Part of a series on
Capitalism
Concepts Capital (economics) Capital accumulation Central bank Commercial law Companies law Comparative advantage Competition law Consumer protection Copyright Corporations Deregulation Economic freedom Economic liberalism Financial regulation Fiscal policy Free market Free price system Free trade agreements Freedom of contract Globalization Inflation Intellectual property Invisible hand Labour law Limited government Market Mode of production Monetary policy Monopoly Oligopoly Patents Private property Privatization Regulated market Recession Spontaneous order Stagflation Supply and demand Wage labour
Economic theories Austrian school Chicago school Classical economics Keynesian economics New Keynesian economics Monetarism Neoclassical economics Supply-side economics Institutional economics New institutional economics
Origins Age of Enlightenment Feudalism Industrial Revolution Physiocrats Mercantilism Islamic capitalism
People Ronald Coase Milton Friedman Friedrich Hayek John Maynard Keynes Alfred Marshall Karl Marx John Stuart Mill Ludwig von Mises Murray Rothbard Ayn Rand David Ricardo Joseph Schumpeter Adam Smith Thorstein Veblen Max Weber
Variants Anarcho-capitalism Consumer capitalism Corporate capitalism Creative capitalism Crony capitalism Democratic capitalism Eco-capitalism Finance capitalism Global capitalism Humanistic capitalism Inclusive capitalism Late capitalism Laissez-faire capitalism Liberal capitalism Merchant capitalism Mixed economy Monopoly capitalism Neo-Capitalism Philanthrocapitalism Technocapitalism Regulatory capitalism Rentier capitalism Social capitalism Social market economy State capitalism State monopoly capitalism Welfare capitalism
Related topics Anti-capitalism Advanced capitalism Criticism of capitalism Consumerism Corporate nationalism Corporatism Culture of capitalism History History of theory Perspectives on capitalism Periodizations of capitalism Trickle-down economics
Movements Liberalism Libertarianism Neoconservatism Neoliberalism Objectivism Objectivist movement Ordoliberalism Social democracy
Capitalism Portal Philosophy Portal Economics Portal Politics Portal
v t e

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2008)

Privatization (also spelled privatisation) is the incidence or process of transferring ownership of a business, enterprise, agency, public service or property from the public sector (the state or government) to the private sector (businesses that operate for a private profit) or to private non-profit organizations. The term is also used in a quite different sense, to mean government out-sourcing of services to private firms, e.g. functions like revenue collection, law enforcement, and prison management.^[1]

The term "privatization" also has been used to describe two unrelated transactions. The first is a buyout, by the majority owner, of all shares of a public corporation or holding company's stock, privatizing a publicly traded stock, and often described as private equity. The second is a demutualization of a mutual organization or cooperative to form a joint stock company.^[2]

Forms of privatization[link]

There are four main methods^{[citation needed]} of privatization:

1. Share issue privatization (SIP) - selling shares on the stock market
2. Asset sale privatization - selling an entire organization (or part of it) to a strategic investor, usually by auction or by using the Treuhand model
3. Voucher privatization - distributing shares of ownership to all citizens, usually for free or at a very low price.
4. Privatization from below - Start-up of new private businesses in formerly socialist countries.

Choice of sale method is influenced by the capital market, political and firm-specific factors. SIPs are more likely to be used when capital markets are less developed and there is lower income inequality. Share issues can broaden and deepen domestic capital markets, boosting liquidity and (potentially) economic growth, but if the capital markets are insufficiently developed it may be difficult to find enough buyers, and transaction costs (e.g. underpricing required) may be higher. For this reason, many governments elect for listings in the more developed and liquid markets, for example Euronext, and the London, New York and Hong Kong stock exchanges.

As a result of higher political and currency risk deterring foreign investors, asset sales occur more commonly in developing countries.

Voucher privatization has mainly occurred in the transition economies of Central and Eastern Europe, such as Russia, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia. Additionally, Privatization from below is/has been an important type of economic growth in transition economies.

A substantial benefit of share or asset-sale privatizations is that bidders compete to offer the highest price, creating income for the state in addition to tax revenues. Voucher privatizations, on the other hand, could be a genuine transfer of assets to the general population, creating a real sense of participation and inclusion. If the transfer of vouchers is permitted, a market in vouchers could be created, with companies offering to pay money for them.

Secured borrowing[link]

Some privatization transactions can be interpreted as a form of a secured loan^[3][4] and are criticized as a "particularly noxious form of governmental debt".^[3] In this interpretation, the upfront payment from the privatization sale corresponds to the principal amount of the loan, while the proceeds from the underlying asset correspond to secured interest payments – the transaction can be considered substantively the same as a secured loan, though it is structured as a sale.^[3] This interpretation is particularly argued to apply to recent municipal transactions in the United States, particularly for fixed term, such as the 2008 sale of the proceeds from Chicago parking meters for 75 years. It is argued that this is motivated by "politicians' desires to borrow money surreptitiously",^[3] due to legal restrictions on and political resistance to alternative sources of revenue, viz, raising taxes or issuing debt.

Etymology[link]

The Economist magazine introduced the term in the 1930s in covering Nazi German economic policy.^[5][6]

History[link]

This section requires expansion.

The history of privatization dates from Ancient Greece, when governments contracted out almost everything to the private sector.^[7] In the Roman Republic private individuals and companies performed the majority of services including tax collection (tax farming), army supplies (military contractors), religious sacrifices and construction. However, the Roman Empire also created state-owned enterprises—for example, much of the grain was eventually produced on estates owned by the Emperor. Some scholars suggest that the cost of bureaucracy was one of the reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire.^[7]

Perhaps one of the first ideological movements towards privatization came during China's golden age of the Han dynasty. Taoism came into prominence for the first time at a state level, and it advocated the laissez-faire principle of Wu wei (無為), literally meaning "do nothing".^[8] The rulers were counseled by the Taoist clergy that a strong ruler was virtually invisible.

During the Renaissance, most of Europe was still by and large following the feudal economic model. By contrast, the Ming dynasty in China began once more to practice privatization, especially with regards to their manufacturing industries. This was a reversal of the earlier Song dynasty policies, which had themselves overturned earlier policies in favor of more rigorous state control.^[9]

In Britain, the privatization of common lands is referred to as enclosure (in Scotland as the Lowland Clearances and the Highland Clearances). Significant privatizations of this nature occurred from 1760 to 1820, coincident with the industrial revolution in that country.

In more recent times, Winston Churchill's government privatized the British steel industry in the 1950s, and West Germany's government embarked on large-scale privatization, including selling its majority stake in Volkswagen to small investors in a public share offering in 1961.^[7] In the 1970s General Pinochet implemented a significant privatization program in Chile. However, it was in the 1980s under the leaderships of Margaret Thatcher in the UK and Ronald Reagan in the USA, that privatization gained worldwide momentum. In the UK this culminated in the 1993 privatization of British Rail under Thatcher's successor, John Major; British Rail having been formed by prior nationalization of private rail companies.

Significant privatization of state owned enterprises in Eastern and Central Europe and the former Soviet Union was undertaken in the 1990s with assistance from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the German Treuhand, and other governmental and nongovernmental organizations.

A major ongoing privatization, that of Japan Post, involves the Japanese post service and the largest bank in the world. This privatization, spearheaded by Junichiro Koizumi, started in 2007 following generations of debate. The privatization process is expected^{[by whom?]} to last until 2017.

Results[link]

Literature reviews^[10][11] find that in competitive industries with well-informed consumers, privatization consistently improves efficiency. The more competitive the industry, the greater the improvement in output, profitability, and efficiency.^[12] Such efficiency gains mean a one-off increase in GDP, but through improved incentives to innovate and reduce costs also tend to raise the rate of economic growth. Although typically there many costs associated with these efficiency gains,^[13] many economists argue that these can be dealt with by appropriate government support through redistribution and perhaps retraining.

Privatizations in Russia and Latin America were accompanied by large-scale corruption during the sale of the state-owned companies. Those with political connections unfairly gained large wealth, which has discredited privatization in these regions. While media have reported widely the grand corruption that accompanied the sales, studies have argued that in addition to increased operating efficiency, daily petty corruption is, or would be, larger without privatization, and that corruption is more prevalent in non-privatized sectors. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that extralegal and unofficial activities are more prevalent in countries that privatized less.^[14]

Opinion[link]

Support[link]

Studies show that private market factors can more efficiently deliver many goods or service than governments due to free market competition.^[10][11][12] Over time this tends to lead to lower prices, improved quality, more choices, less corruption, less red tape, and/or quicker delivery. Many proponents do not argue that everything should be privatized. According to them, market failures and natural monopolies could be problematic. However, anarcho-capitalists prefer that every function of the state be privatized, including defense and dispute resolution.

Proponents of privatization^[who?] make the following arguments:

• Performance. State-run industries tend to be bureaucratic. A political government may only be motivated to improve a function when its poor performance becomes politically sensitive.
• Increased efficiency. Private companies and firms have a greater incentive to produce more goods and services for the sake of reaching a customer base and hence increasing profits. A public organization would not be as productive due to the lack of financing allocated by the entire government's budget that must consider other areas of the economy.
• Specialization. A private business has the ability to focus all relevant human and financial resources onto specific functions. A state-owned firm does not have the necessary resources to specialize its goods and services as a result of the general products provided to the greatest number of people in the population.
• Improvements. Conversely, the government may put off improvements due to political sensitivity and special interests—even in cases of companies that are run well and better serve their customers' needs.
• Corruption. A state-monopolized function is prone to corruption; decisions are made primarily for political reasons, personal gain of the decision-maker (i.e. "graft"), rather than economic ones. Corruption (or principal-agent issues) in a state-run corporation affects the ongoing asset stream and company performance, whereas any corruption that may occur during the privatization process is a one-time event and does not affect ongoing cash flow or performance of the company.
• Accountability. Managers of privately owned companies are accountable to their owners/shareholders and to the consumer, and can only exist and thrive where needs are met. Managers of publicly owned companies are required to be more accountable to the broader community and to political "stakeholders". This can reduce their ability to directly and specifically serve the needs of their customers, and can bias investment decisions away from otherwise profitable areas.
• Civil-liberty concerns. A company controlled by the state may have access to information or assets which may be used against dissidents or any individuals who disagree with their policies.
• Goals. A political government tends to run an industry or company for political goals rather than economic ones.
• Capital. Privately held companies can sometimes more easily raise investment capital in the financial markets when such local markets exist and are suitably liquid. While interest rates for private companies are often higher than for government debt, this can serve as a useful constraint to promote efficient investments by private companies, instead of cross-subsidizing them with the overall credit-risk of the country. Investment decisions are then governed by market interest rates. State-owned industries have to compete with demands from other government departments and special interests. In either case, for smaller markets, political risk may add substantially to the cost of capital.
• Security. Governments have had the tendency to "bail out" poorly run businesses, often due to the sensitivity of job losses, when economically, it may be better to let the business fold.
• Lack of market discipline. Poorly managed state companies are insulated from the same discipline as private companies, which could go bankrupt, have their management removed, or be taken over by competitors. Private companies are also able to take greater risks and then seek bankruptcy protection against creditors if those risks turn sour.
• Natural monopolies. The existence of natural monopolies does not mean that these sectors must be state owned. Governments can enact or are armed with anti-trust legislation and bodies to deal with anti-competitive behavior of all companies public or private.
• Concentration of wealth. Ownership of and profits from successful enterprises tend to be dispersed and diversified -particularly in voucher privatization. The availability of more investment vehicles stimulates capital markets and promotes liquidity and job creation.
• Political influence. Nationalized industries are prone to interference from politicians for political or populist reasons. Examples include making an industry buy supplies from local producers (when that may be more expensive than buying from abroad), forcing an industry to freeze its prices/fares to satisfy the electorate or control inflation, increasing its staffing to reduce unemployment, or moving its operations to marginal constituencies.
• Profits. Corporations exist to generate profits for their shareholders. Private companies make a profit by enticing consumers to buy their products in preference to their competitors' (or by increasing primary demand for their products, or by reducing costs). Private corporations typically profit more if they serve the needs of their clients well. Corporations of different sizes may target different market niches in order to focus on marginal groups and satisfy their demand. A company with good corporate governance will therefore be incentivized to meet the needs of its customers efficiently.
• Job gains. As the economy becomes more efficient, more profits are obtained and no government subsidies and less taxes are needed, there will be more private money available for investments and consumption and more profitable and better-paid jobs will be created than in the case of a more regulated economy.^{[15][unreliable source?]}

Opposition[link]

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2011)

Opponents of certain privatizations believe that certain public goods and services should remain primarily in the hands of government in order to ensure that everyone in society has access to them (such as law enforcement, basic health care, and basic education). There is a positive externality when the government provides society at large with public goods and services such as defense and disease control. Some national constitutions in effect define their governments' "core businesses" as being the provision of such things as justice, tranquility, defense, and general welfare. These governments' direct provision of security, stability, and safety, is intended to be done for the common good (in the public interest) with a long-term (for posterity) perspective. As for natural monopolies, opponents of privatisation claim that they aren't subject to fair competition, and better administrated by the state. Likewise, private goods and services should remain in the hands of the private sector.

Some^[who?] would also point out that privatizing certain functions of government might hamper coordination, and charge firms with specialized and limited capabilities to perform functions which they are not suited for. In rebuilding a war torn nation's infrastructure, for example, a private firm would, in order to provide security, either have to hire security, which would be both necessarily limited and complicate their functions, or coordinate with government, which, due to a lack of command structure shared between firm and government, might be difficult. A government agency, on the other hand, would have the entire military of a nation to draw upon for security, whose chain of command is clearly defined. Opponents would say that this is a false assertion: numerous books refer to poor organization between government departments (for example the Hurricane Katrina incident).

Although private companies will provide a similar good or service alongside the government, opponents of privatization are careful about completely transferring the provision of public goods, services and assets into private hands for the following reasons:

• Performance. A democratically elected government is accountable to the people through a legislature, Congress or Parliament, and is motivated to safeguarding the assets of the nation. The profit motive may be subordinated to social objectives.
• Improvements. the government is motivated to performance improvements as well run businesses contribute to the State's revenues.
• Corruption. Government ministers and civil servants are bound to uphold the highest ethical standards, and standards of probity are guaranteed through codes of conduct and declarations of interest. However, the selling process could lack transparency, allowing the purchaser and civil servants controlling the sale to gain personally.
• Accountability. The public does not have any control or oversight of private companies.
• Civil-liberty concerns. A democratically elected government is accountable to the people through a parliament, and can intervene when civil liberties are threatened.
• Goals. The government may seek to use state companies as instruments to further social goals for the benefit of the nation as a whole.
• Capital. Governments can raise money in the financial markets most cheaply to re-lend to state-owned enterprises.
• Strategic and Sensitive areas. Governments have chosen to keep certain companies/industries under public control because of their strategic importance or sensitive nature.
• Cuts in essential services. If a government-owned company providing an essential service (such as the water supply) to all citizens is privatized, its new owner(s) could lead to the abandoning of the social obligation to those who are less able to pay, or to regions where this service is unprofitable.
• Natural monopolies. Privatization will not result in true competition if a natural monopoly exists.
• Concentration of wealth. Profits from successful enterprises end up in private, often foreign, hands instead of being available for the common good.
• Political influence. Governments may more easily exert pressure on state-owned firms to help implementing government policy.
• Downsizing. Private companies often face a conflict between profitability and service levels, and could over-react to short-term events. A state-owned company might have a longer-term view, and thus be less likely to cut back on maintenance or staff costs, training etc., to stem short term losses. Many private companies have downsized while making record profits.
• Profit. Private companies do not have any goal other than to maximize profits. A private company will serve the needs of those who are most willing (and able) to pay, as opposed to the needs of the majority, and are thus anti-democratic. The more necessary a good is, the lower the price elasticity of demand, as people will attempt to buy it no matter the price. In the case of price elasticity of demand is zero (perfectly inelastic good), demand part of supply and demand theories does not work.
• Privatization and Poverty. It is acknowledged by many studies that there are winners and losers with privatization. The number of losers —which may add up to the size and severity of poverty—can be unexpectedly large if the method and process of privatization and how it is implemented are seriously flawed (e.g. lack of transparency leading to state-owned assets being appropriated at minuscule amounts by those with political connections, absence of regulatory institutions leading to transfer of monopoly rents from public to private sector, improper design and inadequate control of the privatization process leading to asset stripping.^[16]
• Job Loss. Due to the additional financial burden placed on privatized companies to succeed without any government help, unlike the public companies, jobs could be lost to keep more money in the company.

Notable examples[link]

The largest privatization in history^{[citation needed]} involved Japan Post. It was the nation's largest employer and one third of all Japanese government employees worked for Japan Post. Japan Post was often said to be the largest holder of personal savings in the world.

Japan Post was thought to be inefficient and a source for corruption. In September 2003, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's cabinet proposed splitting Japan Post into four separate companies: A bank, an insurance company, a postal service company, and a fourth company to handle the post offices as retail storefronts of the other three.

After the Upper House rejected privatization, Koizumi scheduled nationwide elections for September 11, 2005. He declared the election to be a referendum on postal privatization. Koizumi subsequently won this election, gaining the necessary supermajority and a mandate for reform, and in October 2005, the bill was passed to privatize Japan Post in 2007.^[17]

Nippon Telegraph and Telephone's privatization in 1987 involved the largest share-offering in financial history at the time.^[18] 15 of the world's 20 largest public share offerings have been privatizations of telecoms.^[18]

The United Kingdom's largest public-share offerings were privatizations of British Telecom and British Gas during the 1980s under the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher, when many state-run firms were sold off to the private sector. This attracted very mixed views from the public and parliament, and even a former Conservative prime minister, Harold Macmillan, was critical of the policy; likening it to "selling the family silver".^[19]There were around 3,000,000 shareholders in Britain when Thatcher took office in 1979, but the subsequent sale of state-run firms saw the level of shareholders double to 6,000,000 by 1985 and by the time of her resignation as prime minister in 1990 there were more than 10,000,000 shareholders in Britain.^[20]

The largest public-share offering in France was France Telecom.

Egypt undertook widespread privatization under President Hosni Mubarak. After his overthrow in the 2011 revolution, the association of the newly private businesses with the crony capitalism of the old regime along with the new look at long-festering labor and police-state issues have led to calls for re-nationalization.^[21]

See also[link]

• Corporatization
• Deregulation
• Marketization
• Private sector development
• Special Economic Zone

Notes[link]

References[link]

• Alexander, Jason. 2009. Contracting Through the Lens of Classical Pragmatism: An Exploration of Local Government Contracting. Applied Research Project. Texas State University. http://ecommons.txstate.edu/arp/288/.
• Dovalina, Jessica. 2006. Assessing the Ethical Issues Found in the Contracting Out Process. Applied Research Project. Texas State University. http://ecommons.txstate.edu/arp/108/.
• Segerfeldt, Fredrik. 2006. Water for sale: how business and the market can resolve the world’s water crisis. Stockholm Network. http://www.stockholm-network.org/downloads/events/d41d8cd9-Amigo%20Segerfeldt.pdf
• Bernard Black et al., 'Russian Privatization and Corporate Governance: What Went Wrong? (2000) 52 Stanford Law Review 1731

Unindexed

• David T. Beito, Peter Gordon, and Alexander Tabarrok (editors); foreword by Paul Johnson (2002). The voluntary city: choice, community, and civil society. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press/The Independent Institute. ISBN 0-472-08837-8. 
• Bel, Germà (2006), "The coining of `privatisation´and Germany's National Socialist Party", Journal of Economic Perspectives 20(3), 187-194
• Clarke, Thomas (ed.) (1994) "International Privatisation: Strategies and Practices" Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, ISBN 3-11-013569-8
• Clarke, Thomas and Pitelis, Christos (eds.) (1995) "The Political Economy of Privatisation" London and New York: Routledge, ISBN 0-415-12705-X
• Juliet D’Souza, William L. Megginson (1999), "The Financial and Operating Performance of Privatised Firms during the 1990s", Journal of Finance August 1999
• von Hayek, Friedrich, (1960) The Constitution of Liberty
• Roger L. Kemp, PhD, "Privatization: The Provision of Public Services by the Private Sector," McFarland & Co., Jefferson, NC, USA; and London, UK., 2007.
• Kosar, Kevin R. (2006), "Privatisation and the Federal Government: An Introduction", Report from the Congressional Research Service
• Mayer, Florian (2006) Vom Niedergang des unternehmerisch tätigen Staates: Privatisierungspolitik in Großbritannien, Frankreich, Italien und Deutschland, VS Verlag, Wiesbaden, ISBN 3-531-14918-0
• Megginson and Netter, From state to market: A survey of empirical studies on privatization, Journal of Economic Literature 39(2), June 2001, 321-89.
• Onses, Richard (2004). Benchmarking Privatization: the building of privatization index using fuzzy logic. Valladolid: International Conference on Modeling and Simulation. ISBN 84-688-7867-7. 
• Onses, Richard (2004). The privatization leaders guide. e-privatization.com publication. ISBN 84-607-9613-2. 
• Nico Perrone (2002), Economia pubblica rimossa, Milan, Giuffrè ISBN 88-14-10088-8
• Smith, Adam (1776) The Wealth of Nations
• Jeb Sprague, 2007. Haiti: Workers Protest Privatisation Layoffs. Inter Press Service.
• Stiglitz, Joseph Globalization and its Discontents
• von Weizsäcker, Ernst, Oran Young, and Matthias Finger (editors): Limits to Privatisation. Earthscan, London 2005 ISBN 1-84407-177-4
• Wolin, Sheldon S. (2008) Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism (Princeton University Press, 2008). ISBN 978-0-691-13566-3 (Trad. esp.: Democracia S. A., Buenos Aires/Madrid, Katz editores S.A, 2008, ISBN 978-84-96859-46-3)
• Zullo, Roland. (2009). Does Fiscal Stress Induce Privatization? Correlates of Private and Intermunicipal Contracting, 1992-2002. Governance 22.3 (July): 459-481.

External links[link]

Look up privatization in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

• In the Public Interest is a Resource Center on privatization and responsible contracting.
• Privatization's Rise from the Dean Peter Krogh Foreign Affairs Digital Archives
• Reports of the Public Services International Research Unit at the University of Greenwich Research database with many articles on the effects of privatization
• Parker, David. "Privatisation ten years on : a critical analysis of its rationale and results". Cranfield University, School of Management. http://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/handle/1826/606. 
• Privatization Blog is a resource dedicated to recent developments in privatization.

Rick Berg
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from North Dakota's at-large district
Incumbent
Assumed office January 3, 2011
Preceded by	Earl Pomeroy
Member of the North Dakota House of Representatives from the 45th district
In office January 1985 – January 2011
Succeeded by	Joe Heilman
Majority Leader of the North Dakota House of Representatives
In office January 3, 2003 – January 3, 2009
Preceded by	Wesley Belter
Succeeded by	Al Carlson
Personal details
Born	Richard Alan Berg (1959-08-16) August 16, 1959 (age 52) Hettinger, North Dakota
Political party	Republican
Spouse(s)	Tracy Martin
Residence	Fargo, North Dakota
Alma mater	North Dakota State University
Religion	Lutheran

Richard Alan "Rick" Berg (born August 16, 1959) is an American politician who has served as the U.S. Representative for North Dakota's At-large congressional district since January 2011.^[1] Berg serves on the House Ways and Means Committee.^[2] He is a member of the Republican Party. Previously, he served in the state House of Representatives. He served as Majority Leader and Speaker.

Early life, education, and business career[link]

Berg was born in Maddock and raised on a farm in Hettinger. His father was a large animal veterinarian and his mother was a writer [3]. He graduated from Hettinger High School. He earned a wrestling scholarship to the North Dakota State School of Science.^[3] He attended for a year before transferring to North Dakota State University, where he graduated with a B.A. in Agricultural Economics.

After college in 1981, he co-founded Goldmark Commercial Corporation, a commercial real-estate firm in Fargo.^[4]

North Dakota House of Representatives[link]

Elections[link]

Berg first ran for the North Dakota House of Representatives in 1984 in the 10th House District, based in Fargo. He won and was re-elected every four years after, until his congressional run in 2010.

In 2002, after redistricting, he decided to run in the newly redrawn 45th House District, and won a seat with 31%.^[5] In 2006, he won re-election with 28%.^[6]

Tenure[link]

In 1991, he became the Chairman of the House Republican caucus. In 1993, he briefly served as Speaker of the House. In 2003, he became the House Majority Leader.

As Speaker, he proposed a controversial new education funding system aimed at making payments more equitable.^[7]

In 2009, he earned the Petroleum Council’s Legislator of the Year and the North Dakota Chamber of Commerce's Greater North Dakotan award.^[8]

Committee assignments[link]

61st Assembly (2009)

• Appropriations
• Budget Section
• Industry, Business, and Labor
• Legislative Audit and Fiscal Review
• Water-Related Topics^[9]

60th Assembly (2007)

• Budget Section
• Committees (Chairman)
• Delayed Bills (Chairman)^[10]
• Economic Development (Chairman)
• Legislative Council
• Legislative Management^[11]

59th Assembly (2005)

• Budget Section
• Committees (Chairman)
• Delayed Bills (Chairman)^[10]
• Economic Development (Chairman)
• Legislative Management
• Tribal and State Relations^[12]

58th Assembly (2003)

• Budget Section
• Committees (Chairman)
• Delayed Bills (Chairman)^[13]
• Economic Development (Chairman)
• Legislative Management
• Rules^[14]

57th Assembly (2001)

• Agriculture
• Budget Committee on Health Care
• Commerce
• Industry, Business, and Labor (Chairman)
• Regulatory Reform Review^[15]

56th Assembly (1999)

• Agriculture
• Commerce and Labor
• Industry, Business, and Labor (Chairman)
• Legislative Management^[16]

55th Assembly (1997)

• Budget
• Education Finance^[17]
• Industry, Business, and Labor (Chairman)^[18]

U.S. House of Representatives[link]

2010 election[link]

On January 20, 2010 Berg officially announced he was seeking the GOP endorsement to run for the United States House of Representatives.^[19][20] In March 2010, Berg won the GOP nomination at the Republican state convention to challenge incumbent Democratic Representative Earl Pomeroy for the state's at-large seat in the United States House of Representatives.^[21] In the general election Berg defeated the incumbent with 55% of the vote to represent North Dakota's At-large congressional district.

Berg's biggest donor during the campaign was Goldmark Property Management, Inc.^[22] Berg has worked at Goldmark since 1981 and is currently Senior Vice President of Goldmark Schlossman Commercial Real Estate Services.^[23]

Tenure[link]

Berg strongly supports a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution.^[24] He voted in favor of the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act and has received "A" and "A+" ratings from the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund for his stance on gun rights.^[25][26]

Berg joined almost 60 other members of Congress in a letter to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction that urged committee members not to cut the critical access hospital (CAH) program. The CAH program provides assistance to rural hospitals. 36 CAHs exist in North Dakota, including one in Hettinger, Berg's hometown.^[27]

Berg has voted to curtail EPA regulations, stating: "In North Dakota, we know the damaging effects that overreaching government regulations can have on our small businesses and their ability to create jobs."^[28] He has also proposed drilling for oil in federal lands, including North Dakota's own Theodore Roosevelt National Park, as a way to provide funding for Social Security.^[29] In 2009, he was presented with the Greater North Dakotan Award by the North Dakota Chamber of Commerce for his support of business interests.^[30]

Berg is pro-life and has voted to prohibit federal funds from being used to pay for any part of any health care plan that covers abortions.^[31] He is a member of the Congressional Prayer Caucus.^[32]

Committee assignments[link]

Berg is a member of the powerful U.S. House Ways & Means Committee.

Caucus Memberships^[33]

• Congressional Western Caucus
• Unmanned Systems Caucus
• General Aviation Caucus
• Coal Caucus
• Friends of Norway Caucus
• Job Creators Caucus
• E-911 Caucus
• National Archives Caucus
• Rural Health Care Coalition
• Sportsman Caucus
• Sugar Caucus
• Congressional Prayer Caucus
• House National Guard and Reserve Caucus
• Congressional Prayer Caucus

2012 U.S. Senate election[link]

On May 16, 2011, Berg announced he will run for the United States Senate seat being vacated by Democratic incumbent Kent Conrad.^[34]

References[link]

External links[link]

• Congressman Rick Berg Official U.S. House Website
• Berg for North Dakota Official Campaign Website
• Biography at WhoRunsGov.com at The Washington Post
• Biography at the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress
• Voting record maintained by The Washington Post
• Biography, voting record, and interest group ratings at Project Vote Smart
• Congressional profile at GovTrack
• Congressional profile at OpenCongress
• Issue positions and quotes at On the Issues
• Current Bills Sponsored at StateSurge.com
• Financial information at OpenSecrets.org
• Staff salaries, trips and personal finance at LegiStorm.com
• Campaign finance reports and data at the Federal Election Commission
• Campaign contributions at the National Institute for Money in State Politics
• Appearances on C-SPAN programs

Rachel Maddow
Maddow hosting KPTK's "Changing the Media, Changing America" event in Seattle
Born	Rachel Anne Maddow (1973-04-01) April 1, 1973 (age 39) Castro Valley, California, U.S.
Education	B.A., Stanford University D.Phil, University of Oxford
Occupation	News anchor Political commentator Television host
Notable credit(s)	The Rachel Maddow Show (MSNBC) The Rachel Maddow Show (Air America Radio)
Website
www.rachelmaddow.com

Rachel Anne Maddow (pronounced /ˈmædoʊ/; born April 1, 1973) is an American television host, political commentator, and author.^[1][2] Maddow hosts a nightly television show, The Rachel Maddow Show, on MSNBC.^[3] Her syndicated talk radio program of the same name aired on Air America Radio. Maddow is the first openly gay anchor of a prime-time news program in the United States.^[4][5][6][7]

Asked about her political views by the Valley Advocate, Maddow replied, "I'm undoubtedly a liberal, which means that I'm in almost total agreement with the Eisenhower-era Republican party platform."^[8]

Early life and education[link]

Maddow was born in Castro Valley, California. Her father, Robert B. "Bob" Maddow, is a former United States Air Force captain who resigned his commission the year before her birth and found civilian work as a lawyer for the East Bay Municipal Utility District. Her mother, Elaine Maddow (née Gosse), is a school program administrator from Newfoundland, Canada.^[9][10][11] She has one older brother, David. Her father is of Russian and Dutch descent and her mother is of English and Irish ancestry.^[11] Maddow's mother was raised a strict Roman Catholic, and Maddow herself grew up in a community that her mother has described as "very conservative."^[12][13] Maddow was a competitive athlete and played three sports in high school.^[14] Referencing John Hughes films, she describes herself in high school as "a cross between the jock and the antisocial girl."^[13]

A graduate of Castro Valley High School in Castro Valley, California, she attended Stanford University. While a freshman, she was outed by the college newspaper when an interview with her was published by the student newspaper before she could tell her parents.^[15] Maddow earned a degree in public policy from Stanford in 1994.^[16] At graduation she was awarded the John Gardner Fellowship.^[17] She was also the recipient of a Rhodes Scholarship and began her postgraduate study in 1995 at Lincoln College, Oxford. In 2001, she earned a Doctor of Philosophy (DPhil) in politics from Oxford University.^[18] Her thesis is titled HIV/AIDS and Health Care Reform in British and American Prisons (supervisor: Dr Lucia Zedner). She was the first openly gay American to win a Rhodes scholarship.^[19][20]

Radio career[link]

Maddow's first radio hosting job was at WRNX (100.9 FM) in Holyoke, Massachusetts, after she entered and won a contest the station held to find a new on-air personality.^[21] She was hired to co-host WRNX's morning show, The Dave in the Morning Show. She went on to host Big Breakfast on WRSI, in Northampton, Massachusetts, for two years. She left the show in March 2004 to join the new Air America.^[18] There she hosted Unfiltered along with Chuck D (of the hip hop group Public Enemy) and Lizz Winstead (co-creator of The Daily Show), until its cancellation in March 2005.^[22] Two weeks after the cancellation of Unfiltered in April 2005, Maddow's weekday two-hour radio program, The Rachel Maddow Show, began airing; in March 2008 it gained an hour, broadcasting from 6 to 9 p.m. EST with David Bender filling in the third hour for the call-in section, when Maddow was on TV assignment. In September 2008, the show's length returned to two hours when Maddow began a nightly MSNBC television program. In February 2009, after renewing her contract with Air America, Maddow returned to the 5 am hour-long slot.^[23] Her last Air America show was on January 21, 2010, two weeks before its owners filed for bankruptcy.^[24]

Television career[link]

In June 2005, Maddow became a regular panelist on MSNBC's Tucker.^[25] During and after the November 2006 election, she was a frequent guest on CNN's Paula Zahn Now. In January 2008, Maddow became a MSNBC political analyst and was a regular panelist on MSNBC's Race for the White House with David Gregory and MSNBC's election coverage,^[26] as well as a frequent contributor on Countdown with Keith Olbermann.^[18]

In April 2008, Maddow was the substitute host for Countdown with Keith Olbermann, her first time hosting a program on MSNBC. Maddow described herself on air as "nervous." Keith Olbermann complimented her work, and she was brought back to host Countdown the next month. The show she hosted was the highest rated news program among people ages 25 to 54, a key demographic in ratings.^[27] For her success, the next Monday, Olbermann ranked Maddow third in his show's segment "World's Best Persons".^[28] In July 2008, while Olbermann was on vacation, Maddow filled in again for several broadcasts and, on July 21, for half the show.^[29] Maddow also filled in for David Gregory as host of Race for the White House.^[18]

[edit] The Rachel Maddow Show

In August 2008, MSNBC announced The Rachel Maddow Show would replace Verdict with Dan Abrams in the network's 9 p.m. slot the following month.^[30][31] Following its debut, the show topped Countdown as the highest rated show on MSNBC on several occasions.^[32][33] After being on air for more than a month, Maddow's program doubled the audience that hour.^[34]

Early reviews for her show were mostly positive. The Los Angeles Times writer Matea Gold stated Maddow "finds the right formula on MSNBC,"^[35] and The Guardian writes Maddow has become the "star of America's cable news."^[20] Associated Press columnist David Bauder said she's "[Keith] Olbermann's political soul mate" and the Olbermann-Maddow shows are a "liberal two-hour block."^[36]

Public image and publicity[link]

Maddow has been profiled in People,^[37] the Guardian,^[38] and the New York Observer,^[39] has appeared on “The View” and “Charlie Rose”^[40]

Keith Olbermann played a pivotal role in Maddow's hiring at MSNBC. Olbermann was able to pressure Phil Griffin to give Maddow Dan Abram's slot. A fan of Maddow's, Olbermann was able to use his influence, which had become greater as his ratings rose.^[41]

A 2011 Hollywood Reporter profile of Maddow said that she was able to deliver news "with agenda, but not hysteria.”^[42] A Newsweek profile noted that “At her best, Maddow debates ideological opponents with civility and persistence...But for all her eloquence, she can get so wound up ripping Republicans that she sounds like another smug cable partisan.". Baltimore Sun critic David Zurawik has accused Maddow of acting like 'a lockstep party member.'”^[43]

A Time profile called her a “whip-smart, button-cute leftie.” It said that she radiates an essential decency and suggested that her career rise might signify that “nice is the new nasty.”^[44]

Political views[link]

Distinguishing herself from others on the left, Maddow said she's a "national security liberal" and in a different interview that she's not "a partisan."^[45][46] The New York Times called her a "defense policy wonk" who is writing a book on the role of the military in postwar American politics.^[35][45] (The book, titled Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power, was published in 2012.) During the 2008 presidential election, Maddow did not formally support any candidate. Concerning Barack Obama's candidacy, Maddow said during the primaries, "I have never and still don't think of myself as an Obama supporter, either professionally or actually."^[47]

In March 2010, Republican Scott Brown, the junior United States Senator from Massachusetts, speculated that Maddow was going to run against him for his seat in 2012. He used this premise for a fundraising email that read "...The Massachusetts political machine is looking for someone to run against me. And you're not going to believe who they are supposedly trying to recruit — liberal MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow." Maddow said Brown's speculation was false. On her March 23, 2010, TV program, Maddow said, "I have the best job in the world. I am not running for office. Scott Brown didn't ask me if I was running or planning to run for office, before he wrote a fundraising letter with my name. No, it's completely made up by him." Despite her comments, the next day Brown continued along the same line, telling a Boston radio station, "Bring her on." To help put an end to the matter, Maddow ran a full-page advertisement in the Boston Globe confirming she was not running, and separately demanded Brown's apology. She added that despite repeated invitations over the months, Brown had refused to appear on her TV program.^{[48][49][50][51]}

Personal life[link]

Maddow lives in Manhattan and western Massachusetts with her partner, artist Susan Mikula.^[52][53] The couple met in 1999, when Mikula hired Maddow to do yard work at her home. Maddow was working on her doctoral dissertation at the time.^[52] Their first date was at a National Rifle Association "Ladies' Day on the Range" event.^[54] Although Massachusetts and New York recognize same-sex marriage, as of 2009 Maddow and Mikula had no plans to marry.^[13]

Honors and awards[link]

• Emmy Award in the Outstanding News Discussion and Analysis category for "The Rachel Maddow Show" episode "Good Morning Landlocked Central Asia!"
• Maddow was named in Out magazine's "Out 100" list of the "gay men and women who moved culture" in 2008.^[55]
• Maddow was voted "Lesbian/Bi Woman of the Year (American)" in AfterEllen's 2008 Visibility Awards.^[56]
• Maddow won a Gracie Award in 2009, presented by the American Women in Radio and Television.^[57]
• In 2009, Maddow was nominated for GLAAD's 20th Annual Media Awards for a segment of her MSNBC show, "Rick Warren, Change To Believe In?", in the Outstanding TV Journalism Segment category.^[58]
• On March 28, 2009, Maddow received a Proclamation of Honor from the California State Senate, presented in San Francisco by California State Senator Mark Leno.^[59]
• In April 2009, she was listed at number four in Out magazine's Annual Power 50 List.^[60]
• Maddow placed sixth in the "2009 AfterEllen.com Hot 100" list (May 11, 2009)^[61] and third in its "2009 Hot 100: Out Women" version.^[62]
• Maddow was included on a list of openly gay media professionals in The Advocate's "Forty under 40" issue of June/July 2009.^[63]
• In 1994, Maddow was an Honorable Mention in the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity Prize in Ethics.^[64]
• In June 2009, Maddow's MSNBC show was the only cable news show nominated for a Television Critics Association award in the Outstanding Achievement in News and Information category.^[65]
• In March 2010, Maddow won at the 21st Annual GLAAD Media Awards in the category, Outstanding TV Journalism- Newsmagazine for her segment, "Uganda Be Kidding Me".^[66]
• Maddow was the 2010 commencement speaker and was given an honorary Doctor of Laws (LLD) degree at Smith College in Northampton, MA in May 2010.^[67]
• In July 2010, Maddow was presented with a Maggie Award for her ongoing reporting of healthcare reform, the murder of Dr. George Tiller, and the anti-abortion movement.^[68]
• In August 2010, Maddow won the Walter Cronkite Faith & Freedom Award, which was presented by The Interfaith Alliance.^[69] Past honorees included Larry King, Tom Brokaw, and the late Peter Jennings.^[69]
• In November 2011, she was included on the list of "Over-Rated Thinkers" by the editors of The New Republic.^[70]
• In February 2012, Maddow was presented the John Steinbeck Award by the Martha Heasley Cox Center for Steinbeck Studies at San Jose State University.^[71]

Bibliography[link]

• Maddow, Rachel (2012). Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power. Crown. ISBN 978-0-307-46098-1. 

References[link]

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Rachel Maddow

• Rachel Maddow on Twitter
• Official website
• Profile and show at MSNBC
• Appearances on C-SPAN
• Rachel Maddow on Charlie Rose
• Rachel Maddow at the Internet Movie Database
• Works by or about Rachel Maddow in libraries (WorldCat catalog)