... Of all the moronic and self serving statements Hillary Clinton has made on the campaign trail, this one takes the cake. Comparing the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to Enron, she said:
"We’re going to go right at OPEC. They can no longer be a cartel, a monopoly that get together once every couple of months in some conference room in some plush place in the world, they decide how much oil they’re going to produce and what price they’re going to put it at."
That's her definition of "Solutions for America"? How is she getting votes? By telling people what they want to hear rather than what they need to? It's someone else's problem, not America's own?
OPEC has long been a worry, to be sure, but its presence actually provides some stability and cost certainty on the markets; just as cooperatives in both Canada and the United States provide certainty for commodities and utilities. Breaking up the cartel could actually drive up oil prices even higher if the roguest of the already rogue states decided to turn off the taps all together. They just might -- after all, she has promised to nuke Iran.
Has she forgotten one of the reasons OPEC was created was because of the West's support of Israel during the Yom Kippur War? In 1973, during the Nixon Administration. It's played funny business at times, but often times it's helped the West. The price of oil now isn't entirely because of America's foreign policy in Iraq (although many have referred to a $25 per barrel "War Premium") It's because of huge demand for oil in China and India. What, Hillary wants to bomb them too because they're brown?
Besides, if anyone thought a complaint at the WTO would work, don't you think they would have tried? The last time I heard of any such attempt against OPEC at the GATT (the WTO's predecessor) it burned big-time. Besides, many blue-collar workers who she claims as her "base" (quite fraudulently; when was the last time she drove a blue-collar car or took public transit?) oppose the WTO's existence to begin with. So that is the utter hypocrisy to bring them up now -- to offer recognition to a group that workers blame for many of their problems.
Whine and complain, and not offer any real solutions. Her solution for America is to file a complain she's going to lose. During that time, nothing will be offered to make America actually energy independent -- something every President since Carter has promised and failed to do.
Including Hillary's husband, Bill.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Monday, May 5, 2008
Since when are post-election polls election expenses?
Years ago, Henry Kissinger said that "power is the ultimate aphrodisiac," and I frankly believe that explains Stephen Harper's power compulsions. Killing the access to information database the other day is just one example of that.
Another is setting the age of consent for heterosexual sex at 16 but keeping the age of consent for homosexual sex at 18; with no "closer relations" exception for same-sex relations unlike for opposite sex. Meaning a boy and girl who fool around and / or get carried away, or play doctor get off scott free; but two girls or two boys who do the same face time in juvee.
Such could not survive and will not survive a court challenge given the courts' strong position that gays and lesbians have the same rights as the enumerated categories of people in the Charter; but in the meantime the courts will be clogged with unnecessary challenges.
However, it's the continuing "in and out" scandal that is really bugging me. Now it seems the money that wasn't supposed to have been spent, was spent on internal party polling -- perhaps months after the election was over. (Per the Winnipeg Free Press) The claim is that in a number of districts an initial campaign return was filed within four months after the election (as the law requires) but an amended return was filed months later to claim "additional" expenses (as the law, oddly enough, permits.)
After the election was over? I've always been bothered by the government spending taxpayers' money to run its own polls when it should be doing it with party funds. But to do that and then claim it as an election expense ... well, let's not forget Woodward and Bernstein's investigation of Watergate started with campaign finance fraud, and a check that a totally honest war hero made out to himself (which represented cash contributions he personally raised, he had the check made out because he didn't fell comfortable carrying $25,000). He gave the check to the crooked chair of finance for Nixon's re-election campaign and that's what got the ball rolling.
The fact is campaign irregularities -- even if they are totally honest book-keeping errors -- are usually indicative of much bigger rot inside the ruling party, whether it's benign neglect or an attempt to subvert parliamentary democracy.
This goes beyond the necessity of Elections Canada having to do an internal investigation. since it's already made some matching fund rebates. This is a case for the Mounties, because it is a very very serious allegation. If -- and that's a big if -- true, then Stephen Harper and many of the members of his caucus who took part in "in and out" are crooks. If true, then the money should be paid back with interest along with any fines that might accrue for mail and / or wire fraud.
Even Jean Chrétien was generally careful to make sure no elected members were accused of, or could be accused of, in Sponsorgate -- the people who faced charges were non-elected and unaccountable appointees. Harper seems intent on either becoming a dictator along the lines of Singapore's Lee Kwan Yew (where the "democratic" elections are really a mirage), or bringing down the entire Con party with him. It's quite possible, and it is looking like, it could be the latter unless we get some answers and fast.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Another is setting the age of consent for heterosexual sex at 16 but keeping the age of consent for homosexual sex at 18; with no "closer relations" exception for same-sex relations unlike for opposite sex. Meaning a boy and girl who fool around and / or get carried away, or play doctor get off scott free; but two girls or two boys who do the same face time in juvee.
Such could not survive and will not survive a court challenge given the courts' strong position that gays and lesbians have the same rights as the enumerated categories of people in the Charter; but in the meantime the courts will be clogged with unnecessary challenges.
However, it's the continuing "in and out" scandal that is really bugging me. Now it seems the money that wasn't supposed to have been spent, was spent on internal party polling -- perhaps months after the election was over. (Per the Winnipeg Free Press) The claim is that in a number of districts an initial campaign return was filed within four months after the election (as the law requires) but an amended return was filed months later to claim "additional" expenses (as the law, oddly enough, permits.)
After the election was over? I've always been bothered by the government spending taxpayers' money to run its own polls when it should be doing it with party funds. But to do that and then claim it as an election expense ... well, let's not forget Woodward and Bernstein's investigation of Watergate started with campaign finance fraud, and a check that a totally honest war hero made out to himself (which represented cash contributions he personally raised, he had the check made out because he didn't fell comfortable carrying $25,000). He gave the check to the crooked chair of finance for Nixon's re-election campaign and that's what got the ball rolling.
The fact is campaign irregularities -- even if they are totally honest book-keeping errors -- are usually indicative of much bigger rot inside the ruling party, whether it's benign neglect or an attempt to subvert parliamentary democracy.
This goes beyond the necessity of Elections Canada having to do an internal investigation. since it's already made some matching fund rebates. This is a case for the Mounties, because it is a very very serious allegation. If -- and that's a big if -- true, then Stephen Harper and many of the members of his caucus who took part in "in and out" are crooks. If true, then the money should be paid back with interest along with any fines that might accrue for mail and / or wire fraud.
Even Jean Chrétien was generally careful to make sure no elected members were accused of, or could be accused of, in Sponsorgate -- the people who faced charges were non-elected and unaccountable appointees. Harper seems intent on either becoming a dictator along the lines of Singapore's Lee Kwan Yew (where the "democratic" elections are really a mirage), or bringing down the entire Con party with him. It's quite possible, and it is looking like, it could be the latter unless we get some answers and fast.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Final polls for May 6th
Still no word from the Rasmussen group (at this writing) about last minute data from North Carolina and Indiana; however Pollster.com has taken a weighted average "poll of polls" and has made the following predictions:
North Carolina: Obama 50.1, Clinton 41.5
Indiana: Clinton 49.7, Obama 43.9
This presumes that the remainder in each state votes for the "uncommitted" delegate column -- although why they would do that this late in the game is beyond reason.
My sense is NC is going to be a relative walk for Obama. He'll do very well in the western part of the state as well as in the "research triangle" (really Silicon Valley East) and Winston-Salem. Clinton will get most of her votes in the area east of the Piedmont. My prediction is Obama 54, Clinton 46.
IN is a somewhat different story. Obama has picked up some momentum in the last little while but it's been offset by more pickups by Clinton. He'll do well in the Gary-Hammond area and Indianapolis while she'll take the south. The northern part of the state, particularly South Bend (Notre Dame) will tell the tale. Prediction: Clinton 52, Obama 48.
If, however, Obama can pull off an upset in Indiana and win that state, there will be enormous pressure on Clinton to throw in the towel. Even if she exploit the "nuclear option" and get Florida and Michigan back in (which would be hypocritical on her part since neither candidate campaigned in those states in the first place) an Indiana win would send a flood of the PLEOs Obama's way.
We'll have a better idea tomorrow night.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
North Carolina: Obama 50.1, Clinton 41.5
Indiana: Clinton 49.7, Obama 43.9
This presumes that the remainder in each state votes for the "uncommitted" delegate column -- although why they would do that this late in the game is beyond reason.
My sense is NC is going to be a relative walk for Obama. He'll do very well in the western part of the state as well as in the "research triangle" (really Silicon Valley East) and Winston-Salem. Clinton will get most of her votes in the area east of the Piedmont. My prediction is Obama 54, Clinton 46.
IN is a somewhat different story. Obama has picked up some momentum in the last little while but it's been offset by more pickups by Clinton. He'll do well in the Gary-Hammond area and Indianapolis while she'll take the south. The northern part of the state, particularly South Bend (Notre Dame) will tell the tale. Prediction: Clinton 52, Obama 48.
If, however, Obama can pull off an upset in Indiana and win that state, there will be enormous pressure on Clinton to throw in the towel. Even if she exploit the "nuclear option" and get Florida and Michigan back in (which would be hypocritical on her part since neither candidate campaigned in those states in the first place) an Indiana win would send a flood of the PLEOs Obama's way.
We'll have a better idea tomorrow night.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Zogby: Outlier again?
No data yet for final polls from Rasmussen (maybe later today), but Zogby has some interesting data:
North Carolina: Obama leads Clinton 48-40 (consistent with most other polls).
Indiana: Obama leads Clinton 44-42 (most others have Clinton still out in front).
Interesting about both Indiana and North Carolina is that Zogby points out that undecideds are probably leaning towards Clinton; however Obama is starting to pick up the edge again among middle-aged voters, a demographic where he did very poorly two weeks ago in Pennsylvania. Among young voters -- it's no contest, he's got them in the bag.
If Raz comes out with some numbers later today, I'll post them then make my predictions.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
North Carolina: Obama leads Clinton 48-40 (consistent with most other polls).
Indiana: Obama leads Clinton 44-42 (most others have Clinton still out in front).
Interesting about both Indiana and North Carolina is that Zogby points out that undecideds are probably leaning towards Clinton; however Obama is starting to pick up the edge again among middle-aged voters, a demographic where he did very poorly two weeks ago in Pennsylvania. Among young voters -- it's no contest, he's got them in the bag.
If Raz comes out with some numbers later today, I'll post them then make my predictions.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
The inconvenient truth about smart meters
What I'm about to write probably isn't going to be popular. But if we're going to get serious about energy conservation it's something that has to be considered by the people whose opinions really matter.
Sometime in the next couple of months my neighbourhood is scheduled to get the long awaited "smart" electric meters, the kind that can measure power consumption by the hour and can be read automatically from a central source (via WAN) rather than the mechanical meters that have to be read manually every two months and don't take into account time of day usage. This is part of the province-wide deployment in Ontario, whereby everyone will have to have a smart meter by 2010.
I'm not against this. Of course I'm for it. Having power rates charged to reflect the time of day used (higher during weekday peak periods, lower during the evenings and weekends) makes perfect sense. People who run their washers and dryers at 3 in the morning shouldn't have to pay the same rates as someone who runs them in the middle of the day.
The issue for me, however, is that even after time of day pricing takes effect there will be regulated rates for those who haven't been suckered into signing contracts; rates which are well below market.
This policy was put in place just a few months after deregulation happened in Ontario in 2001. The way it was implemented was a bad idea -- especially how Ontario Hydro was broken up -- but the Harris government was correct in requiring people to pay for the actual price of power and not a fixed price. This meant as overall demand went up so did the price per kilowatt hour.
Unfortunately people revolted at this concept, not understanding that during much of the 1990s they were paying way less than the real cost of production and that taxpayers were subsidizing the difference on their bi-weekly withholding tax and at the cash register. This was contrary to the concept of power in Ontario over a century ago when the monopoly was created; that the production, transmission and delivery of electricity should be in public hands and that people should pay the true cost -- not one penny more or less. That rule was followed until the recession of 1990-92 when a deal was made with the power workers to freeze rates for the rest of the decade -- a really bad deal as it turns out.
So the Harris government put a price cap back in place with the intention to reset the price every six months. That was fine except the fixed price was again below the wholesale cost -- the real, market price. It's no wonder why there was a blackout two years later on one of the hottest days of the year; Ontario like most of the northeast States were giving people a free and undeserved ride. There was no incentive to conserve.
As it is right now, households that use up to 600 kWh per month (and businesses using up to 750 kWh) pay 5 cents per kWh, after that it's 5.9 cents. For those on smart meters, it is 7.3 cents from 7 am to 11 am and again from 5 pm to 10 am; 9.3 cents from 11 am to 5 pm (all Monday to Friday). During off peak periods on weekdays and all weekend it's 2.7 cents.
The actual price for power, however, can range from just two cents to a buck fifty depending on how strained the system is and if we have to go to outside sources (the neighbouring jurisdictions) to cover the excess. Why aren't we being asked to pay that rate (as the largest businesses are required to)? In the end, it probably comes out in the wash (the weighted average is about four to seven cents, depending on the time of year).
However, since it is possible to monitor usage by the hour, we should be charged whatever the rate was for that hour. The current price is public information and can be broadcast on a variety of media; so we should do that on a regular basis. If it was three cents it should be three cents; if it was a buck it should be a buck. Since people will be able to access hourly usage data when the system is rolled out, it makes sense to charge the real price to give people an incentive to conserve power during heavy load periods -- during all periods, really. Those in really dire straits should get partial subsidies but not a free ride and it should be paid back when things improve for such households.
Two other things: First, smart meters won't do anything to address the fact that we still need a better mix of power sources. We need more water, geothermal, wind and solar sources. If coal plants are really going to be phased out, we really need to get cracking on getting the alternative sources onstream; this will mean land claims settlements with natives up north (particularly for water power) but it must be done.
Second, smart meters as currently designed still won't detect attempts to bypass them -- such as those who have marijuana grow operations in their basements. The designs need to be upgraded to prevent any leaks or bypasses and to alert the central terminal if any such attempt is being made -- after all we shouldn't have to pay for other people's theft. (Currently, the uplift charge in Hamilton to cover that theft is about 4¼% -- meaning if we're supposed to pay five cents we actually pay 5.2 cents.) It does add up over time and frankly we're sick and tired for paying for "leakage" that is not supposed to happen.
UPDATE (6:54 am EDT 05/05/08, 1054 GMT): Some spam comments had to be deleted but since you've asked, here's an FAQ on smart meters. There is some Hamilton-specific info regarding how data hops from one part of town to another; but the concept is similar for delivery utilities province-wide. Come to think of it, time-of-day pricing could work for other systems that have manual reads right now (i.e. water and natural gas).
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Sometime in the next couple of months my neighbourhood is scheduled to get the long awaited "smart" electric meters, the kind that can measure power consumption by the hour and can be read automatically from a central source (via WAN) rather than the mechanical meters that have to be read manually every two months and don't take into account time of day usage. This is part of the province-wide deployment in Ontario, whereby everyone will have to have a smart meter by 2010.
I'm not against this. Of course I'm for it. Having power rates charged to reflect the time of day used (higher during weekday peak periods, lower during the evenings and weekends) makes perfect sense. People who run their washers and dryers at 3 in the morning shouldn't have to pay the same rates as someone who runs them in the middle of the day.
The issue for me, however, is that even after time of day pricing takes effect there will be regulated rates for those who haven't been suckered into signing contracts; rates which are well below market.
This policy was put in place just a few months after deregulation happened in Ontario in 2001. The way it was implemented was a bad idea -- especially how Ontario Hydro was broken up -- but the Harris government was correct in requiring people to pay for the actual price of power and not a fixed price. This meant as overall demand went up so did the price per kilowatt hour.
Unfortunately people revolted at this concept, not understanding that during much of the 1990s they were paying way less than the real cost of production and that taxpayers were subsidizing the difference on their bi-weekly withholding tax and at the cash register. This was contrary to the concept of power in Ontario over a century ago when the monopoly was created; that the production, transmission and delivery of electricity should be in public hands and that people should pay the true cost -- not one penny more or less. That rule was followed until the recession of 1990-92 when a deal was made with the power workers to freeze rates for the rest of the decade -- a really bad deal as it turns out.
So the Harris government put a price cap back in place with the intention to reset the price every six months. That was fine except the fixed price was again below the wholesale cost -- the real, market price. It's no wonder why there was a blackout two years later on one of the hottest days of the year; Ontario like most of the northeast States were giving people a free and undeserved ride. There was no incentive to conserve.
As it is right now, households that use up to 600 kWh per month (and businesses using up to 750 kWh) pay 5 cents per kWh, after that it's 5.9 cents. For those on smart meters, it is 7.3 cents from 7 am to 11 am and again from 5 pm to 10 am; 9.3 cents from 11 am to 5 pm (all Monday to Friday). During off peak periods on weekdays and all weekend it's 2.7 cents.
The actual price for power, however, can range from just two cents to a buck fifty depending on how strained the system is and if we have to go to outside sources (the neighbouring jurisdictions) to cover the excess. Why aren't we being asked to pay that rate (as the largest businesses are required to)? In the end, it probably comes out in the wash (the weighted average is about four to seven cents, depending on the time of year).
However, since it is possible to monitor usage by the hour, we should be charged whatever the rate was for that hour. The current price is public information and can be broadcast on a variety of media; so we should do that on a regular basis. If it was three cents it should be three cents; if it was a buck it should be a buck. Since people will be able to access hourly usage data when the system is rolled out, it makes sense to charge the real price to give people an incentive to conserve power during heavy load periods -- during all periods, really. Those in really dire straits should get partial subsidies but not a free ride and it should be paid back when things improve for such households.
Two other things: First, smart meters won't do anything to address the fact that we still need a better mix of power sources. We need more water, geothermal, wind and solar sources. If coal plants are really going to be phased out, we really need to get cracking on getting the alternative sources onstream; this will mean land claims settlements with natives up north (particularly for water power) but it must be done.
Second, smart meters as currently designed still won't detect attempts to bypass them -- such as those who have marijuana grow operations in their basements. The designs need to be upgraded to prevent any leaks or bypasses and to alert the central terminal if any such attempt is being made -- after all we shouldn't have to pay for other people's theft. (Currently, the uplift charge in Hamilton to cover that theft is about 4¼% -- meaning if we're supposed to pay five cents we actually pay 5.2 cents.) It does add up over time and frankly we're sick and tired for paying for "leakage" that is not supposed to happen.
UPDATE (6:54 am EDT 05/05/08, 1054 GMT): Some spam comments had to be deleted but since you've asked, here's an FAQ on smart meters. There is some Hamilton-specific info regarding how data hops from one part of town to another; but the concept is similar for delivery utilities province-wide. Come to think of it, time-of-day pricing could work for other systems that have manual reads right now (i.e. water and natural gas).
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Endorsement curse?
An interesting observation was made yesterday on the website of Editor and Publisher, the trade magazine of the newspaper industry. It noted what appears to be a "newspaper endorsement curse" in the Democratic race this year. In all but two primaries or caucuses, E&P says, the paper or papers of record in that state endorsed the candidate that ended up losing.
Only the NYT and the Concord (New Hampshire) Monitor, says E&P, have endorsed a "winner," Hillary Clinton. (Actually, the number should be three because Honolulu's main paper backed Obama who won that state).
But Barack Obama won in Iowa despite the endorsement of the Des Moines Register for Clinton (she was third).
"On the other hand, she squeezed out crucial victories in California, Texas, and Pennsylvania -- despite endorsements of Obama by the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Pittsburgh Gazette, the Dallas Morning News, the Houston Chronicle, the Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch, the Albuquerque Journal, and the Boston Globe."
Now, the Indianapolis (Indiana) Star has endorsed Clinton, while the Charlotte (North Carolina) Observer is pulling for Obama.
Sign of things to come on Tuesday? We'll have to wait and see on Tuesday.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Only the NYT and the Concord (New Hampshire) Monitor, says E&P, have endorsed a "winner," Hillary Clinton. (Actually, the number should be three because Honolulu's main paper backed Obama who won that state).
But Barack Obama won in Iowa despite the endorsement of the Des Moines Register for Clinton (she was third).
"On the other hand, she squeezed out crucial victories in California, Texas, and Pennsylvania -- despite endorsements of Obama by the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Pittsburgh Gazette, the Dallas Morning News, the Houston Chronicle, the Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch, the Albuquerque Journal, and the Boston Globe."
Now, the Indianapolis (Indiana) Star has endorsed Clinton, while the Charlotte (North Carolina) Observer is pulling for Obama.
Sign of things to come on Tuesday? We'll have to wait and see on Tuesday.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Cazayoux wins LA-6
A split decision in the two by-elections in Louisiana today. The GOP took the 1st district by a 3-1 margin; but it was in the 6th district that a Cajun named Don Cazayoux won a squeaker over the Repugs, in one of the reddest parts of America -- Baton Rouge. The GOP tried to point out Cazayoux rhymes with "tax you," not very effectively it seems. Congrats, Don, for winning a district that has been in Republican hands for over 30 years. This is a good sign of things to come in November, no matter who winds up the Dem nom for Prez.
Clinton may want to write off Louisiana as an unwinnable "red state" but as Howard Dean has often said every single state, district and precinct is a battle ground. If the logjam can be broken there it can be broken nationwide in the most unpredictable of places.
End of day, Obama's narrow victory in Guam also gave the top two Democratic offices in the territory to Obama supporters. Along with Cazayoux's win, that narrows the PLEO gap to just 22.
Drip, drip, drip.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Clinton may want to write off Louisiana as an unwinnable "red state" but as Howard Dean has often said every single state, district and precinct is a battle ground. If the logjam can be broken there it can be broken nationwide in the most unpredictable of places.
End of day, Obama's narrow victory in Guam also gave the top two Democratic offices in the territory to Obama supporters. Along with Cazayoux's win, that narrows the PLEO gap to just 22.
Drip, drip, drip.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Obama wins Guam
Obama beat Clinton in Guam -- by a mere seven votes.
A win is still a win. Go Barack!
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
A win is still a win. Go Barack!
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
There was a young lady from Guam ...
Two by-elections are being held today in Louisiana -- the 1st (Hammond) and 6th (Baton Rouge) districts -- and there's a slight chance both could be won by Democrats, both of whom are Obama supporters. Wins there would give him two more superdelegates and close his PLEO gap with Clinton to just 23.
Meanwhile, Guam is having a caucus today. Just thirteen delegates up for grabs but both Clinton and Obama are fighting for them even in the place where America begins its day 15 hours ahead of the East Coast. Voting is reported to be very heavy. Even in the colonies a lot is at stake, it would seem.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Meanwhile, Guam is having a caucus today. Just thirteen delegates up for grabs but both Clinton and Obama are fighting for them even in the place where America begins its day 15 hours ahead of the East Coast. Voting is reported to be very heavy. Even in the colonies a lot is at stake, it would seem.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Latest Dem polls (May 2); gas tax thoughts
The next two primaries are in just four days. Here's where two of the major polls stand:
Indiana: Rasmussen has Clinton leading Obama 46-41, Zogby has it dead even at 42.
North Carolina: Rasmussen says Obama leads Clinton 49-40; Zogby says Obama 50-34.
On the "markets" betting, Rasmussen suggests Clinton has an 85.7% chance of winning Indiana while Obama has a 93% chance of winning North Carolina.
Meanwhile, not one but two presumed strong Clinton supporters -- both formers chairs of the national Democratic Party -- have defected to Obama. Even more interesting is that of the superdelegates who have declared Clinton now leads by only 15. One of them, Joe Andrew, explains why here at HuffPo.
As far as the gas tax issue goes -- Obama is correct. A tax holiday amounts to peanuts and would only encourage more driving, impacting already strained reserves and driving prices up even higher. Clinton could be making a big mistake by telling her fellow members of Congress they are with her or against her. Isn't that what Dubya said the week after 9/11?
The real solution is not politically expedient ideas as a one time "holiday" but rather what many countries have adopted and what provinces in Canada, one by one, are considering -- starting with British Columbia. A steadily escalating carbon tax, offset by equivalent decreases in income taxes. Actually Bill Clinton was elected partly on the promise of a carbon tax at the source (not at the delivery point) which was a key part of Al Gore's contribution to the platform, but was forced to back down after massive opposition from the coal industry which is now trying to sell us on the scam of "clean coal." Low sulphur coal with carbon capture may wind up as part of the solution, but I think it is an idea which should be the last part of the energy independence puzzle and not the first.
Mr. Clinton stabbed Al Gore in the back and instead went for an increase in the gas and diesel tax at the pump. Newt Gingrich kicked his ass a year and a half later. Remember that?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Indiana: Rasmussen has Clinton leading Obama 46-41, Zogby has it dead even at 42.
North Carolina: Rasmussen says Obama leads Clinton 49-40; Zogby says Obama 50-34.
On the "markets" betting, Rasmussen suggests Clinton has an 85.7% chance of winning Indiana while Obama has a 93% chance of winning North Carolina.
Meanwhile, not one but two presumed strong Clinton supporters -- both formers chairs of the national Democratic Party -- have defected to Obama. Even more interesting is that of the superdelegates who have declared Clinton now leads by only 15. One of them, Joe Andrew, explains why here at HuffPo.
As far as the gas tax issue goes -- Obama is correct. A tax holiday amounts to peanuts and would only encourage more driving, impacting already strained reserves and driving prices up even higher. Clinton could be making a big mistake by telling her fellow members of Congress they are with her or against her. Isn't that what Dubya said the week after 9/11?
The real solution is not politically expedient ideas as a one time "holiday" but rather what many countries have adopted and what provinces in Canada, one by one, are considering -- starting with British Columbia. A steadily escalating carbon tax, offset by equivalent decreases in income taxes. Actually Bill Clinton was elected partly on the promise of a carbon tax at the source (not at the delivery point) which was a key part of Al Gore's contribution to the platform, but was forced to back down after massive opposition from the coal industry which is now trying to sell us on the scam of "clean coal." Low sulphur coal with carbon capture may wind up as part of the solution, but I think it is an idea which should be the last part of the energy independence puzzle and not the first.
Mr. Clinton stabbed Al Gore in the back and instead went for an increase in the gas and diesel tax at the pump. Newt Gingrich kicked his ass a year and a half later. Remember that?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Bailout # 3
The US Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank and the Swiss central bank announced today a third bailout of US and European financial institutions. The amount of credit the US bank is offering -- an additional $50 billion on top of the $100 billion already extended. Interestingly, the Bank of Canada and the central bank in the UK is not participating in this credit swap round although it put up quite a bit in the previous coordinated emergency loans.
Hey, dudes, what about ordinary people? They need a bailout too especially with gas hitting $4 a gallon and diesel even more than that!
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Hey, dudes, what about ordinary people? They need a bailout too especially with gas hitting $4 a gallon and diesel even more than that!
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Does Guiness have a category for this?
Companies as well as private agencies have every right to have a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to downloading online pornography, even soft-core erotica. Obviously, it's a drag on bandwidth -- so if someone wants to entertain themselves they can but they should do it at home and not on company time.
But for every guy or gal who's "accidentally" reached a website once or twice at work, there are the really addicted. Like this guy in Kinokawa, Japan, for viewing porn sites for what must be a record 780,000 times. One month alone last year, he made 170,000 visits.
What are these civil servants doing on our time?
He only got caught when a virus entered the system and the computers had to be debugged -- prompting a check of the browser history and log. He was demoted and received a pay cut of about $200 a month. Um, how about FIRING the guy?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
But for every guy or gal who's "accidentally" reached a website once or twice at work, there are the really addicted. Like this guy in Kinokawa, Japan, for viewing porn sites for what must be a record 780,000 times. One month alone last year, he made 170,000 visits.
What are these civil servants doing on our time?
He only got caught when a virus entered the system and the computers had to be debugged -- prompting a check of the browser history and log. He was demoted and received a pay cut of about $200 a month. Um, how about FIRING the guy?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Brenda Martin coming home
Thank heavens ... but Mexico's tourist trade should still be boycotted for this outrage as well as the botched investigations of Canadians murdered in Cancun and Acapulco.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Flaherty declares C-10 confidence bill
So sez the government, if the Senate amends the budget bill to eliminate the fed's want of oversight over "offensive" movies and is sent back to the House to be voted on as so amended.
I'd rather an election be about immigration than hot content in film, but Slim Jim's attitude suits me just fine as a Liberal. If they want the election to be about censorship, so be it.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
I'd rather an election be about immigration than hot content in film, but Slim Jim's attitude suits me just fine as a Liberal. If they want the election to be about censorship, so be it.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Obstacle to US health care candidates won't mention
As Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama race to the finish line to the Democratic nomination -- and as more superdelegates begin to line up with the latter despite his recent stumbles -- one issue that has gone underreported is that of how difficult health care reform is actually going to be. It may not be as simple as what the candidates state, or as simple as Michael Moore would want us to believe. Yes, Sicko (which I reviewed here) was a great movie but he forgot to mention -- or ignored -- another symptom of the American mess.
Like Canada which isn't a single, single payer regime but where each province and territory runs its own system (with very limited reciprocity, a fact which is itself against the law), there likewise isn't one single health care system in the United States. There are in fact fifty-one, one for each state and the District of Columbia. Each one has its own set of rules and regulations and because of that are each served by a different basket of insurance companies, and the states will not yield their authority to the federal government. Worse, reciprocity is next to impossible to obtain even within the same insurance company, which impinges on the right to travel and even work (many people live in one state but work in another).
Ever notice the small print in so many television and radio commercials, "Not available in all states"? Many companies don't bother selling insurance to those who need it not because the companies want to sell (of course they do) but because of the bureaucratic burden from regulations that prevent them from doing so.
If there was some interoperability allowed, that would drive down costs substantially. A company that can compete in all fifty-one areas instead of just a dozen or so could make insurance affordable for the masses because of the lowered overhead. Health care needs may be different in Wyoming or California, obviously, but having to make regulatory filings with fifty state agencies (and the home rule government in Washington) is patently ridiculous.
Hillary's plan of "mandates" -- forcing people to buy their own insurance -- is silly. Not just for the reasons above. Massachusetts has a mandate law but over 300,000 residents in the state still don't have insurance. They can't buy insurance if no one will sell it to them. Her plan overall would cover more Americans in the long run, but it still relies on the insurance companies -- which bought her off in the fourteen years since her last plan tanked.
Obama's plan isn't that much better. His plan does call for portability as well as "pay or play" (what they have in Hawaii) but it also relies on tax credits to help low income people buy insurance. He also does call for a ban on companies denying benefits or claims on so-called "pre-existing" health conditions. However he doesn't say how he's going to make sure premiums charged are fair -- or how premiums will be more levelled off across the United States.
As for McCain? Same old same old: Tax credits. They're useless if you can't get insurance in the first place. He also says absolutely nothing about ensuring interstate competition.
In the long run, I think America will ultimately have health care for all. It won't be a Canadian system and certainly not a Cuban system, but more of a hybrid system of public and private health care; not unlike what they really have in the UK, where there is a basic basket of services from the NHS but people can get private insurance for faster (and better) service if they can afford it. To get there however and to make even minimal reforms, Obama or Clinton will have to first confront that convenient catch phrase of "states rights" which once meant pro-segregation laws but nowadays simply means no federal mandates without just compensation for the lost of that aspect of state sovereignty.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Like Canada which isn't a single, single payer regime but where each province and territory runs its own system (with very limited reciprocity, a fact which is itself against the law), there likewise isn't one single health care system in the United States. There are in fact fifty-one, one for each state and the District of Columbia. Each one has its own set of rules and regulations and because of that are each served by a different basket of insurance companies, and the states will not yield their authority to the federal government. Worse, reciprocity is next to impossible to obtain even within the same insurance company, which impinges on the right to travel and even work (many people live in one state but work in another).
Ever notice the small print in so many television and radio commercials, "Not available in all states"? Many companies don't bother selling insurance to those who need it not because the companies want to sell (of course they do) but because of the bureaucratic burden from regulations that prevent them from doing so.
If there was some interoperability allowed, that would drive down costs substantially. A company that can compete in all fifty-one areas instead of just a dozen or so could make insurance affordable for the masses because of the lowered overhead. Health care needs may be different in Wyoming or California, obviously, but having to make regulatory filings with fifty state agencies (and the home rule government in Washington) is patently ridiculous.
Hillary's plan of "mandates" -- forcing people to buy their own insurance -- is silly. Not just for the reasons above. Massachusetts has a mandate law but over 300,000 residents in the state still don't have insurance. They can't buy insurance if no one will sell it to them. Her plan overall would cover more Americans in the long run, but it still relies on the insurance companies -- which bought her off in the fourteen years since her last plan tanked.
Obama's plan isn't that much better. His plan does call for portability as well as "pay or play" (what they have in Hawaii) but it also relies on tax credits to help low income people buy insurance. He also does call for a ban on companies denying benefits or claims on so-called "pre-existing" health conditions. However he doesn't say how he's going to make sure premiums charged are fair -- or how premiums will be more levelled off across the United States.
As for McCain? Same old same old: Tax credits. They're useless if you can't get insurance in the first place. He also says absolutely nothing about ensuring interstate competition.
In the long run, I think America will ultimately have health care for all. It won't be a Canadian system and certainly not a Cuban system, but more of a hybrid system of public and private health care; not unlike what they really have in the UK, where there is a basic basket of services from the NHS but people can get private insurance for faster (and better) service if they can afford it. To get there however and to make even minimal reforms, Obama or Clinton will have to first confront that convenient catch phrase of "states rights" which once meant pro-segregation laws but nowadays simply means no federal mandates without just compensation for the lost of that aspect of state sovereignty.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)