What is a Fair Tax Rate?

As our representatives in Washington attempt to agree on a budget, one of the topics of discussion is how much tax we should pay. Specifically, should the wealthiest Americans continue to receive the tax cut put in place by President Bush?

Before anyone answers that question, I think it is important to go through the thought experiment of determining what a 'fair' tax would be. Let's say you were suddenly granted the power to decide the rate at which income tax is paid. We'll stick with income tax to focus the discussion, but there are a number of other sources of tax, including social security, medicare/medicaid, and payroll tax to name a few. First, let's look at the spectrum of income in the US. Income is typically divided into quintiles, which is dividing the spectrum into five pieces, each with equal population. The Census Bureau published the mean income for each quintile for the year 2009:

Bottom Quintile: $11,552
Second Quintile: $29,257
Third Quintile: $49,534
Fourth Quintile: $78,694
Top Quintile: $170,844

Within each quintile you will find folks who make more than the mean, and folks who make less than the mean, but the idea is that an equal number of households are making somewhere around this amount. Another thing to keep in mind is that for the year 2009, the threshold for poverty was annual income of less than $11,161 (I covered this in more detail in an earlier post).

So given that $11,161 is the minimum necessary to live, what level of taxation is fair?

One common school of thought is to impose flat tax amount, where each citizen pays the same. After all, we all are equal citizens, so we should all pay the same for that privilege. In 2009 the US government received $1.21 trillion in income tax. We'll ignore the fact that the US ran a $400 billion deficit this year, and assume that this amount of tax was sufficient for a balanced budget (along with those other tax receipts we are ignoring for the moment). The IRS received 236 million returns that year, so we'll use that as our population count. So if we divided the tax receipts ($1.21T) by our population (236M) we get $5,127.12 from every household.

Our top quintile would love that. After all, it is easily afforded, and likely much less than they pay now. Our bottom quintile is in real trouble though. They had less than $400 to spare, and are now several thousand dollars below the poverty line. As a percentage of income, the lowest quintile is paying 44.38%, while the top quintile pays just 3%.

That isn't the only school of thought though. There is also the concept of paying a flat percentage rate. So what percentage rate would we need to use across all of those households in order to get back to our $1.21T in revenues? First, we divide our population by five to get the number of households in each quintile (47.2M). Then, we multiple each quintiles mean income by the population for that quintile to determine the total income from the quintile:

Bottom Quintile: $0.545 trillion
Second Quintile: $1.380 trillion
Third Quintile: $2.338 trillion
Fourth Quintile: $3.714 trillion
Top Quintile: $8.063 trillion

Total Income: $16.042 trillion

Our revenue ($1.21T) is 7.54% of that $16T in income our households earned. If every household, regardless of income, paid that rate, the same amount of revenue would be generated. Now, of course, the math here isn't perfect because we have households earning more and less than our mean household income for each quintile, but it helps us understand how this works. Taking a look at our bottom quintile, this tax would cost them $871, which still puts them into poverty. Is that fair?

Again, not the only method for assigning tax rates. We could also apply a different tax rate to folks in each quintile. Let's say the bottom quintile pays no tax, the next quintile pays a small rate, and so on with the highest quintile paying the highest rate. This is close to how our federal income taxes are assessed now. The thinking is that those in the lowest tax bracket are least able to pay, and so they are taxed the least. Those in the upper tax bracket are most able to pay, and so are taxed the most. But how should those rates be assigned? It's a sticky matter, and this is the basis for the arguments going around about whether or not the wealthiest Americans should continue to receive a tax cut.

There is one issue that causes our current method to break down: extreme income disparity. Let's say that there are ten folks in a room, and they represent all of the income for the US. Let's also say the income breaks down something like this:

1: $5,000
2: $15,000
3: $25,000
4: $35,000
5: $40,000
6: $60,000
7: $70,000
8: $90,000
9: $150,000
10: $4,000,000

Whoa, I wanna be #10! I feel really bad for #9 though. If we assign our tax rate by quintile, #9 and #10 get taxed at the same rate. #9 and #10 represent 92% of the total income, and so it should be assumed that they should also be responsible for at least 92% of the taxes paid, if not more. Poor #9 is going to get saddled with a pretty hefty tax rate because he lives in the same quintile as #10, even though the income levels are extremely disparate. This is an extreme example. However, income disparity is real, and the trend has been for more disparity, not less. This means that in our room of ten people, we will have more folks at either extreme. What happens when 5 are earning poverty income, while 5 are earning six-figures?

An Appeal to My Friends Regarding H.J.R 6

My friends, I ask you today to consider Indiana House Joint Resolution 6, a bill before the Indiana legislature that would amend our state constitution to ban the recognition of any same sex partnership. The text of the bill reads:

Provides that only marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana. Provides that a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.

I know many of my friends will agree with the first statement. Marriage is a religious term, and for you, you would prefer that the state not use this term in recognizing same-sex unions. While I disagree, I would like to instead focus your attention on the second sentence. The second sentence bars any same sex couple from enjoying the rights assigned to a married heterosexual couple under any name. I have spoken to many of you who oppose the government recognizing same-sex couples as married. In all cases that I remember, those who feel this way have had no issue with recognizing a same-sex couple as a civil union. The language of this bill would specifically deny those rights of married couples to a same-sex couple even if they agreed to call their relationship a civil union.

What does this mean for same-sex couples? There are a variety of rights that married couples enjoy that will be explicitly denied to these couples. Among these rights:

• Filing of joint taxes
  
• Veteran's disability
  
• Domestic violence intervention
  
• Joint parenting rights
  
• Permission to make funeral arrangements for deceased spouse, including burial or cremation
  
• Right to inheritance of property
  
• Next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
  

Many of my friends feel that same-sex marriage is acceptable, and I agree with you. Many of my friends feel that same-sex couples should be able to enjoy the rights of married couples, but should be assigned a different term from their religious definition of marriage, such as civil union. I am not aware of any of my friends who feel that same-sex couples should be specifically denied the rights assigned to their married counterparts. I am pleading with you today to consider the impact of this bill on same-sex couples in Indiana. I am pleading with you to contact your state representative and let them know that this bill does not represent your thoughts on the rights of same-sex couples.

Minimum Wage and Poverty

Unions, collective bargaining, and fair wages are getting a lot of press due to the attempts in several states to introduce Right to Work laws, eliminate collective bargaining for public employees, and generally reduce the power of unions. It got me curious about what the current rules were according to the Department of Labor's Fair Labor Standards Act. What are the minimum benefits that an employer must offer?

The first item that comes to mind is minimum wage. Effective July 24, 2009, the minimum wage was increased to $7.25 per hour. There are some caveats though. If you are under 20 years of age, the employer is permitted to pay as little as $4.25 per hour for the first 90 days of employment. This falls under the subminimum wage clauses of the FLSA. That's pretty convenient for employers who look to pickup temporary help during the summer when schools are out. A fairly shrewd employer could substitute these youths for regular employees during the summer months and cut their wage expenses nearly in half. The hourly rate is even lower for those who regularly accept tips. Employers of tipped employees (anyone who receives more than $30 in tips in a month) may pay an hourly wage of $2.13 per hour, so long as the total of tips and hourly wage for the hours worked in that month at least equals the minimum wage rate.

So let's say that you are single, and you are entering the workforce after graduating high school. You are 18 years old and on your own. You canvas the town and are able to find a job with a local business. The business owner is very shrewd, and is only willing to offer the absolute minimums since you have no prior experience and no higher education. The owner offers you $4.25 for your first three months, with a pay increase to $7.25 at the end of those three months. The business is closed on all federal holidays (9 days in 2011), and is also closed the friday after Thanksgiving. You will not receive pay for holiday closings. You are permitted to take 5 unpaid sick days with short notice, and 10 unpaid vacation days with a minimum of one month notice. The employer notifies you that you may work a maximum of 40 hours in a week, but indicates that those 40 hours will regularly be available.

So how does this first year go for you? First, let's assume you work all of the hours that are available to you in that year.

Assumptions:
52 weeks in the year.
40 hours per week

13 weeks at $4.25 per hour = $2,210
37 weeks at $7.25 per hour = $10,730
2 weeks at $0 per hour (holiday closings) = $0

Your total pay for the year would be $12,940. According to the census bureau, the threshold for poverty in 2009 for an individual under the age of 65 was $11,161.

That's pretty bleak, but that is also assuming the best case scenario that you were able to work every day of the year. In the worst case scenario, where you exhausted all of your sick and vacation time at the $7.25 rate, your annual income would have been $12,070. Minimum wage is just barely keeping you above the poverty line.

Now imagine if you were coming out of high school with a pregnant girlfriend. You move in together, and the baby is born during the year. You are now a house of three. One of you stays home with the baby because the cost of childcare is greater than the wage you are able to earn. The 2009 threshold for poverty for a 3 person family was $17,098. You've worked a full-time job for a year and you are still under the poverty threshold.

I've seen several remarks indicating that Governor Mitch Daniels has indicated that $9 per hour is a livable wage. Unfortunately, I can't find any documentation of this quote, so take it with a grain of salt. Even so, a quick perusal of the job postings in a newspaper or online will show that $9 per hour is a fairly common offer from folks looking for appointment setting and phone support staff. How would that $1.75 increase in pay affect our earner? Let's assume that our worker gets that rate throughout the year, and again, isn't paid for holidays but otherwise works all the hours available.

$9 per hour x 50 weeks x 40 hours per week = $18,000 per year

That would put them above the poverty line for a family of three, but just barely. Keep in mind that this is gross pay too, not take home pay. This has to cover not just food, housing, and transportation, but medical benefits (likely not offered at this wage level), retirement savings, taxes, and all of the other expenses of life.

So what does it all mean? I don't pretend to know. In theory, the appropriate wage for a particular role is what the market will bear. We all want to save money though, so we encourage businesses to seek methods to cut costs by demanding lower prices. Labor is one option for cutting costs, and this can lead to reduced quality when those who are qualified to do a job are not willing to accept the wage offered, but those unqualified to do the job are willing to accept it.

It will be interesting to see how the legislative moves in progress in several states impact their local economies.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting

There has been a lot of discussion recently concerning federal funding of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). The CPB is a non-profit, private organization created by the federal government in 1967, and is charged with the stewardship of federal funds for promoting public broadcasting. The lion's share of these funds are awarded to local television and radio broadcasters. A much smaller portion of those funds is awarded to companies like National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). Both of these companies are private, non-profit media enterprises that generate content such as Car Talk, All Things Considered, Radiolab, Sesame Street, Reading Rainbow, NOVA, and others.

According to CPB's 2009 Revenue report, the CPB had total revenue of $2,643,336,000. Of that total revenue, 81.9% came from non-federal sources, leaving 18.1% of the CPB's revenue coming from federal sources, or $478,443,816. In 2007, there were roughly 138 million federal tax payers in the US (the most recent number I could find). We don't all pay the same amount in taxes in the US, but if we did, that would work out to just under $3.47 from every federal tax payer going to the CPB.

Two of the biggest issues in politics today (or any day for that matter) are taxes and jobs. The tea party, and by extension republicans, have suggested that eliminating federal funding for the CPB is one method to help reduce overall taxation and move towards a balanced budget. This has met with a mixed response across party lines. Fans of NPR and PBS have expressed concern, and have taken to social media outlets such as Twitter and Facebook to plead for continued federal support of these organizations.

In my view, the majority of those pleading for continued support of the CPB are doing so because they enjoy the programming provided by NPR and PBS. I don't have any numbers to back this up, I'm basing this off of what I'm seeing from my social media streams, so this is hardly a scientific analysis. What may not be clear to these fans of NPR and PBS is how little of those federal funds are appropriated to the media enterprises. According to the CPB's Fiscal Year 2010 budget, $28,535,000 was allocated towards radio programming grants. According to NPR's records, federal grants make up around 2% of their annual revenue, which in 2010 were just over $184 million. So doing the math here, NPR received around $3.7 million in federal funds. Television is a similar scenario. The CPB allocates $71,587,500 in grants for television programming. I had trouble finding information on the portion of those grants that were awarded to PBS, but even if it is the full amount it represents a small percentage of the $571 million in total revenue that PBS received in 2010.

The funding to NPR and PBS represents a very small portion of the total funds the CPB distributes. The vast majority of funds are given as grants to local radio and television broadcasters. This is where the real impact of de-funding the CPB would be felt. By de-funding the CPB many broadcasters in rural locations who could not otherwise support their operations will go silent. These rural broadcasters are often one of only a handful of sources available in their area. Growing up, we didn't have access to cable at our home, as our home was in a very rural location. Satellite television involved very large dishes, not the Dish Network and DirecTV that you see today. The stations we could regularly receive at our home were our local PBS station, NBC, ABC, and CBS. Our home was certainly not as remote as what you might find in states farther north and west.

Given this analysis, I don't have a big problem with revoking funding to content producers, such as NPR and PBS. These media enterprises receive a very small portion of the federal funds allocated to the CPB. While any reduction in revenue is painful, to those pleading for continued funding based on their love of the programming, I say, make a bigger donation! I highly doubt that the revocation of funds to either of these media enterprises will result in the end of Sesame Street or Click'n'Clack. However, I do feel that the CPB provides an important service to Americans who do not represent a profitable investment to major network broadcasters. I do feel that revoking funds to local public broadcasters very likely might mean the difference between them staying on air or going off air. I do support the continued funding of these local broadcasters, and I hope that the CPB continues to receive funding to support them.

However, I hope that the CPB's mission is modified. Radio, in my opinion, is a medium on the death march. When do you listen to broadcast radio? At the home? Likely not. In your home, you are much more likely to be watching television or browsing the web. In your car? Maybe, or you might be listening to satellite radio, or your MP3 player. At work? Again, there has been a major shift towards streaming content over the web by office workers. Television, too, is not the media powerhouse it once was. I believe that the CPB's mission should be modified to help meet the president's call to improve broadband internet service to every American. By using the CPB's funding to retrofit local broadcasters with LTE data services (or some other data technology) more Americans will have ready access to broadband internet service. This will provide more than just a public media outlet, it provides access to the wealth of content on the web.

Right to Work

Indiana is currently embroiled in the discussion of Right To Work. Right to work is a bill put before the Indiana legislature that would, if passed, make it illegal for employers to require employees to join a union or pay union dues (HB 1468). Currently, if you are hired at an employer that utilizes union labor, you are required to join the union and to pay union dues. These union dues are often deducted from your paycheck automatically.

I've had first hand experience with this scenario. In my teens, I worked as a bagger at a Kroger grocery store. Kroger employees are members of the AFL-CIO. As a condition of my employment, I had to join the union, and union dues were automatically deducted from my paycheck. I only worked part-time, and I was paid minimum wage. My union dues were around $5.00 on each two week check, which means that for one hour every two weeks, I was sending my pay directly to the union. That was a pretty significant portion of my income when I only worked a few hours each week (between 8 and 24 depending on whether school was in session). I never met my union steward, attended a union meeting, or really felt a part of the union. Still, every two weeks an hours pay went to the union. It was frustrating! Still, the union did negotiate our breaks (one paid 15 minute break if you work 4 hours, two if you work six, and two paid 15 minute breaks plus a paid 30 minute lunch if you worked 8 hours). I believe that unions have their place, and that there is definitely a need to unionize. I believe that unions can and do provide benefits to their members. However, I also feel that our nations largest unions are no longer effective.

On the one hand, I can definitely see the argument for eliminating the requirement to join or pay dues to a union. As a teenager, I definitely would have taken the option to keep that money for myself. What I wouldn't have realized then is that, without the union, I might not be making that same hourly wage. My break times might not be paid either, or even exist for that matter. If I didn't pay those dues, I would effectively be free-loading on the union. I would be receiving the benefits of union membership without joining the union.

Attempting to make an argument on whether or not a Right to Work law is good or bad based on states that do or do not have such a law is difficult. There are many more factors at work than just the Right to Work law, such as tax breaks for the employer, or other pro-employer benefits. Those in favor of unions will quickly show statistics that demonstrate states with Right To Work laws have lower wages and high on the job injury cases than states without. Those in favor of Right to Work will talk about how employers specifically seek out states with a Right to Work law when expanding their business.

Growing up in a manufacturing town, I've heard the arguments back and forth. The unions argue for higher wages, better benefits, and better working conditions. The employers argue that the union demands are putting them out of business. The Right to Work bill is clearly an attempt to diminish the power of unions in our state. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? I just don't know.

Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality is getting more and more press, and as our lives become more dependent on the web, the decisions made in Washington on the subject of Net Neutrality are going to be very important. As such, everyone should have a good understanding of what is meant by Net Neutrality, the pros and cons, and how it might impact you.

The concept of Net Neutrality is that every packet of data processed by your internet service provider should be treated in exactly the same manner. Whether you are watching a movie stream over Netflix, carrying on a conversation using your VoIP telephone line, downloading music from iTunes, or just browsing the web, all of that data gets treated exactly the same way. It all receives the same processing priority.

For service providers, this presents something of a problem. The current market expects to be able to purchase an unlimited amount of network usage for a fixed price. This was fine for the service providers when the typical user only browsed a few web pages and downloaded some small files. Their network could easily handle the load without causing interruptions or delays in service to any of their customers. Enter video services like YouTube, Netflix, and iTunes video rentals along with peer to peer file sharing networks like BitTorrent, and service providers find that some customers are using a *lot* more data than others. Some customers might use so much data, in fact, that they cause service delays and interruptions for their neighboring customers. What is a service provider to do?

One option is to inspect the data going across the network and treat that data differently. Let's say you are a Comcast customer. You are using BitTorrent to download your favorite Linux distribution, and you also start watching a streaming movie through Comcast's on-demand movie service. Comcast might inspect that traffic coming from your home and cause the file sharing traffic to be processed at a lower priority than your streaming video. This way, you get a nice clear picture without interruption on your movie (and so do your neighbors), but your file download might take a while longer. Many service providers already have in place systems to detect peer to peer file transfer data and throttle the speed at which that data travels their network. This frustrates the file sharers, but also limits the impact they have on other customers using the network.

That scenario is the opposite of Net Neutrality. The service provider is inspecting data and treating data differently based on what the data is used for. But hey, they doesn't sound so bad right? I mean, the service provider is just balancing the load on their network to give the best service to all customers in all scenarios, right? Well, maybe. Consider, however, if you also subscribe to Netflix. You could watch a season of Weeds on Netflix streaming, but Comcast would really prefer that you pay them a monthly fee for the Showtime premium channels. Now that they have the equipment in place to inspect the data you are sending over the network, maybe they tweak the settings for Netflix data so that the image looks poor, or you get lots of re-buffering interruptions. Eventually you get sick of it and pay the $10 per month to get Showtime and, amazingly, the instant streaming content from Comcast video-on-demand shows up crystal clear and without delay.

This is the sort of behavior that the recently passed Net Neutrality bill aims to avoid. Internet service providers aren't happy with it, as it restricts their ability to manage their networks as they see fit. On the other hand, it is an important protection against potential anti-competitive practices.

A major concern for customers is the impact Net Neutrality will have on their taxes and on their internet service bill. As with any regulation, it requires auditing and enforcement, both of which require funding. That funding will necessarily come from taxes. This might become a new tax that you see on your internet service bill, or it might come from an increase in some other tax you are already paying.

The price you pay for your service might change as well, but that isn't due to any specific language in the regulation with regard to price setting. The regulation states that any two users paying for the same level of service should receive that service equally. Without the ability to throttle certain types of traffic, ISPs may choose to instead introduce tiers of service. If you have a cell phone plan, you are already familiar with this concept. The tiers of service increase the amount of data you may use with an increase in monthly price. This doesn't prevent users from hogging the network, but it does force them to pay for that privilege.

Throttling data based on service tiers *is* permitted by the Net Neutrality bill, and is something I am already experiencing through my own ISP. I live in a very rural location, and my internet service options are limited to dial-up, microwave wireless, and satellite. I use the microwave wireless service, which offers multiple tiers of service. I pay for one of the premium tiers, which means that the data I send on the network gets a higher priority than the data of users at other tiers. For example, let's say that my service provider can handle streaming two movies from Netflix at once. My neighbor, who has basic service, starts streaming a show. Another neighbor with basic service starts streaming a show. The network is now at capacity, and both neighbors are watching a show without interruption. Now, I start watching a show. Since I have a premium tier of service, my ISP allocates bandwidth to me at the expense of my neighbors at the lower tier. My show looks fine and is uninterrupted, while their shows get re-buffered as they fight over the remaining streaming slot. Now let's say someone else with my same level of service comes online to watch a show. The two of us at the higher level of service now use all of the available bandwidth, and the lower service tier receives none. In reality, an ISP would never completely shut off service like that, but those at the lower tier would certainly see their data come through at a miserable drip.

Net Neutrality is certainly a complicated issue. Service providers need the flexibility to be able to insure proper service to their customers at a reasonable rate, but we as customers also need to be protected from anti-competitive practices by those we purchase our service from.

Proud of my Grandmother (You Go GG!)

I love my grandmother, very much. We don't see eye to eye on most political issues though. Leading up to the election last year we both said some things that rubbed each other the wrong way. We're family, though, and we love each other, so this was water quickly under the bridge.

My grandmother doesn't like our president very much. She doesn't like his policies. She doesn't like the direction he is taking our country. She has been pretty vocal about it too.

This week, I saw a note from my aunt that she had to spend some time on the phone calming my grandmother down. It seems that she caught wind of schools in her area not showing the president's speech to their students. She was really worked up: how could anyone show such blatant disrespect for our president? And over such a wholesome and needed message?

I love my grandmother, very much. I am hugely impressed by the amount of character that it shows in her to not only feel that the president deserves our respect, but to speak out against those who would do otherwise. Especially since she is defending someone she disagrees with so strongly. It made me very proud to be her grandson.

The Hoosier Plate Debate

Here in Indiana, you have a few options when it comes to your license plate. Assuming you are driving a car (not a commercial vehicle, truck, motorcycle, RV, or some other vehicle which requires a different plate) you can choose among the plates shown below.







There is no difference in cost between these. By default, the license branch is supposed to offer the simple blue background plate first, and offer the other two as options upon request. If you would prefer, you may pay extra for a plate that benefits the organization of your choice, such as your favorite university, or perhaps Habitat for Humanity, with a portion of the extra fee given to the organization represented on the plate. Further, Indiana permits personalized license plates (PLPs) with some restrictions on what is allowed on the plate. I'm paraphrasing, but the essence of the restrictions are that the common man will not find your combination of seven letters and numbers offensive.

If you live in Indiana, you've probably seen these plates already, and you may remember that the "In God We Trust" plate got some attention when it debuted. The ACLU brought suit against the state, not for the content of the plate, but to contend that it should carry an extra fee. The ACLU lost the case, and the plate continues to be available to anyone who asks for it at no additional charge.

Now, a bit of trivia. Do you consider the phrase "In God We Trust" to be a religious message? If you said no, the Indiana and US courts would agree with you. You see, "In God We Trust" is the official motto of the United States, and as such, is not considered religious speech. Way back in 1782 the phrase E Pluribus Unum ("out of many, one") was chosen as the text to appear on the Great Seal of the United States. This became the de facto motto for our nation, although there was never any action taken to make it official. In 1956, the lack of an official national motto was apparently a major concern, so congress worked on a bill and President Eisenhower signed into law that "In God We Trust" would become our national motto. This wasn't the first use of the phrase in our government, as it had appeared on our coins and bills since the late 1800's.

That effectively kills any religious argument against the "In God We Trust" plate, but what about speech on PLPs? Should I be able to reserve a PLP with the text "LUVSGOD", "BE GODS", or "NO GODS"? That's exactly what Jason Borneman wants to know. Jason, an atheist, applied for a PLP with the text "NO GODS". His application was rejected on the grounds that it might be offensive, and he is pursuing this through an appeal. Some have suggested that a more positive message might have been accepted, such as "GODFREE" rather than the negative statement "NO GODS". What do you think? If a "BE GODS" PLP is allowed, should a "NO GODS" plate be allowed too?

UPDATE: Mr. Bourneman received notice from the BMV that his PLP application has now been approved, and he will receive his "NO GODS" plate in February.

Arguing on the Internet

I need to learn to stop arguing with the internet.  Until I do, here is my retort to one such misleading message I couldn't leave alone.

Wouldn't that be great!  But wait, Snopes to the rescue!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/bakken.asp

This is long, so go ahead and delete it if you aren't interested in hearing things you don't already agree with.

The truth of global warming truly hit me on my trip to the Phillippine Islands.  On the front page of the paper was a story of how the newly elected leader of a Micronesian country was forced to make his top priority the full evacuation of his citizens.  The reason?  Global warming has caused sea levels to leave the highest point in his homeland only 20 feet above sea level.  In five years or less the entire country will be submerged and the population displaced.

This isn't a problem that only the Pacific islanders suffer either, although Hawaii is another good example of a location soon to be submerged beneath a combination of lava flows and sea water.  Beaches are eroding at the fastest rate ever.  New York is also battling rising sea waters.  International relations with Russia have been strained over the claim of the newly opened arctic shipping lane, created by the continuous degradation of our polar caps.

There are alternatives to "Drill Baby Drill" that will result in our independence from foreign oil.  Even better, they will move our country into an era of technological leadership in the world where we again create the products everyone wants and needs.  

Taking the hard protectionist list isn't a solution either.  Even if we determined to become independent of foreign oil, but failed to proliferate our technology abroad, we would still be in the same mess.  Consider Brazil, Russia, India, and China (the BRIC nations): fastest growing economies on earth, and fastest industrializing.  If every household in these nations had a car, even a modest 32 mpg car, our oil supplies would be sapped and our air unbreathable.  Don't think it is going to happen?  Indian conglomerate Tata has already produced a vehicle that costs less than $2,000 with the intention of getting the population on the road.

Returning to the thought of drilling, I have worse news.  Even if we were to start drilling EVERYWHERE we possibly could within the boundaries of the USA (and even extending our international waters) that oil won't be available for processing for a minimum of ten years.  This quote from planetforlife.com regarding the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve sums it up nicely:

ANWR has the potential to reduce oil imports by 5% for 2 decades beginning in 2015. Other sources of oil within the U.S. will be depleting during that time. There is no realistic way to reduce dependence on imported oil if oil consumption continues at its present rate.

Further reading materials:

http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

I Voted!

Have you? Today is the big day! If you are registered to vote, haven't voted yet, and are able to get to the polls.... GET GOING!

Humor from the Presidential Candidates

These two clips are some nice comedy relief from our two presidential candidates.

Monitoring

I work for a company that makes security equipment: video surveillance cameras, video recording equipment, access control equipment, etc. Our business is to protect life and property for the folks that purchase our equipment. I am also a part owner in a business that offers global asset tracking. Both are successful businesses, especially during this era of fear and uncertainty in the world.

Over the summer I had a college intern working for me, and we had several good discussions on the issues surrounding surveillance and monitoring. My intern was of the opinion that businesses and property owners must have restrictions on how much monitoring they can do. My opinion is that if you own the property, you can do with it what you want. I hold this opinion because I believe in the free market system's ability to correct for bad behavior. As a homeowner, I believe I should have full authority to plant as many cameras, microphones, RFID tags, or anything else on my property that I want, and without asking permission from anyone else. I extend this same mentality to private businesses, who should have authority to install cameras, microphones, and track their assets however they like. If the business does this in a way that customers or employees don't like, they are free to go buy / work somewhere else. My intern was worried that really big companies or really wealthy people might be able to do really bad things, and while I agree that in the short term a corrupt, powerful business could do harmful things, in the long run the market will win out.

I think I really threw my intern for a loop when I said the same rules should not apply to our government. We afford our government special privileges which mean that our free market doesn't really have any influence on the government. Although we do vote for our representatives, we do not get to "buy" a new government when our existing government no longer suits us (I hear some snickering...cynics :-p ). Since we afford our government special privileges, we also need to have oversight. One specific example is in the case of wire taps. Before we allow our government to "install a microphone" aka wiretap a phone line, we require that the government submit a very good reason to a judge so that a warrant can be issued for the wiretap. This is a check and balance to prevent our government from wiretapping at will, which could be utilized as a mechanism to wrest control of the government away from the people of the country and to put that control in the hands of the few already in power.

Are these contradictory positions? I don't think so. As I said, we afford the government special privileges that are not afforded to private businesses and individuals. For that reason, the rules that apply to an individual or private business are not the same rules that apply to our government.

Yes We Can

Glass Booth

Someone at work turned me on to an interesting site - Glass Booth. On the site you first put points against the issues that are most important to you, and then you take a quiz to gauge your stance on those points. Following the quiz, you are shown which candidates for the 2008 election best fit your beliefs. If you find that you don't know who to vote for, this might be just the thing to point you in the right direction. I am a solid supporter of Barack Obama in the 2008 election, but I was surprised to see that there were other candidates that match my interests even more closely. According to the results, Mike Gravel was my top match, with Dennis Kucinich second and Barack Obama third. I went through the list of issues as compared on the site to see where I best fit and conflicted with each candidate. It was very interesting reading. I don't have much faith that either Gravel or Kucinich are going to win the primary, so I'm still going with Obama in 2008. It was nice to see that what I had read and learned of the candidates matched up quite well with this blind test.