Candidates' attitudes towards water/utility privatization?

[AP]

We know Kucinich's attitude -- or at least we can infer it from the electricity deregulation shit it Cleveland. We know that Dean actually fought for energy deregulation as VT governor.

How about the rest?

[HFishbine]

1. Edwards

was for energy/utility privatization in Iraq. I don't know about his positions for America.

[AP]

3. You gotta link for that? He has been for turning over to Iraqis the wealth

of that nation, and he voted against the allocation of that 87 bil which was going to line pockets of Bush's cronies.

[HFishbine]

7. Silence speaks volumes

Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich called on John Kerry and John Edwards to join him in calling for the UN to handle all Iraqi oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people with "no privatization." As far as I know, neither accepted, but this is one issue on which I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

http://www.kucinich.us/pressreleases/pr_101503.htm

[AP]

8. Proving a negative? That's your argument? JRE on Iraq oil:

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/page.asp?id=104

Before the Bush administration "undermines all that we have accomplished," Senator Edwards said the United States should:

- Involve our allies, the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in establishing a free Iraqi government with legitimacy in the region and around the world.

- Create a NATO-led multinational peacekeeping force to ensure that the Iraqi people live in a place that is safe and secure.

- Ensure that the Iraqi people - not some puppet government - shape the nation's future under a government that reflects the nation's diversity.

- Help develop a prosperous economy by making clear that Iraq's vast oil reserves will not be exploited by the United States or others.

[Paulie]

2. Dennis' 10 points on Water as a human right

Water as a Human Right: Ten Principles


All water shall be considered to be forever in the public domain.

It shall be the duty of each nation to provide accessible, affordable drinking water to its peoples.

There shall be public ownership of drinking water systems, subject to municipal control.

Wealthy nations shall provide poor nations with the means to obtain water for survival.

Water shall be protected from commoditization and exempted from all trade agreements.

Water privatization shall not be a condition of debt restructuring, loan renewal or loan forgiveness.

Governments shall use their powers to prevent private aggregation of water rights.

Water shall be conserved through sustainable agriculture and encouraging plant-based diets.

Water resources shall be protected from pollution.

Our children should be educated about the essential nature of water for maintaining life.


I implore you to check out www.kucinich.us/issues You sound like you "know" Dennis on the issues, but you don't know. :) Prowl around there for 10 minutes, you'll be happy you did. :hug:

[AP]

4. Once again, on the issues that really matter -- economic imperialism and

the rip off of the American consumer, DK's supporters are first with a response. And some other have nothing to say for their guy.

[TennesseeWalker]

12. Kucinich is a hero. (n/t)

[rucky]

5. Any candidate who supports the WTO supports water privitization.

& Bechtel.

[AP]

6. There must have been a vote in Congress precisely on this issue.

Anyone know of one?

[Tinoire]

9. Kucinich & Edwards that I know of

Kucinich

Water as a Human Right: Ten Principles

All water shall be considered to be forever in the public domain.
It shall be the duty of each nation to provide accessible, affordable drinking water to its peoples.
There shall be public ownership of drinking water systems, subject to municipal control.
Wealthy nations shall provide poor nations with the means to obtain water for survival.
Water shall be protected from commoditization and exempted from all trade agreements.
Water privatization shall not be a condition of debt restructuring, loan renewal or loan forgiveness.
Governments shall use their powers to prevent private aggregation of water rights.
Water shall be conserved through sustainable agriculture and encouraging plant-based diets.
Water resources shall be protected from pollution.
Our children should be educated about the essential nature of water for maintaining life.

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/water.php

--------



Dennis Kucinich Plan for Clean Water for All

In Summary:

• Strengthen and enforce air and water regulation and protections
  
  
• Reward environmentally-responsible farmers and businesses
  
  
• Stop privatization of drinking water and sewer systems
  
  
• Make a major investment in water system infrastructure
  
  
• Make a financial commitment to providing healthy drinking water to all the world's people

When the Clean Water Act was written in 1972, the goal was to make all waters safe for fishing and swimming. Yet data from the Environmental Protection Agency shows that the nation's water bodies are getting dirtier-nearly half are unsafe. The Clean Water Act has helped to reduce pollution from sewage treatment plants and other direct dischargers, but it has been generally ineffective in controlling polluted runoff from farm fields, confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), roads and parking lots, construction sites, oil and gas operations, mining sites, etc.

Overdevelopment of wetlands, which would accelerate under proposed Bush Administration rule changes, destroys nature's natural pollution filters and increases flooding. Subsidies for auto-dependent sprawl and transportation further contribute to runoff pollution. Coal burning utilities add to mercury contamination of lakes from acid rain, a particular health hazard to children and pregnant women.

A quarter of our industrial plants and water treatment plants are in serious violation of pollution standards. Half of the most serious offenders exceed pollution limits on toxic substances by more than 100 percent, yet due to inadequate funding, only a fraction of them face consequences. Those found in violation are often given little more than a slap on the wrist.

While most family farmers are good stewards of the environment, too many communities are being harmed by industrial-style agriculture and its disregard for the environment. Millions of fish have been killed by countless manure spills from overflowing lagoons. Runoff of fertilizers and other contaminants has created a "dead zone" at the mouth of the Mississippi River. Many rural areas have themselves become "dead zones" due to the rapid decline of family-farm agriculture. Residents of rural communities throughout America are suffering the consequences-contaminated well and surface water, gastro-intestinal illnesses, lung problems, neurological damage, and decreases in property values.

Privatization of drinking water and sewer systems, with its accompanying goal of profit above all and its leverage of control over an essential commodity, has produced disastrous outcomes. Privatization contributed to a cholera outbreak in South Africa, and led to filthy, overpriced, undersupplied water in Atlanta. In India, some poor households must pay 25% of their income for water. The list of problems goes on and on.

Under-funded and often antiquated water treatment plants are a thin line of defense between the pollution entering our water bodies and that which comes out of our taps. Pollutants are occurring in alarming amounts in some water systems. Of the 2,000 chemicals commonly found in public drinking water supplies, the Environmental Protection Agency tests for only 83. Recent studies show that the average person has more than 30 toxic chemicals in their body. Many states charge nothing for polluters to obtain permits to legally discharge into their rivers, lakes and streams.

According to the United Nations, 2 billion people worldwide are dying or at risk of dying from unsafe drinking water and/or lack of access to adequate sanitation. Water-related diseases are responsible for 80 percent of illnesses and death in the developing world. More than 2 million people, mostly children, die each year from waterborne diseases.

The current Administration has unleashed an unprecedented assault on water quality protection. It permits coal companies to dump fill from blown-up mountains into streams. It has rejected the first President Bush's policy of ensuring no net loss of wetlands, withdrawn proposed rules that would have reduced raw sewage discharges, and dropped proposals to cut storm water pollution from new development. Instead, this Administration seeks to limit the scope of the law, leaving entire classes of waterways unprotected.

Water is the sustainer of all life. We deserve it ourselves, and we owe it to future generations to leave them the gift of clean water. The Kucinich Administration will make clean, healthy water a right for all, strengthening air and water protections. Regulation and enforcement against polluters will be increased, while environmentally responsible farmers and businesses will be rewarded. The Kucinich Administration will work to stop privatization of drinking water and sewer systems, will make a major investment in water system infrastructure, and will make a significant financial commitment to providing healthy drinking water to all the world's people.

Strengthen and enforce air and water regulation and protections

The Kucinich Administration will regulate pollution from CAFOs as industrial discharges subject to permits, limits, and fines for non-compliance. Business and factory farms in violation of regulations will forfeit federal subsidies. Mountain-top removal of coal will be prohibited, and tough controls will be instituted to reduce global warming emissions and acid rain from coal-burning utilities. The Kucinich Administration will provide federal assistance to help states implement and monitor mandatory plans to reduce pollutants entering water bodies, will shift resources to watershed protection, and will increase funding for public transportation programs to reduce auto and sprawl-related water and air pollution.

The Kucinich Administration will increase testing of chemicals prevalent in drinking water bodies, will require manufacturers of toxic chemicals to produce safer alternatives-many of which are currently available-and will make pollution permit fees mandatory, subject to revocation for repeat offenders. Budgets for environmental monitoring and enforcement will be increased, with cleanup costs funded by fees and fines paid by polluters.

Reward environmentally responsible farmers and businesses

A healthy environment and a strong economy should go hand in hand. If we are to be serious about making our water safe, we need a transformation of our economy to one that recognizes environmental costs. The Kucinich Administration will work to greatly expand funding for the Conservation Security Program, a model program that's a win-win-win for farmers, the environment and everyone who lives downstream. Protections for all wetlands will be strengthened. Assistance will be given to state environmental agencies to curtail polluted runoff. Farms and businesses that employ pollution reduction strategies will be encouraged with tax and other incentives. Funding will also be provided to help family farmers meet their environmental responsibilities and make the transition to less chemical-intensive agriculture that increases profits, reduces pollution, and restores our precious water bodies.

Stop privatization of drinking water and sewer systems

Access to water is fundamental. It must not be controlled by private industries and sold only to those who can afford it. The Kucinich Administration will declare that water is a human right, and will work to ensure that all water is kept in the public domain, not controlled by corporations aided by WTO, IMF, and World Bank loan policies. Instead, the Kucinich Administration will take steps to reverse privatization, working for public ownership of drinking water systems subject to municipal control and ending the practice of making water privatization a condition for favorable loan terms.

Make a major investment in water system infrastructure

Current funding to upgrade drinking water and sewer systems is woefully inadequate. The Kucinich Administration will make a major WPA-style investment in water infrastructure improvements to protect the public health and put people back to work. The funds spent will create thousands of jobs, while reducing pressure to sell water supplies and treatment plants to private companies.

Make a financial commitment to providing healthy drinking water to all the world's people

Returning to our ideal of an America of compassion, the Kucinich Administration will at least double annual spending on safe drinking water and sanitation programs in the developing world. We have a moral obligation to take action. If we can afford to spend $100 billion for wars, we can afford to help end the needless suffering of our brothers and sisters throughout the world. Funds will be re-directed from the bloated military budget to help pay for these programs. Supporting alleviation of the suffering of the world's poorest and most desperate people is not only an urgent moral necessity, it will also reestablish the image of the United States as a helping, not conquering, nation.

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/cleanwater.php





=============

Edwards... Haven't read his words but being anti-NAFTA is good enough because the NAFTA has "utility privatization" language built into it.

Anti-NAFTA can give you the proper references on that lol or you can read his thread: (especially #23, 30, 34)

lcordero (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-11-04 04:56 PM

34. utility privatization is one of the stipulations in NAFTA and GATT

http://www.ibew1613.org/library/privatization.html

http://www.ibew728.org/_disc2002/0000003f.htm

from Anti-NAFTA's thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=315065#315482

or you can wade through this:

http://www.google.com/search?q=NAFTA+%22utility+privatization%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[corporatewhore]

10. Kerrys for it since he is for freetrade

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[corporatewhore]

13. then why did he vote for wto/nafta/imf and bushs fast track to ftaa

Even without the FTAA, the privatization of public services is already well underway in Latin America, thanks to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. As part of the structural adjustment conditions attached to the loans they give, the IMF and the World Bank have directed poor countries to sell off many of their publicly controlled services. In Mexico, the phone system has been privatized. Under pressure from the IMF, Guatemala, the second poorest country in the hemisphere, has sold off its telephone and electric companies, its rail service, and its postal system. Nicaragua has privatized its health and education systems.
As discussed above, under the FTAA this privatization process will likely accelerate. And the FTAA will further open the door to the privatization of one of the world's most important resources—water.

The world is facing an acute water shortage. Already, more than 1 billion people lack access to clean drinking water, and 30 countries are struggling with water scarcity. As the world's population grows, the problem will likely get worse. It is estimated that by 2025 as much as two-thirds of the world's population will be suffering from water shortages or absolute water scarcity. Once considered a human right, water is increasingly being viewed as a valued commodity. As Fortune magazine has noted, "water will be to the 21st Century what oil was to the 20th." The website of a Canadian water company, Global Water Corporation, makes the same point more bluntly: "Water has moved from being an endless commodity that may be taken for granted to a rationed necessity that may be taken by force."
Major multinational corporations are eager to turn scarcity into profit and to make water, like oil, a commodity you will have to pay dearly for. Water privatization is already a $400 billion dollar global business, and multinational corporations are hoping to use international trade and investment agreements such as the FTAA to increase their control over the supply of water.
Under the FTAA, if a locality is charging residents for water—and therefore, according to the FTAA's definition, offering the service on a "commercial basis"—any multinational corporation will be able to enter that market and compete for the water services. Because of the FTAA's "national treatment" requirements, the local government will not be able to give preference to local service providers who may have a greater commitment to the area and who it may be easier for the community to oversee. And, as with other services, once the door is opened there is no way of closing it. For example, if a Chilean company were granted the right to export water from the country's glaciers, US multinationals would then have the right to help themselves to as much of the Chilean water as they wished.

The experience of Cochabamba, Bolivia provides a glimpse into what can happen when this essential resource is privatized. In 1999, Cochabamba, Bolivia's third largest city, sold its municipal water utility to a multinational consortium as part of a World Bank-sponsored privatization program. When the multinational corporation took control of the water system, rate hikes were quickly instituted. Some bills doubled, and many ordinary workers were facing water bills that amounted to a quarter of their monthly income. The rate increases soon led to a public backlash, and the city was convulsed by street protests and demonstrations. During the protests, security forces opened fire on the crowd. A 17-year-old student was shot in the face and killed. The multinational water consortium soon withdrew from Cochabamba.
While the Cochabamba episode reveals the popular opposition to water privatization, other experiences have shown that resistance to water privatization will not be tolerated. In 1991 the Canadian province of British Columbia passed a law banning the export of water. A California corporation, Sun Belt Water Inc., has challenged the law using NAFTA's Chapter 11 lawsuit, claiming that the law represents trade barrier. Sun Belt is seeking $220 million in compensation in lost profits from the Canadian government.
Indeed, as Global Water Corporation has noted, water is now something that may be taken by force
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/wto/FTAAWTOServices.html

[bigtree]

16. John Kerry on Free Trade

Veto FTAA and CAFTA until they have stronger standards

Q: Your views on labor rights?

KERRY: I have been fighting to have labor and environment standards in trade agreements. I worked to make sure we had it in the Jordan agreement and in the Vietnam side agreement. You didn't need it in Chile is because they have high standards and they enforce them. The important thing is, I would not support the Free Trade of the Americas Act or the Central American Free Trade Act until they have stronger standards in them. If they sent them to my desk, I'd veto them.

Source: Democratic 2004 Presidential Primary Debate in Iowa Jan 4, 2004


FTAA needs more labor and environmental standards

I don't support the Free Trade Agreement of America nor the Central American Free Trade Agreement as it is today because they do desperately need to have increased labor standards, environment standards, to bring other countries up. You can't have trade be a rush to the bottom, and you can't leave other nations with a one-way street, and you can't abuse people the way it has been. It would be wonderful to have a president who could find the rest of the countries in this hemisphere. And I will do that.
Source: Democratic Primary Debate, Albuquerque New Mexico Sep 4, 2003

Fix NAFTA-canceling it would be disastrous

I am as strongly committed as Kucinich is to worker rights, but it would be disastrous to just cancel NAFTA and withdraw from the WTO. You have to fix it. You have to have a president who understands how to use the power that we have as the world's biggest marketplace to properly leverage the kind of behavior that we want. You also have to have a president who is prepared to have an enforcement structure through the powers of the various sections of the trade agreement.
Source: Democratic Primary Debate, Albuquerque New Mexico Sep 4, 2003

Goals for 2010

Conclude a new round of trade liberalization under the auspices of the World Trade Organization.

Open the WTO, the World Bank, and International Monetary Fund to wider participation and scrutiny.

Strengthen the International Labor Organization’s power to enforce core labor rights, including the right of free association.

Launch a new series of multinational treaties to protect the world environment.
Source: The Hyde Park Declaration 00-DLC1 on Aug 1, 2000



The League of Conservation Voters
Re: Support the Kerry amendment to H.R. 3009
http://www.lcv.org/fedfocus/fedfocus.cfm?ID=427&c=10&Type=s

Dear Senator,

The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) is the political voice of the national environmental community. Each year, LCV publishes the National Environmental Scorecard, which details the voting records of Members of Congress on environmental legislation. The Scorecard is distributed to LCV members, concerned voters nationwide, and the press.

LCV urges you to support an amendment to the Baucus (D-MT) trade promotion authority bill (H.R. 3009) sponsored by Senator Kerry (D-MA) that will help ensure that trade agreements do not lead to continued assaults on environmental and public health protections.

H.R. 3009 would encourage future trade agreements to include provisions like Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). These provisions threaten hard-won laws and regulations that protect our natural resources. The U.S. is currently defending itself against $1.8 billion in claims under Chapter 11, including a suit brought against California's ban of a toxic gasoline additive. Mexico and Canada have already lost Chapter 11 challenges to environmental protections.

The Kerry amendment would require that investment provisions in future trade agreements be in accordance with the United States Constitution. In doing so, it would ensure that corporations do not receive rights that enable them to undermine our environmental laws, and those of other countries.

In addition, the Kerry amendment would clarify key investment rules. Under the U.S. constitutional standard, a mere reduction in the value of property is not sufficient to constitute a "taking." By contrast, Chapter 11's vague language has led corporations to sue for compensation when a law or regulation simply reduces their potential profits. By clarifying the definition of "expropriation" and by relying on U.S. due process standards, the amendment would ensure that trade agreements are in accordance with the Constitution and safeguard the right of federal, state and local governments to enact regulations that are in the public interest. In addition, the Kerry amendment would ensure that non-discriminatory environmental laws and regulations are not subject to unjustified challenges by foreign investors.

By passing trade agreements that promote environmental stewardship and guard against the weakening of environmental standards, Congress can reestablish a consensus on trade. Unfortunately, H.R. 3009 in its current form does not meet that test. We urge you to support the Kerry amendment, and other amendments to improve the bill.

LCV’s Political Advisory Committee will consider including votes on this issue in compiling LCV’s 2002 Scorecard. If you need more information, please call Betsy Loyless at 202-785-8683.

Sincerely,

Deb Callahan
President

[AP]

17. Still has nothing to do with utility privatization.

Don't blame me.

[corporatewhore]

18. yeah kerry; tried to get an ammendment in but it didnt make it and

voted for bushs fast track any way and by the way there is no provision to reform there is a only a provision to get out
"Just last year, the Massachusetts senator tried to position himself as the leading Senate proponent of measures designed to preserve the ability of American states to protect workers, farmers, the environment and consumers in the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) agreement the Bush administration is crafting in closed-door negotiations with other countries in the western hemisphere. While Kerry sounded like a good player, he ended up breaking with fellow Democrats to back Bush's plan to establish a "fast track" process to negotiate the FTAA agreement.

The signals Kerry has sent on trade issues are deeply disturbing. He is starting to sound like 2000 Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore, who tried to talk a pro-worker line but consistently supported the free trade that has devastated the manufacturing and agricultural sectors of the U.S. economy. Gore's shakiness on trade issues caused many working people to cast their ballots for Ralph Nader, a fierce critic of the corporate free trade agenda. Even more working-class voters simply stayed home. They didn't see the point of choosing between a Republican who backed bad trade policies and a Democrat who backed bad trade policies" http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0930-09.htm

[AP]

14. Nice last paragraph. BTW, lots of text. Nothing about privatization.

What does Kerry say about privatization of utilities?

I only scanned your post, but I didn't see anything.

[corporatewhore]

15. well lets see he voted for nafta/wto/imf/bushs fasttrack to ftaa

The Corporate Takeover of Public Services

The FTAA doesn't just threaten government regulations. It also raises the specter of a sweeping privatization of the public services that ordinary people—especially poor and working class people—depend on. Under the FTAA, multinational corporations will target local postal services, health care services, educational services, and utility services as they seek to expand their businesses. While the corporations win, the people will lose. The fear is that when important public goods such as health and education are managed by for-profit companies, the bottom line comes first while health standards and education suffer. Local control will be lost as crucial services come under the management of giant, unaccountable corporations headquartered thousands of miles away. And as money for public services are diverted to private companies, the poor are left to rely on an underfunded public sector or else to fend for themselves.FTAA negotiators say that the agreement will not promote privatization of essential services. But the agreement offers no guarantee that the privatization of basic services like health care and education will not occur. FTAA negotiators' assurances rest on a clause that is nothing more than a loophole. The draft FTAA rules on services say that a government can exclude a service only when that service "is supplied neither on a commercial basis nor in competition with one or more service supplies." Those are difficult conditions to meet. Government fees for, say, prescription drugs could fall under the "commercial basis" prohibition. Also, almost no government service is a perfect monopoly—public schools compete against private schools, government clinics compete with private hospitals. This means that the door will be thrown wide open for massive multinational health care companies and for-profit educational providers to enter local economies.

And once the door is opened for multinational corporations to enter a certain market, there is no way of closing it if elected officials feel that the presence of the multinationals is eroding basic standards. According to the FTAA's "market access" rules for services, once a country agrees to let a foreign company into a certain service sector, multinational corporations must be granted virtually unrestricted entry into that country. If government officials later determine that the presence of multinational corporations is harming the environment or eroding social protections, there is nothing they can do. Once there is a private school or private hospital in a community, the floodgates are open.Major multinational service corporations are eager to expand into Latin America, and in fact companies such as American Express, Citicorp and Enron have aggressively lobbied trade negotiators to speed up the "liberalization" of services. Financial corporations are eager to take over local banks in the region, while energy companies see a bonanza in the privatization of public utilities. For-profit education and health care companies, meanwhile, see a chance to increase their profits by marketing their services to the more affluent segments of the population that already use private hospitals and send their children to private schools. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, for-profit health care companies are starting to make inroads into the Latin American market.Many people in the hemisphere's poorer countries fear that the quick introduction of giant foreign firms could lead to corporations swallowing up essential public services. The FTAA's services rules contain a clause called "national treatment" that declares that foreign companies must be treated the same as local ones. National treatment will prevent governments at any level from giving preference to local companies. For example, a municipality will not be able to attempt to bolster the local economy by promoting local businesses because that would be "unfair" to the multinational corporations.

The national treatment requirements will grease the privatization agenda by making it harder for governments to subsidize services. If a government tries to support a public hospital or a public school with local tax monies, multinational corporations will be able to challenge those subsidies by arguing that they violate the rules mandating that all services providers be treated the same.This is already happening. UPS has filed a NAFTA Chapter 11 lawsuit against the Canadian government saying that Canada's support of its postal service, Canada Post, represents a barrier to trade. UPS is seeking $160 million in damages from Canada, claiming that the government subsidy has prevented UPS from effectively competing for the express mail market. According to The New York Times, the "complaint contend that the very existence of the publicly financed Canadian postal system represents unfair competition that conflicts with Canada's obligations under NAFTA. Critics worry that if the tribunal upholds the U.P.S. claim, government participation in any service that competes with the private sector will be threatened."
But it's not just postal systems that are at risk. The FTAA threatens to greatly accelerate the planned privatization of the world's dwindling water supply.
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/wto/FTAAWTOServices.html
also see my other post right above yours