Thanks for an excellent essay.

I'm a bit torn on this issue as well. I wrote my congressman and senators and asked that they oppose the bill because of its immunity provisions. I think the courts are the best place to decide whether the law was violated, not in the Congress.

I also agree that there are tactical issues in play here. But, I think back to Waldengirl's recent If not now, when? article, though. Remember that many argued that the AUMF wasn't really a vote to invade Iraq, "it was a vote to give Bush a stronger hand at the UN." We know how well that turned out.... It's dangerous to give government sweeping powers and merely hope that those with the power will act with prudence. Checks and balances are always important, and it's not clear to me how strong those are in this bill.

I've been a regular contributor to Obama's campaign, but I'm holding off contributing more until I see how he acts in the Senate on this issue. Perhaps he needs a little more incentive to work harder to be a little less tactical and show a little more leadership.

My $0.02.

Posted at June 21, 2008 9:47 AM in response to Musings on Obama and FISA

Google is your friend.

HTH!

Posted at June 20, 2008 8:54 PM in response to The Silent, Visual Campaign for Prez Takes a New Turn

I drive a diesel VW, and have for nearly 5 years, so I feel the pain of increasing per gallon prices earlier than you do. ;-)

Again, you're assuming things about me and my position without a basis for doing so.

I don't have anything personal against you. I just don't think your arguments, at least on these energy topics, are nearly as "clear" as you do.

FWIW. :-)

Posted at June 19, 2008 12:49 AM in response to Railroading An Issue

I'm afraid you missed my point.

There are a lot of reasons why the US airline industry is in trouble. The cost of fuel is only one of them.

I think your latest analogy comparing the airlines to the USPS and FedEx is also off the mark. Up until 2006 USPS was required to break even. Comparing the USPS, a quasi-government organization that is regulated in how often and how much it can change its prices, to a private, for-profit entity like FedEx is fraught with problems and can't be simply reduced to one or two differences.

I agree with you that the US needs improved passenger rail service. I don't think, however, that your thesis that, "Without a real railway system, you won't be able to [travel and do business in the US]." Airlines aren't going to disappear - the price of tickets will go up. Cars won't disappear - the price of fuel will go up. Videoconferencing will become much more popular as well.

If business can only be done with a "real railway system", then the US and the world are doomed. Even Japan's railway system (a fantastic railway system) doesn't go everywhere.

The issues we face aren't black and white. Consider being a little less strident and a little more humble in presenting your arguments, and turn down the generalizations about people who disagree with you, k?

Posted at June 18, 2008 11:56 PM in response to Railroading An Issue

Hey clearthinker,

I addressed some of these issues in my reply to you in GreenDreams thread. I suspect you haven't seen it.

To keep this short, consider that European airlines are making record profits with high oil prices. Perhaps the problems with the US airline industry is much larger than the price of fuel?

Don't be so convinced that you see the truth and others don't. It's unbecoming.

Posted at June 18, 2008 10:59 PM in response to Railroading An Issue

(Take 3 - TPM's software doesn't like my links for some reason.)

Goodness, someone seems to have wound you up on this topic, eh?

For someone who's a "clearthinker", you like to make categorical statements. I'll just comment on a few of your replies:

The European airlines don't seem to have trouble making money with oil at $130/b. In fact, they're making record profits. (And it's not just the collapse of the dollar, either.) Perhaps the problems with American airlines has to do with much more than the price of oil?

You seem very down on photovoltaics. While it's true that they aren't a silver bullet, they certainly will have great applicability in many places in the world. For instance, it doesn't make much sense for the developing world to run power lines to areas having low population densities. Also, concentrator solar cells address many of your concerns about net energy return and efficiency. (Search for "Cost Of Photovoltaic Concentrators Falling Fast".)

You say we need asphalt for roads. I'm sure you realize that there are a wide variety of materials that can be used for roads - concrete, stone, bricks, etc. The Romans did a pretty good job on the Appian Way after all...

Finally, while it's true that our modern transportation infrastructure is almost overwhelmingly dependent on petroleum, it doesn't have to stay that way. Did you know that more of the Earth's carbon is tied up in methane hydrates than in all the coal, oil, and non-hydrate natural gas combined. There are vast resources of this fuel available. Natural gas is already used as a transportation fuel, of course, and it's easy to get hydrogen from methane.

There are of course, large technological problems to be addressed before the methane hydrates can provide fuel on a commercial scale. And there's the issue of what to do about the CO2 (, and controlling methane emissions), but those problems are also being addressed. (Search for "Wallace Broecker Hardtalk".)

Skepticism is good, but don't blind yourself to other views.

My $0.02.

Posted at June 18, 2008 10:20 PM in response to New Technologies for Our Energy Future

I think they should recruit Ray Suarez. He's intelligent, quiet, thoughtful, and can ask probing questions without bogus "Gotcha!" videos.

I didn't know what Lawrence Spivak's politics were; he knew how to ask questions and moderate discussions. That's what MtP needs. It doesn't need someone with a persona that includes an obvious political bias, and doesn't need an empty suit pretty boy (or girl).

They should look beyond their in-house talent, but I don't expect them to do so.

Posted at June 16, 2008 11:28 PM in response to Meet The Press successor: Quick opinion roundup and recommendation.

Hey Jeff,

I don't have time to address all of your comments.

You say that you would suggest a guaranteed benefit so that if a person's SS benefit and their private account earnings dropped below some minimum, then other budget dollars would make up the rest. How would that work, exactly?

Presumably if investment income drops in an investment fund that is "conservative" yet has a higher return than government bonds - like, say, an S&P 500 Index fund - then it's because the economy as a whole is in a slump. That means tax revenue is going to drop, and it means that expenditures for "stimulus" and unemployment insurance and the like are going to rise. IOW, such a SS+Private pension/insurance/whatever-you-want-to-call-it system would be less predictable than the current system. In addition to those expenses, there will be the expense of topping-up Social Security benefits.

You pooh-pooh the market going up and down, but I'm sure you realize that a basic founding principle of economics is that Risk and Reward are inextricably linked. If you want a 7% return from the market, you're taking on more risk than if you put your money in a 3% Treasury bond.

TANSTAAFL.

Unless you, and like-minded people, can convince skeptics like me (and their representatives) that you have an answer for real concerns about what happens when the market drops, and how would things be better in such a system under those circumstances than they are now? That's just one of many hurdles you'll need to cross, but IMO, it's one of the biggest.

Again, savings for retirement is a different issue than a Social Safety Net. As FDR said:

This social security measure gives at least some protection to thirty millions of our citizens who will reap direct benefits through unemployment compensation, through old-age pensions and through increased services for the protection of children and the prevention of ill health.

We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age.

This law, too, represents a cornerstone in a structure which is being built but is by no means complete. It is a structure intended to lessen the force of possible future depressions. It will act as a protection to future Administrations against the necessity of going deeply into debt to furnish relief to the needy. The law will flatten out the peaks and valleys of deflation and of inflation. It is, in short, a law that will take care of human needs and at the same time provide the United States an economic structure of vastly greater soundness.

Diverting tax money from Social Security to private accounts will not make the safety net more secure.

Gotta run. You can have the last word.

Posted at June 15, 2008 8:40 PM in response to Progressive Arguments in Favor of Partial Social Security Privatization

Hey One,

(Take two.)

There is a certain abstract appeal to trying to take advantage of the historical higher returns in the stock market. I still think it's a bad idea for SS, though. Social insurance is best done by the government. The markets are too focused on the short-term. Look at the way the private sector is trying to shift pensions to the PBGC. As long as the stock and bond markets are driven almost exclusively by quarterly results, it's foolish to rely on it for a baseline safety net for the long term. Especially since the safety net is most needed when the economy is in the skids.

Remember that it's impossible to look at "reform" of SS in the abstract. Even making changes to make the benefits "means tested" will be controversial (since political support was built on the agreement that the system would be universal). There would be huge amounts of money shifted to Wall Street and a great deal of pressure for brokers and investment banks to game the system to increase their fees and perceived performance (just as there was in the Subprime mess). There would be a lot of unintended consequences.

And what would we as a country do if people's private accounts suddenly dropped 25%? Do you really think that there wouldn't be pressure for the government to make people "whole"? There's tremendous pressure right now just to keep yearly SS check increases coming even if it's just a few dollars more a month! If 80 year old people were suddenly unable to afford their winter heat or rent payments because their SS investment income dropped, would we as a country be willing to let them be thrown out on the street or freeze? I don't think so. (Even partial) Privatization is fraught with risks that its proponents don't want to address.

I agree that we, as a country, need to save more. 401k's and the like are a good idea. I have one myself. That is a separate issue from social insurance, though. Mixing them only helps the Grover Norquist's of the world who are adamantly opposed to taxes and those want to abolish Social Security.

My $0.02.

Posted at June 15, 2008 12:16 PM in response to Progressive Arguments in Favor of Partial Social Security Privatization

Understood, MsJoanne. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. :-)

It's not surprising that you (and me up until a couple of weeks ago) didn't know anyone who had been polled. It's a big country and their samples are very small.

Posted at June 15, 2008 11:44 AM in response to Political Polls and YOU