This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on April 22, 2010.
Advice for the Tea Party
The Tea Party movement has been active for about a year now, and with the movement's rise comes a lot of questions. Despite the fact that I don't agree with most of the Tea Party's message, they are a continuation of the great American spirit of dissent and protest.
The common use of the Gadsden Flag by Partiers, with its yellow field, coiled rattlesnake, and "Don't Tread on Me" message, is the group's own attempt to link back to our revolutionary heritage.
The Doonesbury cartoon series has noticed, too: When perpetual hippie Zonker attended a Tea Party rally, he heard Partiers chanting "Down with the Tyrants!" Zonker noted they had the same "outasight" message his generation had. Zonker also found common cause with a Partier who was out to "stick it to the man."
The Tea Party, though, has image problems it needs to deal with. I'm sure you've heard these stories:
At a January rally in New Mexico, news reports said that "many" of the Partiers showed up with loaded semi-automatic weapons and holstered pistols. All perfectly legal, but the image this sort of thing projects to the average American, who supports gun rights but is wary of guns, is one of aggression and conflict.
Charges of racism in the Tea Party have also come up again and again. Many examples I cannot repeat here, but this is one: Calling the health care act "white slavery" senselessly and callously belittles the actual slavery the ancestors of some of our black citizens had to endure.
Finally, a common scene depicted at some rallies has the face of President Barack Obama placed over the image of Adolph Hitler. Aside from the fact that nothing Obama's administration has done approaches Nazism, there is Godwin's Law, which states that if you start comparing people to Hitler, the discussion has, by default, gone on too long.
Has the discussion gone on too long?
Last month, my colleague on the right-hand page, Mike Benevento, noted that the Tea Party movement was fragile. The movement, he wrote, "risks fizzling out." Mike noted that the movement had to not only grow from the grass-roots, but it also had to unify nationally. Otherwise, it risked being just a local phenomenon, with no national influence.
I agree with Mike, but his advice must be only part of the movement's long-term survival plan. If it continues to appeal to the fringes of the right wing, the ones who insist on screaming "baby killers!" and "socialists!" and even "Nazis!" at every turn, they will lose any hope of wide appeal.
I've seen this sort of thing happen before, up-close, and on the left. When I was a student at UVM, because of my work on the Vermont Cynic, I was asked by a far-left campus group to help produce their own alternative newspaper. It was called ?The Gadfly, and it contained a fair number of good stories about students working with organizations in Burlington to help the city's poor and down-trodden.
These stories had a real shot of getting more students involved in social action. However, the stories were buried between reprints from Granma International (an English-language newspaper from Cuba, which extolled the virtues of Castro and his Revolution) and the People's World (a communist weekly from New York City). The Gadfly was largely ignored.
The lesson is that a good, positive message of change can easily be derailed by being connected too closely to extreme messages that the common man has no interest in hearing.
The Tea Party's raison d'etre now is to be against the health care law. If that's all it has to hang its hat on, then I don't think the Party has much life left in it. They may help Republicans pick up a few seats in November, but I also think that for every negative message about the law the Republicans and the Tea Party have to offer, there are (at least) two positive stories about how the law will make the average American's health better and more secure.
The movement's other major issue, the raging deficit, is a big concern; but the only way to stop that now would be to leave our troops in a lurch or to allow the bottom to drop out of the economy. Obama has plans to bring our troops home and hopes with the rest of us that the economy is rebounding, bringing us back to the surpluses of the Clinton years.
The Tea Party might be a force for change over the next few years; they just need to be sure what they want to change is worth changing, and that they do it with rational arguments and tempered words.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Correcting health care misinformation
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on April 8, 2010.
Correcting health care misinformation
My task this week is to write about the new health care law, and you might think that I would be full of praise for the new law and its provisions. But I have something more important to write about — don't get me wrong, I am excited the bill made it through the congressional gauntlet and the President was able to sign it, but I've heard a lot of misinformation about the law that I think has to be addressed, lest that misinformation become "common knowledge".
First, the response of many Republicans to the new law was to launch a campaign to "repeal and replace" the law. Obviously, the minority party does not have the votes to do either yet, but the plan was to get enough votes in Congress in the next election.
I'm not going to say it is outside the realm of possibility, but I think the voter anger that the Republicans will have to tap into to get sufficient numbers, a whopping two-thirds of both houses of Congress, simply won't be there in November — at least not at the level needed to put this plan in motion. I think as people hear more about the law, they will come to agree with its provisions and look forward to them coming into effect.
Republican leaders, initially so keen on "repeal and replace" that it was reported as a new campaign mantra, seem to have already begun to back away from the notion. That's a bit of good news.
Another common misperception, willingly hoisted upon the public by conservative pundits and politicians, is that the law creates "socialized medicine." Socialism is a big dirty word in Washington, and is bandied about with abandon. What the law provides, however, has no resemblance to socialism.
Socialists believe in government take-over of industry. The health care law is no government take-over. Health insurance, for most, is still provided by insurance companies. Doctors are not government employees. Drugs are not produced by government factories. Under the law, the private sector is still a vital part of the health care system.
Anyone who is decrying the law as a socialist take-over is either not aware of what the word means or is deliberately using inflammatory language to scare the public.
Another tidbit playing on peoples' fear is that the law creates a new IRS army, and that one of 16,500 armed agents will be knocking on your doors to see proof that you are properly insured. There will be penalties, eventually, if individuals remain uninsured, and these will likely be assessed at tax time. The personal mandate is necessary for the system to work, to spread the liability. But the law is also quite specific — the IRS may not confiscate assets or property, nor impose jail time, for failure to have insurance.
Simply put, armed agents will not be knocking on your door for failure to comply with the law.
Also in the news of late is word that over a dozen Attorneys General have filed or plan to file suit against the federal government, alleging that the new law is an unconstitutional power grab. Other Attorneys General, with a bit more common sense and legal precedent on their side, have refused to sign on to the effort.
The Supreme Court, in its prior rulings, has said that insurance regulation is an interstate commerce issue that Congress can regulate. Even conservative stalwarts like Justice Antonin Scalia have agreed, if reluctantly, that such regulation is constitutional.
I won't say that all of these cases are political posturing, but some of them surely are; and they won't come cheap. Attorneys General in Kentucky and Arizona said they would be a waste of taxpayer money. Vermont's Attorney General has not even wasted space on his website to announce that he won't join in any such frivolous lawsuits.
The fact is that we now have a health care law in effect. It is not perfect — far from it — but it is a starting point. As its features are phased in over the next few months and the next few years, we will be able to see what's working and what's not and make changes to ensure that the economy can adapt to it. The public, in the meantime, can set its collective mind at ease by checking on what the politicians and pundits are saying, discarding the misinformation, and learning more about what the law actually does.
Correcting health care misinformation
My task this week is to write about the new health care law, and you might think that I would be full of praise for the new law and its provisions. But I have something more important to write about — don't get me wrong, I am excited the bill made it through the congressional gauntlet and the President was able to sign it, but I've heard a lot of misinformation about the law that I think has to be addressed, lest that misinformation become "common knowledge".
First, the response of many Republicans to the new law was to launch a campaign to "repeal and replace" the law. Obviously, the minority party does not have the votes to do either yet, but the plan was to get enough votes in Congress in the next election.
I'm not going to say it is outside the realm of possibility, but I think the voter anger that the Republicans will have to tap into to get sufficient numbers, a whopping two-thirds of both houses of Congress, simply won't be there in November — at least not at the level needed to put this plan in motion. I think as people hear more about the law, they will come to agree with its provisions and look forward to them coming into effect.
Republican leaders, initially so keen on "repeal and replace" that it was reported as a new campaign mantra, seem to have already begun to back away from the notion. That's a bit of good news.
Another common misperception, willingly hoisted upon the public by conservative pundits and politicians, is that the law creates "socialized medicine." Socialism is a big dirty word in Washington, and is bandied about with abandon. What the law provides, however, has no resemblance to socialism.
Socialists believe in government take-over of industry. The health care law is no government take-over. Health insurance, for most, is still provided by insurance companies. Doctors are not government employees. Drugs are not produced by government factories. Under the law, the private sector is still a vital part of the health care system.
Anyone who is decrying the law as a socialist take-over is either not aware of what the word means or is deliberately using inflammatory language to scare the public.
Another tidbit playing on peoples' fear is that the law creates a new IRS army, and that one of 16,500 armed agents will be knocking on your doors to see proof that you are properly insured. There will be penalties, eventually, if individuals remain uninsured, and these will likely be assessed at tax time. The personal mandate is necessary for the system to work, to spread the liability. But the law is also quite specific — the IRS may not confiscate assets or property, nor impose jail time, for failure to have insurance.
Simply put, armed agents will not be knocking on your door for failure to comply with the law.
Also in the news of late is word that over a dozen Attorneys General have filed or plan to file suit against the federal government, alleging that the new law is an unconstitutional power grab. Other Attorneys General, with a bit more common sense and legal precedent on their side, have refused to sign on to the effort.
The Supreme Court, in its prior rulings, has said that insurance regulation is an interstate commerce issue that Congress can regulate. Even conservative stalwarts like Justice Antonin Scalia have agreed, if reluctantly, that such regulation is constitutional.
I won't say that all of these cases are political posturing, but some of them surely are; and they won't come cheap. Attorneys General in Kentucky and Arizona said they would be a waste of taxpayer money. Vermont's Attorney General has not even wasted space on his website to announce that he won't join in any such frivolous lawsuits.
The fact is that we now have a health care law in effect. It is not perfect — far from it — but it is a starting point. As its features are phased in over the next few months and the next few years, we will be able to see what's working and what's not and make changes to ensure that the economy can adapt to it. The public, in the meantime, can set its collective mind at ease by checking on what the politicians and pundits are saying, discarding the misinformation, and learning more about what the law actually does.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
More than just a head count
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.
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)