This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on March 25, 2010. The original column stated there are an estimated 118 million households in the United States. The 2008 census data actually puts that number at 113 million. I regret the error.
More than just a head count
It's been a busy few weeks at my website, USConstitution.net. I was expecting it to be busy, but I expected the questions to be all about the health care bill and congressional rules and procedures. The bulk of the email I've gotten though, was about something completely different.
The subject of interest is perhaps best illustrated by this question: "Is there a place in the Constitution that says that I don't have to answer all the questions asked by the census?"
The question seems to come from a place of paranoia that I just cannot quite get my head around. Before I address that, though, a little history about the census itself might be interesting.
When the framers of the Constitution came to their great compromise between the small and large states, they created a bicameral Congress: one house with equal representation, the Senate, and one with proportional representation, the House of Representatives. This was a great departure from the Congress created by the Articles of Confederation, where each state had an equal voice.
To ensure that the proportional representation, or apportionment, in the House was fair, the Constitution requires the Congress to conduct a census every ten years. Until that first census, the Constitution guessed at proportions, with small Delaware and Rhode Island garnering one representative each and the largest state, Virginia, getting ten.
The very first census was held in 1790. The Constitution allows the Congress to conduct the census in "such manner as they shall by law direct." From the very beginning, the law directed that the census be more than a simple head count.
In that first census, which was conducted by census marshals and deputies who visited each home, the questions asked included the name of the head of household and the gender, race, slave status, and age of each person. The slave status was necessary because slaves were counted as three-fifths of a whole person, a slight remedied by the 14th Amendment.
Fast-forward to 2010, and the release of the 2010 census form. The questions on the form are not so different today as they were back in 1790. It asks for the name, gender, birth date, age, race, ethnicity, and relationship to the head of household of each individual. For the entire household, there are questions about whether the dwelling is rented or owned and for the household phone number.
These questions are not overly intrusive. The courts have said as much - the Supreme Court blessed non-headcount questions in 1870, and lower courts affirmed them as late as 2000. The questions form the basis for a relatively comprehensive look at the American population, and because similar questions have been asked since 1790, we have a wealth of information about our changing demographics over time.
Yet there are still those who question the questions, and feel certain that the Constitution must allow people to refuse to answer them.
The Constitution, of course, does not have a provision to allow you to refuse to answer. In fact, the Constitution explicitly gives the Congress the power to ask them - the census is to be conducted in such manner as the Congress requires by law. This statement seems pretty straightforward.
If nothing else, the census has become less intrusive in recent years. The form in 2010 has about ten questions; the 2000 census form was basically the same. In 1990, however, the 200th anniversary of the census, the census had 33 numbered questions for individuals and 26 for the dwelling. Filling out the form could take hours.
Some three million households, of an estimated 113 million, will get a longer form this year - a copy of the American Community Survey. This survey goes into the sort of detail the 1990 survey asked of all households. The information is required by law, so if you get one, you should take the time to fill it out. The questions asked can seem intrusive - what sort of fuel do you use for cooking, for example - but the answers can help the Congress, and even our own state legislature, make critical policy choices.
The answer to the question posed to me is no, there is no provision in the Constitution giving you the right to refuse to answer census questions. The head count is crucial to proper apportionment of the House, but beyond that, accurate answers can help shape policy for years to come.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Life After Vermont Yankee
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on March 11, 2010, under the headline "Vermont must seek new energy".
Life After Vermont Yankee
Though the plant is not dead yet, Vermont Yankee is getting close. The state Senate voted, by a wide margin, not to recommend the Public Service Board look into renewing Vermont's only nuclear power plant's license for 20 years past its 2012 license term.
Though next year's Senate could change its mind, a reversal seems unlikely. Vermont Yankee currently supplies one third of Vermont's power - what will replace that power once it is gone?
One suggestion is to reuse the Vernon site: as the current reactor is taken down, a new, modern one would be built alongside it. Given the political climate in this state, this solution seems unlikely. No new plants have been built in the US since 1996, and though Washington has plans to push new plants along, no one has seriously pushed Vernon as the site for a new reactor.
Today, with the green revolution in full effect, many are pushing for Vermont to take a bold step into that revolution, creating power using the latest green technologies.
The key to these technologies is the harvesting of energy that is already there, but which is being effectively wasted. Nature provides us with energy in many forms, including the sun, the wind, even gravity itself.
Solar is a technology with a long history, and from the local Hannaford to Hinesburg's NRG Systems, solar arrays are popping up everywhere. But is solar ready to provide power for one third of the state?
Briefly, no. Vermont is notoriously cloudy, and though solar can generate power without direct sunlight, its ability to do so is greatly reduced. Without great advances in the technology, solar will not be our solution.
We have been using gravity, in the form of water flowing downhill, to supply power for over one hundred years. Hydro power has great potential, but it also can do some serious damage. One third of Vermont's power comes from hydro, but the will to build more dams in the state does not seem to be there.
Fortunately, Hydro-Quebec harnesses the power of Quebec's northern rivers. Vermont currently contracts with Hydro-Quebec for one quarter of our power, and it seems likely that these contracts will not only be renewed but expanded. With Hydro-Quebec's recent forays into harnessing wind power, these contracts could fit nicely into our power portfolio.
Wind power recently got a boost from the town of Lowell, which approved a project at its recent town meeting. While government maps of Vermont show no part of the state as being suitable for solar power generation, the vast majority of the state is suitable for wind power generation. The biggest hurdle is getting towns to buy into the plans.
The best wind is atop our mountain ranges, a fact that is hard for some residents to swallow. Wind turbines can reach skyward hundreds of feet, marring the picturesque views. Many, however, would find a skyline interrupted by wind turbines to be even more picturesque. What wind needs is the will of the next generation. Though pretty views are important, power is, too.
There is one other, very intriguing possibility for our power needs. Relatively unique today, the concept of on-site generation is slowly gaining traction. This is what NRG Systems hopes to do - to produce enough of its own power that it need draw none from the grid.
Small-scale, on-site generation could be where the future lies, using the grid only as a backup. The Observer reported just last week about the small wind turbine that will soon be installed at Allen Brook School, part of AllEarth Renewables' push into the important residential market.
Also recently in the news is the BloomBox, a pair pf tiny cubes made of advanced materials that can reportedly power the average American home. The BloomBox uses an emissions-free reaction between natural gas (or any other combustible gas, like waste methane) and oxygen to produce electricity. Enormous data centers for Google and eBay are already using large-scale BloomBox installations to produce energy, quietly, cleanly, and with a very small footprint. Could a BloomBox be in your future?
The most likely answer is theat a combination of these technologies, and others not even invented yet, will be the future of Vermont's power. What seems pretty clear, though, is that we need to be planning for that future right now. While we will be able to live without Yankee, we won't be able to live without the power it provides.
Life After Vermont Yankee
Though the plant is not dead yet, Vermont Yankee is getting close. The state Senate voted, by a wide margin, not to recommend the Public Service Board look into renewing Vermont's only nuclear power plant's license for 20 years past its 2012 license term.
Though next year's Senate could change its mind, a reversal seems unlikely. Vermont Yankee currently supplies one third of Vermont's power - what will replace that power once it is gone?
One suggestion is to reuse the Vernon site: as the current reactor is taken down, a new, modern one would be built alongside it. Given the political climate in this state, this solution seems unlikely. No new plants have been built in the US since 1996, and though Washington has plans to push new plants along, no one has seriously pushed Vernon as the site for a new reactor.
Today, with the green revolution in full effect, many are pushing for Vermont to take a bold step into that revolution, creating power using the latest green technologies.
The key to these technologies is the harvesting of energy that is already there, but which is being effectively wasted. Nature provides us with energy in many forms, including the sun, the wind, even gravity itself.
Solar is a technology with a long history, and from the local Hannaford to Hinesburg's NRG Systems, solar arrays are popping up everywhere. But is solar ready to provide power for one third of the state?
Briefly, no. Vermont is notoriously cloudy, and though solar can generate power without direct sunlight, its ability to do so is greatly reduced. Without great advances in the technology, solar will not be our solution.
We have been using gravity, in the form of water flowing downhill, to supply power for over one hundred years. Hydro power has great potential, but it also can do some serious damage. One third of Vermont's power comes from hydro, but the will to build more dams in the state does not seem to be there.
Fortunately, Hydro-Quebec harnesses the power of Quebec's northern rivers. Vermont currently contracts with Hydro-Quebec for one quarter of our power, and it seems likely that these contracts will not only be renewed but expanded. With Hydro-Quebec's recent forays into harnessing wind power, these contracts could fit nicely into our power portfolio.
Wind power recently got a boost from the town of Lowell, which approved a project at its recent town meeting. While government maps of Vermont show no part of the state as being suitable for solar power generation, the vast majority of the state is suitable for wind power generation. The biggest hurdle is getting towns to buy into the plans.
The best wind is atop our mountain ranges, a fact that is hard for some residents to swallow. Wind turbines can reach skyward hundreds of feet, marring the picturesque views. Many, however, would find a skyline interrupted by wind turbines to be even more picturesque. What wind needs is the will of the next generation. Though pretty views are important, power is, too.
There is one other, very intriguing possibility for our power needs. Relatively unique today, the concept of on-site generation is slowly gaining traction. This is what NRG Systems hopes to do - to produce enough of its own power that it need draw none from the grid.
Small-scale, on-site generation could be where the future lies, using the grid only as a backup. The Observer reported just last week about the small wind turbine that will soon be installed at Allen Brook School, part of AllEarth Renewables' push into the important residential market.
Also recently in the news is the BloomBox, a pair pf tiny cubes made of advanced materials that can reportedly power the average American home. The BloomBox uses an emissions-free reaction between natural gas (or any other combustible gas, like waste methane) and oxygen to produce electricity. Enormous data centers for Google and eBay are already using large-scale BloomBox installations to produce energy, quietly, cleanly, and with a very small footprint. Could a BloomBox be in your future?
The most likely answer is theat a combination of these technologies, and others not even invented yet, will be the future of Vermont's power. What seems pretty clear, though, is that we need to be planning for that future right now. While we will be able to live without Yankee, we won't be able to live without the power it provides.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Words Matter
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on February 25, 2010.
Words Matter
If the news in the last few weeks proves nothing else, it is that words matter. How we say things, how we describe them, can make all the difference in the world.
When Joseph Allen Stack flew a plane into an office building in Austin, Texas, a building he knew housed IRS employees, the police and the press had a decision to make: was Stack a criminal, or was he a terrorist?
Police, trying to calm frazzled nerves, insisted Stack was nothing more than a common criminal. Muslim activists, however, began to wonder - was it only Muslims who flew planes into buildings who were considered terrorists? Within days, the debate was filling newspaper columns and blogs, with a Google search returning over 26,000 results in blogs alone.
The opinions varied, but the most compelling argument that I saw was that Stack was a lone wolf, without an organization behind him, and hence a criminal. It is a close call, though, considering the scope of his cowardly and deadly act and the overtly political nature of his manifesto.
In the world of politics, words are the stock in trade, and words can easily be mangled depending on the political point of view.
If you've paid close attention to the news, from time to time, you will hear Republicans refer to their political foes as members of the "Democrat Party." The first time I heard this, I just figured the speaker was ignorant, mispronouncing a relatively simple word. It turns out, though, this is part of a somewhat concerted effort to try to turn "Democratic Party" into an epithet.
Republicans who have taken to using this "epithet" are being silly. Deliberately mangling someone's name to aggravate them is an elementary school tactic. Democrats who take too much offense should remember that age-old mothers' mantra: "They only say it because it bothers you."
Most reasonable people, having heard waterboarding described or witnessed it in action, would call it torture. Many conservatives, notably and recently former Vice President Dick Cheney, prefer to call it "enhanced interrogation." The distinction is self-serving. Torture is illegal. Enhanced interrogation, presumably, is not.
The White House recently released a brightly colored chart, which attempts to put a positive spin on the nation's continued loss of jobs. On one half of the chart, colored Republican-red, the bars in the chart dip further and further below zero, indicating an increasing loss of jobs. On the other half, colored Democratic-blue, the bars are nearly all still below zero, but marching back up towards zero. The presumption is that soon, the numbers will be positive.
The White House line, and that of the Democratic National Committee's Organizing for America project, is that this is all part of the "recovery." There is the "Road to Recovery," the Recovery.gov website, and the Recovery Act (the short name of the act's actual title, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009).
Republicans, though, insist on calling the law "the stimulus bill." The point is to turn the positive word "recovery" into a negative. I'm not exactly sure what it is about "stimulus" that is negative, but both House Republican Majority Leader John Boehner and Minority Whip Eric Cantor have done this repeatedly in just the last week.
Finally, scheduled for today is a meeting of lawmakers from both sides of the political spectrum. The President touted the meeting in last weekend's radio address:
"I don't want to see this meeting turn into political theater, with each side simply reciting talking points and trying to score political points. Instead, I ask members of both parties to seek common ground in an effort to solve a problem that's been with us for generations."
The response from Republicans? They plan to attend, but with their words, were sure to take pot shots at the summit before it even began. Speaking on Sunday's Meet the Press, Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) said this:
"Republicans are ready to work. But what we can't help but feel like here is the Democrats spell summit S-E-T-U-P."
That the Republicans could fear a summit, a televised chance to talk out differences with the approaches of each party to the issue, tells me that what they really fear is that when they express their plan, the entire country will see how devoid it is of real reform.
Words do matter. Listen to them carefully and you will be able to divine which have worth and which are worthless.
Words Matter
If the news in the last few weeks proves nothing else, it is that words matter. How we say things, how we describe them, can make all the difference in the world.
When Joseph Allen Stack flew a plane into an office building in Austin, Texas, a building he knew housed IRS employees, the police and the press had a decision to make: was Stack a criminal, or was he a terrorist?
Police, trying to calm frazzled nerves, insisted Stack was nothing more than a common criminal. Muslim activists, however, began to wonder - was it only Muslims who flew planes into buildings who were considered terrorists? Within days, the debate was filling newspaper columns and blogs, with a Google search returning over 26,000 results in blogs alone.
The opinions varied, but the most compelling argument that I saw was that Stack was a lone wolf, without an organization behind him, and hence a criminal. It is a close call, though, considering the scope of his cowardly and deadly act and the overtly political nature of his manifesto.
In the world of politics, words are the stock in trade, and words can easily be mangled depending on the political point of view.
If you've paid close attention to the news, from time to time, you will hear Republicans refer to their political foes as members of the "Democrat Party." The first time I heard this, I just figured the speaker was ignorant, mispronouncing a relatively simple word. It turns out, though, this is part of a somewhat concerted effort to try to turn "Democratic Party" into an epithet.
Republicans who have taken to using this "epithet" are being silly. Deliberately mangling someone's name to aggravate them is an elementary school tactic. Democrats who take too much offense should remember that age-old mothers' mantra: "They only say it because it bothers you."
Most reasonable people, having heard waterboarding described or witnessed it in action, would call it torture. Many conservatives, notably and recently former Vice President Dick Cheney, prefer to call it "enhanced interrogation." The distinction is self-serving. Torture is illegal. Enhanced interrogation, presumably, is not.
The White House recently released a brightly colored chart, which attempts to put a positive spin on the nation's continued loss of jobs. On one half of the chart, colored Republican-red, the bars in the chart dip further and further below zero, indicating an increasing loss of jobs. On the other half, colored Democratic-blue, the bars are nearly all still below zero, but marching back up towards zero. The presumption is that soon, the numbers will be positive.
The White House line, and that of the Democratic National Committee's Organizing for America project, is that this is all part of the "recovery." There is the "Road to Recovery," the Recovery.gov website, and the Recovery Act (the short name of the act's actual title, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009).
Republicans, though, insist on calling the law "the stimulus bill." The point is to turn the positive word "recovery" into a negative. I'm not exactly sure what it is about "stimulus" that is negative, but both House Republican Majority Leader John Boehner and Minority Whip Eric Cantor have done this repeatedly in just the last week.
Finally, scheduled for today is a meeting of lawmakers from both sides of the political spectrum. The President touted the meeting in last weekend's radio address:
"I don't want to see this meeting turn into political theater, with each side simply reciting talking points and trying to score political points. Instead, I ask members of both parties to seek common ground in an effort to solve a problem that's been with us for generations."
The response from Republicans? They plan to attend, but with their words, were sure to take pot shots at the summit before it even began. Speaking on Sunday's Meet the Press, Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) said this:
"Republicans are ready to work. But what we can't help but feel like here is the Democrats spell summit S-E-T-U-P."
That the Republicans could fear a summit, a televised chance to talk out differences with the approaches of each party to the issue, tells me that what they really fear is that when they express their plan, the entire country will see how devoid it is of real reform.
Words do matter. Listen to them carefully and you will be able to divine which have worth and which are worthless.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
2010 Legislative Review
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on February 11, 2010.
2010 Legislative Review
The Vermont Legislature is moving full speed through this legislative session. The challenges our government is facing are daunting. The two biggest, settling a budget in a time of recession and concerns about Vermont Yankee, are enough to keep them busy until May, but there is more work to be done.
$150 million — that's the projected budget shortfall that the governor and the legislature have to fill this session. Running a deficit is not an option, so there are only two choices: cut costs or raise revenues.
The governor, in his budget address in January, called for a bit of both. He suggested raising the property tax on middle-income taxpayers, while also calling for major cuts in education and health care.
Democratic leaders in the House and Senate were receptive to hearing the governor's ideas, but indicated that they had their own strategies for cutting the budget.
One idea that has been batted around is dipping into the state's various rainy day funds, money squirreled away when the economy was seeing better times. The governor, however, feels these funds should be held back in case revenues fall short. By using a portion of these funds now, however, fewer drastic changes might be necessary.
Just one example: the monthly premium for the state's Catamount Health Plan for a person earning twice the federal poverty level (about $10.41 per hour) is $60 for 2010 and is expected to be higher in 2011. The plan's out-of-pocket limit, now at $800 for an individual, would jump to $2500 under the governor's budget proposal. This is a tough sell for someone living at one or two times the poverty level. Already low-wage earners are choosing to forego Catamount. This increase could make many more decide to drop the plan. Pricing the plan out of the hands of those who need it would be penny wise and pound foolish.
Anyone who has read this column knows that I am an unrepentant booster of nuclear power. My resolve on the issue is unchanged, but I am troubled by all of the news out of Vernon recently. Confidence has been shaken by the flawed testimony of Yankee executives, by the detection of tritium in test wells that surround the plant, and by the plan to sell the plant to a spin-off company that seems like smarmy corporate buck-passing.
According to Williston Representative Jim McCullough, the closing of Yankee need not be the economic disaster some portray it as. With some state incentives, a shut-down could stimulate investment in alternative energy projects, which could bring even more jobs to Vermont. I'm not completely convinced, but I'm willing to listen.
Another of McCullough's priorities is the protection of shorelines and riparian lands. This is an issue near and dear to many in Williston, especially those kids in our schools who have studied the Allen Brook for years, watching for signs of deterioration and environmental damage.
Our other Representative, Terry Macaig, is looking to help reign in budget shortfalls in the corrections department. Part of the plan would reduce the imprisonment of non-violent offenders and increase services in prison to help reduce recidivism.
Macaig is a cosponsor of a bill that seeks to implement universal health care in Vermont. The stated goal of the bill is to reduce the cost of health care by implementing efficiencies which would follow after the elimination of multiple insurance payers.
Macaig also told me of a plan that could directly effect Williston's town budget: a look into the fees towns pay the state to administer the local option tax. It turns out the fees are out of line with expenses, and representatives from local option towns want this changed.
Chittenden County Senator Ginny Lyons, a Williston resident, has several priorities, including action on Yankee; but she sees health care as a top priority. Some of the ideas she relayed to me include public-private partnerships to improve the quality of care for chronic illnesses and for the elderly, with the goal of not only improved care but also reduced cost.
Lyons is also working on reducing costs in education by looking at school district consolidation, a hot topic for some of the smaller towns and districts in the state, but one which effects the Common Level of Appraisal and could result in a lower state-wide property tax.
There are many ideas for how the state should proceed in these lean times. I'll be watching as the governor and our legislature work out the details. This is not a time to score political points. It is a time to work together to find solutions to these tough problems.
2010 Legislative Review
The Vermont Legislature is moving full speed through this legislative session. The challenges our government is facing are daunting. The two biggest, settling a budget in a time of recession and concerns about Vermont Yankee, are enough to keep them busy until May, but there is more work to be done.
$150 million — that's the projected budget shortfall that the governor and the legislature have to fill this session. Running a deficit is not an option, so there are only two choices: cut costs or raise revenues.
The governor, in his budget address in January, called for a bit of both. He suggested raising the property tax on middle-income taxpayers, while also calling for major cuts in education and health care.
Democratic leaders in the House and Senate were receptive to hearing the governor's ideas, but indicated that they had their own strategies for cutting the budget.
One idea that has been batted around is dipping into the state's various rainy day funds, money squirreled away when the economy was seeing better times. The governor, however, feels these funds should be held back in case revenues fall short. By using a portion of these funds now, however, fewer drastic changes might be necessary.
Just one example: the monthly premium for the state's Catamount Health Plan for a person earning twice the federal poverty level (about $10.41 per hour) is $60 for 2010 and is expected to be higher in 2011. The plan's out-of-pocket limit, now at $800 for an individual, would jump to $2500 under the governor's budget proposal. This is a tough sell for someone living at one or two times the poverty level. Already low-wage earners are choosing to forego Catamount. This increase could make many more decide to drop the plan. Pricing the plan out of the hands of those who need it would be penny wise and pound foolish.
Anyone who has read this column knows that I am an unrepentant booster of nuclear power. My resolve on the issue is unchanged, but I am troubled by all of the news out of Vernon recently. Confidence has been shaken by the flawed testimony of Yankee executives, by the detection of tritium in test wells that surround the plant, and by the plan to sell the plant to a spin-off company that seems like smarmy corporate buck-passing.
According to Williston Representative Jim McCullough, the closing of Yankee need not be the economic disaster some portray it as. With some state incentives, a shut-down could stimulate investment in alternative energy projects, which could bring even more jobs to Vermont. I'm not completely convinced, but I'm willing to listen.
Another of McCullough's priorities is the protection of shorelines and riparian lands. This is an issue near and dear to many in Williston, especially those kids in our schools who have studied the Allen Brook for years, watching for signs of deterioration and environmental damage.
Our other Representative, Terry Macaig, is looking to help reign in budget shortfalls in the corrections department. Part of the plan would reduce the imprisonment of non-violent offenders and increase services in prison to help reduce recidivism.
Macaig is a cosponsor of a bill that seeks to implement universal health care in Vermont. The stated goal of the bill is to reduce the cost of health care by implementing efficiencies which would follow after the elimination of multiple insurance payers.
Macaig also told me of a plan that could directly effect Williston's town budget: a look into the fees towns pay the state to administer the local option tax. It turns out the fees are out of line with expenses, and representatives from local option towns want this changed.
Chittenden County Senator Ginny Lyons, a Williston resident, has several priorities, including action on Yankee; but she sees health care as a top priority. Some of the ideas she relayed to me include public-private partnerships to improve the quality of care for chronic illnesses and for the elderly, with the goal of not only improved care but also reduced cost.
Lyons is also working on reducing costs in education by looking at school district consolidation, a hot topic for some of the smaller towns and districts in the state, but one which effects the Common Level of Appraisal and could result in a lower state-wide property tax.
There are many ideas for how the state should proceed in these lean times. I'll be watching as the governor and our legislature work out the details. This is not a time to score political points. It is a time to work together to find solutions to these tough problems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)