Hypocrisy in Politics

           

One of the more discouraging aspects of politics is the unapologetic hypocrisy displayed by politicians and political parties. The examples are numerous and neither party has a monopoly on hypocrisy. Whenever one party is in power, it seems to excel in hypocrisy partly because the members actually have to govern and not just pontificate.

A recent article in USA Today points out the hypocritical statements from politicians representing poor states like Alabama and Kentucky about reducing spending when their states are totally dependent on federal funds. Here is the last paragraph from: Time to Unload Kentucky, Steven Straus, USA Today, June 7, 2017.

“One major reason for the U.S. government's dysfunction is the GOP's hypocritical grandstanding about wanting smaller government and running America like a business when, in fact, it [GOP] needs big federal government programs such as the military, Medicaid, food stamps and farm subsidies to keep many of its supporters afloat. If Republicans really believe in the snake oil they've been selling, it's time to show it. If not, it's well past time for them to stop their empty ranting. As Shakespeare would have said, it increasingly sounds like a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

I would note that the same could be said of Democrats during the Clinton era.

Red Snapper – Don’t Forget the Past

It is quite popular among anglers, politicians, and talk show hosts to blast NOAA Fisheries in regards to red snapper management. While it is clear that there is much room for improvement, the mostly uninformed, extreme criticism creates an atmosphere (like much of our current politics), that in the end, may not give the best results.

Let’s start with a very brief history of management. When I moved to Lower Alabama in 1983, the concept of the federal fishery management councils actually regulating fisheries was just catching on. The Councils were established in 1976 to help National Marine Fisheries manage fish stocks as mandated by the Magnuson Stevens Act. The thrust of the Act was to promote and protect the US commercial fishing industry and had some lofty wording such as “preventing overfishing while … . achieving the optimum yield”.  There wasn’t much guidance about how to do this and the various Councils (guided by NOAA) began to establish Fishery Management Plans (FMP), usually for the most high profile stocks.

In the early 1980’s it was pretty darn hard for an average recreational fisherman to catch a red snapper (small boats, maybe had Loran C, and few structures) and both the charter guys and commercial fishermen recognized there was a problem.  There was not a lot of hard data besides commercial landings records but enough concern for the Gulf Council to create a FMP. The first FMP that addressed red snapper was completed in 1981 but not implemented until 1984. The delay in part was due to opposition to almost any restrictions by some fishermen.

This radical plan limited recreational fishermen to minimize a size of 13 in (but 5 under the limit were allowed) and charter boats were exempted till 1987.

The FMP was amended in 1990 to include:  a red snapper 13-inch total length minimum size limit, 7-fish recreational bag limit and 3.1 million-pound commercial quota that together were to reduce fishing mortality by 20 percent and begin a rebuilding program for that stock. Again there was a huge outcry by some against these unnecessary regulation and government intrusion on “the right to fish”.

Since those early management efforts there have been numerous amendments to the plan and the Magnuson Stevenson Act (as voted by your US Congress) was strengthened (perhaps over strengthened in some cases) to prevent overfishing and rebuild stocks in a timely manner. Every amendment to the FMP has been opposed by those who felt they were wrongly being harmed.

Despite all the opposition over the years, an average angler (with a larger boat, GPS and numerous structures) can now easily catch two 20 inch snapper weighing 6 pounds or more and we see pictures of much  larger fish all the time. The current population of red snapper would not have been possible without federal fishery management.  

In the 1980’s the Gulf states did not have the resources or the political will to even think about regulating offshore fish stocks. Of course they did not have the authority but its hard to imagine they could have, or would have, taken the steps necessary to rebuild red snapper.

Those that foam at the mouth over current federal management should remember there would not be anything to foam about if the stocks were not rebuilt to the incredible levels that have been achieved in the last 8 or so years.

Any government agency is an easy target when we don’t like the regulations etc.  but history has repeatedly shown that we are not very good at self-regulation when it comes to public resources. Strong oversight is necessary to prevent overfishing.

That said, the very restrictive bag and season limits implemented to rebuild the snapper stock may not be needed as the stock approaches healthy status. Some of the old assumptions built into the rebuilding plan may not be true or not applicable to the current Gulf ecosystem. But no one should think that we can have long fishing seasons or significantly increased bag limits. There are too many of us anglers with too much fishing power to sustain a healthy population if we are not constrained more than we would like. 

Random Thoughts about Health Care

Rhetoric on the Affordable Heath Care Act

The rhetoric coming from both sides in their “talking points” is getting tiresome. Any question asked by a reporter is answered by the talking points. The talking points on both side are hyperbolic and not all that helpful. It’s not really worth being fired up about it all until the senate takes action.

Winners and Losers

A lot of the posturing and reporting about health care seems to involve who is winning – the Democrats or the Republicans. My take is that some people who never had much of a chance to get health insurance will be the winners. If that was the intention of Democrats when they passed the Affordable Care Act then they might be considered the winners. Although Democrats lost in the political sense, they have forced Republicans to do more about health care than Republicans ever imagined. Since it’s impossible to get healthcare right, short of making it free to everyone (lots of detractors for that too), Republicans will probably pay a political price for whatever they do. But in the end, more people will have more access to health care than they did before ACA. Isn’t that kind of good?

The Costs

Having said it's kind of good I don't think anyone is really addressing the cost (not of an insurance policy but the cost of subsidies) to the nation. Hard to imagine having the coverage both sides are promising without significant costs. 

Strange is strange

I have issues with Luther Strange. Strange is Alabama’s recent Attorney General who was appointed by our disgraced governor to replace Jeff Sessions in the US Senate.

Our new, grandmotherly governor (who I suspect is tough as nails) has decided it all looked a little fishy and has scheduled a special election rather than letting Strange solidify his position for the next 2 years. As you will see, I am not enthusiastic about Mr. Strange.

The first issue is the well documented strange relationship between Strange and the deposed governor. The state house of representatives was hot to impeach now ex-governor Bentley. But Strange, as AG, told them to hold off there might be an investigation going on. A year later, there was still no action from the AG and the AG was mum on his maybe, maybe not, investigation.  Mean time Senator Jeff had moved on to be the US Attorney General and Alabama needed a senator. Lots of qualified people “applied” but isn’t it strange that Bentley, under fire, selected Luther Strange? Almost immediately after Strange moves on to the senate, the AG’s office provides evidence against Bentley.

The second issue is the strange settlement with BP in the oil spill law suit. AG Strange was instrumental in those negotiations. I should point out that many environmentalists were relatively happy with the settlement. They were happy to “get what we could’ rather than risk the uncertainty of continuing with the trial. Here are some facts and opinions that suggest AG Strange traded the environment for the Alabama general fund

The state of Alabama was involved in two law suits with BP. One was  the well-publicized Clean Water penalties being pursued by all the affected states. In the other suit Alabama was suing for lost tax revenues. These loses were almost exclusively from the 2 coastal counties (Alabama has 65 non-coastal counties). 

Alabama’s claim was $167 million.

Under the separate Clean Water lawsuit, Alabama’s share could have been as much as $1.6 billion if the judge imposed the maximum fine available.  No one could be sure, but the judge seemed to be leaning towards a high settlement rather than a low settlement.

Now the fun begins. Under AG Strange, Alabama accepts BP’s offer in the lost tax revenue case for $1 billion or about 6 times what Alabama claims. Seem strange doesn’t it? Why would BP do that? Easy. In return, Alabama (along with other states) agrees to accept a settlement in the Clean Water suit. Alabama’s share turns out to be $599 million not the potential $1.6 billion. Why would Alabama do that? It’s simple. If Alabama got $1.6 billion from the Clean Water suit then it would have been mostly spent on environmental projects in the two coastal counties and the spending would be overseen by a committee structure not controlled by the Alabama legislature. Under the settlement, as accepted, $1 billion goes to the general fund where the legislature controls every penny and the other 65 counties get some of the action. And in fact the two coastal counties have had a hard time getting much of the $1 billion despite being the center of the damage.

Why does BP care since the total to Alabama is about the same in either case?  It’s all about tax deductions. BP cannot deduct penalties paid for Clean Water violations but can deduct payments to states.

Isn’t it Strange how these things work out?  

The coal miners dilemma

The coal miner dilemma

COAL MINER'S HEALTH CARE: more waste and more socialize the costs.

Like most Americans I did not realize I was subsidizing health care for coal miners – not commercial fishermen (the most dangerous occupation), not farmers and not most other occupations. “ It is the only time that Congress had intervened to provide retiree health benefits that had been promised by a private party. Congress intervened again in 2006 after a series of bankruptcies in the coal industry”.  The Atlantic.

This all came out as part of the negotiations to extend the US Budget. It turns out we have been have been paying quite a bit to provide health care to 22,000 miners no longer covered by their bankrupt companies. According to Fox News  we paid nearly a billion dollars to the United Mine Workers (UMW) between 2011 and 2015 for health care. The estimated cost to continue under a bill in congress is 2.2 billion for the next 10 years.

If you Google coal miner’s health care you can find a lot more background part of which is an “obligation” of the government to take care of miners dating back to 1946.

People of good will can argue about moral obligations on one side and budget responsibility on the other side or even the fairness of favoring one occupation over others but there are three other aspects that are troublesome.

That same Fox News report is mostly about an audit of the agency that makes the payments to the miners. The payments are made directly to the UMW with almost no oversight from the agency. The union makes the decisions about who gets the money, doesn’t seem to follow standard insurance procedures and appears to charge 48% overhead. So we have a program that may have merits but is grossly inefficient.

Besides the 1946 “obligation” to support coal miners, why are we involved so directly in their health care? As members of a powerful union and with help from the government back in 1946, miners bargained for good, employer-provided health care. But as coal profits have fallen due to competition from natural gas, several big mining corporations have gone bankrupt. It’s doubtful the owners suffered much as they likely socked away their profits in good investments (not coal). But of course they were excused from any serious obligation to fund health care for out of work miners. So here we are again – privatize the profits and socialize the costs.

Is coal really worth the cost?

And finally, miner’s pensions are also at risk.  A bill in congress proposes to use the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Land fund to shore up pensions. As you might expect the fund was meant primarily to fix the environmental damage left by abandoned coal mining operations. It's easy to argue that helping people is more important than restoring mining sites. But why are miners getting a special social safety net? There are a host of safety net programs already in place for workers in every other occupation who lose their jobs and whose pensions are threatened.

Is the cost of coal really worth it?

Not Climate Change

Forget Climate Change

Forget Climate Change

Besides the absurd “debate” about the science, climate change rhetoric has caused some to lose sight of other national goals worth pursuing.

Because the previous administration couched many of its initiatives on clean air, renewable energy, and energy independence in terms of fighting climate change those initiatives are now linked to the “hoax of climate change” by the current administration.

Forget about climate change! Are not cleaner air, renewable energy and energy independence important goals for our nation regardless of climate change? Shouldn’t we, couldn’t we pursue reduced emissions for health reasons? Wouldn’t it be good to be less reliant on oil and coal? It will run out some day.

Hasn’t energy independence been a national goal since we figured out that we are paying and have paid a heavy price (never –ending military action, foreign aid etc.) for Middle East oil?

Tax Cuts

TAX CUTS

Who doesn’t like tax cuts? Count me in but I just don’t like the rhetoric and hypocrisy. Republicans always run for office on tax cuts and the idea that cutting taxes will stimulate the economy enough to make up for loss of revenues. That works if taxes are truly so high that they are significantly hurting economic growth. Republicans also complain about the deficit and the debt and promise to reduce it. They love to point to the Reagan era when taxes were greatly reduced and the economy increased but oops! The deficit under Reagan increased by 1.4 trillion or a 142% over the previous administration.

No one (including myself) really wants to take on the debt and deficits. People smarter than me say it’s ok for a powerful economy like ours to engage in modest deficit spending and carry some debt. But other smart people say it’s all getting a little out of hand relative to GDP and ultimately threatens our economy and thus our security (how will we buy more bombers if no one will loan us the money?).

If we really cared about the debt/defict we would reduce spending (Democrats go crazy) and keep taxes where they are or increase slightly (Republicans go crazy).

One thing that has always bothered me in this is the unwillingness of both parties to ask Americans to make some financial sacrifices (ask your parents, if they are still around, about sacrifice and  WW 2).  Going back to Desert Storm and moving forward to the second invasion of Iraq and through the war on terrorism, no one has asked us to pay a little more for the cost of being more secure. In fact the cost for much of that activity was not even put in the budget – it was “off the books”.   Shouldn’t we have  had a “war tax” to pay for all that?

Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study. The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said. Washington Post.

The War on Terror is a military campaign launched by the Bush Administration in response to the al-Qaida 9/11 terrorist attacks. The War on Terror includes the Afghanistan War and the War in Iraq. It added $2 trillion to the debt as of the FY 2018 budget. The Balance.

Republican War on Clean Coal

Clean Coal

My title," Republican War on Clean Coal" is a little hyperbolic but isn't that how we do things these days? I just read a good article by Paul Bledsoe (Politico) that makes the case for cooperating with China on creating technology for burning coal more cleanly. I will expound further but in order to not bury the lead here is the one thing that caught my eye:

"Many Democrats have become too captive to far left environmental advocates who disingenuously contend that renewable energy alone can easily meet America’s near-term climate, economic and energy imperatives. Meanwhile, climate denial by Republicans has greatly contributed to coal’s collapse. By not coming to terms with coal's emissions and climate change liabilities and by refusing to support climate legislation needed to fund investment in technologies to address them, the GOP has left coal with nowhere to turn, and so every major U.S. coal company has gone bankrupt.

In other words Republicans, who have relentlessly campaigned against "the job killing war on coal" (in Alabama virtually every politician ran on this even though the elected position had no say or influence on environmental policy), could have helped coal more by embracing its polluting nature. 

Just to be clear, I am very skeptical about "clean coal". The whole operation is dirty:  mountain top clearing, dumping wastes into valleys, failure to mitigate as required by law, conditions in the mines (improving I'm told), transportation and storing of coal (coal dust), burning (mercury, CO2, particulate matter etc.), and coal ash disposal. Currently there is no economically feasible technology to burn coal as cleanly as natural gas.

But, coal isn't going away in the US or in world. So if it is going to be burned, it should be burned more cleanly. Republicans would be loath to spend money under the guise of fighting climate change but they might support "saving coal".

Confused Editorial Follow-Up, Ocean Acidification

In my  previous post, I made an argument against an editorial which proposed that CO2 was not a pollutant. In that brief post I did not mention recent observations on the gradual change in pH of ocean water (ocean acidification). The above graph (a little fuzzy) shows the increase in atmospheric CO2 (red line) since the 1950s as measured at the same location in Hawaii, The green shows increasing amounts of CO2 in seawater near Hawaii and the red shows the decline in pH (more acid). The decline is small but remember the pH scale is logarithmic. While there is not a lot of solid information on the current effect of declining pH there is plenty of concern for the future based on our knowledge of how shrimp, crabs, oysters, corals etc. react physiologically to lower pH.
It seems pretty logical to me that if a gas (CO2), at unusually high concentration,  causes a decrease in the pH of water it is a pollutant. 

Confused editorial on the Clean Power Plan

A recent Alabama editorial, written by an "energy consultant" (see: http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/03/canceling_clean_power_plan_sav.html#incart_river_index) argues in favor of recent action to roll back the Clean Power Plan. There are cost versus benefit arguments I have seen before and I am not in a position to dispute but suspect  some fiddling.
But in rationalizing his argument he says the following:

"In truth, the "pollutant" being regulated under the CPP is carbon dioxide (CO2), the inert gas that all humans and animals expel every day. And while the climate debate is still raging over CO2's potential contribution to a warmer climate, it's simply wrong to argue that it is pollution. "

I am not going to look up what the technical definition of a pollutant is, I just offer the following. Many of the things we think of as pollutants (arsenic, lead, oil, coliform bacteria) are naturally occurring and we are exposed to them daily BUT usually at concentrations too low to be a problem. They become pollutants when there is enough arsenic, lead etc. in the water or the food or the environment. to threaten humans or the environment. 
As I pointed out in a previous blog "Social Costs 2" (below) the Supreme Court found that if CO2 causes harm then it is within the scope of the EPA to regulate carbon. EPA did so.

This idea that CO2 is not a pollutant is new kind of climate denial. The writer seems to say that even if CO2 contributes to  global warming, we cannot regulate it because its not a pollutant. Very strange logic.

Flynn Tweet - the rest of the tweet

The national media had a lot to say about Mr. Trump's tweet regarding former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn's immunity request.It was all focused on the first part of the tweet with little attention the second part.

The Tweet: "Mike Flynn should ask for immunity in that this is a witch hunt (excuse for big election loss), by media & Dems, of historic proportion!"


Mr. Trump has made similar claims about the election before and often for no apparent reason.
The objective facts are that in only 11 other elections out of 56 did a candidate have a smaller electoral college margin of victory (the analysis I saw used some adjustment factors to account for changes in the electoral college over time so we can quibble if its a few more or less than 11th). And we all know the results of the popular vote - 46%. Fifty three percent voted for someone else.

The "historic" claim is more subjective. Perhaps historic in the sense of the polls getting it wrong or that he was the first president elected since Ike who had not held a public office. It was also historic in  that only 5 people have won the presidency and not won the popular vote.

Mr. Trump's ongoing penchant for bragging about the election, often out of context, has brought others to question  the balance between ego and insecurity.
Sometime I wonder if he is just "mess'n with us to get a reaction like the one you just read.

  

US Debt Dilemma

Tomorrow I have the opportunity to meet with our Congressman regarding a popular federal program that is of local significance and has  been zeroed out of the proposed budget. I will defend the program and urge my representative to fund it.

BUT like some of my like-aged friends, I was raised by depression era parents and there was no deficit spending in our budget (except that house loan that was paid off early). It's in my blood to live by a balanced budget and avoid debt.

 While I recognize that a rich nation like ours can carry a large deficit, there are limits - such as the deficit affecting national security and the economy. How much farther can we go?

My congressman will probably hear from thousands of people like me defending their favorite program and so will all the congressman across the nation. Even some of the most ardent budget hawks have favorite programs or strong constituencies for programs. Therein lies the dilemma - most people would like to reduce the deficit but not at the expense of  the program that helps them or their community.

 There will be winners and  losers. I will support my program and hope they can find some cuts elsewhere. How about a couple billion out of  the 54 billion INCREASE for defense or a couple billion out of the 12 (20?) billion for the great wall?

Someone smarter than me will say we just have to contain are exploding health/entitlement costs. Good luck with that.

Science, Climate and Policy

The most disturbing aspect of the climate change issue has been the attack on science. Science in its purest form is apolitical. Follow the evidence and let the chips fall where they may. But of course, science is done by people and people have biases. Certainly some questionable science has been done in ways to support a particular point of view. That said, science and the scientific method have brought us incredible discoveries and understandings of our world by mostly being unbiased.

When science uncovers something that suggests that changes should be made in policy and those changes could be expensive or inconvenient, the response has been to attack the science. It is not that the attackers are necessarily anti science in the bigger sense, they just don’t like this particular science because they are afraid of the implications. Don’t face up to the implications—kill the messenger.

 The basic science of climate change is not about the many remedies that might, or should be taken (that comes later) but is simply the facts as presently known from observation and experimentation. These facts, by their very nature, suggest solutions but it is not the role of science to dictate the solutions .  It is the responsibility of elected officials to consider the evidence, consult with science about the range of solutions and take action.

I would be much happier with the “climate deniers” if they would just be honest and say something like “Our best scientists have found that human activities, particularly burning fossil fuels, have resulted in the world’s climate warming faster than would be expected by natural processes. We have looked at the range of solutions and find that they are too expensive and too inconvenient for us to take action. We are counting on the people to find their own solutions and adapt to the changes as they occur”.

We can’t continue to reject science that reveals “inconvenient truth” because we then risk the perils of rejecting any science that reveals unpleasant consequences. That is a road we don’t want to travel.

Social Costs 2

There is a lot to be concerned about in the recent executive orders regarding environmental regulation. Looking beneath the headlines here is some detail that points to the complexity of some of the issues. One of the executive orders requires the EPA to revisit the Clean Power Plan. This is the plan that would reduce carbon emission by 30% by 2030. The basis for the plan is found in the Clean Air legislation that gives the EPA the power to regulate emissions that are harmful to human health.
The Supreme Court ruled that if the EPA finds that carbon is harmful to human health then it must regulate carbon. The EPA found it it to be harmful and the Clean Power Plan proceeded from there. Furthermore a Federal appellate court ruled "while the record shows that there is a range of values [for the social cost of carbon], the value of carbon emissions reduction is certainly not zero.” This led the EPA to calculate a cost which is also an important factor in rationalizing the Clean Power Plan.

The executive order cannot overturn the Supreme Court ruling that the EPA is required to regulate carbon but it does tell the EPA to ignore the current calculations on the cost of carbon. Certainly there is "guesswork" or "best available science" in such a calculation. What will be the "best avaialble science" for a new calculation?

Ending the war on coal

Coal executive: Trump 'can't bring mining jobs back' | TheHill: "The head of the largest private coal firm in the U.S. says President Trump won’t be able to bring back coal industry jobs despite a push this week to deregulate fossil fuels. 

Robert Murray, the founder and CEO of Murray Energy, said Trump should “temper his expectations,” given the way market forces — rather than regulations — have hurt the coal industry and reduced employment. 

“I suggested that he temper his expectations,” Murray told The Guardian. “Those are my exact words. He can’t bring them back.” 

Tru"



'via Blog this'

Jeff

Jeff Sessions is caught up in the "Russian scandal" but it seem unlikely that Jeff was up to anything nefarious. But those other guys - who knows.



'via Blog this'

Privatizing the Profits and Socializing the Costs

One of the fundamental differences between the conservatives now in power and liberals is the belief in "unfettered capitalism". This leads to the big big push for "rolling back job killing regulations".
I'm sure there are many bothersome regulations, particularly those that are mostly  "paperwork" that don't accomplish anything. That said, unfettered capitalism has a long history of working hard to maximize profits   while ignoring the social cost of realizing those profits. More recently, instead of just ignoring the social costs, clever corporations get the government (us) to pay. Example: Walmart employs a lot of people at low wages with few benefits while earning pretty big profits. Workers often qualify for government programs  that help make up the difference. Walmart keeps the profits, we pay the social costs.

This privatizing profits while socializing costs really comes to a head when we think about those "job killing, over reaching, environmental regulations" When a business, landowner, developer, etc. degrades the environment we all pay for it whether it is in health costs, increased costs for drinkable water, lost recreational opportunities, etc . But the "business" keeps all the profits for itself. What is the rationale that supports the enterprise not paying the true costs (controlling emissions, discharging only clean water, keeping sediment and chemicals from  washing into waterways)?

Our modern  American culture recognizes the many benefits of a vibrant, capitalist economy while
understanding that business costs are not limited to raw materials and workers pay but include the costs of making sure that the enterprise "does no harm", In most cases, environmental regulations are simply an attempt to get businesses to pay the true costs of production.