he just made $100,000 for rescuing children and an antique billiard table. When firemen work harder, everyone is safer. Public service does not induce firemen to work harder. After all, what incentive does a fireman have to put out more fires if he knows he'll get $41,000 pretax a year no matter how many fires he puts out? Why not entice firemen to work harder? To do that, we must make it worth their while. That means instilling the spirit of private enterprise in our firemen. And to do that, we need to make fire departments for-profit ventures.

America does not want governmental interference in private business arrangements. If a product can be sold, Americans want fair prices and innovation, not long waits and lackluster service. Fire safety is a product like any other. In that light, there is no reason why the private market cannot deliver it far more effectively than some ponderous government bureau.

Fire safety is about protecting people. It's time to let Americans choose how to protect themselves from fires. Public service is not the answer. Only motivated, private firefighters will deliver quality fire safety services at the price Americans deserve. It's time to make firefighters into something more than heroes. It's time to make them entrepreneurs with a stake in quality product delivery.

This is not just about saving people from fires. This is about the freedom to choose. Choose private enterprise. You and your children will sleep better in the knowledge that efficient, cost-effective fire protection services are just a phone call away.

Stop the inefficiency. Stop the stagnation. Privatize NOW.

BLOOMBERG V. THOMPSON

"Let's Get Back to Business As Usual!"

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

I like New York City politics because they have a direct bearing on my life. To some extent, people are apathetic about political races because they know the outcome will not impact their lives. This is true even on the presidential level.

But local elections can have serious effects on people's everyday lives. In big cities like New York, local government is not some marginal authority that meets in a middle school auditorium once a month. Rather, "local government" in New York City is bigger than many American States. New York is home to over 8 million people. "Local government"--namely, the city council and the Mayor's Office--hold power over them. That government's policies impact everyday life in a tangible way, from property taxes to parking fines to police protection to water services to zoning to libraries to schools and the fire department. When a new Mayor takes power, it signals a real shift--and people feel the difference.

This year, New Yorkers must choose between Republican incumbent Michael Bloomberg and Democratic city comptroller William Thompson. Bloomberg is a well-known billionaire from Massachusetts who runs a blue chip stock reporting index. During his time in office, Bloomberg's personal net worth increased threefold, from $5 billion in 2002 to $15 billion in 2009. Thompson is a lifelong New Yorker with humble roots in the city service and a comparatively minuscule income. He is also black.

Most newspapers have merely dismissed Thompson. Polls show him trailing Bloomberg by 18 points or more. Most people simply assume Bloomberg will steamroll anyone who stands in his way. After all, he can afford to deluge the airwaves 24-7 with campaign ads and dominate the public debate. Life in the city has been relatively comfortable under Bloomberg's rule. Crime remained stagnant, business opportunities flourished and there have been no major social disturbances. As was true under Bloomberg's predecessor, Rudy Giuliani, the cost of living in New York has ballooned even more. Sky-high rents have made housing in Manhattan virtually inaccessible for anyone who makes less than $200,000 per year.

Yet no one really understands Bloomberg. He is neither inspiring nor divisive. He manages the city as he would a bank. He is a bloodless technocrat. He does not alienate people with controversial speeches; he merely goes about his business. He attracts businesses to New York, though this does not necessarily translate into jobs. He is indifferent to the public schools, but he approved multimillion dollar subsidies for the new Yankee Stadium. In short, Bloomberg serves a certain "type" of New Yorker. And in many cases these "New Yorkers" do not even live in the city--they just visit and spend money here. You know, on Broadway shows, tour buses and the like.

Bloomberg has been great for business. But what about everyone else? In last night's mayoral debate, Thompson drew attention to New York's widening social inequality. He asked how the mayor could continue to ignore the struggling middle and lower classes that cannot cope with both a shrinking economy and astronomical rents. The mayor has no real answer. After all, the middle and lower classes are not his priority. He has more important people to worry about, like out-of-town investors, tourists and franchise businesses.

How can the press and the people ignore Thompson's concerns? There is a palpable tension between the "prosperous" New York and the "struggling" New York. You can see it on the street. People know they have no chance to live in Manhattan anymore. So they flee to the outer boroughs in an effort to stave off relentless expenses. They can't find decent jobs. School achievement levels are flat; Bloomberg spent city money elsewhere.

In essence, Bloomberg has split New York in two. One New York is wealthy and carefree. The other is desperate and invisible. The wealthy New York holds all the power; it can project a confident image. Yet the desperate New York has no voice. Thompson wants to address this disparity.

But apparently no one cares about these serious social divisions. Bloomberg stands ready to pulverize his populist opponent. In my view, this is a sad result. After all, why does government exist if not to serve everyone in society, not just those with overwhelming economic strength? There are so many powerless constituencies in New York City. They number in the millions, but they can do nothing to challenge the status quo. Sadly, Bloomberg has achieved virtually unassailable dominance because he has pleased the "right people." They hold all the economic power; and they are very happy with the way things are now.

I think this is an unfortunate--and ultimately, unsustainable--situation. It will continue until enough people both feel and see how bad it really is. That moment, however, is not today.

Barring some unforeseen electoral catastrophe, Bloomberg will crush his socially-conscious adversary. With unlimited funds, powerful friends and general apathy on his side, how can he lose?

At least Bloomberg is not a mean-spirited asshole like Rudy Giuliani. I suppose that's the one saving grace in this whole mess. Although power will always prevail, it's at least some relief when the King is not a vindictive, venomous tyrant. Bloomberg is not a tyrant. He is just an aloof corporate manager.

I just wonder how long his winning streak can go on now that the country's economy has collapsed.