The Upside of Rising Fuel Prices

To paraphrase an old quote about the weather, everyone complains about gasoline prices, but no one does anything about it. Which is exactly how it ought to be. As painful as filling up might be today, it is nothing compared to the pain we’ll feel when the pump runs dry.

Granted, that won’t happen for decades or longer, but rising demand in the developing world will certainly put further pressure on worldwide oil supplies. As any Economics 101 student can tell you, when demand rises faster than supply, higher prices always follow. Since we are dealing with a finite resource, today’s higher prices are like the proverbial canary in a coal mine. Eventually demand will outstrip supply and when there’s no longer enough oil to go around – unless we’ve come up with alternative energy sources – the price countries are willing to pay to fuel their economies will likely be measured not in dollars, but blood.

But therein lies the solution because there is no shortage of energy, only petroleum. Wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric and nuclear, as well as biofuels, can provide all the energy we’ll ever need. The problem is that these are neither user-friendly nor cost-efficient on the scale needed to replace oil. Getting them up to speed will require vast investments in time, technology and infrastructure – investments no one will make if they have to compete against lower cost petroleum.

Which is why we should not tamper with escalating prices at the pump. They are the single best way to spur the investment that will bring new, more environmentally-friendly energy sources to market, while encouraging the conservation that will bridge the gap until they arrive. By paying the price today, we can start developing those alternatives now and avoid a steeper and far more traumatic price tomorrow.

Who's Really in Charge of Climate

Bloggers and talk radio have had a field day with recent reports that Earth’s average temperature has fallen to its lowest level in twenty years, representing perhaps the biggest decline in nearly a century.  But don’t pull out the thermal underwear just yet.

This report should be viewed the way we look at the daily weather this time of year - we know in March that it's going to be warmer next month than it was last month.  But we also understand that tomorrow may be far colder than yesterday, so we know better than to take one day's worth of data and proclaim that summer will not arrive.  Variations occur, and a single data point does not a trend make.  We might still be cooking our own goose.

On the other hand, assumptions that the recent cooling is due to reduced solar activity should serve as a reminder that we have a 27 million degree furnace burning at our sun's core.  It doesn't take much of a change in the sun's thermostat to have potentially profound effects on Earth's climate.  We can pump all the CO2 insulation into the atmosphere we want and it will be of little consequence if the sun decides to turn down the heat.

But perhaps there’s a larger force behind all of this.  It wasn’t that long ago that we ascribed all manner of natural disaster - flood, drought, hurricanes - to the power of God.  Today we ascribe them to the power of man.  I don't know if that says more about changes in how we view God’s power or how we view our own..  Either way, the change in solar activity could just be the man upstairs' way of having a little fun and reminding us all who’s really in charge.

Mythbusters - The Most Important Show on TV

It’s been nearly three years since I graced these pages on a regular basis (some may question whether “grace” is the appropriate word).  But now I’m back and here’s what I’ve decided in the time I’ve been away:  

Mythbusters may be the most important show on television.

Before I explain, let’s look at how things were when my last column appeared in June of 2005.  Back then, the general consensus was that the $2 we were paying for a gallon of gas was outrageous, the surest way to financial security was to invest in Florida real estate and that Katrina was the name of someone who sang of walking on sunshine.

Political pundits were certain the Democrats were toast after falling further into minority status following Congressional losses the previous November and Hillary Clinton was a shoo-in to become their next presidential nominee.

Banks were convinced that interest-only and adjustable rate mortgages were a way to make homes affordable to people of modest means, McMansions affordable to almost everyone else and profits a certainty for themselves.

And who among us would have predicted an Oscar was in Al Gore’s future.

Which brings us back to Mythbusters.  There’s a tendency to make blanket statements – the Democrats are dead, you can’t go wrong investing in real estate – which often turn out to be misguided.  Such statements may be based upon something we’ve read or heard.  They might be part of the conventional wisdom, where an opinion is repeated so often that it crosses the chasm from mere opinion to accepted fact.  Or they might just be things we think to be common sense.  In any case, they tend to be ideas we accept at face value without question and without considering alternate possibilities.

But that doesn’t fly on Mythbusters.  We should be forever grateful that they have reintroduced the scientific method to an over-opinionated society.  Rather than accept conventional wisdom or what appears to be common sense – i.e., a truck filled with birds weighs less if those birds are in flight than if they’re standing on the truck’s floor – they will test it.  And testing those myths – those opinions – requires an open mind and the ability to think outside the box.  Moreover, it requires an emotional detachment from the outcome.  They don’t care what the answer is, just that they get it right.

Contrast that with the way so many issues are discussed today.  Rather than asking what’s the best way to achieve an objective, we ask how we can best prove ours is the only way.  Too often, that requires us to disregard any argument or evidence that might prove us wrong.  It’s the equivalent of sticking our fingers in our ears and chanting, “I can’t hear you.”

We’ll never solve the issues facing us, from healthcare to Social Security, from school funding to soaring energy costs, if we don’t listen to each other and openly consider viewpoints contrary to our own.  My objective with this column will be to encourage an open dialog.  I’ll offer opinions, but I’ll consider them also.  And if I leave you wondering on which side of the political fence I stand, so much the better.  I look forward to the discussion.

Oh, and if you were wondering, the Mythbusters say the truck weighs the same whether the birds are flying or not.  Of course, they could be wrong.

Count All the Votes (Except in Florida & Michigan)

It seems irony is not limited to one side of the political ledger. Last week saw conservative national talk show hosts doing their best Al Sharpton impersonations, using principle as pretense while defending one of their own in a flap with Senator John McCain, when in fact, they were concerned only with proving their own relevance.

This week finds the Democratic party performing principle-challenged gymnastics, as they struggle over what do about the Michigan and Florida non-primaries now that this past Tuesday’s results have left them without a clear nomination frontrunner. This wouldn’t be an issue if the Michigan and Florida votes counted, but alas, the party has determined the voters there have no right to choose their party’s nominee.

Let’s get this straight. Aren’t these the same people who argued so vociferously that every vote must be counted during the 2000 presidential election? The same party that claims to be for the working man and woman? Yet they’ve decided to punish rank-and-file voters in two of the most important swing states simply because each state’s party elders decided to hold their primaries earlier than the national leadership desired.

Hillary Clinton now wants those votes to count. Not surprising, given that she won both states. Never mind that both she and Barack Obama agreed not to campaign in either (Obama wasn’t even on the Michigan ballot). Wanting to claim the delegates now is akin to accepting your playing partner’s wager after you’ve already made the 40 foot putt.

Whatever the party decides, it should be noted that Democrats hold no moral advantage when it comes to enfranchising voters. It’s clear they want all votes to count, so long as they are the votes they want to count. Not unlike in 2000. Maybe it’s not so ironic after all.

Bill Buckley, A Lonely Nation Turns It's Eyes to You

Where have you gone, Bill Buckley? A day after the death of the man who made it possible to use the words “conservative” and “intellectual” in the same sentence without provoking howls of laughter, we find local Cincinnati talk show host Bill Cunningham feigning shock at reaction to his use of Barack Obama’s middle name, Hussein, at a John McCain rally. I can imagine Buckley uttering one of his many memorable quotes.

“I would like to take you seriously, but to do so would affront your intelligence.”

Cunningham is disingenuous when he says he doesn’t understand the uproar over his remarks. To believe him – to take him seriously – one must accept him as rather dim. To assume he knows better is to expose him for what he really is – a self-promoting huckster more concerned about publicity than principle, conservative or otherwise.

Before Bill Buckley came along, few questioned essayist Lionel Trilling’s 1949 assertion that conservatives do not express ideas so much as they share “irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas.” Nearly sixty years later, Bill Cunningham has returned conservatism to the realm of those irritable mental gestures.

Which is a shame, because it means Bill Buckley’s legacy – transforming conservatism, and in turn the Republican party, from a reactionary backwater into a movement of ideas and intellectual rigor – outlived him by less than twenty-four hours. Whereas conservatism was once powered by concepts of limited government and self-reliance, thanks to talk radio it now risks becoming the domain of limited thought and self-aggrandizing.

Meanwhile, it’s Barack Obama, the man in Cunningham’s crosshairs, who has noted the power of ideas inherent in Ronald Reagan’s ascendancy. For Bill Buckley, a man with a keen sense of irony, such a turnabout would have been rich fodder for his acerbic wit.

Too bad the wits are getting dim.

My Son the Gun

Time out for a little fun. I coach a 3rd grade youth basketball team and this past Saturday my son provided the highlight of the week.

Why the War Over "The War"?

Fifteen hours of Ken Burns’ WWII documentary on PBS, yet not a single mention of the contributions my ancestors made to the war effort. You can’t tell me that Poles made no contribution. In my family alone, I had uncles serving in the Army, Navy and Marines, a grandmother who helped build military vehicles and a great-uncle who assembled tanks.

That from just one of hundreds of thousands of Polish families who called America home during the war. Still, not a single specific mention of Polish-Americans. Nor was there much mention, come to think of it, of Irish-Americans, Chinese-Americans, German-Americans, Slavs, or any other ethnic group, save for those of Jewish, Japanese or African descent who suffered distinct injustices during the war.

Why no outcry from these groups like we’ve heard from the Hispanic community, who argue they’ve been slighted by Ken Burns? Could it be that Poles served and fought and died like all other ethnic groups in America at the time? In other words, is it possible that Ken Burns saw no real distinction between immigrants called to fight?

Perhaps a better question is why an outcry from Latinos and Hispanics at all? Is it due to some special circumstance they experienced during the war, or is it due to some special circumstance that exists today? Could it be that the sheer number of current Hispanic immigrants has instilled a sort of group-think that has long since faded for most of the other immigrant groups that served at home and abroad during WWII?

No, Ken Burns didn’t slight Hispanics. He honored them by treating them for what they were – Americans. Just like every other American who came from somewhere else and willingly sacrificed to defend the one ideal that should unite, not divide us - liberty

Our Proud Flag Needs No Protection

It’s been seventeen years since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that flag burning is protected speech under the First Amendment and the push to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing flag desecration began.  And yet, despite our inability to enact such an amendment, I have not personally witnessed a single flag-burning in that entire seventeen year period.  That’s probably true of most of us.

That alone should be enough to convince us that we need no such amendment.  In fact, that our flag can fly safely without the need of legal protection speaks volumes about our respect for the flag, and more tellingly, of our love and respect for the values and system that flag represents.

But the push to amend our Constitution – and in the process desecrate the very values that make the flag worthy of such respect – is underway once again.  It is an understandable emotional response, but sadly misguided.  For if there is any right that empowers us as private citizens in shaping our federal government, it is our right to speak our minds freely in criticizing that government, should it go too far.

Some argue that flag desecration is not speech, and in a strict, literal sense they are correct.  But we have to ask why someone would deliberately burn a flag if not to make a political statement?  And is it not protecting political speech, however distasteful it may be, that is whole point of our First Amendment guarantee?  If we are to be the democratic role model for the entire world, when such questions of rights arise we should always err on the side of liberty.

To be sure, many veterans are adamant about the need to protect our flag.  For those who have fought on foreign battlefields our flag represents everything they fought for.  It can be difficult to separate the symbol from the substance, but separate it we must.  For if we are willing to sacrifice the rights and freedoms that have made the flag such a powerful symbol, those who have fought and died will have died in vain.  I can think of no greater insult to those who have given their lives for freedom.  Conversely, there is no greater statement we can make to those who would desecrate the flag than to ignore them and allow the American flag to fly defiantly in all its unprotected glory.

Worst President Since Hoover?

Might the man from Texas be the worst president our nation has seen since Herbert Hoover?

To be fair, he came into office with the odds stacked against him. His predecessor was a youthful, charismatic leader whose following seemed more like that of a rock star than a politician. And the nation was coming off years of peace and prosperity. In many respects, he had nowhere to go but down. Nonetheless, consider the following:

He took office under circumstances that some consider suspicious, even treacherous.

Many argue that he cynically used goodwill the nation bestowed upon him in the wake of national tragedy to lead us into an unpopular and unwinnable war.

He expanded the scope of the federal government in ways no one could have foreseen, adding new roles for everything from education to Medicare, even as the cost of the war spiraled out of control. Many feel his final legacy will be one of bloated government and fiscal bankruptcy.

Furthermore, his determination to do things his way, combined with disdain for detractors, has earned him a reputation for being petulant and insular. Not exactly traits we might hope for in a president.

So how does all this make you feel? Some are probably outraged, while others are shouting a big, old, “Amen, brother.” But what if I said that I’m talking about Lyndon Johnson, not George W. Bush?

Interesting, huh? Many of the things people despise about George Bush are the same things many didn’t like about LBJ. Yet, I’d be willing to make a sizable wager that there is very little overlap among the two groups of detractors. Why is that? Is it because we agree more with one man’s policies than the other’s? Or is it because we identify more with one man’s party?

To be sure, plenty of liberals turned against LBJ as his term wore on, just as many conservatives have come to question George W. Bush. Still, the sad truth is that too many people fall in line behind one politician or another for no reason other than he or she is a Democrat or a Republican. But we do ourselves a disservice when we ascribe more importance to party than to policy, because we ignore what works and what doesn’t.

For example, many believe the U.S. prospered under Bill Clinton because he raised taxes, a liberal approach. Yet he also signed off on free trade, welfare reform and cuts in capital gains taxes, all considered conservative ideas. So was it liberal or conservative policies that spurred the economy and eliminated deficits? To too many Americans, it doesn’t matter. But it should, because it’s policy, not party that counts.

We all – left and right (myself included) – should spend a bit more time critiquing our own beliefs and biases and less time blindly defending them. Conversely, we should consider the merits of opposing viewpoints rather than dismissing them out-of-hand. Such critical thinking is necessary if we hope to meet the challenges we face in the years ahead. But we won’t be able to do that until we put less emphasis on Right and Left and more on right and wrong.

Beware Easy Healthcare Fixes

It is generally accepted that we have a problem with healthcare in this country, but we had better make sure we fully understand the nature of that problem before we start enacting solutions that may exacerbate it. Otherwise we could find ourselves with a patchwork of well-meaning but ill-conceived legislation similar to the so-called Walmart healthcare bill enacted in Maryland last week. For those unfamiliar with the new law, Maryland now requires any employer with more than 10,000 employees within the state to contribute at least eight percent of its payroll cost to health benefits. If they do not, the difference between what they pay and the eight percent cutoff must be paid into a state fund. Not coincidentally, Walmart is the only company affected by this legislation. This legislation is dangerous on several levels. For one, though only Walmart is currently affected, it opens the door for expansion of the concept to include smaller employers and encourages similar measures in other states. While that may sound good to some, we must keep in mind that this unfunded mandate is essentially a tax on payroll. And one thing we know to be true is that we get less of what we tax. Thus, we’ll get less payroll – either through lower wages or fewer jobs. (If you disagree, consider that the arguments for higher cigarette or gasoline taxes include discouraging their consumption). The irony is that we could actually end up with more unemployed people who have no insurance and wind up on state Medicaid rolls – precisely the opposite of what the legislation is designed to do. But another flaw in the legislation is that it treats all large employers as identical. But that is not true. For example, Walmart and Microsoft are both big companies. But whereas Microsoft earns a profit of approximately $210,000 per employee, Walmart earns only $8,300. Even fellow discount retailer Costco earns more than twice as much per employee as Walmart. Why does this matter? Because it means that not all employers are equally capable of paying for increased benefits. We look at Walmart’s size and assume it has bottomless pockets, but their profit per employee leaves relatively little margin for additional expenses per employee. Legislation like that passed by Maryland further reduces that margin, making Walmart less competitive in the marketplace vis-a-vis competitors with greater margins. But Walmart is not the only company with thin profits per employee. It is also true of far smaller companies, which brings us back to the concern that this may be just the opening salvo in the attempt to get employers to shoulder more of the healthcare burden. This legislation passed largely because only one employer was affected. That limited the lobbying effort against it. Next time, the state can go for a lower employee threshold without worrying that Walmart will oppose it since they would now benefit from having their competitors face the same requirements. It’s a divide-and-conquer approach that could be devastating for businesses on less sound financial footings. Ironically, it could be the Walmarts of the world who end up the real winners, as small businesses struggle under the burden of increased state spending mandates. Healthcare is among the greatest challenges we face in the years ahead, but that challenge is not faced solely by the uninsured among us. Our employers also face a crisis in paying for the insurance they already provide. Legislating coverage is not a solution, but a mere band-aid that could do more harm than good. We need a serious discussion about costs, technology, insurance and expectations if we hope to avoid a real crisis. It’s a discussion I plan to pursue in the weeks ahead, but I fear there are no easy answers. Legislation like that passed in Maryland mistakenly leads us to believe there are.