http://www.therochesterdemocrat.com/ee/index.php en editor@TheRochesterDemocrat.com Copyright 2008 2008-07-05T17:03:00-06:00 http://www.therochesterdemocrat.com/index.php/weblog/leave_education_to_our_states/ {summary} Opinion

Paul Munnis


It’s hard to craft an education policy that works for all of the United States. That is why it’s been left to the States to deal with. By leaving educational policy to the States, the nature of the educational experience is fitted to local needs. Some States are highly rural and others are highly urban. The needs of those students is much different, the employment markets that those schools are educating their students for is quite different, and the working conditions for teachers and students is quite different and the income levels of the local schools is also a big variable.

Yet students growing up in a rural area may well find themselves taking employment in an urban area before their lifetime is over and so students need to be educated enough to join a mobile labor force.

In theory it should be possible to come up with a “one-size-fits-all curricula” for K-12. Americans should be able to agree on a course of study wherein we can say: “This is what an Educated American needs to know to be successful.” It sounds good until subjects like art, physical education, and black history come up. Then the regional differences and attitudes shine through. When you add religion to the discussion it really comes apart. Soon it becomes apparent that it is even difficult to standardize a text book with one group clamoring to set Darwin aside when teaching “Creationism” in Biology courses.

What about “No Child Left Behind?” In some ways it provides Americans with a benchmark for how their child’s school compares to others in the community, State, and nation. That is a good thing. In other respects NCLB has a lot of criticism levied against it that seems valid. NCLB’s major flaw I think is that Federal funding is tied to it and that cash contribution makes for a less than objective acceptance of the legislation in cash strapped communities across the nation. Some would argue that the worse a school is in terms of its performance then the more that it needs financial help.

As we move into the new school year with gas at $4 per gallon we can see schools struggling for transportation solutions. What will work in an urban area versus a rural area is quite different from what will work in the suburbs. The needs for student transportation solutions in Alaska are very different from the needs of the children in California. Where the money will come from to manage school transportation cost increases is also a major concern that all schools will have but that regional solutions must be found for.

I remember being in the San Francisco area during the gasoline rationing of the mid-seventies when that was imposed with a lot of other restrictions on gasoline use and in response to the “Six Days War” and the support by the U.S. of Israel in that war. Saudi Arabia had shut off oil imports to America and Nixon responded with national speed limits, gas rationing, and other fuel saving requirements. One of them was the suspension of daylight savings time.

In San Francisco, in the fall months, the early morning fog is thick and the suspension of daylight savings time meant that kids were going to school in the dark and foggy period when drivers were only half awake themselves. The newspapers were full of stories about children being run over by cars. That nation wide solution to a gas crisis was a total failure in that region.

We are at that point once again. We do not have the federal imposition of national regulations imposed on us. We are not dealing with rationing or autocratic national rules. We are leaving it to the regions to decide how to manage the gas problem and affordability is going to be a big factor in the outcome and decision making.

By leaving it to the States, that means the matter will be taken up by local school boards. They will have plenty of citizen input on the subject. That is democracy at work. The solutions will not be a “one size fits all” solution and in theory should be an accepted part of the communities adopting the changes.

As for setting educational criteria I think that it is best for the Federal Government to withdraw from the situation as much as possible and leave it to the States to manage. I do think that if the federal government wants to help schools it can issue a flat per capita federal financial assistance program to the Sates and I think that the national bureau of standards can set a minimum standard curricula standard for some subjects and a school measurement standard and these would be value-added efforts by the federal government.

]]> 2008-07-05T17:03:00-06:00 http://www.therochesterdemocrat.com/index.php/weblog/not_a_eulogy_of_praise_and_respect/ {summary} Opinion
Paul Munnis


Jesse Helms is dead and the GOP is trying to lionize him. In fact he was one politically sick puppy.

This is a man famous for his bigotry, for his denial of civil rights to blacks and others, and for his advocacy of denying fairly funded public education to blacks.

The man is about as far as one could get from being a civilized and fair American representative in government – one who supports the U.S. Constitution and the American Bill of Rights – thus the political scene will not miss him one bit. Helms will be buried Tuesday and be best remembered for being one who denied the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, to others.

Bob Dole, is busy praising the man for his popularity with Senate Pages whom he said Helms used to talk with and buy ice cream for. Dole himself is in support of Republican ideals that are way, way, off base.

Buying Senate Pages ice cream is hardly a good reason to sanctify the memory of a bigoted man with a warped civil rights agenda.

Few in politics will miss Jesse Helms.


]]> 2008-07-05T11:53:00-06:00 http://www.therochesterdemocrat.com/index.php/weblog/one_new_world_two_big_ideas/ {summary} Op-Ed Column


By DAVID HACKETT FISCHER
NY Times
Published: July 3, 2008
Wayland, Mass.


THIS week, we the people of North America are staging two celebrations. The Fourth of July is the 232nd birthday of the United States, and it will be observed as John Adams prescribed in 1776: a “day of deliverance” in more ways than one, with “solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty ... pomp and parade ... shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other from this time forward forever more.”

In Canada, today, another ceremony will mark the 400th anniversary of Quebec City, the first permanent settlement in New France. The ancient city has organized a party that John Adams could not have imagined, with months of festivities, fireworks and performances. And this morning, at precisely 11, the hour when Samuel de Champlain and company were thought to have landed at Quebec, bells will peal across Canada, from Newfoundland to Vancouver.

These “great anniversary festivals,” as Adams called them, are about many things. They commemorate the founding of new societies and the formation of cultures that flourish today. But they also celebrate ideas, which are the true touchstones of our way of life, more than any material foundation. Richard Hofstadter wrote of the United States that “it has been our fate as a nation not to have ideologies but to be one.” He seemed to think it was a form of “American exceptionalism,” ugly words for an erroneous thought. Not so. The same might be said in a different way of Canada and Quebec. In each place, ideas grew from dreams of “prevoyant” people, to borrow Champlain’s word.

In the United States, July 4 is about a great idea in the Declaration of Independence — its vision of liberty and freedom, equality and self-government. The Continental Congress gave Thomas Jefferson a difficult task: frame a vision of liberty and freedom that all could accept.

Most Americans believed passionately in liberty and freedom, but they understood those ideas in very different ways. Town-born New Englanders had an idea of ordered freedom and the rights of belonging. Virginia’s cavaliers thought of hierarchical liberty as a form of rank. Gentleman freeholders had much of it, servants little, and slaves nearly none.

Quakers in Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey believed in a reciprocal liberty of conscience in the spirit of the golden rule. African slaves thought of liberty as emancipation. Settlers in the Southern backcountry understood it as a sovereign individual’s right to be free from taxes and government, and to settle things his own way: Don’t tread on me!

In 1776, Jefferson’s job was to bring together these Americans who were united by their passion for liberty and freedom, but divided by their understanding of those ideas. With much help from Adams and Benjamin Franklin, he created a new vision of these principles with many contrived ambiguities, studied evasions and deliberate omissions on contested questions. Slavery was not condemned and equality was not defined, nor could they be without disrupting the common cause in 1776. And yet Jefferson’s soaring vision gave these ideas room to grow, and that great process became the central theme of American history.

What we might remember today is that Quebec City and Canada grew from another great idea, different from that of the United States, but just as expansive and important, and it too will challenge us for a thousand years.

The idea was Champlain’s, the central figure in New France for three decades, from 1603 to 1635. He had a dream that grew from his experiences in France. As a child in the small seaport of Brouage, he had become accustomed to diversity. As a youth in the province of Saintonge, he lived on the border between different cultures and religions, and moved easily between them.

Born in 1567, he came of age in a time of cruel and bitter conflict. From 1562 to 1629, France suffered through nine civil wars of religion; two million to four million people died — out of a population of 19 million. Champlain was a soldier in these wars. He became a devout Catholic who deeply believed in a universal church that was open to all humanity, and supported Henri IV’s policy of religious toleration for Protestants.

]]> 2008-07-04T14:35:01-06:00 http://www.therochesterdemocrat.com/index.php/weblog/the_luckiest_girl/ {summary} Op-Ed Column


By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
NY Times
Published: July 3, 2008


This year’s college graduates owe their success to many factors, from hectoring parents to cherished remedies for hangovers. But one of the most remarkable of the new graduates, Beatrice Biira, credits something utterly improbable: a goat.

“I am one of the luckiest girls in the world,” Beatrice declared at her graduation party after earning her bachelor’s degree from Connecticut College. Indeed, and it’s appropriate that the goat that changed her life was named Luck.

Beatrice’s story helps address two of the most commonly asked questions about foreign assistance: “Does aid work?” and “What can I do?”

The tale begins in the rolling hills of western Uganda, where Beatrice was born and raised. As a girl, she desperately yearned for an education, but it seemed hopeless: Her parents were peasants who couldn’t afford to send her to school.

The years passed and Beatrice stayed home to help with the chores. She was on track to become one more illiterate African woman, another of the continent’s squandered human resources.

In the meantime, in Niantic, Conn., the children of the Niantic Community Church wanted to donate money for a good cause. They decided to buy goats for African villagers through Heifer International, a venerable aid group based in Arkansas that helps impoverished farming families.

A dairy goat in Heifer’s online gift catalog costs $120; a flock of chicks or ducklings costs just $20.

One of the goats bought by the Niantic church went to Beatrice’s parents and soon produced twins. When the kid goats were weaned, the children drank the goat’s milk for a nutritional boost and sold the surplus milk for extra money.

The cash from the milk accumulated, and Beatrice’s parents decided that they could now afford to send their daughter to school. She was much older than the other first graders, but she was so overjoyed that she studied diligently and rose to be the best student in the school.

An American visiting the school was impressed and wrote a children’s book, “Beatrice’s Goat,” about how the gift of a goat had enabled a bright girl to go to school. The book was published in 2000 and became a children’s best seller — but there is now room for a more remarkable sequel.

Beatrice was such an outstanding student that she won a scholarship, not only to Uganda’s best girls’ high school, but also to a prep school in Massachusetts and then to Connecticut College. A group of 20 donors to Heifer International — coordinated by a retired staff member named Rosalee Sinn, who fell in love with Beatrice when she saw her at age 10 — financed the girl’s living expenses.

A few years ago, Beatrice spoke at a Heifer event attended by Jeffrey Sachs, the economist. Mr. Sachs was impressed and devised what he jokingly called the “Beatrice Theorem” of development economics: small inputs can lead to large outcomes.

Granted, foreign assistance doesn’t always work and is much harder than it looks. “I won’t lie to you. Corruption is high in Uganda,” Beatrice acknowledges.

A crooked local official might have distributed the goats by demanding that girls sleep with him in exchange. Or Beatrice’s goat might have died or been stolen. Or unpasteurized milk might have sickened or killed Beatrice.

In short, millions of things could go wrong. But when there’s a good model in place, they often go right. That’s why villagers in western Uganda recently held a special Mass and a feast to celebrate the first local person to earn a college degree in America.

Moreover, Africa will soon have a new asset: a well-trained professional to improve governance. Beatrice plans to earn a master’s degree at the Clinton School of Public Service in Arkansas and then return to Africa to work for an aid group.

Beatrice dreams of working on projects to help women earn and manage money more effectively, partly because she has seen in her own village how cash is always controlled by men. Sometimes they spent it partying with buddies at a bar, rather than educating their children. Changing that culture won’t be easy, Beatrice says, but it can be done.

When people ask how they can help in the fight against poverty, there are a thousand good answers, from sponsoring a child to supporting a grass-roots organization through globalgiving.com. (I’ve listed specific suggestions on my blog, nytimes.com/ontheground, and on facebook.com/kristof).

The challenges of global poverty are vast and complex, far beyond anyone’s power to resolve, and buying a farm animal for a poor family won’t solve them. But Beatrice’s giddy happiness these days is still a reminder that each of us does have the power to make a difference — to transform a girl’s life with something as simple and cheap as a little goat.


]]> 2008-07-04T14:29:00-06:00 http://www.therochesterdemocrat.com/index.php/weblog/new_and_not_improved/ {summary} What Others Say

NY Times Editorial
Published: July 4, 2008


Senator Barack Obama stirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes, promising to change the old order of things. He spoke with passion about breaking out of the partisan mold of bickering and catering to special pleaders, promised to end President Bush’s abuses of power and subverting of the Constitution and disowned the big-money power brokers who have corrupted Washington politics.

Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings. First, he broke his promise to try to keep both major parties within public-financing limits for the general election. His team explained that, saying he had a grass-roots-based model and that while he was forgoing public money, he also was eschewing gold-plated fund-raisers. These days he’s on a high-roller hunt.

Even his own chief money collector, Penny Pritzker, suggests that the magic of $20 donations from the Web was less a matter of principle than of scheduling. “We have not been able to have much of the senator’s time during the primaries, so we have had to rely more on the Internet,” she explained as she and her team busily scheduled more than a dozen big-ticket events over the next few weeks at which the target price for quality time with the candidate is more than $30,000 per person.

The new Barack Obama has abandoned his vow to filibuster an electronic wiretapping bill if it includes an immunity clause for telecommunications companies that amounts to a sanctioned cover-up of Mr. Bush’s unlawful eavesdropping after 9/11.

In January, when he was battling for Super Tuesday votes, Mr. Obama said that the 1978 law requiring warrants for wiretapping, and the special court it created, worked. “We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend,” he declared.

Now, he supports the immunity clause as part of what he calls a compromise but actually is a classic, cynical Washington deal that erodes the power of the special court, virtually eliminates “vigorous oversight” and allows more warrantless eavesdropping than ever.

The Barack Obama of the primary season used to brag that he would stand before interest groups and tell them tough truths. The new Mr. Obama tells evangelical Christians that he wants to expand President Bush’s policy of funneling public money for social spending to religious-based organizations — a policy that violates the separation of church and state and turns a government function into a charitable donation.

He says he would not allow those groups to discriminate in employment, as Mr. Bush did, which is nice. But the Constitution exists to protect democracy, no matter who is president and how good his intentions may be.

On top of these perplexing shifts in position, we find ourselves disagreeing powerfully with Mr. Obama on two other issues: the death penalty and gun control.

Mr. Obama endorsed the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the District of Columbia’s gun-control law. We knew he ascribed to the anti-gun-control groups’ misreading of the Constitution as implying an individual right to bear arms. But it was distressing to see him declare that the court provided a guide to “reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe.”

What could be more reasonable than a city restricting handguns, or requiring that firearms be stored in ways that do not present a mortal threat to children?

We were equally distressed by Mr. Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court’s barring the death penalty for crimes that do not involve murder.

We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.

There are still vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain on issues like the war in Iraq, taxes, health care and Supreme Court nominations. We don’t want any “redefining” on these big questions. This country needs change it can believe in.


]]> 2008-07-04T14:24:01-06:00 http://www.therochesterdemocrat.com/index.php/weblog/our_energy_agenda/ {summary} Opinion
Paul Munnis


Every American should be outraged at the proposal by the Republican Party that we grant all of the oil rights and all of the future access to oil in North America to special interests and for their exclusive private profit.

Already we are held hostage to these special interests as they milk our wallets dry for they have formed a monopoly around energy generation and distribution including power plants and oil refineries. These special interests control access and distribution and thus they control the prices we pay for access to natural resources, placed here on earth by God, for the benefit of all of mankind.

This control is exercised mercilessly and greedily for private profit. The money is taken out of circulation and is not reinvested for the common good, and that is causing economic crisis all around the world. The monopolists don’t care. The oil does not belong to the people, it belongs to them, they will tell you, and they have legal rights to it and it is in contract law writ. Take them to court if you will they have contract rights granted them by the U.S. Congress.

The special interests have bought and paid for politicians who assure them that it is so and only one piece of the puzzle remains for them to have total and perpetual control. They want control of all future production of energy including gas and oil.

Today it is energy monopoly – tomorrow it will be the very water that we drink.

So the GOP has an energy plan. It is to grab access rights now, while they still have political power, by forcing us to grant it to these special interests, and while these special interests are squeezing us hard, give them all of oil drilling rights for now and for the foreseeable future.

They will use today’s artificial oil crisis to gain control of tomorrows resources.

I say this is an artificial crisis for there is plenty of oil. Cartels control the production levels while refineries are required to process the oil into usable products. Indeed we have a surplus of oil and control is exercised at the refinery level. They regulate production. By controlling the means of production at the refineries, through price fixing instead of competition, and by giving the oil companies total control over sales and distribution at the pump, the American people have given away their rights via our politicians to reasonable pricing of the product and we have permitted just a few oil companies to control most of the energy supply and distribution in the world.

The wealth of America has been squandered by the Republicans to assure the oil companies access to Iraqi oil. There is no question of that now – it is a matter of public record.

The Republican plan is to drill America dry, then import more foreign oil. It is the worst possible scenario for Americans.

Democrats have a different plan. Reserve our oil rights for the future and not give them to the oil companies, demand fair competition ant the pump and bring an end to energy monopoly by developing alternative and renewable forms of energy distributed away from the oil and energy industry and outside of their control.

We seek to keep oil in the ground for future generations and to rein in the oil companies and the utility’s control over energy while demanding fair pricing for energy products.

As we fight these battles the American people do not know how we will fuel our cars, trucks, planes, and railroad trains five years from now. The uncertainty is driving up the cost of energy, unleashing a speculators field day, creating huge obscene profits for oil companies, and injuring our economy. Washington is doing little about it.

The GOP came to office in 2000 and immediately the special interests executed monopoly control and price fixing of energy through ENRON and they were caught, exposed, punished, and the company dissolved, but the ethics behind the energy companies’ drive for monopoly control has not changed. They still seek to control the resources of energy production and distribution and to milk the public dry as they wave the oil drilling leases and public land grant use rights for the distribution grid for energy in our face and they demand that we pay up or they will disconnect us from the grid.

Democrats have a somewhat different idea based upon our experience with these people. First, we assert that the natural resources belong to the people and not to government or to oil companies. Second, we think the people have the right to the energy at near cost of production. Third we think the people should control the means of production and distribution, and finally we think that any profits generated should be reinvested in the public interest.

The energy companies are skillful and so are the politicians that serve them. The special interest groups have managed to get politicians to pass all sorts of tax shelters for them so that they do not have to pay taxes on the profits that they make. Thus they are not reinvesting back into America. The money is extracted, divided up like spoils of war, and are given over to private wealth. The public sees little of it coming back to us to repair roads and bridges or to replace infrastructure used in the distribution of energy. Often the money goes offshore to foreign countries and into offshore bank accounts. Much of it is converted to gold, silver, and commodities and todays prices are reflecting that.

The special interests, through our politicians, are demanding that we tax ourselves even more to repair the roads and bridges that provide the pathways to market.

Democrats have a better idea: how’s about we tax them to repair our roads and bridges since they profit from the use of them?

When energy is produced on a decentralized basis, such as from wind and solar, they refuse to carry it on the energy grid unless it is the by-product of their production facility. We have had to craft State laws demanding that they carry renewable energy for they otherwise refuse to distribute it. When the private utilities do carry the renewable energy resources they price the carriage so it is kept more expensive then their own product is, thus using the national distribution grid as a weapon against us. We are gaining on them and now wind generated energy is carried on the grid and paid for on a wholesale basis and they sell it at a markup. Wind energy is thus coming online but at very high prices compared to the cost of production. In a similar fashion the development of bio-fuels and ethanol is coming on strong and forcing the integration of it into the product at the refinery level. Here in Minnesota we are demanding a percentage of the total energy produced come from renewable energy and we have set a time deadline for it. There is a cost savings too and we insist it be passed on to the people. The oil companies are not happy with this and fear it will spread to other States.

Democrats observe that the grid was built on public lands, using money garnered from the costs that we paid out for energy and that the taxes from the grid are avoided thanks to political grants. Thus we think that we own the rights to the grid and just have it in the custody of the energy producers. No they say, we own the grid, we control it, we have monopoly over it, we will do as we damn well please and you will pay what we demand for we have taken control of your politicians, they are on our side, and we pay them plenty to assure that it will stay that way. We also have the means of controlling the Courts through these grants and contract writs.

Who are these politicians? They are any politician taking money from energy producers and who are then voting the energy company agenda. We have one such here in Minnesota -- Senator Norm Coleman.

Democrats are demanding his removal from the Senate. We seek to replace him with someone that will pledge to restore control of the energy resources to the people and permit third party access on a controlled and reasonably competitive basis.

Democrats are not arguing for nationalization of the assets but we do want an end to monopoly control, an end to energy price fixing, regulation of the means of production, and price competition at the pumps. These are American demands and we need to elect politicians to office that will assure it.

With all of the complex remedies proposed by politicians for managing energy none of them state the obvious. We can control the price of energy by controlling the policies of production and distribution and we have total control of that by controlling who we elect to public office. It really is that simple. When elected officials vote against the common interest then we need to fire them.

Norm Coleman’s record is one of taking plenty of money from special interests, demanding they do nothing for the common good, permitting them to operate without control and accountability, and letting them monopoly price their product. Norm Coleman must go. He is our problem and we need to replace him and the next guy needs to understand he will be watched and tracked and if he sells out, then he will be removed from office.

That is the Democratic Party agenda for the 2008 election. We hope that you will vote for it.

I will end this editorial with an observation for readers to think about. If the form that the oil companies are forced to organize around is changed from one of a For-Profit Corporation to that of a Co-op Corporation then the whole problem would be fixed in a flash.

Think about it.

]]> 2008-07-04T13:09:00-06:00 http://www.therochesterdemocrat.com/index.php/weblog/theres_joe_again/ {summary} Opinion

Paul Munnis


Whenever we watch a photo-op of John McCain today then we almost always see the mug of Joe Lieberman in the cameras eye. Even in Columbia Joe has joined the John McCain campaign tour and one trick pony circus.

He of course claimed to be a Democrat, then he declared himself an Independent, now he is in the Veep running for the Republican candidate – another short list member.

Joe just seems to lust to be the VP.

I wonder why?

Anyone who knows Joe knows he is the secret agent for Israel in the US Senate. He takes care of their interests, they give him campaign cash, and he gets elected and everyone is happy.

Or are they?

Israel is not too overjoyed to see an American presence in the mid-east come to an end. They still have strong enemies in the mid-east. They include Iran, Syria, and Lebanon just to name the most obvious ones. They want American military might at arms reach to take care of them. They want a bunch of bases in Iraq. If they can elevate Joe to the VP spot, for either Party, then he will lookout for Israel’s future with the American government. Democrats have declared themselves, Iraq is on the downhill slope for Democrats. That leaves the GOP.

Joe tried with the Democrats and he didn’t get elected. Now he’s trying with the GOP. They want the money Joe represents but not him. Joe has made it clear – to get the money, I come attached.

What’s a poor Republican to do?

Minister Hagee, of TV Evangelical tie-in fame, has made it clear that the Evangelicals support Israel. So, they will support Joe. Now McCain needs those Evangelicals. More reason to latch on to Joe. Yet people know that Joe is a loser with voters. His beanie is on crooked.

(John + Joe = Election Strikeout). It comes down to that. So a guy like Joe hovers in the wings twisting arms while a guy like Pawlenty who has nothing to offer the ticket gets the rumored star treatment. Yes, politics makes for strange bedfellows. Israel needs a new champion in high places in American government and Joe ain't it.

Of course the mess has to be sorted out by the time the GOP Convention in Minneapolis rolls around.

Maybe Huckabie will get Israeli fever and decide to come on like Rev. Hagee and thus gain Israeli support and edge out Joe as a compromise. He does come attached to the Evangelicals. Some sort of move like that is needed for the ticket is stuck in the mud right now.

What about Joe? If he doesn’t get the GOP Veep nod then he is dead political meat. He has burned his candle at both ends in Connecticut, his home State. He will not get reelected to the Senate. He is on the DNC’s short list of Senators to defeat. He has nowhere but to go except upwards. For the GOP the second spot on the ticket is the only way left that is upward.

If that is denied to Joe then he will be among the politically dead. This is not about shrewdness with Joe or his political skills, it’s about his political survival and he has the look about him of a dead politician.

R.I.P. Joe.




]]> 2008-07-03T15:19:00-06:00 http://www.therochesterdemocrat.com/index.php/weblog/healthcare_a_critical_factor_in_our_economy/ {summary} Opinion

Paul Munnis


You hardly hear much about healthcare these days except in tangential ways dealing with some obscure aspect of it like pressure on Medicare provider fees. Yet as we shiver over the scene of a dying economy we find that the healthcare sector is at the heart and soul of that economy. A quick survey of the situation shows where healthcare is in trouble. Simply put, if medical providers don’t get paid then people don’t get treated.

We will start our survey with a base of 44 million Americans who lack healthcare and then as we enter into recession where layoffs and increasing unemployment adds millions more to the ranks of the uninsured.

We then move to a State like Minnesota which has raided its emergency care health funds that pay for the uninsured when they need emergency care. We did this to balance our State budget and it has left us in trouble when it comes time to pay hospitals, doctors, and clinics.

We then look at the recent Federal moves that are constraining Medicare payments to physicians thus cutting out the very patients who the healthcare industry needs to treat.

Moving on, we encounter a situation where Medicaid, mostly covering kids at risk, is also woefully inadequate to meet the healthcare needs of them – aside from the poor payment schedule there is a lot of kids just not covered.

An informal network of treatment centers had sprung up in hospital emergency rooms wherein people were not turned away and had care given and those with insurance were charged an overage on their bill to pay for those not having medical insurance coverage. That has been damaged by the recent legislative moves.

We are now in a situation where for too many Americans an illness requiring treatment, especially surgery, will bankrupt them. Worse yet, they may be turned away from Hospital Emergency Rooms. For others with severe illness needing expensive treatment they need to pay their co-pay up front or else they will be turned away.

We are seeing horror stories of the poor, waiting in emergency rooms for treatment, and dropping dead before they are seen. We have seen other stories of Grannie dumping at hospital emergency rooms, and still other stories of people turned away from the ER’s, and stories of ER’s closing.

How would lowering healthcare costs help our economy? Obviously if the sick were treated and paid for then the balance sheets of medical care providers would look better, that would prevent layoffs and ER closings. Also, if the cost of healthcare were capped and then reduced by 30-50%, then the economy would be positively impacted because people and companies would have more money in their wallets.

The American economy has been hijacked by two bandits: high energy costs, and high insurance costs. If we can contain these two bandits, then the American economy will be partially restored. More restoration is needed with a sick housing market, a weak dollar, and failing banks, yet healthcare is a vital part of this equation too.

These problems weaken our American economy at a time when we must strengthen it.

Making a strong economy for the nation means making a strong economy for the individual. When individuals are well off then the American economy is too.

The medical industry is not happy with the payment and coverage situation. Patients are not happy with it either. All but a few seem to understand how vital the health industry is to America. Something needs to be done. The GOP is the impediment and the roadblock to a sane healthcare policy for America.

Democrats know what that something is that is needed to fix the problem: “Universal healthcare.”

Republicans oppose Universal Healthcare as they do all forms of public entitlement. We are at a stalemate and the only solution is a change of government, particularly in the Senate wherein without 60 votes nothing can be accomplished today. If we take the White House, hold the House of Representatives, and then hold our own in the Senate race, even picking up a few seats, then we will likely be okay as the veto pen will be used in a far more judicial and far less ideological manner then under Bush.

As we write this the 110th Congress is drawing to a close. Major legislation that will be dealt with is in progress. Universal healthcare is not on the agenda for the GOP will not vote for it and Bush will veto it. The Bush Administration is ending and nothing beneficial is expected from them under any circumstances. The State legislatures and the Courts are closed for summer recess. So we are stuck until after the 2008 election. We will then seat the 111th Congress and when we do, Universal healthcare needs to be on the list of early legislation.

The future of healthcare and of our economy is in your hands. By voting you can condition the future of America.

]]> 2008-07-03T14:22:00-06:00 http://www.therochesterdemocrat.com/index.php/weblog/happy_birthday_usa/ {summary} Opinion Paul Munnis


Today is July 4th, 2008, a time to celebrate our Independence.

This is when we gather to celebrate the birth of a great independent nation that unites people of different cultures and backgrounds with a shared love of freedom and liberty. Our strength lies in our diversity and the melding of different cultures that integrates the best of the world into the American scene.

We were doing pretty good on our national agenda until eight years ago when the GOP stole the election and manipulated both electoral votes and the Supreme Court to wrench away the Presidency from the Democrats. Ever since that event the GOP has been the party of the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant segment of America, a group that is now the minority in America. They have also been the Party of big business, special interests, war, and corruption. After eight years of their governance the U.S. economy is in big trouble. Frankly, I don’t know if we can go another six or seven months before passing the baton of government for the track that we are now on is ruinous.

When you go to business school and attend your first class on the Macro Economy, you are taught that government does not create jobs, the private sector does that, and they do all of the hiring, firing, and lay-off’s. So if that is the case then what does Macro Economics do? It creates a climate for investment wherein the private sector can do its thing efficiently.

Democrats know the fix for our economic woe. It is to ignite alternative energy and at the same time manage for a strong dollar. Can we do that? Yes, Democrats have a good track record at leading the macro economy for success. When we have clear sailing in Congress we have a number of proven tools to work with.

The first is commitment, something that America can go nowhere without. We need to commit ourselves to a strong dollar and alternative energy. Bush devalued the dollar and it has cost us a lot by way of inflation, higher commodity and gas prices, and poor exchange rates resulting from his 60% devaluation of the U.S. dollar in world markets. Depending upon your viewpoint he also accomplish three other things with devaluation: lower wages in terms of world purchasing power for Americans, cheap exports to foreign nations, and he has cut his bloated deficit down by about a third since the devaluation when it is measured in world purchasing power terms. Along the way he has stiffed a lot of investors in U.S. Treasury Bonds and Notes who have seen the value of them decaying. One young man I spoke to in Rochester said he has gone over to the most conservative investment strategy possible in terms of his 401K, and he invested in U.S. Treasuries. He has lost over $5,000 since doing so. His retirement money is being stolen by government to finance our failing economy. He is livid and helpless.

Once the nation is committed to a stronger dollar then we will have to institute policies that assure it. One of those policies is to end our account deficit on trade. That means cutting back big time on imported oil while conserving our own oil by keeping it in the ground. We are going to need it for future generations. As we do this it means that we will have to downsize our energy use and at the same time develop wind, solar, bio-mass, ethanol, and alternative fuels. We will have to learn how to manage every last drop of oil efficiently and that means replacing oil with something else whenever we can.

The major impediment to bringing on alternative energy uses is not technology. We know how to do this on a massive scale and harness it for oil independence. What is lacking is investment capital. Will these technologies be centralized so that special interests control them exclusively or will they be decentralized so we have control ourselves over the production and consumption of the output? Will we pay them for energy or will we sell it to commercial suppliers to industry and thus make a profit ourselves as suppliers? Oil, Gas, and Energy producers are holding back capital investment unti they are assured of a shared monopoly control by a few.

This centralization versus decentralization issue is what is causing so much of the problems in Congress right now. Solar and wind can go on roofs and backyards or it can be controlled by energy companies. Hydrogen can be centrally made and distributed like gasoline is or it can be made in a home garage based unit. Democrats want a decentralized solution that cuts home owners and others in on the largesse. Special interests want citizens forced to buy from them exclusively and they want to control production, distribution, and prices. Indeed solar can go on your home rooftop or on leased land from the government out on the desert floor of Arizona. Wind turbines can go in your back yard or farm yard or can be set into leased government land and controlled by energy companies. Biomass can be controlled by farmers and small investors or it can be controlled by agri-business as their next big profit thrust. Gas made from waste in local landfills can be used to hold down property taxes or it can be taken over by energy producers.

Big, big money is at stake. Indeed the very nature of the U.S. economy is at stake. Investment capital controlled by big oil is being held hostage to the outcome. Until we resolve this issue then the energy crisis will dominate the U.S .economy. Indeed we are all being held to recession because of it.

We can clean up the mortgage market and Barney Frank has the right legislation for that. We can fix the collapsing financial sector and the Federal Reserve has the capital for that. But these too are being held hostage by the GOP. The War in Iraq was about oil, the failure to fix the U.S. economy is about oil, and the future of America is one with less dependence upon oil. Yet the oil companies are keeping us in irons because we want to end their dominance and their control of the U.S. economy.

We have a few limited options to deal with the U.S. energy conundrum.

One is simply to nationalize them. Neither Democrat nor Republican wants to do that because a government run monopoly will be no better than a private monopoly. Such monopoly’s are highly inefficient and corrupt and they will only make things worse in the long run.

Another option is to use non-capital forms of stimulus. Examples are tax credits and tax exemptions for investors in alternative energy. We are doing that now and it is working well but is going too slowly for most of us. For example, wind-energy is coming online at a fast rate, and Florida is committing itself to being the solar capital of North America. In order to distribute the energy thus gathered it requires an efficient grid. We have a grid, it is privately controlled and subject to theft and manipulation of energy prices as we learned with ENRON. Those controlling the grid want to use the Courts, the Law, and our Government representatives to control the delivery of energy over the grid. In other words if they produce the energy it goes free and if the public produces energy then the grid use will be charged for. So one thing that we must do is to get this central versus private supply issue sorted out. Democrats can do that with legislation if they have enough votes in the House and Senate to get such legislation through and if the veto pen is also controlled by Democrats.

Still another option is to end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, take control of the deficit and use a much smaller portion of the deficit to finance the rebuilding of America. Of course such rebuilding requires energy and we need to get energy costs under control then we can start repairing roads, bridges, airports, railroads, and other forms of public transportation including river shipping.

Taxes will also play a role and people who think that is not so are simply crazy. At first the rich will have to pay the freight and as more jobs and a heated economy returns then workers will have to add to the cash flow. A portion will have to go to deficit retirement. Doing so will feed on itself and create more jobs and that brings us to the next problem.

We lack enough workers as the Baby-Boomers retire to replace them all. What is more what we have for a workforce is not well educated nor do we have enough engineers and skilled minds to get the jobs done and needed to rescue the economy.

What that means in turn is that we are going to have to undertake immigration reform and do it so that good minds, capital, and talent, all are inflowing while the criminal element and the mentally ill are going to have to be kept away. It also means that a high IQ talent hunt is needed and anyone, regardless of their income levels, that has the high IQ that we need is then going to have to be trained and hired. That in turn means the public school system has to become a factory turning out well educated citizens able to contribute to our nation.

This all means that the GOP agenda is going to have to be scrapped and major reforms taken on many of which will not play well with the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant segment of our society. It also means we will have to embrace the principles that America was founded upon: justice, equality, civil rights, and fairness. Along the way we have to deal with the special interest groups that would seize energy control away from owners of our nation – you and me. The end game is to restore the middle class and quality of life for Americans.

Happy July 4th. Drive carefully for we need and value your talent.

]]> 2008-07-02T18:07:00-06:00 http://www.therochesterdemocrat.com/index.php/weblog/an_indelicate_observation/ {summary} Opinion

Paul Munnis


It is indelicate of General Wesley Clark to raise the point that McCain’s military experience does not qualify him as a person experienced or trained as a leader of men -- yet the man has a point. Being a fighter pilot trained to operate solo and sometimes in small units of four to six is not the same as being the Governor of a State or the head of a nation, or even the head of a company.

Clark is getting a severe reaction to his indelicate statement because it runs deep into the base of the McCain support. Some vets think that because of his service as a Navy pilot and his time spent as a POW, that McCain has unique insights that will make for some sort of strong leadership abilities. General Clark has merely pointed out that this is a false assumption.

Clark is not “Swift Boating" Sen. John McCain. No way is he challenging the validity of McCain’s military honors nor is he deprecating his experience as a POW or as a Veteran of foreign war. But he is pointing out that a fighter pilot does not have command time of a large military unit. He has had low levels of administrative duties and he has had no time spent in leading large groups of military men and equipment. In fact, a fighter pilot at McCain’s level did not attend the War College for command level training.

One would like to leave it at that – just setting the record straight -- but the GOP keeps reopening the issue. Each time they do so they reopen the scab that is trying to heal the wound. That is their choice.

The truth is that McCain’s major experience in government is in the U.S. Senate where he has served his State as an effective representative for many years. But that is not command experience by any measure. It represents mostly a solo effort by an individual and that puts him on the same level playing field of leadership experience that Barack Obama is on. It also takes away a major GOP representation that somehow McCain is more qualified to lead by virtue of his military service than Obama is – that is sheer nonsense.

The situation where McCain spoke up saying he did not want to be set free from a North Vietnamese prison “unless the other POW’s were set free too” was a heroic thing to do and it shows a strong character -- yet that is not the same as command experience. The two should not be confused.

We would also point out that G.W. Bush was trained as a fighter pilot too and he had far more command experience as Governor of Texas before taking office than what John McCain has. Bush's father had a lot of experience before becoming president and against his standard then John McCain pales by comparison.

In reality, both candidates are light on experience in leading others and will need strong and capable staff to work for them. We have had an eight year taste of the GOP staff and frankly they are failures yet they were the best that the GOP could dredge up.




]]> 2008-07-02T13:45:00-06:00 http://www.therochesterdemocrat.com/index.php/weblog/lets_have_at_it/ {summary} What Others Say


McCain Flip-Flops On Oil Drilling
Appleton, MN, Press -- Editorial
July 1, 2008


In living over 30 years around here, I’ve noticed that the “Nordskies” are generally fairly careful, conservative folks in their approach to everyday living. I suspect this admirable trait to be cultural, and began in the Norwegian homeland. It added to my dismay when I heard about a huge oil spill in the North Sea, the largest oil spill in Norwegian history, that occurred six months ago. If we’ve learned anything about oil production and shipping on the oceans, it’s that huge oil spills, which cause disasters in our life-giving oceans, are inevitable.

Now my dismay has turned to anger to see Mr. McCain flip-flopping to join Mr. Bush in calling for offshore oil drilling along very environmentally sensitive areas of Florida’s coast. Prior to this campaign season, McCain had clearly opposed such drilling as environmentally bad and certainly not worth the amount of oil it would produce. With gas at over $4 per gallon, and many Americans justifiably angry, McCain now presents it as a solution. Dead wrong and he knows it!

The only outfit that has seriously investigated the oil available in that area, the federal Energy Information Agency (EIA), projects that if we seriously began offshore drilling as soon as possible, it would hit a peak production of about 200,000 barrels per day by 2030.

The EIA also points out that this potential production equates to the whopping sum of .2% (not 2%) of projected world oil production at that point, 22 years from now. They go on to point out the obvious, “any impact on average retail fuel prices is expected to be insignificant.” Mr. McCain’s great solution for helping us at the pump won’t help us now or ever. I’m sure I’ll be one to send him a thank-you note 22 years from now, if he gets elected president and pushes it through. I wonder if Exxon Mobil and the other oil corporations that have enjoyed obscene, record profits would drop him a thank you note a lot sooner? I’d bet their CEOs would have the opportunity to thank him in person. Aside from doing them such a big favor, the invitation for such a face-to-face congratulatory party would be greased by the fact that his campaign staff is littered with previous oil lobbyists.

It’s amusing to see Mr. McCain try to paint himself as the “straight talker,” when his claim of promoting economic growth by offshore drilling is so blatantly false. It’s not amusing to see the mainstream media swallow his campaign spin and try to paint Obama as more concerned with the environment than the economy. It’s like all the major media outlets have come to some agreement that on issue after issue, they won’t point out the truth -- that McCain is really just McBush -- identical on the key issues facing the nation.

Why isn’t the media confronting McCain about a real solution to our stupid over-dependence on oil? If we demanded that all car manufacturers have an average car fleet mileage of 30 or 40 miles per gallon, which thousands of vehicles on the street already do, we would save 15 to 25 times the amount of oil that the EIA believes the offshore Florida fields could produce. The technology is there, but the political will is only there to help the oil and energy companies continue to rip us off.

Brian Wojtalewicz
Chair, Senate District 20 DFL
Appleton, MN 56208
320-289-2363


]]> 2008-07-02T12:32:00-06:00 http://www.therochesterdemocrat.com/index.php/weblog/froma_harrop_another_thing_your_dollar_cant_buy_respect/ {summary} Perspective What the world looks like when what used to be the mightiest of currencies falls.


By Froma Harrop
Boston Globe
Last update: July 1, 2008


Paris was hardly empty of U.S. visitors last week. But there were far fewer American voices than in past years, and the ones you heard were saying things like, "It's so expensive!"

The U.S. dollar -- which once carried the adjective "mighty" before it -- is now a shadow of its former swaggering self. In 2000, one U.S. dollar could buy 1.21 euros. Now, one euro equals about 1.56 U.S. dollars. Another downhill marker was reached in March, when the combined gross domestic product of the 15 countries that use the euro passed that of the United States.

Oil is priced in dollars, so when the dollar tanks, our cost of oil rises. Had the dollar stayed on par with the euro, Americans would be paying $80 a barrel for oil, rather than $140.

Because of the strong euro, Europeans haven't suffered nearly the energy-price shock we have. Furthermore, Europe was cushioned by years of national policies discouraging oil use, mainly through high energy taxes. Traffic jams on the highways feeding Paris rival ours, but the vehicles inching along are small and fuel-efficient. And public transportation is plentiful.

Rising demand for energy in China, India and elsewhere has also forced up oil prices. That was predicted. But even unexpected national crises weren't big enough to get Washington off its big rear end and push Americans to cut their oil dependency.

And that's why Americans don't have money, and the Europeans do. It's why chichi New York stores are full of foreigners in ratty jeans saying "man, that's cheap" in 100 different languages. It's why Asians and Europeans fly to Minnesota to shop at the Mall of America as though it were a bargain basement.

Now we know what it's like to be a weak-currency country. The airplanes that used to ferry middle-class Americans and a few rich Europeans across the Atlantic have become much more of a euro zone.

How far have we fallen as dominators of the world economy? Listen to this story:

On Sunday, I landed at Boston's Logan International Airport on one of five jumbo jets from Europe arriving at the same time. The line for those holding U.S. passports was short. The lines for foreign-passport holders snaked along for an hour. One aircraft was an Iberia Airlines jet from Spain and another a Lufthansa jumbo out of Germany. They pulled into their gates right in the middle of the European Championship soccer match between Spain and Germany.

As U.S. Customs disgorged them into the terminal hall, the Iberia and Lufthansa passengers ran to the bar, where the single TV screen was tuned to the soccer game. (Spain won it by a goal.)

It happened that the Red Sox were playing at the same time, and during the soccer game's halftime, some Americans requested a switch to baseball. Request denied.

Imagine that. Sox fans overwhelmed by euro-waving visitors -- and in the heart of Bean Town, too. It didn't used to be.

]]> 2008-07-02T12:24:01-06:00 http://www.therochesterdemocrat.com/index.php/weblog/build_it_and_they_will_come/ {summary} Opinion


Paul Munnis


Here in Rochester there are a lot of people who have lived for a period in the Hudson Valley, of New York State. We know one another. We get together now and again. When we do, there are shared memories that are well worth hanging onto.

Some talk about the incredible views that they experienced when driving across bridges spanning the Hudson River. The three bridges most often mentioned are the Newburg / Beacon Bridge, The Poughkeepsie Bridge, and the Kingston / Rhinecliff Bridge. All are toll bridges, as indeed all bridges are that cross the Hudson River, and all three provide mountain views in passage. The crossing is oriented on an east / west axis and so sunrise and sunsets with the mountain backgrounds are memorable.

The second most talked about feature of the Hudson Valley is the food. Many memorable restaurants exist, ranging from historic Diners like the Red Hook Diner to elegant mansions with full dining facilities both indoors and outdoors and where celebrities dine in private gazebos on manicured lawns.

What is driving the Hudson Valley is the CIA.

No I do not mean the intelligence agency but rather the Culinary Institute of America. This school for chefs turns out the top chefs of North America and is world renowned. To start with, the staff and teachers of the school are your neighbors and residents in the Hudson Valley. Each is at the top of his fame in terms of the type of cuisine that they teach. To be invited to dinner at the home of a neighbor / chef who is at the top of his career is something to just die for. When you do go then you want to bring something that adds value to the meal and you are challenged. In the process of meeting the challenge then you grow too.

The CIA is turning out many incredibly competent chefs that go onto an urban life as top chefs or who become Executive Chefs on cruise lines and hotels. But some opt to stay on in the Hudson Valley. When they do, they do not lack for support. NY City has a lot of money and to bankroll a top chef and culinary school graduate seeking to create a memorable restaurant in the pastoral area of the Hudson Valley is a good investment and a no-brainer.

Thus magnificent restaurants are opening and they all have the same credo – quality need not mean high prices. Indeed competition reins and thus quality is dominant.

The Hudson Valley has always had its own wineries and their wines are not sold in Minnesota. On my last trip to NY State I brought back a case of NY State wines for friends and they treat them like liquid gold. Most prized is wine made from the Lake Niagara Grape, a white, sweet, fruity grape that tastes just magnificent when chilled.

These chefs who are staying on in the Hudson Valley are in continual conversation with local farmers and cheese makers. The result is a demand for top quality ingredients such as duck, goose, turkey, cheese, veggies, and lamb. These must be raised organically to meet the criteria of the chefs and they go to a farm and place an order for ten cases of fresh eggs to be delivered each morning. When you get twenty top restaurants all wanting that sort of volume you can afford to turn out the best egg product in North America. I know one lady who retired to raise fresh herbs and has her whole garden sold out before the first leaf is ever plucked.

As we look to economic planning in SE Minnesota it is important to understand that good music, good food, good wine, good produce, and good meats are all timeless formulas for quality of life. In the hands of top chefs who are skilled at their trade the transformation is magnificent to the senses. People want quality of life and they will travel and pay plenty to get it. An investment in a music academy and a culinary institute will pay dividends for years to come. Just ask the people of France and Italy, they have made a national economy out of such.

As we deliberately grow our regions’ economy then we need to look to creating a quality of life that is outstanding and that differentiates us from other areas thus creating a draw to the communities for the food, the wine, and the festivities. It will cause businesses to relocate here for the combination of quality of life and access to an educated workforce is a powerful draw. We have many small communities that abut Rochester that can be developed into places with great restaurants and we have farms that can create the needed foods, wines, cheeses, vegetables and meats at the required quality levels.

Maybe it’s now time to invite Cooks of Crocus Hill to open a culinary school in Rochester and perhaps time to endow a school for the performing arts. These will start humbly but will soon grow and their bounty will make the area economically healthy.

If we do these things then the rest will happen by itself sort of like in the film Field of Dreams.

People need a reason to live in one place versus the other. Quality of life, stable employment, affordable housing, public safety, good schools, good sports venues, and outstanding food and drink are all good reasons to choose a community.

Let’s assure those reasons and attributes exist here in our SE Minnesota communities.

]]> 2008-07-02T01:01:00-06:00 http://www.therochesterdemocrat.com/index.php/weblog/the_obama_agenda/ {summary} What Others Say


By PAUL KRUGMAN
NY Times Op-Ed Columnist
Published: June 30, 2008


It’s feeling a lot like 1992 right now. It’s also feeling a lot like 1980. But which parallel is closer? Is Barack Obama going to be a Ronald Reagan of the left, a president who fundamentally changes the country’s direction? Or will he be just another Bill Clinton?

Current polls — not horse-race polls, which are notoriously uninformative until later in the campaign, but polls gauging the public mood — are strikingly similar to those in both 1980 and 1992, years in which an overwhelming majority of Americans were dissatisfied with the country’s direction.

So the odds are that this will be a “change” election — which means that it’s very much Mr. Obama’s election to lose. But if he wins, how much change will he actually deliver?

Reagan, for better or worse — I’d say for worse, but that’s another discussion — brought a lot of change. He ran as an unabashed conservative, with a clear ideological agenda. And he had enormous success in getting that agenda implemented. He had his failures, most notably on Social Security, which he tried to dismantle but ended up strengthening. But America at the end of the Reagan years was not the same country it was when he took office.

Bill Clinton also ran as a candidate of change, but it was much less clear what kind of change he was offering. He portrayed himself as someone who transcended the traditional liberal-conservative divide, proposing “a government that offers more empowerment and less entitlement.” The economic plan he announced during the campaign was something of a hodgepodge: higher taxes on the rich, lower taxes for the middle class, public investment in things like high-speed rail, health care reform without specifics.

We all know what happened next. The Clinton administration achieved a number of significant successes, from the revitalization of veterans’ health care and federal emergency management to the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and health insurance for children. But the big picture is summed up by the title of a new book by the historian Sean Wilentz: “The Age of Reagan: A history, 1974-2008.”

So whom does Mr. Obama resemble more? At this point, he’s definitely looking Clintonesque.

Like Mr. Clinton, Mr. Obama portrays himself as transcending traditional divides. Near the end of last week’s “unity” event with Hillary Clinton, he declared that “the choice in this election is not between left or right, it’s not between liberal or conservative, it’s between the past and the future.” Oh-kay.

Mr. Obama’s economic plan also looks remarkably like the Clinton 1992 plan: a mixture of higher taxes on the rich, tax breaks for the middle class and public investment (this time with a focus on alternative energy).

Sometimes the Clinton-Obama echoes are almost scary. During his speech accepting the nomination, Mr. Clinton led the audience in a chant of “We can do it!” Remind you of anything?

Just to be clear, we could — and still might — do a lot worse than a rerun of the Clinton years. But Mr. Obama’s most fervent supporters expect much more.

Progressive activists, in particular, overwhelmingly supported Mr. Obama during the Democratic primary even though his policy positions, particularly on health care, were often to the right of his rivals’. In effect, they convinced themselves that he was a transformational figure behind a centrist facade.

They may have had it backward.

Mr. Obama looks even more centrist now than he did before wrapping up the nomination. Most notably, he has outraged many progressives by supporting a wiretapping bill that, among other things, grants immunity to telecom companies for any illegal acts they may have undertaken at the Bush administration’s behest.

The candidate’s defenders argue that he’s just being pragmatic — that he needs to do whatever it takes to win, and win big, so that he has the power to effect major change. But critics argue that by engaging in the same “triangulation and poll-driven politics” he denounced during the primary, Mr. Obama actually hurts his election prospects, because voters prefer candidates who take firm stands.

In any case, what about after the election? The Reagan-Clinton comparison suggests that a candidate who runs on a clear agenda is more likely to achieve fundamental change than a candidate who runs on the promise of change but isn’t too clear about what that change would involve.

Of course, there’s always the possibility that Mr. Obama really is a centrist, after all.

One thing is clear: for Democrats, winning this election should be the easy part. Everything is going their way: sky-high gas prices, a weak economy and a deeply unpopular president. The real question is whether they will take advantage of this once-in-a-generation chance to change the country’s direction. And that’s mainly up to Mr. Obama.


]]> 2008-07-01T11:27:00-06:00 http://www.therochesterdemocrat.com/index.php/weblog/anxious_in_america/ {summary} What Others Say


By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
NY Times Op-Ed Columnist
Published: June 29, 2008


Just a few months ago, the consensus view was that Barack Obama would need to choose a hard-core national-security type as his vice presidential running mate to compensate for his lack of foreign policy experience and that John McCain would need a running mate who was young and sprightly to compensate for his age. Come August, though, I predict both men will be looking for a financial wizard as their running mates to help them steer America out of what could become a serious economic tailspin.

I do not believe nation-building in Iraq is going to be the issue come November — whether things get better there or worse. If they get better, we’ll ignore Iraq more; if they get worse, the next president will be under pressure to get out quicker. I think nation-building in America is going to be the issue.

It’s the state of America now that is the most gripping source of anxiety for Americans, not Al Qaeda or Iraq. Anyone who thinks they are going to win this election playing the Iraq or the terrorism card — one way or another — is, in my view, seriously deluded. Things have changed.

Up to now, the economic crisis we’ve been in has been largely a credit crisis in the capital markets, while consumer spending has kept reasonably steady, as have manufacturing and exports. But with banks still reluctant to lend even to healthy businesses, fuel and food prices soaring and home prices declining, this is starting to affect consumers, shrinking their wallets and crimping spending. Unemployment is already creeping up and manufacturing creeping down.

The straws in the wind are hard to ignore: If you visit any car dealership in America today you will see row after row of unsold S.U.V.’s. And if you own a gas guzzler already, good luck. On Thursday, The Palm Beach Post ran an article on your S.U.V. options: “Continue to spend upward of $100 for a fill-up. Sell or trade in the vehicle for a fraction of the original cost. Or hold out and park the truck in the driveway for occasional use in hopes the market will turn around.” Just be glad you don’t own a bus. Montgomery County, Md., where I live, just announced that more children were going to have to walk to school next year to save money on bus fuel.

On top of it all, our bank crisis is not over. Two weeks ago, Goldman Sachs analysts said that U.S. banks may need another $65 billion to cover more write-downs of bad mortgage-related instruments and potential new losses if consumer loans start to buckle. Since President Bush came to office, our national savings have gone from 6 percent of gross domestic product to 1 percent, and consumer debt has climbed from $8 trillion to $14 trillion.

My fellow Americans: We are a country in debt and in decline — not terminal, not irreversible, but in decline. Our political system seems incapable of producing long-range answers to big problems or big opportunities. We are the ones who need a better-functioning democracy — more than the Iraqis and Afghans. We are the ones in need of nation-building. It is our political system that is not working.

I continue to be appalled at the gap between what is clearly going to be the next great global industry — renewable energy and clean power — and the inability of Congress and the administration to put in place the bold policies we need to ensure that America leads that industry.

“America and its political leaders, after two decades of failing to come together to solve big problems, seem to have lost faith in their ability to do so,” Wall Street Journal columnist Gerald Seib noted last week. “A political system that expects failure doesn’t try very hard to produce anything else.”

We used to try harder and do better. After Sputnik, we came together as a nation and responded with a technology, infrastructure and education surge, notes Robert Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International. After the 1973 oil crisis, we came together and made dramatic improvements in energy efficiency. After Social Security became imperiled in the early 1980s, we came together and fixed it for that moment. “But today,” added Hormats, “the political system seems incapable of producing a critical mass to support any kind of serious long-term reform.”

If the old saying — that “as General Motors goes, so goes America” — is true, then folks, we’re in a lot of trouble. General Motors’s stock-market value now stands at just $6.47 billion, compared with Toyota’s $162.6 billion. On top of it, G.M. shares sank to a 34-year low last week.

That’s us. We’re at a 34-year low. And digging out of this hole is what the next election has to be about and is going to be about — even if it is interrupted by a terrorist attack or an outbreak of war or peace in Iraq. We need nation-building at home, and we cannot wait another year to get started. Vote for the candidate who you think will do that best. Nothing else matters.


]]> 2008-07-01T11:19:00-06:00 http://www.therochesterdemocrat.com/index.php/weblog/as_foreclosures_escalate/ {summary} What Others Say


NY Times Editorial
Published: July 1, 2008

By the time the Senate returns next Monday from its July 4 recess, some 55,000 more homes will have entered foreclosure. And that’s hardly the full picture of the growing calamity. More than three million homeowners are currently at risk of default and millions more are expected to join them in the coming year as home prices drop, the economy falters and delinquencies rise. Yet the Senate went ahead with its vacation last Friday without passing a foreclosure prevention measure.

The bill was expected to pass, but the vote was derailed by petty politics. Senator John Ensign, Republican of Nevada, for example, demanded that the Senate add a multibillion dollar package of tax breaks for renewable energy. Democrats balked — not out of opposition to the tax breaks, which rightly enjoy bipartisan support, but because Mr. Ensign wanted to tack them on to the foreclosure bill without paying for them. That would threaten passage of the bill in the House, which is more committed than the Senate to pay-as-you-go governing.

This sort of delay achieves political ends, like denying Democrats the chance to campaign on the accomplishment during the recess, but it’s exceedingly poor policy. Foreclosures are feeding the nation’s severe economic problems. Turmoil in the financial markets is rooted in the collapse of the housing bubble and will not abate until house prices stabilize and sales pick up. Even Americans fortunate enough to have a down payment and a willing lender are hesitating, understandably fearful of further price drops. Rising foreclosures add daily to the glut of unsold homes, pushing prices down and foreclosures up in a vicious cycle.

That same financial turmoil, coupled with huge losses in home equity, has deprived many Americans of the means or the confidence to buy a new house or other big-ticket items, like cars. In a recent Gallup poll, a majority of Americans said they were now worse off financially than they were a year ago. That’s the first time in the 32-year history of the question that more than half the population has reported losing ground.

Unfortunately, the pessimism is justified. The Bush-era expansion was based largely on a boom in bad lending and house-price inflation — not on robust employment, wage increases or sustainable gains in household wealth. As a result, many Americans have spent the last several years taking on debt, rather than building their earning power or adding to savings. They are ill prepared to cope with a weakening economy and rising gas prices, and they know it.

This spring’s tax refunds and stimulus checks have been a boost, but it won’t last. Soon, defaults on credit cards and auto loans are likely to pick up, and lenders will respond by keeping credit tight.

The foreclosure prevention bill is not a cure-all, by any means, but is a way to try to break the cycle. It would allow many troubled borrowers to exchange their unaffordable loans for new mortgages guaranteed by the federal government — as long as the lender agreed to reduce the existing loan balance to 85 percent of the home’s current value. It is questionable whether lenders would be willing to take the loss, and there’s nothing in the law to prod them to do so.

Still, the bill’s passage, which should be the Senate’s priority next week, would be an overdue acknowledgment that the foreclosure mess requires government intervention. Lawmakers could build on the effort as needed, but it is unconscionable not to take the first step.


]]> 2008-07-01T11:11:00-06:00 http://www.therochesterdemocrat.com/index.php/weblog/iraq_the_un_the_us_and_diplomacy/ {summary} Opinion


Paul Munnis


When we look at the situation in Iraq it appears we are close to a point in time when America can declare victory in Iraq and then leave. At least that’s what G.W. Bush is hoping for.

Both a declaration of victor and withdrawal of troops will be needed -- the first to save face for our military and the GOP. The other, Iraq troop withdrawal, is needed to prevent a return of violence, to provide a stop-loss order against the U.S. deficit, and to deal with the U.S. being ejected from Iraq..

Saving face for our military is very important to the military and to the GOP. They do not like to admit it but now that al Sadr has declared a cease-fire and parts of the provinces are quiet it gives the appearance that we are winning the war. Nothing could be further from the truth but it looks and sounds good and our military needs a strong appearance as they did not do well in Vietnam and are they not doing well in Iraq either. Thus we need to create the illusion of winning the war in Iraq.

This illusion of winning is compounded by a black out on news from Iraq with little world free press reporting being permitted by our military. The blackout is highlighted by propaganda films showing the Iraqi Army occupying peaceful towns and supplemented by the US Army with declarations that the Iraqi Army is now strong enough to do the job with just a little assistance needed from the .U.S. This gives more illusion that we are winning in Iraq.

Meantime, al Sadr is reining back his Mehdi army and thus the shooting part of the war is down to a level where mainly it is al Queda in Iraq that is mounting the violence. They are not sending troops, they are sending women and children wired with explosives as human bombs and also truck bombs while the targets are Iraqi civilians as well as U.S. troops.

Also, al Sadr is demanding that the U.S. go home. The Iraqi government demands that the U.S. go home too. But Talibani, and a few others, recognize the amount of money flowing into Iraq is good for them personally and so they want us to stay. Bush features these guys in his propaganda broadcasts and he portrays that the U.S. government is wanted by the Iraqi government. That is a sham and it is not true.

Meantime the date for the U.N. resolution that permits the U.S. to stay in Iraq is expiring in August. If the resolution is not renewed, and indications are that it will not be, the U.S. has to get out beginning by the end of August of this year. Thus Mr. Bush is between a rock and a hard place. He can only stay on if the Iraqi government permits it. If a fair vote is taken in the Iraqi Parliament then we will get the boot.

The real objective in Iraq is the oil and so Mr. Bush has our Seven Sister oil companies negotiating with the Iraqi government to invest in underground engineering of the well fields. That is thought to give the U.S. a competitive advantage when it comes time to let the Iraqi Government oil leases.

The Iraqi government is a long way off from agreeing on how to distribute the oil profits. The two methods are to give every Iraq a share of the proceeds or whether to keep the money centralized for a central government to administer. As you can imagine this is the equivalent of a Republican and a Democratic Party set of viewpoints and the only way this can be resolved is by compromise and Mr. Bush is pushing hard for such a compromise. Al Sadr wants the compromise delayed until the U.S. withdraws its troops and goes home.

In the oil rich north, the Kurds have taken an autonomous position and have already begun to let leases to world oil companies and the oil is already flowing and the underground engineering is well along. The Kurds have all but divorced themselves from al Sadr and the rest of the Iraqi government and is providing its own policing in the North. There is relative tranquility there now that the Turks have been allowed to perform hot pursuit on Iraqis that invade their territory.

We are within a period of about 60 days when the future of the Iraqi War will be determined by world and UN politics and the Iraq war is far from over and the Iraq War is far from being won.

How John McCain can say that the Iraq War is being won is beyond me. He seems to be repeating only the propaganda line of the Bush Administration. He does have a point though – if the UN boots the US out of Iraq and the Iraqi government says “Yankee Go Home,” then it is going to have to be made to look like we won so we can save face. However, the Democrats will have to agree to go along with the sham just so we can afford to move on.

The problem for McCain is that Barack Obama is not given over to agreeing to shams and so he has to paint Obama as a foreign policy neophyte who doesn’t know what he is doing. That is based upon a thin lie supported only by the fact that it has been a long time since Obama has gone to Iraq to talk to the field commanders. To fix that Obama will go to Iraq to talk to the field commanders this summer at a point in time near when the UN resolution will expire.

McCain lives in terror of August. If the UN says “Times Up,” and the Iraq Government says: “Get Out,” and Obama has a talk with al Sadr and the Iraqi government agreeing to a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops then the appearance is going to be one of the US having lost in Iraq and there will be much egg on Republican faces.

McCain is using the Vince Lombardi approach that the best defense is a good offense and so he is coming on by painting Obama as inept on foreign policy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Some of the best foreign policy experts in the world are on the Obama campaign team and are advising him on timing, strategy, and negotiation progress.

There are several fields of battle here. There are the cities and towns of Iraq. There are the politics of the Iraqi government. There are the wished of Bush and a set of subalterns who are growing fat from U.S. money and who do not want to give it up. There are also the oil companies seeking access to Iraqi oil. There are two major factions who have to decide on the administration of oil profits. There is the UN and there are negotiations with al Sadr. The Bush Administration does not want the public to know how fragile the egg shell thin diplomacy really is and so it has clamped down with a news blackout.

The next sixty days will be quiet where the media is concerned and then the decisions will come forth in a rush. By Labor Day we will know the future of the Iraq War. If Democrats get into office in the Fall then a phased withdrawal is certain. If we pull out of Iraq what of future oil supply? That is where alternative energy comes in to make up the difference and that is another story for another editorial.


]]> 2008-06-30T15:57:00-06:00 http://www.therochesterdemocrat.com/index.php/weblog/pawlenty_failed_at_defending_mccain_on_national_tv/ {summary} Analysis

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty appeared on “This Week with George Stepanopolus,” as a spokesman who is alleged to be on the short list for the V.P. slot on the McCain GOP ticket and Pawlenty flunked the job interview.

The biggest point that he was skewered over concerned the economy. Pawlenty was trying to defend the Bush economic policy and the opposition just had to point to a loss of $7,000 in lost income for the average Minnesotan worker since Bush and Pawlenty came into office. A few more jibes on falling bridges and decaying roads and Pawlenty was fried to medium well done. It’s pretty hard to defend the McCain economic plan when one is up against such measurable facts and they show that people and government units are going backwards in terms of growth. It gets even worse when one factors in inflation over the period. When it comes to the deficit then the subject of the economy goes ballistic.

Pawlenty tried to level charges of flip-flopping against Obama and the response was a long laundry list of flip-flops made by McCain thus effectively nullifying the Pawlenty arguments and showing McCain to be highly inconsistent. As Howard Dean once said “The McCain of 2000 would not have voted for the McCain of 2008.”

Charges of ineptness at foreign policy was made by Pawlenty against Obama but they would not stand up to scrutiny while mistakes made by McCain in foreign policy were brought into the discussion showing that he is not omnipotent and has made plenty of foolish foreign policy statements himself.

The biggest theme song of Obama bashing is that he lacks experience but the GOP has lots of experience and its all bad. Does anybody value Bush's experience anymore? McCain does.

When the cameras shifted it was a bad day for Pawlenty in terms of his desire to represent John McCain on the GOP election ticket for 2008. By all logic Pawlenty should be knocked out of ticket contention but he could survive if the other names on the short-list are even worse than he is.

The GOP is going down in flames once more even as McCain is shot down. Pawlenty is a poor wingman for his flight leader. Pawlenty cannot effectively defend his flight-leader's interests.

Now it’s time for the next guy to try his hand at supporting John McCain.


]]> 2008-06-29T15:50:00-06:00 http://www.therochesterdemocrat.com/index.php/weblog/oil_and_inflation/ {summary} What Others Say


NY Times Op-Ed
Published: June 29, 2008

This month, Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, broke from the usually banal official pronouncements about the dollar to talk bluntly about the risks of inflation. He told an international conference that a weakening dollar had caused an “unwelcome rise” in inflation and pledged to guard against such dangers.

Until this recent round of comments — which other Fed officials have now joined — the Fed had focused on the turmoil in the financial markets and slowing growth, not rising prices. With the markets relatively calm during most of June, it apparently felt freer to raise warnings about inflation. The Fed’s decision Wednesday to hold interest rates steady — after a string of cuts to stabilize financial markets and support the economy — underscored its growing concern about prices.

Then came Thursday and Friday. The stock market plunged into bear market territory, leaving no doubt that the credit crunch persists and the economy is still very fragile. At the same time, oil prices surged, sharply increasing inflationary pressure. The Fed would have preferred to deal with the threats of recession and inflation sequentially. But it does not have that luxury.

The Fed is in a bind. If it keeps rates low and loans plentiful to combat a recession, inflation could worsen. If it raises rates and tightens the money spigot to fight inflation, the downturn could be deepened and prolonged.

History may not be a reliable guide. It is easy — but not necessarily helpful — to draw analogies to eras like the stagflationary 1970s. Then, high prices led to higher wages and the dreaded wage-price spiral. Raising interest rates increased unemployment and slowed wage growth, choking inflation. But today, wages are barely budging, even as prices go up. Rate hikes to fight today’s inflation — which stem from commodity prices, not wages — may not be the fix they once were.

We don’t know how the Fed is going to get out of this bind. In the long run, however, the bigger challenge is not the Fed’s. Policy makers must come up with strategies to prevent the recession-and-inflation problem from happening time and again. Foremost would be a systematic plan for reducing the nation’s dependence on oil. From this perspective, high oil prices are actually a good thing — cutting use and spurring the development of alternative energy — but there must be help for the most hard-hit Americans, like lower-income workers.

The country first saw how high oil prices can wreak economic havoc with the oil shocks of the 1970s. Congress and presidents have failed to reduce America’s vulnerability by reducing its dependency. The Fed will have to feel its way through the current crisis. But the next president and Congress will have to tackle the oil problem once and for all.


]]> 2008-06-29T15:48:00-06:00 http://www.therochesterdemocrat.com/index.php/weblog/more_waste_fraud_and_abuse/ {summary} What Others Say
NY Times Editorial
Published: June 29, 2008

Representative Henry Waxman recently asked a question for which we would also like an answer: “How did a company run by a 21-year-old president and a 25-year-old former masseur get a sensitive $300 million contract to supply ammunition to Afghan forces?” Mr. Waxman raised the issue after executives of a Miami Beach arms dealer, AEY, were indicted on fraud charges this month, accused of pawning off tens of millions of banned and decrepit Chinese cartridges on the United States Army to supply Afghan security forces.

The Pentagon’s folly with the fly-by-night trafficker is just the latest example of the Bush administration’s cynically cozy contracting practices and shockingly weak oversight that have wasted billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money.

Congressional investigators took testimony from a United States military attaché who accused the American ambassador in Albania of helping to cover up the Chinese ammunition’s origins. The ambassador, John Withers, denies wrongdoing. But Rep. Waxman is wisely working to map the dimensions of fraud and waste.

The AEY fraud case followed a detailed investigation by The Times, which found the company scored the Afghan contract despite a record of failure and risky corner-cutting in a half-dozen other plum contracts. ( Along the way, Efraim Diveroli, the company president who is now indicted, had the gall to fight off a court case accusing him of abusing his girlfriend by claiming national security privilege “in the fight against terrorism.” )

AEY’s record, including a failed $5.6 million contract for 10,000 pistols needed by Iraqi security forces, should have been obvious to anyone consulting a State Department watch list of 80,000 — count them, 80,000 — suspect traffickers in illegal arms. American contractors must avoid such crooked middlemen. The Pentagon is exempted by law from having to consult the list.

How, indeed, could such scheming profiteers find their way onto the Pentagon gravy train? The answer is one more example of this administration’s disastrous mismanagement of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

]]> 2008-06-29T15:46:00-06:00 http://www.therochesterdemocrat.com/index.php/weblog/the_air_forces_tanker_mess/ {summary} What Others Say


NY Times Editorial
Published: June 29, 2008

Defense Secretary Robert Gates must take over the troubled contracting process for the Air Force’s new midair refueling tankers. The current tankers are decades old and the Air Force needs the new planes. But its repeated bungling of the procurement process shows that it is incapable of doing the task on its own.

Healthy competition among defense contractors — on both sides of the Atlantic — is the best way to ensure that the Pentagon buys the best possible gear for the lowest possible price. But according to a scathing report by the Government Accountability Office, there was nothing healthy about how the Air Force awarded the $35 billion tanker contract to the team of Northrop Grumman and the European company EADS over rival Boeing.

The government watchdog agency did not say which was the best plane. But it accused the Air Force of breaking its own contracting rules. It told Boeing it wouldn’t give extra credit for a big jet and then gave extra credit to Northrop’s bigger jet. It changed its rating of Boeing’s communications and computer system without telling Boeing. But it discussed Northrop’s system with Northrop. It also appeared to give Northrop a pass on at least two important stipulations, including whether its tanker could refuel all the planes in the fleet.

The Air Force also miscalculated the full cost of operating the two rivals’ jets. If not for the errors, the report said, “we believe that Boeing would have had a substantial chance of being selected for award.”

The Air Force’s previous attempt to get new tankers — a no-bid deal to lease planes from Boeing — was derailed after it was revealed that Boeing offered a job to the Air Force official negotiating the contract.

The Air Force must follow the agency’s recommendation to reopen the bidding process. But Mr. Gates will have to work especially hard to ensure that the process isn’t further tainted by election-year politics.

That will be difficult. Both Senators Barack Obama and John McCain have called for redoing the competition. Mr. McCain, who was rightly praised for his role in derailing the earlier sweetheart deal with Boeing, must now answer for the role he played in pushing the Air Force to keep Northrop-EADS in the competition.

Some members of Congress, spurred by an aggressive and expensive lobbying campaign by Boeing, are trying to use the agency’s report as an excuse to overhaul how defense contracts are awarded: attaching buy-America provisions and job creation requirements. That was not part of the agency’s criticism.

Such requirements would almost certainly provoke retaliation from allies in Europe and elsewhere — a dangerous course for the world’s biggest weapons exporter. Excluding foreign bidders almost guarantees that taxpayers will end up paying more for less defense.

Mr. Gates is already working to overhaul the dysfunctional Air Force. He fired both the secretary of the Air Force and its chief of staff for their inexcusable failure to keep track of nuclear munitions, among other problems. Mr. Gates and the service’s new leadership must now clean up this tanker mess. They must appoint a new procurement team. With the proper oversight in place, the bidding for the new tanker must start as quickly — and nonpolitically — as possible.


]]> 2008-06-29T15:40:00-06:00 http://www.therochesterdemocrat.com/index.php/weblog/fuels_on_the_hill/ {summary} What Others Say


By PAUL KRUGMAN
NY Times Op-Ed
Published: June 27, 2008


Congress has always had a soft spot for “experts” who tell members what they want to hear, whether it’s supply-side economists declaring that tax cuts increase revenue or climate-change skeptics insisting that global warming is a myth.

Right now, the welcome mat is out for analysts who claim that out-of-control speculators are responsible for $4-a-gallon gas.

Back in May, Michael Masters, a hedge fund manager, made a big splash when he told a Senate committee that speculation is the main cause of rising prices for oil and other raw materials. He presented charts showing the growth of the oil futures market, in which investors buy and sell promises to deliver oil at a later date, and claimed that “the increase in demand from index speculators” — his term for institutional investors who buy commodity futures — “is almost equal to the increase in demand from China.”

Many economists scoffed: Mr. Masters was making the bizarre claim that betting on a higher price of oil — for that is what it means to buy a futures contract — is equivalent to actually burning the stuff.

But members of Congress liked what they heard, and since that testimony much of Capitol Hill has jumped on the blame-the-speculators bandwagon.

Somewhat surprisingly, Republicans have been at least as willing as Democrats to denounce evil speculators. But it turns out that conservative faith in free markets somehow evaporates when it comes to oil. For example, National Review has been publishing articles blaming speculators for high oil prices for years, ever since the price passed $50 a barrel.

And it was John McCain, not Barack Obama, who recently said this: “While a few reckless speculators are counting their paper profits, most Americans are coming up on the short end — using more and more of their hard-earned paychecks to buy gas.”

Why are politicians so eager to pin the blame for oil prices on speculators? Because it lets them believe that we don’t have to adapt to a world of expensive gas.

Indeed, this past Monday Mr. Masters assured a House subcommittee that a return to the days of cheap oil is more or less there for the asking. If Congress passed legislation restricting speculation, he said, gasoline prices would fall almost 50 percent in a matter of weeks.

O.K., let’s talk about the reality.

Is speculation playing a role in high oil prices? It’s not out of the question. Economists were right to scoff at Mr. Masters — buying a futures contract doesn’t directly reduce the supply of oil to consumers — but under some circumstances, speculation in the oil futures market can indirectly raise prices, encouraging producers and other players to hoard oil rather than making it available for use.

Whether that’s happening now is a subject of highly technical dispute. (Readers who want to wonk themselves out can go to my blog, krugman.blogs.nytimes.com, and follow the links.) Suffice it to say that some economists, myself included, make much of the fact that the usual telltale signs of a speculative price boom are missing. But other economists argue, in effect, that absence of evidence isn’t solid evidence of absence.

What about those who argue that speculative excess is the only way to explain the speed with which oil prices have risen? Well, I have two words for them: iron ore.

You see, iron ore isn’t traded on a global exchange; its price is set in direct deals between producers and consumers. So there’s no easy way to speculate on ore prices. Yet the price of iron ore, like that of oil, has surged over the past year. In particular, the price Chinese steel makers pay to Australian mines has just jumped 96 percent. This suggests that growing demand from emerging economies, not speculation, is the real story behind rising prices of raw materials, oil included.

In any case, one thing is clear: the hyperventilation over oil-market speculation is distracting us from the real issues.

Regulating futures markets more tightly isn’t a bad idea, but it won’t bring back the days of cheap oil. Nothing will. Oil prices will fluctuate in the coming years — I wouldn’t be surprised if they slip for a while as consumers drive less, switch to more fuel-efficient cars, and so on — but the long-term trend is surely up.

Most of the adjustment to higher oil prices will take place through private initiative, but the government can help the private sector in a variety of ways, such as helping develop alternative-energy technologies and new methods of conservation and expanding the availability of public transit.

But we won’t have even the beginnings of a rational energy policy if we listen to people who assure us that we can just wish high oil prices away.

]]> 2008-06-29T13:11:00-06:00 http://www.therochesterdemocrat.com/index.php/weblog/steve_andreasen_with_nuclear_weapons_a_lot_can_go_wrong/ {summary} What Others Say Recent foul-ups raise the questions: How secure are tactical weapons in Europe? And do they really need to be there?


By STEVE ANDREASEN
Star Tribune
June 26, 2008


President Merkin Muffley: General Turgidson! When you instituted the human reliability tests, you "assured" me there was "no" possibility of such a thing "ever" occurring!

Gen. Buck Turgidson: Well, I, uh, don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up, sir.

-- "DR. STRANGELOVE"

Most Americans -- including senior government and military officials -- would have thought absurd a sequence of events whereby nuclear- armed cruise missiles could be mistakenly loaded under the wing of a B-52 bomber in North Dakota and flown across the country to a base in Louisiana without anyone knowing the nuclear warheads were aboard the plane, or that they were missing from their base, for 36 hours. Yet, this is exactly what happened in August 2007.

Shockingly, this was only one slip-up with respect to nuclear weapons security that led Defense Secretary Robert Gates to remove the Air Force's top two officials this month. In March, it was disclosed that the Air Force had mistakenly shipped parts for nuclear missiles to Taiwan, believing the equipment to be helicopter batteries. And just last week, another disclosure from an internal Air Force Blue Ribbon Review conducted after the B-52 incident: that "most" bases that store U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe do not meet Department of Defense security requirements.

That U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe have not been under the most stringent lock and key could and should spark a long-overdue discussion within NATO regarding the role of short-range, or "tactical," nuclear weapons in European security -- and whether the benefits of continuing these nuclear deployments outweigh the risks.

For much of the Cold War, the United States deployed thousands of tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of its European NATO allies. The purpose of these deployments was to underscore the political link between America and Europe and provide a military capability to deter and if necessary defeat Soviet tank armies poised to invade NATO through Germany.

The Red Army -- one of the most formidable in history -- withdrew from Eastern Europe and returned to Russia shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Seventeen years later, the military rationale for the estimated 150 to 240 U.S. nuclear weapons that remain in Europe is difficult to discern. Does NATO fear that the Russian Army today -- a shell of its former self -- might intervene in new NATO-member states as the alliance expands eastward, and that nuclear weapons are necessary to manage that threat? Or does NATO believe that hundreds of American nuclear weapons deployed across Europe are necessary to deter or defeat the prospect of a nuclear- armed Iran?

Both of these scenarios seem a bit far-fetched, especially given that any residual military-deterrence mission for nuclear weapons vis-à-vis Russia or Iran could be dealt with by U.S. and British strategic nuclear forces on submarines patrolling at sea. As to the argument that U.S. tactical nuclear weapons in Europe today are the political glue that holds NATO together -- it increasingly sounds like a historical shibboleth repeated by nuclear bureaucrats rather than a true assessment of the political and security bonds that continue to hold NATO together as an alliance of like-minded states.

One of the most important security threats relevant to those bonds is the threat of nuclear terrorism. The presence of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons in Europe has little if any relevance to dealing with this problem -- terrorists are unlikely to be deterred by the threat of nuclear retaliation. More likely, the continued existence of tactical nuclear weapons exacerbates the terrorist threat, as these weapons are smaller and more portable and thus are inviting targets for theft -- especially if the bases storing these weapons are not adequately secured.

Despite the recently documented failings surrounding the security of U.S. nuclear weapons, the more alarming issue from the standpoint of nuclear terrorism is the security of Russian tactical nuclear arms. Russia continues to deploy its own arsenal of thousands of short-range nuclear bombs opposite NATO -- and claims with Buck Turgidson-like certainty that there is "no" possibility of a security breach "ever" occurring. Moreover, Russia points to the continued presence of U.S. nuclear weapons on European soil as a reason for keeping its own.

Recent events have given the United States, NATO and Russia fair warning that unless we collectively break free from our nuclear autopilot, we may be heading for a nuclear catastrophe. Former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry, and former Sen. Sam Nunn have called for a dialogue within NATO -- as the attitudes of European governments and publics on this point are crucial -- and with Russia on consolidating these weapons to enhance their security and as a first step toward their elimination. Both John McCain and Barack Obama have made statements indicating their support for reducing and eliminating tactical nuclear weapons. Let's make sure they don't forget about this in 2009.

Steve Andreasen, the director for defense policy and arms control on the National Security Council from 1993 to 2001, teaches at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs.

]]> 2008-06-29T00:35:00-06:00 http://www.therochesterdemocrat.com/index.php/weblog/the_woes_of_the_gop/ {summary} Opinion

Paul Munnis


When a political Party has to publicly announce that they are a failure and need to re-invent or re-brand then you know that they are in big-time trouble.

When they end up with a candidate that nobody in their Party wants then you know the trouble is compounded.

When the candidate then throws together a herky-jerky set of policies based upon shots from the hip and that lack a unifying social theme then you know the end is in sight.

When the candidate is running on his record of campaign finance reform and then takes funding from PACS, Special Interests, Corporations, Lobby Firms, and those seeking Party Access then you know a failed campaign message when you hear it.

When the Party operatives are on the defense for their past violations of the law and are facing criminal charges from Congress and the only thing staving off prison sentences is the president standing on Executive Privilege then you know that the end is in sight.

When international human rights groups start to compete for the right to prosecute human rights violations once the office holders lose their immunity then you know the hangman is getting closer.

When “No New Taxes,” has bankrupted government and destroyed our national infrastructure then you know that is a dead theme.

When fear no longer sells because of a huge underpinning of lies leading to lost credibility for the Republican Party then you know that even the proposition of re-branding a Party is a failure right from the start.

When you consider the campaigning strategy of using lies, innuendo, whispering, racial prejudice, bigotry, and misinformation as the major method of winning a campaign because the Party involved lacks a track record of success after eight ears of total government control, then you know that the death rattle is neigh-on.

When our military has been destroyed and needs to be completely redesigned and equipped then you know that the taxpayers are not going to love those who did this to America.

These are just a few of the reasons that the Republican Party is about to go the way of the Whig Party and soon be a distant footnote to history. When historians need an example of how not to govern a nation they will point to the Republican Party and the Bush Administration to draw lessons from.

Few thinking people will ever want to vote for such failure and the very notion of voting Republican is tainted for generations to come.

]]> 2008-06-28T14:07:00-06:00 http://www.therochesterdemocrat.com/index.php/weblog/the_europeans_step_up/ {summary} What Others Say




NY Times Editorial
Published: June 28, 2008


It has been nearly two years since the United Nations ordered Iran to stop enriching uranium. Tehran continues to defy that order, and its scientists are getting closer to mastering a process that is the hardest part of building a nuclear weapon. So we welcome the European Union’s decision — after much foot-dragging — to impose new sanctions on Iran that go beyond what the United Nations Security Council has mandated.

That means that 61 Iranians or companies — all with alleged links to Iran’s nuclear or ballistic missile programs — will now be subject to a European visa ban, a freeze on assets or both. European states must lose no time in rigorously implementing these penalties.

Coming after Tehran again cold-shouldered a package of economic and diplomatic incentives offered by the major powers, the European Union’s decision reinforces the only strategy that might — might — have a chance of peacefully persuading Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions.

The strategy — initiated in 2006 by Britain, France, Germany, the United States, Russia and China — offers Iran a reasonable choice: suspend nuclear fuel production and cooperate with international inspectors in exchange for rewards from the West, or continue down the current road and face harsher penalties and deeper isolation.

Tehran has until now played a weak hand brilliantly. Even as it defies the United Nations, it has staved off significant international penalties by showing occasional interest in negotiations and deftly leveraging its economic power as an oil-and-gas producer.

Europe’s patience, we hope, is finally wearing thin and the tightening financial squeeze may yet have an impact. It would be foolish for the Senate to threaten this cooperation by passing a bill, now under consideration, that could force sanctions on European companies doing business with Iran.

While we deplore Russia’s and China’s continued enabling of Iran, a Senate proposal to kill an American-Russia civilian nuclear cooperation agreement would also be hugely counterproductive. Washington must find other levers to persuade Russia and China to impose tougher Security Council sanctions that all United Nations members would have to enforce.

The major powers also must improve on the incentives offered to Iran. Specifically, the Bush administration must make a more credible offer of security guarantees and improved relations if Iran abandons its nuclear ambitions.

We strongly urge the administration to follow through on a proposal now being floated to open an American-interests section in Tehran.

There is no assurance that Iran’s leaders would accept the offer, nor do we know if there is any mix of incentives or punishments that would change Tehran’s behavior. The Iranian people need to know that the United States is serious about reconciliation — and who is responsible for their isolation.


]]> 2008-06-28T13:04:00-06:00 http://www.therochesterdemocrat.com/index.php/weblog/gas_prices_forcing_change_in_living_style/ {summary} Perspective

Paul Munnis


I think that big oil is in big trouble from a lot of viewpoints.

At $147 a barrel and at over $4 per gallon at the gas pump, people are being forced to conserve gasoline. They are succeeding too. As they succeed then the amount of oil consumed will fall. Since it will fall then the nations who are exporting oil stands to lose income and that means trouble for them. They will pass their troubles on to the oil companies.

This does not lead to lower oil prices but it does lead to improvements in the pursuit of alternative energy and that means further reductions in oil exports and that feeds upon itself. Even worse, as we cope with the higher gas prices other nations emulate one another’s good ideas thus the savings become multiplicative on an international scale.

Thus the oil companies are seeing the marketplace just leave them behind. They are eating their own children with high priced oil.

In talks with others I find that whenever groups gather there is talk about the impact of gasoline prices on the budget and the result is discussions about ways to save gas money.

Here are the coping strategies that I have heard about and being used by people:

• Car pooling to and from work and for sports activities with kids;
  
• Downsizing from big trucks and SUV’s to smaller more fuel efficient vehicles;
  
• A sense that any car getting below 30mpg is not a good car to own;
  
• A lot of consideration is being given to flex-fuel engines able to burn E85;
  
• Trip reduction and better trip routing being applied so as to minimize travel;
  
• Elimination of distant vacation destinations;
  
• Sale of boat and RV units even while some are looking for local places to park the RV for the season near water, swimming, and decent camp facilities;
  
• Increased use of public transportation;
  
• Reprioritization of the budget to reduce the frequency of eating out; and
  
• Downsizing of service like Cable-TV to eliminate premium channels and conversion to basic cable or basic Dish network plans. Some are now viewing TV over the Internet.
  

Likely there are many more options being considered or actually implemented by people and likely you have heard of some not on the above list.

America is adjusting and is cutting its fuel and energy use. Now alternative energy is coming online because it is more affordable than imported oil and gasoline.

We are getting there as both consumption and oil imports are shrinking.

I spoke to an HR manager for a large multi-national company who is coping with the increased manpower shortage coming about as a result of the Baby-Boomer retirement curve. He said that his company was looking at the use of gas cards given as a company benefit to employees for recruiting and to abet retention. He said they have been doing that in Europe for quite some time and it works very well for them. Each month they pay up to a fixed limit on the amount of gasoline used per worker by just crediting a charge card number that the employee provides the HR department with. The amounts are scaled by a combination of factors that include: seniority, position held, and performance criteria. The more critical the worker is to the company then the more gas subsidy the worker gets. The HR manager told me these gas cards were very effective for employee recruiting too.

I asked how this works for conservation of gas and the answer was that many workers want to save the gas allotment for family use and so they take public transport and they save the gas subsidy for family activities. In response some companies are also providing public transport discount passes for employees to use.

If such programs become prevalent in America then it means less oil imported from foreign nations and more trouble for the oil companies.

I asked legislators about the buzz on government efforts for the coming legislative season (2009 and 2010) and a program of progressive license tabs based upon the vehicles rated fuel consumption seems to be getting a play. License a vehicle getting 30mpg and you pay one fee, license a vehicle getting 14mpg and you pay a higher license tab fee.

At the Federal level a portion of the gas tax is being looked at for dedicated growth of public transportation and to provide states with highway repair help. This is a clone of the European approach to subsidy for public transportation.

The genie is out of the bottle and the oil companies are now targets of the collective ingenuity of the people and governments of the world. It does not bode well for them.

]]> 2008-06-28T12:29:01-06:00 http://www.therochesterdemocrat.com/index.php/weblog/what_divison/ {summary} Perspective

Paul Munnis


When a story appeared in the NY Times to the effect that Mark Twain had been killed while on a trip to Europe the editors were surprised to receive a cable saying that: “Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.”

Something like this is happening to Democrats as the media is saying how fractured and divided we are over the Hillary’s loss to Obama.

I think that is greatly exaggerated.

In fact I know of no Democrat who is refusing to vote for Obama.

Still that leaves Democrats just two alternatives: “Don’t