Yesterday, Next American City published an article outlining “The Problem With Public-Private Partnerships.” Author Christopher Weber explains that public-private partnership equates to “getting corporate America to pay for something once funded by tax dollars alone.” He asks, “What company is going to invest in building affordable housing and livable communities here? These honorable causes stand to be big losers in the era of the public-private partnership.” As the champion of public-private partnership, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, closes six of the city’s mental health clinics, Weber’s point is not taken lightly.
Mitt Romney has said, in effect, ‘I’m rich and I don’t apologize for it.’ Nobody wants you to, Mitt. What some of us want… is for you to acknowledge that you couldn’t have made it in America without America. That you were fortunate enough to be born in a country where upward mobility is possible (a subject upon which Barack Obama can speak with the authority of experience), but where the channels making such upward mobility possible are being increasingly clogged. That it’s not fair to ask the middle class to assume a disproportionate amount of the tax burden… I want you to acknowledge that in America, we all should have to pay our fair share. That our civics classes never taught us that being American means that—sorry, kiddies—you’re on your own. That those who have received much must be obligated to pay—not to give, not to “cut a check and shut up,” in Governor Christie’s words, but to pay—in the same proportion. That’s called stepping up and not whining about it. That’s called patriotism, a word the Tea Partiers love to throw around as long as it doesn’t cost their beloved rich folks any money.
If everyone payed their “same proportion,” would public-private partnership be necessary? Or, how long can public-private partnership carry America before inequitable taxation drives it under? Where’s the price point between the two?