April 20, Transocean's Deepwater Horizon located about 40 miles southeast of the mouth of the Mississippi River explodes and catches fire. It sinks two days latter. It has not been possible to activate the blowout preventer and now some 210,000 barrels of oil are spewing into the Gulf of Mexico and will hit the shore sometime in the next few days. A considerable effort is being made to control the spill but given the amount it is unlikely that serious damage to the biologically rich coast and surrounding waters can be avoided.
Mr Obama, who has recently moved to allow expanded offshore drilling, has said that BP is ultimately responsible for the cost of cleanup. I find this troubling on several levels.
First, drilling in deep water is inherently difficult and risky as evidenced by similar incidents over the years. After each incident we are assured again that the industry has learned from this regrettable event, corrected things, and it won't happen again. Yet, of course, it does happen again. This is certainly a troubling common sense reality given Mr Obama's proposals.
Second, beyond the issue of inherent safety, Mr Obama seems to regard this disaster as an issue of financial responsibility. While it's nice to have someone to send the bill to for whatever cleanup is possible cleanup is not a cure as evidence by the continuing aftermath of the Exxon Valdeze where the long term effects are still being felt 20 plus years after the event and many years after an economic settlement. Common sense and history shows that money will not make the Gulf whole, will not restore biologically critical coastal wetlands, and will not restore the Gulf fishery.
Third, though certainly not Mr Obama's doing, this occurs in the context of environmental, local (not in my backyard), and bizarre native American concerns over potential ice age cultural sites associated with Cape Wind! Energy generation is never environmentally neutral! I am reminded in this regard of photos I saw some years ago of the White Mountains all but stripped bare to provide lumber of firewood for Boston. But we have choices in how we get energy. We can choose technology that is less destructive such as solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal; or we can choose technology that is more destructive such as oil and coal; or we can choose technology that is actively dangerous such as nuclear. Common sense suggests that we choose the least damaging technology.
As I've noted previously, the United States has needed a common sense energy policy for many years. It's time we look at the harsh reality of history and started to have one.
With a nod to Thomas Paine, Baron d'Holbach, and "Captain Obvious" perspectives on what should be, but remarkably often isn't, obvious common sense.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Supreme Court and religious expression. Common sense at last.
LA Times: In a shift away from strict church-state separation, the Supreme Court gave its approval Wednesday to displaying a Christian cross on government land to honor the war dead, saying the Constitution "does not require the eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm."
Speaking for a divided court, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said the 1st Amendment calls for a middle-ground "policy of accommodation" toward religious displays on public land, not a total ban on symbols of faith.
By a 5-4 vote, the justices reversed lower courts in California that had ordered the U.S. Park Service to remove an 8-foot-high cross that has stood in various forms in the Mojave National Preserve since 1934 as a memorial to World War I soldiers.
Speaking for a divided court, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said the 1st Amendment calls for a middle-ground "policy of accommodation" toward religious displays on public land, not a total ban on symbols of faith.
By a 5-4 vote, the justices reversed lower courts in California that had ordered the U.S. Park Service to remove an 8-foot-high cross that has stood in various forms in the Mojave National Preserve since 1934 as a memorial to World War I soldiers.
Every now and then common sense visits the supreme court. If you take the time to actually read the constitution you'd discover that it says that the government can not establish a state religion, not that religious expression of any sort associated with government is strictly prohibited. Thus we have "In God We Trust" on our money, have a Congressional Chaplin, etc. To interpret a cross, Christmas display, the Ten Commandments and the like as an endorsement is just silly.
That said, the cross is in fact a Christian symbol. There are many war dead that weren't not Christian. Perhaps their sacrifice for our country should also be commemorated with their religious symbols. Here it's worth noting that Frank Buono, a former National Park Service employee, sued to have the 8ft-high (2.4m) wooden cross covered or removed after the government agency refused to put up a Buddhist memorial nearby. Common sense suggests that all our war dead should be commemorated regardless of faith.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Common Sense Energy - After 9 years!
Boston Globe: In a groundbreaking decision that some say will usher in a new era of clean energy, U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said today he was approving the nation's first offshore wind farm, the controversial Cape Wind project off of Cape Cod.
"This will be the first of many projects up and down the Atlantic coast," Salazar said at a joint State House news conference with Governor Deval Patrick. The decision comes after nine years of battles over the proposal. "America needs offshore wind power and with this project, Massachusetts will lead the nation," Patrick said.
The decision had been delayed for almost a year because of two Wampanoag Indian tribes' complaints that the 130 turbines, which would stand more than 400 feet above the ocean surface, would disturb spiritual sun greetings and possibly ancestral artifacts and burial grounds on the seabed, which was once exposed land before the sea level rose thousands of years ago.
Salazar said he had ordered modifications to "minimize and mitigate" the impact of the project that would "help protect the historical, cultural, and environmental resources of Nantucket Sound." He said his approval would require Cape Wind to conduct additional marine archaeological surveys and take other steps to reduce the project's visual impact.
Good news for those given to a common sense energy policy! Nine years on Cape Wind is finally approved. Wow, it only took 9 years to reach a stunningly common sense decision! This entirely common sense proposal was delayed by Senator E. Kennedy who has a home in Nantucket. That rimes with not in my back yard. The Wampanoag Indians opposition on ancestral grounds and sunsets would be laughable if it hadn't actually been taken seriously. Likewise concerns for fish, birds, and migrating marine mammals. One wonders if it's possible for the US to do what several European countries have done and actually deploy sensible renewable clean energy resources, even if they are made by that nice German company Siemans!
In the same article this interesting bit:
US Senator Scott Brown criticized Salazar's decision, saying it was "misguided."
"With unemployment hovering near ten percent in Massachusetts, the Cape Wind project will jeopardize industries that are vital to the Cape's economy, such as tourism and fishing, and will also impact aviation safety and the rights of the Native American tribes in the area. I am also skeptical about the cost-savings and job number predictions we have heard from proponents of the project," Brown said in a statement.
Duh! It would seem that Mr. Brown believes continued reliance on fossil fuels must be good. Or perhaps jobs to construct this facility don't count. As to tourism and fishing, wasn't that studied to death without finding any negative impacts. Likewise, aviation is a bit of a laugh. The FAA has minimum altitude limits, the lowest of which is 500'. Presumably safe with respect to a 400' wind turbine. You already know what I think about the "Native American" issue. Mr. Brown might want to go to common sense camp.
This country needs renewal energy resources. We've needed them for the last 40 plus years. That it took 9 years to approve an entirely common sense modest proposal is simply irresponsible. It's long past time that common sense renewal energy like wind, solar, and geothermal were a major common sense part of our energy policy.
"This will be the first of many projects up and down the Atlantic coast," Salazar said at a joint State House news conference with Governor Deval Patrick. The decision comes after nine years of battles over the proposal. "America needs offshore wind power and with this project, Massachusetts will lead the nation," Patrick said.
The decision had been delayed for almost a year because of two Wampanoag Indian tribes' complaints that the 130 turbines, which would stand more than 400 feet above the ocean surface, would disturb spiritual sun greetings and possibly ancestral artifacts and burial grounds on the seabed, which was once exposed land before the sea level rose thousands of years ago.
Salazar said he had ordered modifications to "minimize and mitigate" the impact of the project that would "help protect the historical, cultural, and environmental resources of Nantucket Sound." He said his approval would require Cape Wind to conduct additional marine archaeological surveys and take other steps to reduce the project's visual impact.
Good news for those given to a common sense energy policy! Nine years on Cape Wind is finally approved. Wow, it only took 9 years to reach a stunningly common sense decision! This entirely common sense proposal was delayed by Senator E. Kennedy who has a home in Nantucket. That rimes with not in my back yard. The Wampanoag Indians opposition on ancestral grounds and sunsets would be laughable if it hadn't actually been taken seriously. Likewise concerns for fish, birds, and migrating marine mammals. One wonders if it's possible for the US to do what several European countries have done and actually deploy sensible renewable clean energy resources, even if they are made by that nice German company Siemans!
In the same article this interesting bit:
US Senator Scott Brown criticized Salazar's decision, saying it was "misguided."
"With unemployment hovering near ten percent in Massachusetts, the Cape Wind project will jeopardize industries that are vital to the Cape's economy, such as tourism and fishing, and will also impact aviation safety and the rights of the Native American tribes in the area. I am also skeptical about the cost-savings and job number predictions we have heard from proponents of the project," Brown said in a statement.
Duh! It would seem that Mr. Brown believes continued reliance on fossil fuels must be good. Or perhaps jobs to construct this facility don't count. As to tourism and fishing, wasn't that studied to death without finding any negative impacts. Likewise, aviation is a bit of a laugh. The FAA has minimum altitude limits, the lowest of which is 500'. Presumably safe with respect to a 400' wind turbine. You already know what I think about the "Native American" issue. Mr. Brown might want to go to common sense camp.
This country needs renewal energy resources. We've needed them for the last 40 plus years. That it took 9 years to approve an entirely common sense modest proposal is simply irresponsible. It's long past time that common sense renewal energy like wind, solar, and geothermal were a major common sense part of our energy policy.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Arizona, Immigration, and Common Sense
Arizona's recently enacted immigration law seems to have really stirred up lots of people. Consider:
- AP: MEXICO CITY -- Mexico's government is warning its citizens about travel to Arizona because of a tough new immigration law there.
The travel alert from the Foreign Relations Department urges Mexicans in Arizona to "act with prudence and respect the framework of local laws."
It says that the law's passage shows "an adverse political atmosphere for migrant communities and for all Mexican visitors."
This from the same Mexico that published a pamphlet showing how to enter the United States illegally never mind that the law concerns illegal immigrants not US citizens or legal visitors. But hey, if you're exporting hundreds of thousands of your own illegally why not!
- April 27 (Bloomberg) -- Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told U.S. lawmakers her agency has “deep concerns,” about a new immigration law in Arizona and said the U.S. should pursue a comprehensive overhaul of its immigration policies.
Attorney General Eric Holder, at a news conference in Washington, said he also has concerns and said the Justice Department is considering going to court to challenge the Arizona statute.
The new Arizona law “will detract from and siphon resources that we need to focus on those in the country illegally who are committing serious crimes, in addition to violating our nation’s immigration laws,” Napolitano told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee today.This bit of nonsense by Ms Napolitano is really priceless. She suggests that we a) "pursue a comprehensive overhaul of immigration policy." Lets not wonder that having had several serial amnesties over the years in the name of immigration reform and consistently not enforcing the immigration laws hasn't worked. No. Instead lets do it again! She goes on to suggest b) that we "focus" on those committing serious crimes. Perhaps it's just me bit isn't illegal immigration a crime, isn't the Federal Government responsible for border security, hasn't the Federal Government failed in that responsibility, isn't Ms Napolitano's agency responsible for border security, didn't Ms Napolitano while governor of Arizona not only not deal with the problem but twice veto similar bills? Perhaps Ms Napolitano needs to go to common sense camp. As to Mr Holder, I wonder if he understands that the Federal Government failed in its responsibility.
Today's idocy in the Senate: Let's replace the children with adults!
San Francisco Chronicle: Senate Republicans united Monday to block debate on legislation that would make the most far-reaching changes in financial industry regulation since the Great Depression - slowing but probably not stopping a bill that has been propelled by angry voters who want a crackdown on Wall Street.
The 57-41 vote marked the first Senate showdown over the issue. Sixty votes were needed to end GOP delaying tactics. But no Republicans voted to debate the bill, and they were joined by Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska.
The 57-41 vote marked the first Senate showdown over the issue. Sixty votes were needed to end GOP delaying tactics. But no Republicans voted to debate the bill, and they were joined by Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska.
...
Their principal aims are to close loopholes they believe will allow government bailouts of failing firms, add restrictions on the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, limit the power of the consumer agency and ease proposed regulations on derivatives - complex financial instruments that contributed to the 2008 financial collapse.
So the republican notion seems to be that the existing proposed bill isn't strict enough, at least, that's what they say. Their fix for this lack of control is to limit the power of government and to ease restrictions on derivatives! Common sense has clearly left the Senate, if it was ever there. As I have noted previously lack of regulation as a result of repeal of existing regulations in the name of financial reform was at the heart of the recent banking failure. Derivatives, which many have regarded as the toxic nuclear bombs of finance, were a major factor in the collapse.
Common sense also suggests that it's time for the existing Senate to be replaced. We have an election coming up so how about if it's an incumbent voting for the other candidate?
Common sense also suggests that it's time for the existing Senate to be replaced. We have an election coming up so how about if it's an incumbent voting for the other candidate?
Common sense suggests that serious regulation is long overdue and that derivatives should be closely regulated. But, hey, that's just common sense and the Senators we employ don't seem to feel the need for common sense.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Will congress ever grow up and behave like adults that care about the countrie's needs?
Washington (CNN) -- A climate-change bill that was scheduled to be unveiled at a news conference Monday is now up in the air after Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina walked out of talks.
Graham had worked with Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, and Sen. Joe Lieberman, independent from Connecticut, to unveil details of their "tri-partisan" climate-change legislation.
But Graham declared Saturday that he was walking out of talks because of Democratic efforts to bring up an immigration reform package.
"Moving forward on immigration -- in this hurried, panicked manner -- is nothing more than a cynical political ploy," Graham wrote in a sharply-worded letter sent to business, religious and conservation leaders that he has been working with on the climate-change legislation.
This is all to typical of Congressional behavior. Here we have Senator Graham, who rather sensibly worked with his colleagues on a very important issue for America, deciding that since everyone else won't play by his rules he'll just kill the whole effort. It strikes me as rather like a kid getting in a snit and taking his ball and going home so no one can play!
Common sense suggests that it's long past time for our Congressmen to grow up and behave like adults that care about the countries needs. But hey, that's just a common sense adult view, not a political view!
Graham had worked with Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, and Sen. Joe Lieberman, independent from Connecticut, to unveil details of their "tri-partisan" climate-change legislation.
But Graham declared Saturday that he was walking out of talks because of Democratic efforts to bring up an immigration reform package.
"Moving forward on immigration -- in this hurried, panicked manner -- is nothing more than a cynical political ploy," Graham wrote in a sharply-worded letter sent to business, religious and conservation leaders that he has been working with on the climate-change legislation.
This is all to typical of Congressional behavior. Here we have Senator Graham, who rather sensibly worked with his colleagues on a very important issue for America, deciding that since everyone else won't play by his rules he'll just kill the whole effort. It strikes me as rather like a kid getting in a snit and taking his ball and going home so no one can play!
Common sense suggests that it's long past time for our Congressmen to grow up and behave like adults that care about the countries needs. But hey, that's just a common sense adult view, not a political view!
Medical Reform? It's NOT about insurance! It's about cost!
(CNN) -- When Godfrey Davies learned he needed surgery to remove polyps blocking his nasal airways, the self-described bargain shopper set out on a mission to find an affordable surgeon. He quickly learned a good deal is hard to find.
"The total numbers they were throwing at me were just incredible. I couldn't believe it," he says.
Davies, who is semiretired from his real estate business and uninsured, says he received estimates from two surgeons. When hospital, anesthesia and incidental fees were all tallied, the cheapest price he could find in Indianapolis, Indiana, was $33,127 -- which he would need to pay out of pocket.
"I was speechless." Davies recalls. "It was absolutely out of the question financially for me to have this done under those circumstances."
Frustrated that his bargain shopping saved him so little, Davies called on family in the United Kingdom for assistance. When they told him they had found a private hospital in Wales that would perform the surgery for $2,930 [or £1,897], Davies didn't think twice.
He purchased a $768 round-trip ticket, and on March 18, he boarded a flight to the UK to have his polyps removed there at a savings of nearly $30,000.
Common sense, it's NOT about insurance! It's about cost!
Davies, who is originally from Wales and has been a U.S. citizen since 2002, says he was disappointed about having to travel more than 4,200 miles for such a simple procedure. But ultimately money was the deciding factor.
"$33,000 versus $3,600 ... I can put up with a lot of inconvenience to save that kind of money."
Any questions?
"The total numbers they were throwing at me were just incredible. I couldn't believe it," he says.
Davies, who is semiretired from his real estate business and uninsured, says he received estimates from two surgeons. When hospital, anesthesia and incidental fees were all tallied, the cheapest price he could find in Indianapolis, Indiana, was $33,127 -- which he would need to pay out of pocket.
"I was speechless." Davies recalls. "It was absolutely out of the question financially for me to have this done under those circumstances."
Frustrated that his bargain shopping saved him so little, Davies called on family in the United Kingdom for assistance. When they told him they had found a private hospital in Wales that would perform the surgery for $2,930 [or £1,897], Davies didn't think twice.
He purchased a $768 round-trip ticket, and on March 18, he boarded a flight to the UK to have his polyps removed there at a savings of nearly $30,000.
Common sense, it's NOT about insurance! It's about cost!
Davies, who is originally from Wales and has been a U.S. citizen since 2002, says he was disappointed about having to travel more than 4,200 miles for such a simple procedure. But ultimately money was the deciding factor.
"$33,000 versus $3,600 ... I can put up with a lot of inconvenience to save that kind of money."
Any questions?
Friday, April 23, 2010
Arizona: Getting serious about illegal immigration
So the Arizona legislature has passed a law designed to help address illegal immigration. Briefly the law does two things. First, it requires that immigrants carry their alien registration documents at all times. Second, it requires police to question people if there's reason to suspect that there are illegal immigrants. Third, it imposes penalties on those who hire illegal immigrants or knowingly transport them.
This law has caused something of a furor to say the least.
President Obama has indicated that the Justice Department would investigate civil rights violations that might arise from a new law. That said, he also observed that "Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. And that includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans." Clearly Mr. Obama doesn't much care for the law. He is, of course, entitled to his opinion and he is entitled to use the Federal Government to monitor the law, or even challenge the law in federal court. It is, however, telling that even the President notes that the Federal Government has, in fact, failed to actually effectively enforce existing immigration laws. Indeed, the Federal Government has on several occasions acted to prohibit local and state governments from enforcing existing Federal immigration laws!
Understandably, Arizona and several other states are concerned by the continuing flood, I'm tempted to call it invasion, of illegal immigrants. Since the Federal Government has not enforced existing laws, Arizona, I'm tempted to say quite sensibly, decided to give police the power to take a very modest action - ask for proof of immigration status IF there is reasonable cause. On its face that seems an entirely common sense step.
It is, of course, as many have pointed out subject to abuse. That's a legitimate concern, particularly when law enforcement has a history of being abusive (one need only remember a woman traveling with her infirmed mother who was stopped by the Federal TSA over some baby food in a cooler for her mother then charged with assault over snatching her cooler out of the hands of a TSA agent after the offending baby food was already thrown away, arrested, strip searched, jailed, and subject to prosecution, but hey that's the TSA). While misuse is certainly an entirely sensible concern I'd note the following common sense observations. First, when I get a job, I need to provide proof of citizenship today. That's required under existing Federal law. Second, absent anything remotely like effective immigration enforcement, serious crime in border states has, in fact, increased. We might not like it, but as CNN is fond of point out, facts are neither red or blue.
Now some say what we need is comprehensive immigration reform including a path to citizenship for those currently in the country illegally. But wait, we've done that at least three times that I can remember in the last 50 years. Common sense suggest that we already have more than enough immigration laws. When we don't enforce them though, all we do is invite illegal immigration. Worse, we actively participate in creation of an underclass of workers that are far to often misused by employers as was the case recently in New England at a factory that, wait for it, made US military equipment. In my common sense view, it's not simply wrong to take advantage of illegal immigrants, it's immoral and certainly not Americana.
The Arizona law has a long overdue provision to punish those who employ illegal immigrants. That entirely common sense provision and enforcement of existing provisions is long overdue. Illegal immigrants come to the United States in large part for a combination of economic, read jobs, and civil, read a working society, reasons. Removing the economic incentive will certainly reduce the reasons to illegal enter the United States and thus the number of illegal immigrants. Additionally it will punish those who prey on illegal immigrants.
Finally, the Arizona law has a provision that sensibly punishes those who knowingly transport illegal immigrants. I have on any number of occasions seen illegal immigrants clustered at day labor sites waiting for someone to come along and offer them a below minimum wage cash job. It is simply wrong to allow this to continue.
So what does common sense suggest about the Arizona law. Is it a good law? Well, that depends on how/if it is enforced. Is it subject to abuse? Absolutely, but it hasn't been abused yet and there are provisions to address abuse if/when it occurs. Does illegal immigration need to be controlled? Absolutely, we are being invaded. If you don't think so just checkout the six illegal Hispanics that were working for cash for a contractor to the cable company in Charlotte that I ran into in my parents back yard. Is the Federal Government, they after all are responsible for immigration, enforcing existing immigration laws? No, not even close. Should they? Yes.
This law has caused something of a furor to say the least.
President Obama has indicated that the Justice Department would investigate civil rights violations that might arise from a new law. That said, he also observed that "Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. And that includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans." Clearly Mr. Obama doesn't much care for the law. He is, of course, entitled to his opinion and he is entitled to use the Federal Government to monitor the law, or even challenge the law in federal court. It is, however, telling that even the President notes that the Federal Government has, in fact, failed to actually effectively enforce existing immigration laws. Indeed, the Federal Government has on several occasions acted to prohibit local and state governments from enforcing existing Federal immigration laws!
Understandably, Arizona and several other states are concerned by the continuing flood, I'm tempted to call it invasion, of illegal immigrants. Since the Federal Government has not enforced existing laws, Arizona, I'm tempted to say quite sensibly, decided to give police the power to take a very modest action - ask for proof of immigration status IF there is reasonable cause. On its face that seems an entirely common sense step.
It is, of course, as many have pointed out subject to abuse. That's a legitimate concern, particularly when law enforcement has a history of being abusive (one need only remember a woman traveling with her infirmed mother who was stopped by the Federal TSA over some baby food in a cooler for her mother then charged with assault over snatching her cooler out of the hands of a TSA agent after the offending baby food was already thrown away, arrested, strip searched, jailed, and subject to prosecution, but hey that's the TSA). While misuse is certainly an entirely sensible concern I'd note the following common sense observations. First, when I get a job, I need to provide proof of citizenship today. That's required under existing Federal law. Second, absent anything remotely like effective immigration enforcement, serious crime in border states has, in fact, increased. We might not like it, but as CNN is fond of point out, facts are neither red or blue.
Now some say what we need is comprehensive immigration reform including a path to citizenship for those currently in the country illegally. But wait, we've done that at least three times that I can remember in the last 50 years. Common sense suggest that we already have more than enough immigration laws. When we don't enforce them though, all we do is invite illegal immigration. Worse, we actively participate in creation of an underclass of workers that are far to often misused by employers as was the case recently in New England at a factory that, wait for it, made US military equipment. In my common sense view, it's not simply wrong to take advantage of illegal immigrants, it's immoral and certainly not Americana.
The Arizona law has a long overdue provision to punish those who employ illegal immigrants. That entirely common sense provision and enforcement of existing provisions is long overdue. Illegal immigrants come to the United States in large part for a combination of economic, read jobs, and civil, read a working society, reasons. Removing the economic incentive will certainly reduce the reasons to illegal enter the United States and thus the number of illegal immigrants. Additionally it will punish those who prey on illegal immigrants.
Finally, the Arizona law has a provision that sensibly punishes those who knowingly transport illegal immigrants. I have on any number of occasions seen illegal immigrants clustered at day labor sites waiting for someone to come along and offer them a below minimum wage cash job. It is simply wrong to allow this to continue.
So what does common sense suggest about the Arizona law. Is it a good law? Well, that depends on how/if it is enforced. Is it subject to abuse? Absolutely, but it hasn't been abused yet and there are provisions to address abuse if/when it occurs. Does illegal immigration need to be controlled? Absolutely, we are being invaded. If you don't think so just checkout the six illegal Hispanics that were working for cash for a contractor to the cable company in Charlotte that I ran into in my parents back yard. Is the Federal Government, they after all are responsible for immigration, enforcing existing immigration laws? No, not even close. Should they? Yes.
Congress for sale
Reuters: The political action committees of six Wall Street banks spent the first quarter of 2010 giving handsome donations to Republicans and Democrats who are critical to passing legislation that could determine the future of the U.S. financial sector.
The banks -- JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs -- gave about $106,000 to 12 members of the Senate and House of Representatives who sit either in leadership positions or on the committees that forged the measures.
The sum is 40 percent of the $272,000 that the same institutions donated overall to political campaigns and committees between January and March.
But it is only a tiny fraction of the more than $30 million that has flowed into campaign coffers from the PACs and employees of banks, securities firms and finance companies since the 2010 election cycle began on January 1, 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the non-partisan watchdog that tracks the role of money in U.S. politics.
Wall Street lobbyists this year have hosted fundraising events for at least 10 senators who sit on the banking and agriculture committees, which have advanced separate pieces of financial regulatory legislation, according to the Sunlight Foundation, another money in politics watchdog.
Here's a common sense suggestion: If it can't vote in an election it can't give money to a candidate. No exceptions!
This might seem a bit radical, but think about it just a bit.
According to a recent Supreme Court decision, money is speech. It's not, but that's a separate issue. Further, under existing election laws, anyone, anywhere, including non-US citizens and foreign companies, can contribute to an election. The inevitable result is that elections are all about who has the most money and can run the smoothest campaign, read distort the truth is the way most enticing to voters. Wall Street is not the only offender to be sure, just the one in today's news. The net effect is little more than selling of elected offices.
Common sense suggests that the underlying principal of a representative democracy is that elected officials represent the people that can vote for them. But with money coming from business (they can't vote) and elections reduced to who can raise the most money the election process is anything but representative. Our elected officials don't represent the people that could vote for them. They represent the people and companies that helped them get elected!
There is no real surprise then that a Congress bought and paid for by Wall Street undid the banking protections in the name of 'financial reform' and 'making banks more competitive.' The entirely foreseeable and inevitable result was a financial crisis and financial collapse only averted by taxpayers spending several trillion dollars.
Under a common sense arrangement that limits campaign contributions to those who can vote in an election our representatives wouldn't be beholding to Wall Street or other interests. They would, arguably, be more inclined to represent the interest of there constituents. They might now be inclined to restore some of the financial regulations they undid at the behest of Wall Street and big banks. They might prevent another trillion dollar financial collapse.
But hey, that's just common sense.
The banks -- JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs -- gave about $106,000 to 12 members of the Senate and House of Representatives who sit either in leadership positions or on the committees that forged the measures.
The sum is 40 percent of the $272,000 that the same institutions donated overall to political campaigns and committees between January and March.
But it is only a tiny fraction of the more than $30 million that has flowed into campaign coffers from the PACs and employees of banks, securities firms and finance companies since the 2010 election cycle began on January 1, 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the non-partisan watchdog that tracks the role of money in U.S. politics.
Wall Street lobbyists this year have hosted fundraising events for at least 10 senators who sit on the banking and agriculture committees, which have advanced separate pieces of financial regulatory legislation, according to the Sunlight Foundation, another money in politics watchdog.
Here's a common sense suggestion: If it can't vote in an election it can't give money to a candidate. No exceptions!
This might seem a bit radical, but think about it just a bit.
According to a recent Supreme Court decision, money is speech. It's not, but that's a separate issue. Further, under existing election laws, anyone, anywhere, including non-US citizens and foreign companies, can contribute to an election. The inevitable result is that elections are all about who has the most money and can run the smoothest campaign, read distort the truth is the way most enticing to voters. Wall Street is not the only offender to be sure, just the one in today's news. The net effect is little more than selling of elected offices.
Common sense suggests that the underlying principal of a representative democracy is that elected officials represent the people that can vote for them. But with money coming from business (they can't vote) and elections reduced to who can raise the most money the election process is anything but representative. Our elected officials don't represent the people that could vote for them. They represent the people and companies that helped them get elected!
There is no real surprise then that a Congress bought and paid for by Wall Street undid the banking protections in the name of 'financial reform' and 'making banks more competitive.' The entirely foreseeable and inevitable result was a financial crisis and financial collapse only averted by taxpayers spending several trillion dollars.
Under a common sense arrangement that limits campaign contributions to those who can vote in an election our representatives wouldn't be beholding to Wall Street or other interests. They would, arguably, be more inclined to represent the interest of there constituents. They might now be inclined to restore some of the financial regulations they undid at the behest of Wall Street and big banks. They might prevent another trillion dollar financial collapse.
But hey, that's just common sense.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Arizona House: common sense not in the house
PHOENIX -- The Arizona House approved a bill Wednesday that would require presidential candidates to show his or her birth certificate in order to be on the state's ballot.
The House approved the measure on a 31-29 vote after four Republicans joined all of the Democrats in opposing it. The measure still faces a Senate vote.
It would require U.S. presidential candidates who want to appear on the Arizona ballot to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president.
So-called "birthers" have contended since the 2008 presidential campaign that President Obama was born abroad, even after his official Hawaii birth certificate was made public along with birth notices that two Honolulu newspapers published in August 1961.
The Constitution says a person must be a "natural-born citizen" to be eligible for the presidency. Skeptics suggest Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate is fake and say he was actually born in Kenya, his father's homeland.
Where to begin? I used to live in Arizona. It is, indeed, conservative - read Republican. If you'd ever lived in Arizona, particularly before air conditioning, you'd understand why this is so - harsh environments breed a very wide and deep vein of self reliance, independence, and a disposition to dealing with things as they are. While I unequivocally believe these are positive traits, this bit of silliness has noting do do with much of anything other than pandering to the radical right, dare I say lunatic, fringe.
That Mr. Obama is in fact a US citizen qualified under the constitution to be president is indisputable short of believing in things that are, well, unbelievable. Why then this silliness from the Arizona legislature? Do they believe otherwise? That seems rather unlikely given the facts. Are they afraid of the lunatic fringe? Perhaps. Are they concerned about the Tea Party? Certainly. Is this good law? No! Is it yet another example of appallingly bad politics? Certainly!
Common sense suggests that this kind of behavior by elected officials does not advance reasoned effective governance. Common sense suggests that politicians that engage in this sort of behavior have no business in government and ought to be removed at the next available election, even in Arizona, particularly given it's historic disposition to reality.
The House approved the measure on a 31-29 vote after four Republicans joined all of the Democrats in opposing it. The measure still faces a Senate vote.
It would require U.S. presidential candidates who want to appear on the Arizona ballot to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president.
So-called "birthers" have contended since the 2008 presidential campaign that President Obama was born abroad, even after his official Hawaii birth certificate was made public along with birth notices that two Honolulu newspapers published in August 1961.
The Constitution says a person must be a "natural-born citizen" to be eligible for the presidency. Skeptics suggest Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate is fake and say he was actually born in Kenya, his father's homeland.
Where to begin? I used to live in Arizona. It is, indeed, conservative - read Republican. If you'd ever lived in Arizona, particularly before air conditioning, you'd understand why this is so - harsh environments breed a very wide and deep vein of self reliance, independence, and a disposition to dealing with things as they are. While I unequivocally believe these are positive traits, this bit of silliness has noting do do with much of anything other than pandering to the radical right, dare I say lunatic, fringe.
That Mr. Obama is in fact a US citizen qualified under the constitution to be president is indisputable short of believing in things that are, well, unbelievable. Why then this silliness from the Arizona legislature? Do they believe otherwise? That seems rather unlikely given the facts. Are they afraid of the lunatic fringe? Perhaps. Are they concerned about the Tea Party? Certainly. Is this good law? No! Is it yet another example of appallingly bad politics? Certainly!
Common sense suggests that this kind of behavior by elected officials does not advance reasoned effective governance. Common sense suggests that politicians that engage in this sort of behavior have no business in government and ought to be removed at the next available election, even in Arizona, particularly given it's historic disposition to reality.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell part two
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell was on TV this mourning. It seems that Mr. Obama said some unkind things about the Right Honorable Senator, to wit, he misrepresented the facts. Recall that in fact Mr McConnell lied about the $50 billion bank provided liquidation fund implying that it was taxpayer money, it's not, it's bank money, and that it was for bailouts, it's not, it's to liquidate, as in put out of business, failing banks. In any case, Mr McConnell this mourning stuck with his position apparently believing that if a big lie is told often enough people will believe it. Way to go Mitch!
What's really curious about this is that Mr McConnell wants this to be about the liquidation fund. Noticeably absent from his public concerns is regulation of derivatives. You remember derivatives don't you, they are the rather arcane financial instruments most recently tied to Goldman Sachs, those are the folks now facing an SEC initiated civil suit for fraud involving subprime mortgage instruments and derivatives, that are a key element of the last few years financial crisis and recession. Now, Mr McConnell and his banking friends don't want these instruments regulated saying that lots of bad things will happen if they are.
So, OK, lets try some common sense. Derivatives are not currently regulated. The financial markets with unregulated derivatives collapsed and to save large banks, including Goldman Sachs, the US taxpayers had to provide several trillion dollars of liquidity there being no bank funded money to help. So Mitch wants you and I to believe that the way to make sure this doesn't happen again is to a) NOT require banks to fund the down side of their mistakes, and b) continue to allow unregulated derivatives. Is anyone out there that stupid?
What's really curious about this is that Mr McConnell wants this to be about the liquidation fund. Noticeably absent from his public concerns is regulation of derivatives. You remember derivatives don't you, they are the rather arcane financial instruments most recently tied to Goldman Sachs, those are the folks now facing an SEC initiated civil suit for fraud involving subprime mortgage instruments and derivatives, that are a key element of the last few years financial crisis and recession. Now, Mr McConnell and his banking friends don't want these instruments regulated saying that lots of bad things will happen if they are.
So, OK, lets try some common sense. Derivatives are not currently regulated. The financial markets with unregulated derivatives collapsed and to save large banks, including Goldman Sachs, the US taxpayers had to provide several trillion dollars of liquidity there being no bank funded money to help. So Mitch wants you and I to believe that the way to make sure this doesn't happen again is to a) NOT require banks to fund the down side of their mistakes, and b) continue to allow unregulated derivatives. Is anyone out there that stupid?
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Some health networks drop elite hospitals - Is anyone surprised?
Boston Globe: Health insurers are starting to sell policies that largely bar consumers from receiving medical care at popular but expensive hospitals such as Massachusetts General and Brigham and Women’s — a once radical idea that is gaining traction as a way to control soaring health care costs.
Governor Deval Patrick and Senate President Therese Murray have included such restricted provider networks in their recent legislative proposals to control rising insurance rates. And the state this month began offering limited-network plans to 300,000 state employees, retirees, and their families, promising 20 percent discounts on premiums if they are willing to give up access to some of the Boston area’s most renowned hospitals.
Dolores Mitchell, executive director of the agency that oversees health insurance for state employees, said she wants “to send a message to the more expensive [provider] organizations that, ‘Hey, we’re not going to just sit still and do nothing’ ’’ as medical costs climb year after year.
But even as state officials promote the idea, there are obstacles to its wide adoption. Some of the state’s largest insurers have contracts with powerful teaching hospitals and doctors’ groups that could make it difficult to exclude them. And Massachusetts consumers and employers have long cherished choosing from a broad range of providers.
OK, lets do a little common sense examination of this bit of news.
First, Massachusetts has mandatory health insurance now. In time it will be a national requirement. That said, health insurance cost are growing MUCH FASTER than other cost. So it's really expensive to buy insurance. Solution, cut out the expensive providers. That makes a fair bit of sense at least insofar as sending a message to providers that they either control their cost or risk being taken out of the game. While there are certainly issues with this notion, the fundamental requirement to control COST not just require that everyone has insurance, a payment issue having nothing to do with cost, might actually have some impact on medical care cost.
But reading a bit further we find that the large medical care providers, you remember those, the ones that are more expensive than community providers, have provisions in their insurance reimbursement agreements that limit insurers ability to exclude them. In simple terms, they are big enough and powerful enough that they can require that equally big and powerful insurers pay them MORE for equivalent procedures than community providers!
Want to know one reason our medical care cost are high and results poor? Go back and read the previous paragraph again.
As I've noted before, the issue with medical care in the United States is less one of who pays than it is one of cost. Our care is simply to expensive for what we get. That's just common sense. One can only hope that provisions such as those proposed might have some effect on health card cost.
Governor Deval Patrick and Senate President Therese Murray have included such restricted provider networks in their recent legislative proposals to control rising insurance rates. And the state this month began offering limited-network plans to 300,000 state employees, retirees, and their families, promising 20 percent discounts on premiums if they are willing to give up access to some of the Boston area’s most renowned hospitals.
Dolores Mitchell, executive director of the agency that oversees health insurance for state employees, said she wants “to send a message to the more expensive [provider] organizations that, ‘Hey, we’re not going to just sit still and do nothing’ ’’ as medical costs climb year after year.
But even as state officials promote the idea, there are obstacles to its wide adoption. Some of the state’s largest insurers have contracts with powerful teaching hospitals and doctors’ groups that could make it difficult to exclude them. And Massachusetts consumers and employers have long cherished choosing from a broad range of providers.
OK, lets do a little common sense examination of this bit of news.
First, Massachusetts has mandatory health insurance now. In time it will be a national requirement. That said, health insurance cost are growing MUCH FASTER than other cost. So it's really expensive to buy insurance. Solution, cut out the expensive providers. That makes a fair bit of sense at least insofar as sending a message to providers that they either control their cost or risk being taken out of the game. While there are certainly issues with this notion, the fundamental requirement to control COST not just require that everyone has insurance, a payment issue having nothing to do with cost, might actually have some impact on medical care cost.
But reading a bit further we find that the large medical care providers, you remember those, the ones that are more expensive than community providers, have provisions in their insurance reimbursement agreements that limit insurers ability to exclude them. In simple terms, they are big enough and powerful enough that they can require that equally big and powerful insurers pay them MORE for equivalent procedures than community providers!
Want to know one reason our medical care cost are high and results poor? Go back and read the previous paragraph again.
As I've noted before, the issue with medical care in the United States is less one of who pays than it is one of cost. Our care is simply to expensive for what we get. That's just common sense. One can only hope that provisions such as those proposed might have some effect on health card cost.
Friday, April 16, 2010
CNN: Nuke cancer concern scares town. Duh!
Ground has been broken in a Georgia town for the nation's first nuclear reactor in 30 years. The town is already home to two reactors, and its cancer rates are 51 percent higher than the national average.
We are told, yet again, that nuclear power plants are safe. Well, new designs are safe anyway. Right! Just like the new designs of 30 years ago were safe!
We are told, yet again, that nuclear waste can be managed. Right! Just like we were told that there was a plan for nuclear waste management by storage at Yucca Mountain in, wait for it, 1987. And lets not note that Congress voted 388 to 30 not to completely defund the Yucca Mountain repository in the fiscal year 2010 budget.
OK, so lets summarize. Safe power plants cause cancer rates that are 51% higher than the national average, and there is no place to store the waste.
Common sense suggest that the fine citizens of a Georgia town are well advised to be scared.
We are told, yet again, that nuclear power plants are safe. Well, new designs are safe anyway. Right! Just like the new designs of 30 years ago were safe!
We are told, yet again, that nuclear waste can be managed. Right! Just like we were told that there was a plan for nuclear waste management by storage at Yucca Mountain in, wait for it, 1987. And lets not note that Congress voted 388 to 30 not to completely defund the Yucca Mountain repository in the fiscal year 2010 budget.
OK, so lets summarize. Safe power plants cause cancer rates that are 51% higher than the national average, and there is no place to store the waste.
Common sense suggest that the fine citizens of a Georgia town are well advised to be scared.
Reuters: Senate Dems may drop $50 billion resolution fund - What's wrong with Congress
What's wrong with Congress? Democrats, Republicans, and the Senate for openers!
This one is a real corker. So the House passes a bill that provides a $150 billion fund provided by financial institutions that is to be used to allow an orderly closing of financial institutions that are not viable. You remember bankrupt financial institutions, don't you? You know, the ones you and I bailed out last year. So anyway the House passed what is by and large a fairly reasonable start on financial reform. Not perfect, to be sure, but a reasonable improvement of the mess that the Congress created.
Now here comes the interesting part. Some Republicans, to wit, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell have, lets call it what it is, lied that the provision will lead to more taxpayer bailouts of financial institutions, never mind that the money comes from the financial institutions not the taxpayers as was most recently the case. Never mind that it is only used when an institution is being liquidated, not funded to continue in business as was most recently the case. But there you have it the Right Honorable Mr McConnell doesn't mind a distortion to the point of being an outright lie.
But wait, there's more, under the pressure of this lie, the Right Honorable Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, the main sponsor of the bill, disowned the fund in remarks on the Senate floor on Thursday, saying it was proposed by Republicans. Now there's the real courage and leadership the country needs from our Senate leaders (they are ours you know, we elect them, we pay them, and, notwithstanding their appalling performance, we pay their retirement).
What's wrong with government? Need you ask. Common sense suggests Republicans, Democrats, and, at least in this case, the Senate.
This one is a real corker. So the House passes a bill that provides a $150 billion fund provided by financial institutions that is to be used to allow an orderly closing of financial institutions that are not viable. You remember bankrupt financial institutions, don't you? You know, the ones you and I bailed out last year. So anyway the House passed what is by and large a fairly reasonable start on financial reform. Not perfect, to be sure, but a reasonable improvement of the mess that the Congress created.
Now here comes the interesting part. Some Republicans, to wit, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell have, lets call it what it is, lied that the provision will lead to more taxpayer bailouts of financial institutions, never mind that the money comes from the financial institutions not the taxpayers as was most recently the case. Never mind that it is only used when an institution is being liquidated, not funded to continue in business as was most recently the case. But there you have it the Right Honorable Mr McConnell doesn't mind a distortion to the point of being an outright lie.
But wait, there's more, under the pressure of this lie, the Right Honorable Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, the main sponsor of the bill, disowned the fund in remarks on the Senate floor on Thursday, saying it was proposed by Republicans. Now there's the real courage and leadership the country needs from our Senate leaders (they are ours you know, we elect them, we pay them, and, notwithstanding their appalling performance, we pay their retirement).
What's wrong with government? Need you ask. Common sense suggests Republicans, Democrats, and, at least in this case, the Senate.
News? Politics? The decline of common sense and ethical standards.
In the news today from the Washington Post:
Ben Domenech, a former Bush administration aide and Republican Senate staffer, wrote that President Obama would "please" much of his base by picking the "first openly gay justice." An administration official, who asked not to be identified discussing personal matters, said Kagan is not a lesbian.
CBS initially refused to pull the posting, prompting Anita Dunn, a former White House communications director who is working with the administration on the high court vacancy, to say: "The fact that they've chosen to become enablers of people posting lies on their site tells us where the journalistic standards of CBS are in 2010." She said the network was giving a platform to a blogger "with a history of plagiarism" who was "applying old stereotypes to single women with successful careers."
\The network deleted the posting Thursday night after Domenech said he was merely repeating a rumor. The flare-up underscores how quickly the battle over a Supreme Court nominee -- or even a potential nominee -- can turn searingly personal. Most major news organizations have policies against "outing" gays or reporting on the sex lives of public officials unless they are related to their public duties.
Where to begin? The news is suppose to be, well, news; presumptively containing significant elements of fact. That is, unfortunately, no longer true. This item, while particularly egregious is unfortunately typical. Consider, CBS purports to report news; ie. a report of a recent event; intelligence; information. Instead, what happened here is that CBS took something from a blog, apparently made no attempt to fact check, and then published it as though fact. When initially challenged, CBS declined to withdraw the item!
I've long taken a rather jaundice view of what passes as news today in a world of 24hr news cycles. Much of it is little more than hyperbole wrapped around a minimum of fact. Worse still, much of the hyperbole is cast as war like confrontation. Why then are we surprised when civil discourse is, well, anything but civil. Instead, we have a pervasive environment of uncivil, confrontational, discourse that makes it all but impossible to find real solutions to real problems.
So now, thanks to CBS, there will be some number of people that without regard to any fact truth believe that a potential justice on the Supreme Court is unqualified because she is "gay." Now, being "gay" is, at least as far as I know, a sexual orientation having nothing to do with someone's judicial qualifications or suitability for appointment to the Supreme Court. Never mind that there is no fact to support the rather scurrilous allegation.
Common sense suggest that we all be much more suspicious of what is passed off as news, particularly by CBS. It further suggest that a reasonable first assumption is that blogs are NOT evenly remotely reasonable sources of fact. After all, one of the fundamental truths of the Internet is that anything can write anything independent of the truth.
Ben Domenech, a former Bush administration aide and Republican Senate staffer, wrote that President Obama would "please" much of his base by picking the "first openly gay justice." An administration official, who asked not to be identified discussing personal matters, said Kagan is not a lesbian.
CBS initially refused to pull the posting, prompting Anita Dunn, a former White House communications director who is working with the administration on the high court vacancy, to say: "The fact that they've chosen to become enablers of people posting lies on their site tells us where the journalistic standards of CBS are in 2010." She said the network was giving a platform to a blogger "with a history of plagiarism" who was "applying old stereotypes to single women with successful careers."
\The network deleted the posting Thursday night after Domenech said he was merely repeating a rumor. The flare-up underscores how quickly the battle over a Supreme Court nominee -- or even a potential nominee -- can turn searingly personal. Most major news organizations have policies against "outing" gays or reporting on the sex lives of public officials unless they are related to their public duties.
Where to begin? The news is suppose to be, well, news; presumptively containing significant elements of fact. That is, unfortunately, no longer true. This item, while particularly egregious is unfortunately typical. Consider, CBS purports to report news; ie. a report of a recent event; intelligence; information. Instead, what happened here is that CBS took something from a blog, apparently made no attempt to fact check, and then published it as though fact. When initially challenged, CBS declined to withdraw the item!
I've long taken a rather jaundice view of what passes as news today in a world of 24hr news cycles. Much of it is little more than hyperbole wrapped around a minimum of fact. Worse still, much of the hyperbole is cast as war like confrontation. Why then are we surprised when civil discourse is, well, anything but civil. Instead, we have a pervasive environment of uncivil, confrontational, discourse that makes it all but impossible to find real solutions to real problems.
So now, thanks to CBS, there will be some number of people that without regard to any fact truth believe that a potential justice on the Supreme Court is unqualified because she is "gay." Now, being "gay" is, at least as far as I know, a sexual orientation having nothing to do with someone's judicial qualifications or suitability for appointment to the Supreme Court. Never mind that there is no fact to support the rather scurrilous allegation.
Common sense suggest that we all be much more suspicious of what is passed off as news, particularly by CBS. It further suggest that a reasonable first assumption is that blogs are NOT evenly remotely reasonable sources of fact. After all, one of the fundamental truths of the Internet is that anything can write anything independent of the truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)