Losing Taxpayer Money to Detroit: It's Auto-matic!!!

So Detroit is bleeding money... so much so that GM and Chrysler could be bankrupt in a matter of months if Government action isn't taken to keep them afloat until they can re-tool.

This is something that was probably written on the wall for a while now. Even while GM was at the top of its game (which actually wasn't all that long ago: 2003, to be exact), several groups were concerned about the implications of where the sales were coming from: namely, trucks and SUV's. When gas was cheap (before the price surge... and subsequent drop) SUV's were THE big-ticket item. Everybody wanted one... and everyone was buying one.

Fast-forward 5 years, and nobody is buying them because nobody has the money. That is an outcome brought about by two factors: 1) the economy as a whole, and 2) the lack of foresight of auto-executives, who put all their eggs in the one SUV/Truck basket. But the two factors are both at work, make no mistake. Factor # 2 would likely not be an issue if the economy as a whole were in better shape. Remember that.

Now, here we are, watching our legislators in Washington debate whether or not to float short-term loans to the "Big 3" auto-makers in an attempt to help them "re-tool" their business before they run out of cash.

We have two sides to this issue -- Those who say something along these lines: "Detroit has not changed with the times, and has not been competitive with foreign auto-makers. Their current predicament is their own fault. We should let them go bankrupt!"; and those who say something along these lines: "Detroit is such an integral part in our economy, that letting these companies fail would have devestating consequences for so many Americans that we HAVE to do something to ensure their survival."

Now, granted, those are probably grossly over-simplified versions of the arguments, but this is a blog... if you want to get the full picture, you can find it elsewhere!

This argument has so many different factors, I could spend all day talking about it... but I want to point out something which I think is important to note: Whether or not Washington gives the $15 billion, we the taxpayers will lose $15 billion. The difference is whether we lose it in the short-term or the long-term. In the short-term, we lose it in the form of a loan to the auto-industry. In he long-term we lose it in the form of lost tax revenue (through sales taxes, income taxes, etc.), unemployment insurance, food stamps, etc.

The difference also could be much worse for the long-term scenario...

Critics of the Big 3 like to point out that foreign-owned companies operating in the USA are doing just fine. America's "other" auto-industry is located in the South, and is largely non-union. These companies (like Kia, Honda, Toyota) are not having the troubles of the American auto-industry, and critics of the American industry point to the UAW and the costs of labor associated with the union's contract as being to blame for the difference.

This came to a head yesterday in the Senate, when Senate Republicans demanded that the UAW make steep wage cuts to bring them in-line with the foreign auto-makers located in the American south. At first glance, this line of reasoning by the Senate Republicans could make sense -- after all, if the problem truly IS the wage disparity between UAW workers and non-union workers, then bringing the cost of labor down for the Big 3 would clearly make them more competitive with the foreign auto-makers. Problem solved, right?

Not so fast. Remember what I said earlier -- GM was making their largest profits EVER just 5 years ago. The difference in wages has not dramatically changed since then... only our economic conditions as a whole. I posit that GM and the other US auto-makers would be doing just fine today if they had the foresight to produce more economically viable products for consumers like their foreign competitors.

This doesn't even touch on what would happen to the labor movement as a whole if UAW were to do what the Senate Republicans suggest. Here is a nice link from the Economic Policy Institute which talks about what exactly unions do for workers. Something which is easy to forget is that unions not only help the workers who are a part of the union, but also provide benefits for non-union workers -- because they set a standard for wages and compensation to which other employers have to respond.

IF the UAW were to agree to lower wage levels such as those of the foreign auto-makers, then it wouldn't be long before those foreign auto-makers would lower their starting wages considerably, as well. The dynamic between union and non-union would stay the same, but wages of all workers would drop.

This brings me to my question to you, and gets to a deeper philosophical outlook on confronting economic troubles. Is it more prudent to bring down wages in order to help business recover, or is it more prudent to ensure that workers are making a living wage and can afford to buy the things they need. After all -- if nobody has any money to spend, then they can't buy any products... and a vicious cycle ensues.

I am of the belief that it is DEMAND which drives the economy, not the other way around. When people have money in their pockets, they buy things. It's that simple. Lowering wages for all workers simply lowers their ability to buy products and services... which, in turn, lowers demand... and leads businesses to cut production (i.e. -- layoff workers.) This is NOT the way to go, and I am going to be squarely behind the UAW on this one.

A while back I wrote about the bailout of the financial services industry and my opposition to it. I am on the other side of the fence on this current issue, and find it perplexing that congress is so willing to hand over $700 Billion to banks and financial institutions, but balk at giving $14 billion to companies which actually employ hundreds of thousands of Americans and who actually build tangible products.

As John Stewart put it on The Daily Show: at least when Detroit loses money, we actually get a product out of it.

Energy Plans Running Dry- Problem or Deliverance?

So the word from the Los Angeles Times today comes down from San Pierre, Indiana, a town of 156 in the northwestern part of the state. Prior to the credit crunch and economic slowdown, San Pierre was due to be the site of an ethanol processing plant, promising jobs, income and opportunity to a town that is rapidly losing population to nearby cities. Instead, the credit crunch and wildly fluctuating commodities markets have left the plans dead in the water:

But last month, the developers of the San Pierre plant announced that the $62-million deal was dead. Banks involved in the project had cut off their lines of credit. Desperate calls to dozens of other financial institutions led to the same answer: No.

Already battered by other market forces, the ethanol industry has been hit hard by the banking world's credit crunch, and the seemingly bright future of corn-based biofuel has been cast in doubt.

In Pratt, Kan., the grinding mill machinery stands silent inside the Gateway Ethanol plant. It was open for less than six months before running out of money, and there were no bank loans available to keep it going. The firm recently filed for bankruptcy.

In Royal, Ill., developers abandoned efforts to build a plant there and in six other locations, citing an inability to get financing. Plants have been shuttered, or plans for new ones halted, in Mead, Neb.; Belle Fourche, S.D.; Blairstown, Iowa; and Melrose, Minn.

It's sad, no doubt about it. I never like to hear stories about dreams postponed or canceled, especially when opportunities for some of these communities are few and far between. But I have to ask this question- are these industrial outlets truly the kind of development that rural America needs?

For all the promise of being a green industry and an answer to the fuel crisis (although who worries about that now with prices so low?), let's call ethanol processing for what it is- extractive industry. It is dependent on processing raw materials into a more finished form by way of labor- and capital-intensive industrial processes. There are significant byproducts to this process, such as large amounts of emissions and regions turned into monocultures, as well as massive inputs such as fuel to operate harvesters and chemicals for fertilizer. What is the difference between that and any other extractive industry? Mining, logging, fishing? They all make use of raw materials in a low-skill, relatively low-wage job.

Ethanol production is more of the same. It is clear how many of these projects have turned out in America- witness the ghost towns that are shells of their former selves once the boom has gone bust, littered throughout the west, watching commodities prices to turn their resources profitable again. Much like other extractive industries, ethanol production also needs intense government intervention to turn a profit. So let's put to bed the notion that ethanol is some new, green-collar wonderland. It's what we call 'same sh*t, different day.'

I'm not keeping score, but that's quite a few strikes against this plan.

It just seems to me, from where I sit, that we are hitching our horse to the wrong wagon, both as a country and as individual towns. As towns, we must be able to find other ways to spur economic growth. Sure, this is easy to say; in times of trouble, you can't fault someone for jumping at an opportunity as it comes along. To tell the truth, I kind of feel like an ass for saying it. But if we are going to get serious about building our rural communities into self-sufficient ones that are players in a regional and global economy, we have to move past the outmoded models of development for decades past.

So I'm pulling for you, San Pierre, and everyone else that is hurting in this bust. It's going to be hard. But I also want to try, TRY, to see this as an opportunity to reimagine ourselves and our various locales, wherever you find yourself, loyal reader, to compete in the new century and new economy. We can't do that if we stick to the old models.

Do I have ideas, you ask? Sure. They aren't perfect, but what ideas are? If I were the government, I would invest in electronic communications infrastructure for a lot of places in the USA. From where I sit, a lot of these high tech workers would jump at the chance to live in a place like San Pierre, to live away from the madness and heat and crowding of the city high-tech hubs. They would be perfect locations for continuity of operations sites, if the connections could be built reliably enough. Imagine the jobs available both at these facilities, and the multiplier effects on the local economy.

That's my humble idea off the top of my head. If you have anything else... or want to call me out... well, fire away!

Our New Electoral Map

So, after our collective exhale, I think it is interesting to look a little deeper into some of the electoral trends we witnessed this last Tuesday.

I ran across this very cool map on NPR's website. What is does is this: It takes our map of the USA and turns it into a cartogram -- a representation of population rather than geographic size.

What is striking to me (but not surprising, being that we here at Mid-America Calling are all about bi-partisianship!) is the amount of purple you see.

We truly are a nation of people who want to see our country be all it can be... we may have differences of opinion on how to make it so, but as you can see from the map, our population is NOT divided by partisian bickering.

Let's hope our elected leaders take that cue, and get to work with a bi-partisian spirit.

OK, Collective Exhale...

A couple days late, sure, but isn't that symbolic in itself? It's been a pretty wild and wooly election, one of the most hardly fought in history, and to be perfectly honest I could not tear my eyes away from it in order to update this ole project. Sorry. But truth be told, not sure if we can compete with the big dogs, trying as we are to refrain from partisanship, which is kind of the order of the day.

That said:

It is truly a fantastic time to be an American. For a long time now, our mainstream media has been pummeling us with assumptions, that the result on Election Day would never have been possible with a divided, latently racist, lazy, disinterested and moronic electorate. We've been told that we'd never elect a black man. We've been told that he's scary, he's a mystery, that he has secret plans and secret friends and is definitely not a friend of us. Even his name became ambiguously threatening.

But like Fox News' Brit Hume said, all those accusations didn't add up to what we saw on the screen. Not by a longshot. And by a notable margin, we the people showed those that make a living telling us about ourselves that they really don't know a damn thing. People came together across ideological, racial and class divides to cast a vote in favor of a truly amorphous idea- change. What does it mean? There's as many answers to that as there are people. But with that vote, Americans nationwide put their foot down in favor of change, and in essence declared their great faith in themselves and their countrymen to come together. We demand it of our government, and each other, so that we all may prosper.

For all the subplots and deeper meanings, that's what this election meant to me. It meant an open opportunity to get to work. It means a president who is open and willing to hearing what everyone has to say, as opposed to one who seeks the approval of 50% plus one. If you have an idea, the president-elect wants to hear it. So bend his ear. Let him know. We are all in this together, now. It's all on us.

So I ask you all, let's get ready to roll up our sleeves. Don't retreat back into the living room, whether you knocked on doors for either candidate, in self-satisfied elation or bitterness. We need to get to work. There's a lot of things that need fixing in our beautiful land, and there is no time to lose. I, for one, am chomping at the bit to get down with it. Let's go.

National Gas Prices

I just stumbled across this tool for getting a comparison of gas prices between locations in the US. Hopefully not sounding like a shill, Gas Buddy has the linked "temperature map" so you can gauge how high the prices are in your area. The map is remarkably interactive, and you just might learn something that can save you some money. For instance, Kansas City has one of the lowest price/gallon costs in the nation- indeed, most the of Great Plains is uniformly cheap. In comparison, North Carolina and Georgia come in almost uniformly expensive, nearing the $4.00/gallon mark.

Here's hoping you find this a useful or interesting tool. I know I am. Let's see if I can make that move to KC, start saving some money.

Mid-American Musings, Vol. 1

OK, I've been MIA for quite some time, I know. Been out to Utah, Colorado, Kansas and Missouri since I last posted, killed a computer, bought a computer, was shoveled a heavier workload at the job, and finally got internet reconnected. Excuses excuses. Please accept this meager post, with the aims of stoking the fires and getting back to work. Thanks all.

I had a discussion with a friend last night about... truthfully, I don't remember what, but somehow the topic of whaling came up. He explained to me that he didn't care what happened to whales, because the issue didn't directly impact him, and what has a whale ever done for him anyways? I pointed out that the whaling industry was integral to building several industries and markets in its heyday, be it shipbuilding, foundries, undergarments or perfume, but that's neither here nor there. I was rather surprised at his flippant attitude in dismissing the issue because it wasn't a "direct impact" on his daily life. A direct impact? What is that, exactly?

I'm going to submit that everything impacts you. When our neighbors cannot pay their mortgages, does it not affect you? Does the prospect of abandoned homes, a gutted neighborhood and a hollowed-out community sound appealing? When graduation rates go down, the available pool of labor shrinks, and either the local economy shrinks with it or imports labor from elsewhere. What does this mean for your town? You can't just tighten up a cordon around your life and ignore things because they are not in-your-face issues. Problems, much like opportunities, are never contained in a little sphere, only touching those that deal with them directly. Think of them as gases, following the winds, wafting over everything they come across, leaving a residue or a smell to remember them by, be it poisonous or pleasing.

It's not a big deal for me if you are pro- or anti- something; we're all entitled to our opinions and our conceptions of the world we want to live in. The point of contention for me is taking up an issue based on how heavily it directly impacts you. Naturally, we will feel most passionate about issues that we deal with daily, much as we care much more for our family than the wellbeing of some stranger on the street. This is unavoidable, and if you weren't like this, I'd say you were a little off in the head. But here is the question- does it really not affect you? When you write off some pressing social issue, be it schools, public safety, healthcare, any of the non-sexy causes that are paid lip-service by politicians, are you really insulated from the impacts? What is the standard of 'impact?'

As much as we want to trumpet the ideal of total individuality, that someone else's problems are never our own, we cannot ignore what happens in our circles of family, friends and community. Generally speaking, we know problems when we see them, and know that we want to dispose of them. We need to have a hope for the world, and work towards achieving it, be it through doing our jobs, raising our families, voting, getting involved in the community, or volunteering. My conception of the world is an ideal, I'll be the first to tell you, but it is definitely worth working and fighting for. It's based on the idea that if you do wrong by my friend, my neighbor, my community, you do wrong by me, because we're all in this together. Everything is an impact. It all needs to be addressed.

What does your ideal world look like? Inquiring minds want to know, or to at least raise the question in your heads, for you to chew on. Have at it.

Censorship in America

Project Censored has recently published its list of the top 25 censored stories for 2009 (yeah, I don't know why they say 2009, but whatever...)

You can see the list here: http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/category/y-2009/

Bailing Out on the American People

Now, I'm no economic expert, which may become painfully apparent with what I'm about to suggest.

But, I would like somebody to tell me why something like the following wouldn't work better than the current plan by Treasury Secretary Paulson. Essentially, Paulson wants the US Taxpayers to put up something like $700 billion to put into his hands, so that he can use somewhat cryptic means to fix the problem in our financial markets.

He says Congress should make this "clean and quick." That, to me, sounds like he's wanting a rubber stamp put on a plan with very little stipulations, and very little details on how this plan will actually be a wise move for American taxpayers.

So, here's what I'm thinking, and I want you all to tell me why it wouldn't work (or at least have as much a chance of working as a full-on bailout of moronic financial investment banks on Wall St.)

Firstly, though, for a good refresher on what has led up to this crises, see the following article from the Washington Post.

If the American taxpayers are going to be asked to foot a $700 billion dollar bill no matter what, why not target that money to where it is going to do the most good? Why not use a large chunk of that money to pay down the principle on so many of these bad mortgages these investment banks dolled out? Doing this would 1) lower the balance on these mostly worthless 'assets' held by all the investors out there who grabbed up these mortgages, thereby raising their value somewhat; 2) it would greatly LOWER the mortgage payments that American families would be spending each and every month to pay off their homes, putting more money directly into the hands of American taxpayers and providing a stimulus to the economy.

Secondly, LET THESE IRRESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT BANKS FAIL!! Recklessness, irresponsibility, and in some cases, outright fraud should not be tolerated or rewarded by a government taxpayer bail-out. Period.

Now, I understand that making sure people have the ability to borrow money is important. If solvency is not restored then we can see small businesses fail all across the country, which would have a rundown effect throughout every level of this economy. So, what I suggest is that we instead inject all this money into whatever RESPONSIBLE investment banks still exist (if there are any), rather than the ones which have shown their inability to run a solvent institution.

This serves two purposes -- it gets rid of these banks which have ruined confidence in the financial system AND makes sure that money is still available for people who need loans by helping the smaller, more responsible investment firms to pick up the slack left behind by the failing giants of the industry. As an added bonus, people can be confident knowing that only the responsible banks are left, and have more assurances that they would be borrowing and/or investing in assets properly screened.

To me, this makes FAR more sense than what is being proposed by Secretary Paulson. But, maybe I'm just an economic novice and missing something. I just don't see how giving a $700 billion check to the executive branch with no-strings attached is a responsible use of taxpayer money.

Now, start telling me why I'm wrong...

Mid-America in the Saddle(back)

I don't know how many of you had the opportunity to watch the "Faith Forum" hosted by pastor Rick Warren (of "The Purpose Driven Life" fame) at his Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, CA on Saturday, but I hope you did. If not, you can catch it online here, courtesy of CNN.

Warren began the forum by making a point which is too often forgotten during the height of election-year politics: Both candidates are patriots who love their country. This is a point which we here at Mid-America Calling try to make ourselves. It was refreshing to see coverage of an event which was designed to simply inform viewers of the candidates and their positions on issues, rather than a competition in which each candidate is hoping the other slips up, or is looking for opportunities to cry "gotcha!"

So, for two hours (one for each candidate) we got to hear them talk about a range of issues which will all come into play during a Presidential administration of either - leadership, abortion, their view on "evil" and what to do about it, the moral failings of their own lives and that of America, Supreme Court justices, etc.

So, for the sake of conversation, I thought it would be fun to talk about one of these issues here at the ol' blog, and see where it goes.

My topic of choice: Abortion.

The question in the faith forum was having to do with the moment at which an embryo is entitled to human rights... in other words, when does "life" begin? Or when is an embryo a full-fledged human being?

The Obama answer, described by pundits as "nuanced" repeatedly, was actually rather simply put: "It's above my pay grade." He went on to describe how his Presidency would be concerned with how to lower the number of abortions which take place, and talked about his willingness to limit late-term abortions provided there was an exception for the mother's health. His answer seemed rather cautiously accepted by the crowd at the Saddleback Church.

McCain, on the other hand, drew wild applause with his response: that human rights are required "at the moment of conception." He went on to tell the crowd about his long record of being pro-life, and that his Presidency would have "pro-life policies."

Now, here's where it gets dicey... While McCain's answer is a simple one, the practicality of it is not so simple. TIME takes a look at how this view would have far-reaching effects beyond the obvious availability of abortions. What about the period of time between when an egg is fertilized and when it actually implants in the womb and begins growing? As the article points out:

"all kinds of embryo research become questionable, starting with the stem-cell research McCain says he favors. Couples who undergo in vitro fertilization and then choose not to implant all the embryos are surely violating the rights of those that are discarded or frozen. Some forms of contraception, such as IUDs and the morning-after pill, would presumably be illegal if they affect the ability of an egg to implant. Abortion opponents contend that the birth control pill itself, while designed to prevent ovulation so no egg is fertilized in the first place, may also have the effect of blocking implantation of any egg that sneaks through. Suddenly, a whole range of reproductive choices comes into question."


As I think about this issue, I am reminded of Rick Warren's assertion that it is important not to "demonize" those who think differently than ourselves. There seems to be no other issue in America where that is so easy to do as the abortion issue. As, Obama pointed out in his answer, the "pro-choice" standpoint isn't a "pro-abortion" stance, by any means. The goal is to reduce abortions in America -- the debate should be about how to do that.

Clearly, a simplistic answer about how human rights begin "at the moment of conception" sounds terrific for those who identify as "pro-life." But the reality of the situation is that the policies this viewpoint would enact would almost undoubtedly lead to an INCREASE in unwanted pregnancies... which, after all, is the reason we have people seeking abortions to begin with.

Pro-choice and Pro-life proponents need to understand that the age-old debate has not changed the reality on the ground... and it won't, until both sides focus on the common goal of lowering the amount of abortions which take place, and figuring out how to bring that goal about.

To me, having a short answer to a complex problem is not a good thing... The answer to this issue is one which requires far more work and thought than simply saying "life begins at conception, therefore abortions and anything else which hinders the growth of life is illegal."

So, that's my piece! Start calling!

Pick'n a Plan and Stick'n to It

First of all, let me say I'm sorry for the delay in any new content from my fingertips. It's been a pretty busy month for me -- traveling for work training, more work, traveling home to hunt for a house, buying a house (yippee!!), and traveling back to work... and more work.



So, it should come as no surprise that I am still writing about the same topic I was writing about a month ago: Energy.



And why not? Each and every one of us are intimately connected to this problem of energy consumption simply by the way we live our lives. We've all heard over and over by now about how each of us can individually make changes in our lives and influence our overall national consumption... well, while that is certainly true, it should also come as no surprise that some have more they can do than others.



One of those people is a man named T. Boone Pickens (possibly nicknamed T-Bone). T. Boone has some resources, being a billionaire oil man. But, more importantly, he's got a plan (something we here at Mid-America Calling enjoy). It can be found here: http://www.pickensplan.com/



Now, I don't know whether I'm sold on the plan yet or not... but at least he's got one. He's right in saying that we are a country addicted to oil, and we can't drill our way out of that problem. And he's right to be looking for solutions to this multi-faceted problem. He does a good job of pointing out just how this issue radiates throughout the economy, as well.



$700 billion dollars a year is currently being spent on importing foreign oil to meet our demands for fueling our cars and trucks. That's a ton of money going elsewhere. That means it's not being spent on our own infrastructure... it's not being spent on our schools. It isn't being spent on a viable solution to our health-care crisis. You get the idea...



Pickens' plan calls for utilizing the wind of our own great plains. He calls our geographic mid-America the "Saudi Arabia of wind power." And while the cost to expand our wind power production to 25% of our national need is expensive -- something like $1.2 trillion -- it is a one-time price paid up-front, and pales in comparison to the price of continuing to spend $700 billion each year to foreign nations.



Now, obviously adding wind power production doesn't help power our cars... so how exactly does this lower our dependence on foreign oil? Pickens has something else in mind. By increasing wind power, we free up something else for our cars -- natural gas. Natural Gas currently provides 22% of our current electrical power in the U.S. at a much cheaper cost per gallon than we spend on gasoline. The idea is that by replacing our current electrical use of natural gas with wind power, we can use the cleaner burning, cheaper natural gas to fuel our vehicles. Makes sense, right?

T. Bone touts the price of natural gas as being less than a dollar per gallon in much of the country, which would certainly be a welcome change from spending $4.00 at the pump for gasoline. He also touts the difference in emissions from natural gas as opposed to petrol. He's right, yet again, on both counts.

So, what is the hesitation? Well, firstly we have to think about what this does if his plan is put into full-swing. Just off the top of my head I can tell you that the relatively low cost of natural gas won't stay that low for long. Imagine if every corner gas station had natural gas pumps. Demand shoots through the roof and we're no longer able to claim that it's a cheaper alternative to gasoline.

This isn't even taking into account what it would do to other uses of natural gas -- such as heating homes during the winter months. Many Americans are already struggling to pay heating bills in the dead of winter... and having the demand for that natural gas spread out to running our cars and trucks won't do anything to help those folks.

But, perhaps the lowered demand for electricity production will ultimately balance out the rising demand for vehicle fuel. Maybe, maybe not... but it's definitely an issue which his plan doesn't take any steps to address.

But, at least ol' T-bone does recognize that his plan is only a temporary solution to a problem which needs a lot more work. He states that the plan can "buy us time" until we work out better and cheaper ways of powering our everyday lives. And as far as band-aids go, this one looks to be one of the better plans out there.

I recommend checking out the plan, and if you like what you see, sign up on his site! Forget that T-bone has considerable holdings in Natural Gas and stands to make a ton of money off it... Good ideas should be rewarded, and at least he's got a level of foresight to realize that drilling in ANWR isn't going to make a lick's bit of difference. And diverting $700 billion a year from foreign countries to American infrastructure and jobs can't hurt, either.

So, I'm pickin' Pickens' plan... and stickin' to it... for now.

The Free-Fall in Fertility

According to studies and continued observation by local endocrinologists, the men of mid-Missouri are undergoing a crash in sperm levels. The problem started cropping up in the mid-1990s, and was cemented during a 1999 study which compared healthy sperm levels between major metropolitan areas. For use in comparison, Columbia, MO was used to help establish a baseline, assuming that the presence of fewer toxic pollutants would lead to higher, healthier levels.

However, it was not to be. Columbia residents' levels maxed out at 57% of the levels of males in New York City, for example; observe the graph at the right for more detail. Most stunning is that Missouri men came from different backgrounds and lifestyles, were of varied ages and professions, and were both long-term and short-term residents of Columbia.

Researchers participating in the 1999 study reexamined Missouri sperm and subjected it to detailed tests for pesticides and chemicals known to be in use in the region. Three pesticides were found to have statistically significant links with the low sperm counts, with two more possible contributors identified as well. One of these pesticides, diazinon, was banned from residential use in 2004, yet still allowed to be used in agriculture. Whatever the case, a follow-up study was conducted by the Centers for Disease Control, with results expected this summer. We will be following this closely, rest assured, for professional and personal reasons.

As the researchers in the article state, blaming one chemical or one pesticide is likely in error. Much more likely are the complex and subtle interactions between varying doses of several chemicals incipient to the lifestyle in the region, coupled with other environmental and lifestyle factors. It is impossible to predict how cocktails of chemicals administered over a lifetime in low doses will interact within the human body. If you would like to know more on this kind of research, check out the research on chemicals in adults, newborns, and pets.

But let us be clear- this is more than likely not a mid-Missouri problem. Whatever the cause is, it is highly possible that these results could be repeated throughout the mid-America region. If there are demonstrable links between pesticide use and low fertility in males, this is something that demands our immediate attention. We will be awaiting the CDC report, and hope to talk about this more in the future.

Energy in the USA: Temporary Measures vs. Systemic Problems

For years, the SUV has served as a particularly potent symbol of American consumption and excess; it seemed to be fueled on hubris alone, considering our willingness to persist with such maddeningly inefficient vehicles used for such ill-suited purposes. I'll never forget rolling into Home Depot one day, and seeing a new, blinged-out H2 with the vanity plate "8 MPG." Oh, dear driver, haven't you heard- do not taunt the automotive gods?

Well, consider that thunder called down from on high. By now, you have surely heard that GM is downsizing production of SUVs in the face of widespread consumer migration (panicked flight?) to more efficient vehicles. Plants will be closed, positions will be eliminated, and stunningly, the Hummer division is likely to be spun off from the GM marque, if anyone can be found willing to take on that albatross. In effect, GM is stating that the business model of large, inefficient vehicles is no longer a viable way to do business in this new landscape. Rapidly losing market share to more fuel efficient vehicles, particularly those from overseas, GM has taken a look at the marketplace and reached a painful conclusion. According to CEO Rick Wagoner, "These higher gasoline prices are changing consumer behavior and rapidly," said Wagoner. "We don't think this is a temporary spike or shift. We think it is permanent."

That is a major leap, and a huge realization by one of our largest automotive companies. There will always be a niche in the market for SUVs and pickups, but that's just it- a niche. The days of pickups and SUVs lining the nearest big-box parking lot are numbered.

And so we turn to Washington for guidance in these tough times. President Bush, rock us with some wisdom. How can we escape this potential death knell for unrestrained gasoline consumption, that which underpins our whole economy and serves to exacerbate these economic strains we all suffer? How will we navigate our way from here?:

Bush, reaching back to the earliest days of his administration, resurrected GOP demands for new drilling in the Alaska wilderness, fewer restrictions on oil refineries and other measures aimed at lowering fuel prices through higher production.

Sigh. Members of Congress, what say you?

"Only President Bush could allow Big Oil to write our nation's energy policy," said Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) responded, "It's clear that, on the production side of the equation, this new majority is not interested in doing anything."

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and tit-for-tat makes the whole world complacent. And all the while, oil companies are making record profits while crying out for greater refinery capacity and access to domestic oil reserves.

This, to me, seems like a lot of old solutions to new problems, new realities and unavoidable truths. The elephant in the corner that no one, not Congress, the Administration, or the two men vying to lead the next one, want to step up and accept responsibility for the fact that energy consumption in the US is out of control, and drastic measures need to be undertaken to alleviate the pressure. We need leadership to focus the on the issue that Alternatives Must Be Sought, and the systemic problem of energy consumption will not be alleviated by any of the whole rack of half-measures dreamed up by those in power. Not gas-tax holidays, not clean coal, not CAFE rules that take effect in 20years, none of that.

We talk a lot about increasing supply to match demand. Why not approach it from another angle? Why isn't there serious discussion on reducing demand? As the article states, while increased coal capacity creates more greenhouses gases, and nuclear plants create lethal waste, the only byproduct of "negawatt" projects are increased wealth. While there are several problems with large-scale energy reduction efforts, there are still huge opportunities for investment and profit by companies positioned to take advantage. Reducing demand through projects such as LEED construction standards, appliance efficiency, and urban planning innovation are a start. Not more, not less- a step in the right direction.

No one wants the economy to be torn to shreds in a rapid switch to alternative energies, so if that is the case, we had better get started on that switch now, while it can still be palatable and advantageous. Let's start with reducing our demand on a large scale, more than just using better lightbulbs or EnergyStar refrigerators. Keep going with that, and don't take the easy way out. This does not mean switching out Saudi oil for Louisiana Coast oil or oil shale from Utah- just another band-aid. Let's take this energy effort all the way. Let's not run up to the edge, screech to a stop, and convince ourselves that we've done all we can do. Let's see this one through.

It's been said before, so all that means to me is that I don't have to find the link here- but it's time to cut the subsidies to oil companies and send that money to investing in a new energy infrastructure. Wind, solar, tidal, you name it, we need a much more diverse portfolio. Subsidize the development of hybrid or clean cars that actually fill the needs of American customers- vehicles that can do the work on the farm, or haul our goods cross-country, and keep them affordable for the common man and woman. Your Prius is not up to the task. Furthermore, it's time to put some kind of financial incentive on reducing energy consumption at the home, municipal, or state level. Yes, by 'incentive' that might mean 'disincentive.' That's how it works.

As it were, we actually have a case study to draw from. I originally wrote about this on my other blog, but the city of Juneau, Alaska recently had some severe power difficulties. After avalanches severely hampered the ability of power companies to send electricity to the city, rates rose sky-high. With enough forewarning, residents of Juneau were able to cut their power consumption by 30%.

In one week. The entire city. Encouraging, to say the least, and it speaks volume to the abilities we have to reduce consumption with the right incentives.

Think about the money to be made on all these possibilities. Think about the kind of investment that is possible, even for those rooted in the old energy economy. This is how we have to view the problem- not even as a problem, but a grand opportunity to preserve and enhance our way of life. It's not about limping along to the next season, hoping that supply will stay stable, and the economy will allow us to keep doing things as they have always been done. The world is changing far too quickly to count on that. It's about finding a new way to live, and a new way to organize our economy. If we do it right, we will all win.

We just need to shut up, face up to it, and try. Shall we?

The Geography of High Gas Prices

Looks like it's going to be a gasoline-themed week this week; it's on your minds, it's definitely on ours, so let's run with it, shall we?

Today's view comes from the International Herald Tribune, observing how although the national average is now over $4.00/gallon, the pain at the pump is much more acute in rural regions across the US.

People are giving up meat so they can buy fuel. Gasoline theft is rising. And drivers are running out of gas more often, leaving their cars by the side of the road until they can scrape together gasoline money.

The disparity between rural America and the rest of the country is a matter of simple home economics. Nationwide, Americans now spend about 4 percent of their take-home income on gasoline. By contrast, in some counties in the Mississippi Delta, that figure has surpassed 13 percent.

As a result, gasoline expenses are rivaling what families spend on food and housing.

The article explains many factors that led to this standard. Rural areas are by nature spread wide and far-flung, with many workers having long commutes over less-maintained roads, and often in older, larger vehicles with suitable awful mileage. Jobs are scarce enough in rural areas, and workers may have little choice but to seek work hours away. Economists are saying that if this keeps up, it could accelerate the loss of population and tax base to urban jobs, even reaching the point where working less would be the most economically viable choice for those that remain.

It's a pretty dicey, touch-and-go situation. I don't know if any readers out there want to offer their input, but I know I'd like to hear it.

Gas Prices and Gas Taxes -- A different look...

I was doing a little browsing this morning before heading to work and came across the following an article in the Washington Post discussing the price of gasoline and its effects on things like fuel efficiency, etc.

The author proposes using a tax as a means of setting a price floor for gasoline, so that our government is in direct control of curbing demand -- leading to a ripple effect throughout the automotive industry. In essence, the idea is that high gas prices are accomplishing what congress, through fuel efficiency and ethenol mandates, could not -- a transformation in America's automotive fleets from gas-guzzling SUV's to more fuel efficient compact cars and hybrid vehicles.

When the US government is setting the price of gasoline above $4/gallon, the government has control of where the money goes -- and the author believes this means the government could essentially refund the money back to consumers through a cut in payroll taxes to offset any pain felt at the pump.

Check out the original article in the link above, and start discussing whether you think it makes sense. I gotta get to work. :)

There's Manure on this Farm Bill

Democrat Tom Harkin Recently made the following statement regarding the 2008 Farm Bill:

“Farmers in Iowa and around the country are beginning to plant for the season. Here in Washington, Congress is fulfilling its promise to enact a farm bill that’s good for all America – farming families and rural communities, nutrition assistance for low-income Americans, fresh fruits and vegetables for school children, more sources of renewable energy and conservation of our natural resources and a disaster program.

“Like any compromise bill resulting from hard bargaining among regional and other interests, this farm bill is far from perfect. But no piece of legislation is. It includes significant reforms, as well as these major advances. It deserves the President’s signature.

“Inexplicably, the White House seems intent on destroying the harvest just as the seeds are being planted."

Pay particular interest to the second paragraph... the one in which Harkin lets us all know that included in this important piece of "compromise" legislation is a handful of givaways to "regional and other interests."

The entire committee passed version of the bill can be found here, if you're interested. But I'm going to talk about a few items in the bill which concern me.

Most agregious, in my mind, is a $126-million tax break for racehorse owners. That's no joke. Food prices are rising every day, fueled (literally) by continued subsidies for the production of ethenol from corn (known to most of the rest of the world as a food source) and the ever-rising cost of oil (which leads to higher transport costs), yet our congress thinks we need to give a tax break to millionaire playboys and girls who own racehorses.

But, that's not the end of the problems. According to TIME, "the top 10% of subsidized farmers collect nearly three-quarters of the subsidies, for an average of almost $35,000 per year. The bottom 80% average just $700. That's worth repeating: most farmers, especially the small farmers whose steadfast family values and precarious family finances are invoked to justify the programs, get little or nothing."

It goes on. The bill does nothing to fix the "commodity farm program." The policies in place under current rules are hurting local growers of fruits and vegetables AND consumers. But, that seems to be the goal, as the larger national-scale producers don't want the competition that comes from growers at a local-scale at a reduced price. Solution? -- Slap on heavy penalties to growers of fruit and vegatables who are using land previously used for the favored crops of the farm subsidies (corn, soybeans, rice, wheat and cotton). A farmer could decide to grow nothing at all on the land and be better off than if he or she decided to grow a fruit or vegetable.

These kinds of policies do nothing to actually HELP small farmers or consumers. Farmers should be allowed to grow whatever is in their best interest to grow.

The bill also calls for a reduction in the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education Program for overseas schoolchildren. This coincides with the current rise in food prices worldwide. This is also not acceptable.

But, in the end, as Harkin says, "compromise" is the rule of the day -- this IS congress, after all. The bill does provide for several important programs for some of America's neediest families by way of increasing the food stamp program and a sizable boost in dietary and nutrition programs.

Having grown up on one, I know that farms contain a fair share of manure. But, as bad as it smells it DOES make the soil more fertile. Are these "compromises" simply a necessity to move important gains forward, or can we do a better job of targetting the policies which really need changed without giving money away for racehorse owners?

I think you know where I stand. How about you?

Your Medical Records: Public Property?

Whenever we go to the doctor, we naturally assume that the doctor and their staff are going to safeguard our medical records, personal data, and financial information from exposure or theft. Granted, sometimes people cannot be counted on for that, but the general sanctity of our personal information at the doctor's is something that we expect- and that the medical establishment is in our corner on this one. However, like most assumptions depending on the Good Faith of Those in Government, it is false.

The first thing you need to know: you do not technically own your medical records. The copyright law on medical records is murky at best- your doctor actually owns your medical records and holds them in trust, but legally, they belong to him or her, as they did the work to fill them. Conversely, there are arguments that you own the paper they are printed on, but your doctor actually owns the content, which is where the real value lies. Murkier still, if these records are being kept electronically, the software firm that designed the database actually owns your records, with end-user licensing, proprietary software and Digital Millennium Copyright Act issues coming into play. There has been no strong precedent or finality in sorting through these issues.

Recently, the Institute of Medicine convened a workshop on what has been termed the "learning healthcare system," and how it promises to revolutionize clinical, lab research, and pharmaceutical data reporting in order to ensure greater outcomes for patients. Sounds great, I will admit, as most things do in theory. The question is, are you willing to allow a government agency or private firm harvest your full data, remove personally identifiable information, and make it part of a public database? This is exactly what dozens of agencies, research labs, hospitals and private firms are salivating over. You are the sum total of your data, and now that data would be public.

Consider the following scenario.

You go to the doctor, for that raspy throat and burning sensation that has plagued you on and off for the past few months. The medical transcriptionist enters your intake form into a database using your national patient identification number, assigned randomly by the overseeing agency. As your symptoms and personal information are entered, they are tacked onto the end of your patient file, sitting somewhere on a massive server, able to be instantly recalled anywhere, anytime, by anyone with proper access. Triplicate forms are replaced by three computing sites in California, North Carolina and Minnesota. After taking down your symptoms, they enter that data for a cross-reference against the region, your age group, your medical history and your gender, seeking patterns and explanations.

"Hmmm, interesting," the doctor taps his stylus on the screen. "Based on the aggregate data for your age and health cohort, we've had a 70% improvement rate on the reduction of coughing fits with this treatment program."

"I don't have many coughing fits," you say. "It's more of a sensation, a burning."

"It is probably just a different manifestation of the same symptoms," he replies coolly. "I'm prescribing a three week drug regimen for long-term relief, but short-term relief can be had by this spray. Please pick up the sheet from the front desk on your way out. Make another appointment in two weeks if you haven't improved."

As you drive home, you pop the first pill of your three-week treatment, choking it past a protesting throat. The spray, a peculiar-tasting concoction, is actually starting to work, to your and you are certainly pleased that it is reliable. Pulling into your house, you see a strange car in the driveway. Oh yes- the home appraiser is due today to give their final assessment. You have been optimistic, as home values have finally been rising after the collapse of the market years ago. As you enter, your husband looks sick to his stomach, and the appraiser seems to be actively trying to console him.

"Honey, this gentleman has some bad news." He looks at you with a mixture of anger, disbelief, and despair.

"I'm sorry, ma'am, but we simply had to take these other factors into account," he sputters. "While your property itself is highly valued, we cannot ignore the medical data for this neighborhood," Your stomach drops and twists up, all at once. "There are remarkably high respiratory disease rates in this county. It's all right here, if you want to review it- two standard deviations above the mean rate nationwide. Best as we can tell, it is due to coal-fired power plants a few hundred miles away. This is public information, after all, and our supervisors insist that we access these databases in our assessments. I'm sorry."

He hands you a bound report. There it is, in black and white: your county has been flagged as needing immediate attention to ambient air quality, with high levels of many types of pollutants, illustrated by colors wafting over multiple states, right over your home. Another page shows a map with your county glowing red, at the tail end of a trail of bright colors leading hundreds of miles southwest. 'Respiratory Illness Rates,' it reads. You take another spray, mind empty, heart racing, future plans fleeing before the pained truth in your hands.

Meanwhile, in a computing center in San Diego, or Durham, or St. Paul, an IT sub-contractor has just gone to get a smoke. He does not log off his workstation. An office supply courier enters the office. Updated files are compiling by the second on-screen, awaiting de-identification to add to the database. Opportunity knocks. Your record pops up just as he plugs in a flash drive, and begins entering commands.

Scary picture, yes? It is entirely possible with the technology in place. But the real questions is, when you weight out the pros and cons- Is it worth it?

You might not believe it after the above story, but there are demonstrable positives to this plan. For instance, with a national database, there can be instant follow-up on successful (and unsuccessful) treatments on any number of illnesses, from the flu to heart disease to cancer. Medical research could be conducted in real-time, effectively, with results updated to the minute. It could provide a sort of early-warning system for regional disease outbreaks, as alerts could be sent to area hospitals upon spikes of certain symptoms in a given population. A consolidation of medical records serves only to increase access, with the hope of giving you, the patient, better medical care.

There are a lot of "could's" in the paragraph above, because this is all strictly theoretical, and no one knows in practice how wieldy or useful this proposed database could be. For instance- doctors nationwide, and potentially worldwide, would have to perfectly align reporting, terminology, and symptomatic description conventions to fit the needs of this database, removing all subjectivity and likely removing a layer of the analysis of you, the patient. In forming an analysis, a doctor would rely on you as the sum total of your data, and may not have that supplemental relationship of knowing you personally, your attitudes and lifestyle, that could add color to a diagnosis. Deeply entrenched attitudes on what constitutes research and data would have to be reformed- as one speaker put it, "every patient walking through the doors is a research subject." All these things could cripple any potential system simply by making it useless for practical application. But the security issue stands out as paramount. Do you honestly want to sign over your medical records into a massive database, knowing what you know about the government's esteem for your personal data? For all the promises that are made, and all the complex and wonderful systems they propose, they are still designed and operated by flawed people. There is a limit to the security that can be put in place.

It is no surprise that some of the biggest HMOs, pharmaceutical companies and government agencies are all worked up about it. They have a lot to gain from this. Do you? There is really no guarantee that this system is going to produce measurable positive outcomes for the patient. Until such time as I can see what this will do for me, I will keep that medical history private, locked up tight, where it should be. Only the person in the white coat standing next to me should have access at that time. I am not your research subject. Until such time that I can have absolute faith in the inviolability of these records, consider them off-limits- that is my prerogative as a patient, and yours.

Quick Hit from Omaha, Nebraska...

From the Omaha World-Herald, the big news this week relates to the untold thousands of levees protecting the Mississippi and Missouri river watersheds. A significant number of these levees are not listed on any inventory by the Army Corps of Engineers- meaning no one has any kind of idea what shape they are in.

According to Robert Bea, a University of California at Berkeley levee expert, many of these levees have fallen into disrepair, and even at peak efficiency, were only able to protect against common floods- not floods on par with the Great Flood of 1993. Thousands more levees exist outside the control of the Corps, built and maintained by private citizens to protect land that has become much more valuable and populated since those levees were built. Many of these largely ad hoc levee are not maintained or even known to exist by anyone but their owners. Bea is not optimistic about our prospects.

"Once they do get an inventory," Bea said, "I think we're not going to like what we find." Read on below...

"Majority of levees are unmapped and uncertified." Elizabeth Ahlin, Omaha World-Herald, 5.11.08

"Army Corps says Condition of many levees a mystery." Jim Salter (AP), Omaha World-Herald, 5.12.08

The Stimulus of Debt

As we’ve all heard about by now, most of us should be receiving checks in the mail throughout the summer, courtesy of Uncle Sam.

The downturn of the American economy has prompted every Presidential contender, and every member of Congress to be the first to present a plan to save ourselves from recession.

Lucky for us, they reached an agreement… and we all get some extra money.

Our good friends in Washington, bless their hearts, seem to believe that this stimulus package will prompt folks like you and me to rush out to Wal-Mart (or, preferably Costco or Target), and buy a new flat-screen television.

The idea, of course, is that we consumers will use the money to consume! This consumption presumably leads to an increase in demand, and in turn leads to more production, etc. etc… a domino-effect of rising GDP and increasing stock prices. Fun for all.

Before I go further, let me tell you how my wife and I plan on using our $1200 check. We are going to use it to help accelerate paying off our credit card debt (which isn’t all that high, just so you know).

My wife and I are not alone. Consumer credit rose $5.2 billion in February of this year.

An estimated 115 million Americans carry a monthly balance on a credit card, according to a PBS/New York Times documentary from 2004-2005 (which has undoubtedly increased in recent years).

The average family credit balance, according to that same program, is $8000. Keep in mind, that that total more than doubled in just 10 years. That was 4 years ago. And we all know things have gotten worse since then.

So, where does this stimulus package get us? If my suspicions are correct, most recipients of this government check are doing the same thing as my wife and I: paying off something we’ve already consumed.

The point of all of this, is that the politicians in Washington don’t seem to “get it.” The so-called “stimulus” amounts to nothing more than a temporary fix at best, and a government subsidized debt payment at worst. I won’t complain about having $1200 to use to pay off some debt, but the cost of that will come with rising prices elsewhere (since the government is borrowing the money to pay for the stimulus package to begin with).

Solutions? In my mind, if our elected officials really want to help, they should turn their focus toward long-term fixes. Perhaps a starting point would be to actually do something about the predatory practices of credit card companies (watch that PBS video). Maybe we should start with putting a limit on the rate of interest banks can charge for a credit card balance. Wouldn’t that do more good in the long-run than the current borrow-and-patch policy from our “leaders?”

Currently, the right to regulate credit interest rates resides with state governments. But the right of one state really has no bearing on what another state will allow. For instance, if Missouri were to regulate the rate at, say, 12%... as long as another state allows for a rate of 30%, that credit card company can set up shop in the 30% state, and effectively export that rate of credit wherever it wants. No joke. What difference do state's rights make when another state can effectively over-ride another's regulatory power?

Recently, there was a congressional hearing on a Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights. A number of issues were touched on... all of which seem to be good starting points.

What do you think? Taking your calls, starting now…

Welcome to Mid America Calling

If you found your way to our humble blog, welcome! We hope to raise questions, discuss issues, and maybe, just possibly find some answers. Here's hoping you're up for the dialogue. Allow us to introduce ourselves, as we begin what will hopefully be a long, arduous and rewarding process, talking about these issues with you, the body politic.

So who are we? We're just two young men, as you see before you, taking cover from the crossfire of rhetoric and vitriol, trying to make our way through this life. We're watching our country and our people waste their time trying to be on top, instead of being working for solutions. There's a whole economy built on the politics of anger, one that depends on us avoiding sensible and rational examination of the issues. This is the Age of Outrage, where polarization and dogmatism rule the day, and we are done with it. Modern political discourse is so often limited to cheap shots and umbrage at the words of the opponent. There is no substance in such an age, only bellicose posturing, which is as routine as it is empty. It's not getting us anywhere, and considering the challenges that lay ahead, we need to change that paradigm right now.

Mid America Calling is our humble effort to jump-start some dialogue and discussion. Our Mid America is a concept, not a geographic entity; those of us that do not self-identify with a given party or ideology above all, who examine the issues even-handedly, are uninterested in dogma, and devoted first and foremost to the advancement of our nation. Advancement means moving forward into a new era. It means, at the same time, shrugging off the weight of our history and failures while drawing on our successes and our common experiences - using our past as a tool to illuminate our future. It means combining our self-reliance and moral systems with a do-it-yourself revolutionary zeal. It means taking charge of our own problems, and solving them at the level closest to our lives.

Mid America is calling you- we are shouting it out as best we can, that our view of this country needs to change. We are speaking truth to the ultimate power in this country- you, the citizen, the final arbiter of what happens here. If you doubt that power, then this is not the place for you. But, if you feel as we feel, we hope you find what you are looking for with us. It's a nerve-wracking world out there if we let it be- terror, bankruptcy, disease, disaster. So let's not delay. Let's get to work, because by God, that's the American way.

Here’s a written tip of the hat to Pete for his introduction to our site. After reading that intro, I couldn’t really think of anything I wanted to change too much or add because he did such a great job of saying what this “Mid-America Calling” is all about.

But I want to take a moment to drive home a point a bit. That point is this: Mid America Calling is about YOU. No matter who you are, or where you’re from, this site is about giving voice to all of the folks in this country who are proud and happy to call themselves Americans.

This isn’t about politics, or ideology… You will undoubtedly be able to guess and figure out what our own personal political leanings might be (those things have a way of peeking out no matter how hard you try to hide them), but this site is intended to go beyond those surfaces and dig deeper into the real problems that each and every one of us face every day.

There are serious problems out there. We should be about serious solutions. Each of us have the power to put our minds to work in coming up with those solutions, and ultimately that is what Mid America Calling is about. You are encouraged to voice your thoughts and propose solutions.

We will put issues on the line, and hope you readers take things even further... So, without further fanfare – The first calls are coming up… get ready to pick up the phone…