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. :)