It's Time

The Conservative View

OK, I admit it; my guilty pleasure is listening to conservative talk radio. My kids laugh at me for quoting Rush or Sean, but I really find it interesting. It is the only view of politics that has made it to mainstream radio. That should be the subject of a blog. How do Rush and Hannity become superstars, while no one from the progressive side has broken through? How many people even heard Air America? Well, as I said, that’s another blog.             

Back to today’s blog:  As I listen to the conservatives, they are having a fit over the fact that Obama went to Europe and met with European leaders and spoke before the German people. They are upset that he is trying to build bridges to other countries. After 8 years of our unilateral, cowboy politics, led by our current, pseudo-conservative, neocon administration, we are at the low point of our likeability in foreign countries. Should we care? Do we need to be liked?

The conservatives are of the opinion that we are the U.S, we are the leading force in the world, and if we think something is the right thing to do, we should do it. The rest of the world will eventually see our vision, and understand. Their view is that of a parent: “I’m doing the right thing and some day you will understand and thank me”. The problem with this foreign policy is that we don’t have the assets in money or people to enforce our will across the globe. The Soviet Union tried to use this vision to spread Communism across the world, and after Afghanistan, they ran out of the assets to make the world in their vision. The Soviets believed that they had the power to impose their will on a third world country and make it over in their image. Does that sound familiar?  The strain caused the dissolution of the Union, and the birth of many new nation states. These countries are enduring the pangs of birthing a system that transitions from Communism to Consumerism.

Look at what has happened in the U.S. since we went in to Iraq.  Look at the strain on our economy and the costs that we have incurred in lives and treasure during this time. The economy is in a turmoil that we haven’t seen in eighty years. We are dependent on countries that don’t like our policies for the lifeblood of commerce, oil, and they are applying pressure on us through this lifeblood. We are no longer the only game in town for oil and other raw products. As other country’s economies are upgrading from farmers to factory workers, they are buying consumer goods, cars, and other things that need oil or coal to power, and these countries are now bidders for these commodities. 

In today’s flat world, there are no longer walls between countries; commerce flows every day across the world at the speed of light. Most companies may have their headquarters in the U.S., however, as huge percentages of their business are done in other countries, multiple countries may actually claim those same companies as their own. We can continue to go it alone, and reap the problems that these actions will surely cause, or we can go out in to the world and negotiate in the marketplace to improve our position. Let’s face it, we can close the borders, hunker down, and convince ourselves that we are the greatest, or we can reassess the future, see the writing on the wall, and move forward. We need to understand that a rising tide raises all boats and chart a course that gives America a place in this new world. Thomas Friedman speaks of the change from a “Command and Control” outlook of the world to a “Collaborate and Connect” vision. It’s time to change.

GOOD LUCK

Does it make sense?

                O.K., gasoline is $4.50 a gallon, Oil is $150 a barrel, and where is a comprehensive energy policy discussion? Are the Presidential candidates coming up with any great ideas? Is the current President coming up with a game plan? Is Congress coming up with great ideas to solve the problem? Are the auto companies that are on the edge of bankruptcy, breaking any new inventions that will bring them back to solvency? I guess not.

                It seems as though both Presidential candidates started their campaigns with the Iraq War as the centerpiece, and they never thought the economy would be in trouble, or that oil would go through the roof. Apparently there aren’t any energy experts willing to sign on with the campaign, or more likely, there aren’t any easy answers that a campaign can condense in to sound bytes. We all wait, anxiously, for them to dazzle us with their ideas. Does that make sense?

                GW Bush is an oilman, with close ties to the oil industry, probably with a great many oil investments in his blind trust. The Bush family has a longstanding, close relationship with the Saudi Royal family. The administrations answer is to drill here, drill now, pay less, of course, another branch of the Administration has shown that drilling will have a little effect on the price of gasoline. The Administration also says speculators are just part of normal events, and aren’t affecting prices, but Bush makes a statement backing drilling in the U.S. and oil future drop $9.00 a barrel, with no other changes. Does that make sense?

                Congress wants to make the opposite party look bad, so they point fingers at each other and try not to put any ideas forward, for fear the other party will make it appear silly. They each say what won’t work, but don’t work together to come up with new bipartisan ideas, that will pass Congress and be signed by the President. Does that make sense?

                The auto companies, rather than coming up with new ideas and technologies, are trying to repackage SUV’s as crossovers, change the name, and we don’t realize they’re the same vehicle. They are trying to use the E85 loophole to improve their CAFÉ numbers, and averaging their CAFÉ numbers across their lines to show how great they are. The only problems with such numbers are, they have tons of SUV’s in stock, and very few of the economy cars available. The American public also doesn’t seem motivated to make the sacrifices to drive the economy cars. Does that make sense?

                One of the few answers on the horizon comes from T.Boone Pickens, a lifelong oilman, who says that we can’t drill our way out of this emergency. His suggestion is to use wind and solar, technologies that already exist to provide our power needs and to then use the natural gas, now used to make electricity, to power automobiles, a technology that already exists. He says that within ten years we could be energy independent.  He says that for our economy and National Security this is necessary, does that make sense? If so I suggest you go to www.pickensplan.com,

GOOD LUCK

Internet Politics

I’m reading Thomas Freeman’s book, “The World is Flat”, and in the book Freeman points out dates and events that have changed the world. As a political junkie, as I read the book, I realized that one of his dates was also the start of a whole new style of politics in America, the date was 8/9/95.This was the date when Netscape went public.

                Netscape was the browser that opened the Internet to the general public. Netscape allowed you to surf the Internet, send and receive emails, and send files and pictures over the Internet. Once the Internet was opened to the public, information could travel at the speed of light from one side of the country to the other.                

                As we have seen through the last thirteen years, the Internet has made it possible for politicians to take their story to the public through websites, we have seen the Internet become a formidable tool for fundraising, and Dean, Ron Paul, and Obama have all used the Internet to fund their campaigns. Obama has so much faith in the Internet that he has foregone public money, relying on the Internet to fund his Presidential campaign. The power of the Internet has been a boon for politicians in the last two campaigns.

                Of course, with every positive, there is an equal and opposite negative. The negative is the way in which the Internet has opened up the campaigns, and made it possible for  anyone to report anything that is said, anywhere in the world, at anytime, day or night. With a cell phone camera, or digital camera, any candidate’s statement can be on the net in seconds. Then that video can be presented any way the person wants to present it, in context, or just phrases that fit an agenda. There is no editor or copy writer to review and fact check things that hit the net. Opinions or downright lies can be presented as fact, and no one can stop it.

                It seems that in the past, a great many things never made the nightly news. A news executive might decide it wasn’t worthwhile, or it couldn’t be confirmed, or he just didn’t want to upset the candidate by reporting the incident. Of course, unless one of the networks was at the event, there was no video, and unless a National reporter was there, it probably wasn’t even noted.

Today, the video is taken by cell phone, uploaded to You Tube, and found by a blogger or political operative, which turns it over to the “Drudge Report” or one of the cable news shows. These sources have to fill the funnel of content that needs masses of new info to feed the public, so they rush it to the screen, or the website, with the proviso that it is an Internet source. That source doesn’t have a name, or a reputation to protect, so who cares if the facts are true or not. The problem is that a number of people in the public use the Internet and cable as their news source, so they take it as fact, and it becomes part of the public record.

                As a voter, I hope that we all check out things that we read on the net,(other than my blog) and confirm the actual facts before we let information influence our votes,

GOOD LUCK

Ethanol ?

                Apparently the government and both Presidential candidates think Ethanol is a good idea, but if one looks at the costs associated with ethanol,is that the way to go? Let’s look at the numbers.

                Corn ethanol subsidies totaled $7.0 billion in 2006 for 4.9 billion gallons of ethanol. That's $1.45 per gallon of ethanol (and $2.21 per gal of gas replaced).Even with high gas prices in 2006, producing a gallon of ethanol cost 38¢ more than making gasoline with the same energy, so ethanol did need part of that subsidy. But what about the other $1.12.?Not needed! So all of that became, $5.4 billion windfall of profits paid to real farmers, corporate farmers, and ethanol makers like multinational ADM.
Where did those subsidies come from?
1.  51¢ per gallon federal blenders credit for $2.5 billion = your tax dollars.
2.  $0.9 billion in corn subsidies for ethanol corn = your tax dollars.
3.  $3.6 billion extra paid at the pump.

Subsidies are not the same as social cost. One man's tax payment is another man's profit. Social cost measures the use of the nation's resources, such as labor, capital, and energy. Collecting income tax and putting the money into the pockets of ethanol producers does not use up any resources, and is not a net cost to society, but it is a cost to tax payers. Unfortunately there is no accurate public data on the excess profits of ethanol producers.

In the following table, the "Apparent Cost" refers to the total cost of subsidies and the "Real Social Cost" refers to the extra, market-determined cost of using ethanol in place of gasoline. The costs shown are based on the calculations of GHG and energy import reductions discussed above.

2006 Cost Increase from:	Real Social Cost	Apparent Cost
Reducing fossil imports by the energy in 1 barrel of crude oil	$33	$131
Reducing CO2 emissions by 1 ton	$478	$1,881

That's quite a bit when you figure it only made us 1.1% more energy independence and reduced U.S. greenhouse gases by 1/19 of 1%.Ethanol Today," (8/'05) states "Five years ago, a US General Accounting Office report showed that ethanol had received $11.6 billion in tax incentives since 1968, while the oil industry had received over $150 billion in tax benefit over the same period. Probably true. But the oil industry produced 1068 times more energy so the subsidy rate per unit energy was 54 times higher for ethanol The indirect subsidy to ethanol on the 4.9 billion gallons produced in 2006 comes to $3.9 billion. Together with the direct subsidies of $0.9 billion for corn and $2.5 billion for ethanol the grand total is $7.3 billion. That's $1.50 per gallon of ethanol, or $2.28 per gallon of gasoline replaced. These subsidies have produced an enormous boom in ethanol.

Between August 2006 and January 2007, the capacity of existing plants and plants under construction grew from 7.4 billion gallons to 11.4 billion, a 54% increase in six months. Collins (USDA, 2006) describes the state of the market as ethanol euphoria.     The corn-ethanol subsidies create a net flow of money from the rest of the country to the corn states. Just as advertised, this creates wealth and jobs in these states. But spending more in corn states means spending less in other states, which reduces employment in the states that pay for the corn-ethanol market euphoria.

Now, after looking at all these numbers, which are readily available in the Internet, two things become apparent. The corn states, which were critical to both candidates’ campaign plans, were able to pressure the candidates to support their plans. The second fact is that corn ethanol isn’t part of the answer for energy independence.

Another problem with the corn ethanol plan is that it has helped to increase the cost of food at a time when transportation and energy costs, as well as weather issues, have already pushed up food costs. This means that Americans are being hit in the wallet by two different issues at the same time. This is leading to real problems with the economy.

It seems that if legislators were really interested in starting to unravel the knot of the economy, they should start by looking at ethanol and its place in our future plans. I realize this would cost them friends in the corn states as well as a number of corporate friends, but I think it’s time.

GOOD LUCK

It's Time for a new Energy Policy

It’s time that America draws the line on energy policy and make the decisions that need to be made to make our future better. Many people think that if we drill in the U.S we can drill our way out of the problem, it seems, according to most credible sources that this won’t really help.  We are dealing with an oil cartel, which seems to be able to keep control over the amount of oil that is on the market, if the U.S increases their production, the cartel can decrease their production to offset this, thereby keeping the supply steady as the demand increases. There seems to be an idea that if we drill for oil in the U.S., this oil will remain in the U.S., and will be priced at a different price than the international market. The problem seems to be, that unless we nationalize this oil, It will be produced by the multinational oil companies who will place it on the world market and sell it to the highest bidder. The best that it seems we can hope for is to keep decreases smaller than they otherwise might be, not that prices will come down.

                People talk about electric cars as an answer to help control the price of gas, but there are several issues that seem to need to be handled. The first issue I see is the range of the electric car. The batteries don’t have the range that is needed to travel great distances. Of course, if we had good public transportation, we wouldn’t need a car that could travel from here to L.A., we could take transit between the cities, and then use an electric vehicle in the metro area. The second issue is how we make the electricity that is used to charge the batteries. That means we need to use non-petroleum fuel to generate the electricity.

                Wind energy farms are being developed in the Southwest deserts, but the problem then becomes how we transmit that power to an urban area. They can’t build transmission lines through the National Parks that lie between the wind farms and the urban areas. It seems obvious that there needs to be a coordinated program that includes private industry, state governments, as well as the federal government to solve these types of problems. We have given huge subsidies to oil to help them develop oil sources, it seems rather than a windfall profits tax, we should just transfer the subsidies over to alternative energy. The subsidies should be seed money to help get the ideas off the ground, and once they are paying their way, the money is moved on to the next project. We also need to streamline the process to get Nuclear power plants on line. We need to provide catastrophic insurance to the nuclear industry if they meet our safety requirements, therefore making them more attractive to investors.

                We need to really work to come up with the alternatives that will get us away from petroleum being the major fuel for our future. Now that oil has reached the prices that we are currently seeing, alternatives that weren’t fiscally possible in the past should be possible at these prices. Also, as these new alternative come on line they will be developed by industries that will need employees, thereby helping employment. These people will need to be engineers and software developers, not menial jobs, which should be long term jobs with good incomes. We should also incentivize these industries to remain in the U.S and buy U.S products and technologies to develop the power. It seems that this should be a win=win situation.  What do you think?

Unity?

                I have been reading and listening to all of the commentators talking about the “lovefest” between Obama and Clinton last week. People seem to ask how, after fifteen months of calling each other out at every turn, they can make up and be all sunshine and light. I think I may have the answers.

                Obama realizes that he limped across the finish line and in getting the nomination; he will need every Democrat on his side to win in the general election. He also realizes that some of the greatest political minds of modern history were working for the Clinton camp, and he needs all the help he can get. He realizes that if he ignores Clinton, he will alienate a number of people who were fervent in their belief in the Clinton candidacy, and these people are thinking about voting for McCain in the general election as a protest vote. Obama needs to hold on to those votes. He has made it pretty clear that he isn’t going to offer Clinton the VP slot, so he needs to make nice with the Clintons by making them seem important to his campaign, and they really are.

                For Ms. Clinton, the reasons are a little more oblique. First off, she has millions of dollars in campaign debts that need to be paid, and Obama is the fountainhead for campaign money in the Democratic Party, right now. She needs him to help keep reminding donors that she needs to retire her debt and they need to help. His donors are still wrapped up in the heat of a campaign, hers are sulking away in defeat.

                The second reason seems to be, that if she plans on running again, she needs to stay in the Democratic spotlight. Obama now controls the party, and if she slips in to the shadows, she will lose all leverage that she has had with the party. Even if she just goes back to the Senate, she still needs power within the party to get the things done that she wants to see done. Clinton also needs the Democrats to feel that they owe her for helping in this campaign, in case she has another campaign in her future. If Obama were to lose, and Clinton wasn’t seen to be helping, a lot of Democrats would be pretty upset with her.

                I think that another reason that Clinton wants to stay in the forefront is her belief that Obama hasn’t been properly vetted through the primary process, and that there still may be a big surprise out there that will break before the convention and will put Obama in a bad position politically. As close as the primaries were, and with strong backing from members of the party, she still might be able to slide in to the nomination through a convention floor fight. Obviously, this is the best chance that the Democrats have had to pull out a win since Bill Clinton’s term, and I’m sure the party would pull out all the stops to drop Obama if they felt he was going to cost them the election, and who would the obvious number two choice be? And if Hillary were to be able to save the party , at the convention, how much power would that give her? Remember, she suspended, and no ended her campaign.

                So, as we look at the politics of the situation, it seems obvious for everyone, that politics do make strange bedfellows, and this is just the latest chapter in that saga.

GOOD LUCK

               

Patriotism?

                O.K., does anyone have any question that both Obama and McCain are patriotic Americans? Let’s face it, they could both make more money outside politics, and they wouldn’t go through the beating they take from the campaigns and the press. So it must be hubris and or patriotism that make them willing to go through this and run for this office. They must feel that they have the answers to lead the U.S. To go through all this they must be patriotic.

  It seems like this kind of stuff is a keystone of most elections. It seems much easier to throw these kinds of charges around, rather than have a conversation about how they will solve the problems of the country. Isn’t the public tired of this kind of stuff? Aren’t they looking for a leader who can solve the problems facing the nation? Isn’t part of the change that everyone says that they crave a new campaign that doesn’t resort to gotchas and vague charges?  Both candidates paint themselves as “new politicians” who aren’t going to resort to this type of campaigning, but they just don’t seem to be able to stop themselves from falling back to the old politics. Maybe it’s because their strategists are old school politicians, and can’t help themselves either. I guess they think that if they have a surrogate say something, we aren’t smart enough to realize they were sent out there to say it. Apparently, MC Cain’s group thought that it was necessary to point out that Mc Cain would be the best if we were under a terror attack, obviously the candidate couldn’t say this, but the surrogate could and did. Mc Cain rushes out, apologizes, berates the surrogate (wink, wink) but doesn’t drop the guy from the campaign. This week Obama’s campaign sends Wesley Clark out to take a shot at Mc Cain on his strongest selling point, his war record. If it makes a few people think and changes a few minds, what the hey. Of course Obama rushes out and denies the whole thing. Like the T.V lawyer who asks a question he knows is going to be objected to, and withdrawn, the point has been made.  I really wish this would stop, and I wish the electorate was too smart to buy in to this and reward the campaigns.

It seems that we really need to stop accepting this type of campaigning and demand that the issues that are important to us, the economy, energy, and the war, be the only thing we are willing to listen to discussions about. Let’s all agree to this and make the politicians change the way they do business. Let’s face it, we’re their bosses.

By the way, I was listening to talk about how great it was that the current Administration put Supreme Court Justices in that strictly interpret the Constitution, I was wondering, is this the same Administration that has passed laws that usurp people’s Constitutional rights, and when they don’t get the laws that they want, they just ignore the law and rewrite the procedures the way they want, is that patriotic?

Happy Independence Day!!