Connections: GE and the Royal Wedding
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on April 21, 2011.
As I was recently pondering two seemingly disparate and unrelated topics the other day, the television series Connections, and its sequels and imitators, came to mind.
In Connections, historian James Burke started with an historical event and connected that event to something new and current. One made-up example might explain how the threads of history weave and intersect so that without the development of the cotton gin, we would not today have Velcro.
My connection has to do with two items in the national (and even international) news the past few weeks: the tiresome wedding of Prince William to Kate Middleton and the irksome news that General Electric paid no corporate income tax in 2010.
First, to the wedding. My weekday morning schedule is such that just as I'm getting ready for work, the CBS morning news is starting its royal wedding coverage. I was tired of hearing about William and Kate after the very first report of their impending nuptials; I got more so when CBS began weekly reports; now I'm positively driven insane by the daily reports from London.
The reports are all about what dress the M.O.B. (mother of the bride) is wearing, how much the Middletons are contributing to the billionaire royal family for the ceremonies, the route the royal wedding carriage will take, the bloody nose the queen developed, and how the wedding will compare to that of Charles and Diana.
Frankly, I don't understand why any American wants to give the wedding any more than an iota of their brain power. We, my fellow Americans, fought several wars, on our own soil, to throw off the reins of royalty. And not any royalty - the English royalty.
And yet when I want to find out about tornadoes in North Carolina, I instead am subjected to the latest from Buckingham Palace; instead of learning about the latest movie Gwyneth Paltrow is making, I have to hear about how long Kate's bridal train will be.
If I were king for a day (irony noted), I would ban all present and future coverage of any royal goings-on.
The other topic concerns a New York Times report that GE paid no corporate income tax in 2010. Worldwide, GE made $14.2 billion, $5.1 billion of that from U.S. operations. And $0 in taxes paid to the United States Treasury. In fact, the Times article reports, GE took a $3.2 billion tax benefit.
Since I work for GE, it might seem odd that I call such news "irksome." But I do - in fact, I'm a bit ashamed of the tax news. I do, however, have to defend GE.
That GE paid no income tax to the U.S. is not GE's fault. In fact, if there were loopholes and exceptions in the tax code that GE knew about and did not take advantage of, its shareholders would be right to raise red flags.
As I drove by the small cadre of protesters standing on the corner of Shelburne Road and IDX Drive on Monday, I felt like stopping to tell them that where they should be camped out is not at my office, but at the offices of our members of Congress.
The tax code is a mess. It is incomprehensible, and it is that way virtually on purpose. The influence of lobbyists on the tax code is despicable. It should be scrapped and we should start over. Simpler is better, and our tax code is not simple.
My connection is this: we threw off the yoke of the monarchy over 200 years ago (even though a sizable portion of our population is still inexplicably fascinated by it); it is time for us to throw off the yoke of our tax code. I'm not a proponent of a flat tax (there is such a thing as "too simple"), but we should be able to explain our tax structure in 20 pages or less, rather than the almost 15,000 pages that it currently consists of.
Maybe if all these people paying so much attention to the future king of England paid half as much attention to Congress and the tax code, more people might actually make this same connection, and we would have the critical mass needed to do something about it.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Discovering the Obama Doctrine
Discovering the Obama Doctrine
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on April 7, 2011.
President Barack Obama spoke to the nation last week to explain why the United States committed troops and material to aid the rebels in Libya. Though to many the reasons seem obvious - to avoid a humanitarian disaster of the types we regretted allowing to happen in Africa; because on March 17, the United Nations voted to impose a no-fly zone in the skies over Libya; and because though other nations' air forces are closer, there is no doubt that ours is the most capable and powerful - the President was right to explain himself to the American people.
In his speech on the 28th of March, Obama articulated a reason for the Libyan conflict that could be a policy, a Doctrine, he will apply in future conflicts:
"Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world’s many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act."
Not only when our interests are at stake, but also, perhaps more importantly, when our values are at stake.
Our values - the principles that we extol as examples for other nations, the principles that make us proud to be Americans, the principles that make us Americans - are what set us apart from modern barbarians like Muammar Gaddafi, North Korea's Kim Jong-il, al-Qaeda, and the Iranian state. We cannot sit back and watch, helplessly and impotently, as dictators slaughter their own people.
More importantly, these values are not uniquely American. They are universal - or should be. There is nothing uniquely American about love of freedom, of desire for a government run on democratic principles, of the desire to protect innocents from the vagaries of the powerful. These are human values.
Whether the forcible imposition of these values becomes a true "doctrine," a policy for use in future, unknown and unknowable situations, remains to be seen. But this is certain: it is honorable and even necessary. Even with our military stretched with a war in Afghanistan, extensive residual deployments in Iraq, and doing humanitarian work in Japan, we are capable of a mission such as that in Libya. As long as we are capable, and there is a need, we should act.
Ultimately, though, we cannot free the people of Libya. They must accomplish this goal themselves. They must convince Gaddafi's own military of the rightness of their struggle, convince Gaddafi's inner circle that they are sitting on the wrong side of the table, convince the people of Libya that the cause, that of freedom, is the right one.
Our own Revolutionary War history shows that winning the hearts and minds of the people is at least as important as military victory. It was an internal struggle that we had to fight and win ourselves. But at the same time, with the help of international friends, especially the French, our rebel forces were able to overcome an enemy that seemed superior in almost every way.
Like the French in 1781, the international community allying with the Libyan rebels against Gaddafi could be a turning point in their struggle. And, as in Libya, our help may be needed in other nations in the future.
The best way to bring change is at the ballot box. And change can be had. The people of Southern Sudan overwhelmingly voted for independence in January, and a peaceful separation of Sudan and Southern Sudan is planned for July.
When that sort of change is not possible, the popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia show that the voice of the people can still be heard. Even without a peaceful vote, change can be had with a minimum of bloodshed.
For the intransigent dictator, though, armed conflict may be the only option. The people of Libya thought so. And when the international community saw that the rebels in Libya were serious, the weight of a UN resolution was thrown their way. It is not inconceivable that another such situation could arise in any of a number of other nations.
The Obama Doctrine, if it can truly be called that, is in line with our values and as such should be supported by all Americans. We do not want to get involved in the internal politics of every nation. But when innocent life is at stake, especially when freedom is the ultimate goal, we must be prepared to act.
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on April 7, 2011.
President Barack Obama spoke to the nation last week to explain why the United States committed troops and material to aid the rebels in Libya. Though to many the reasons seem obvious - to avoid a humanitarian disaster of the types we regretted allowing to happen in Africa; because on March 17, the United Nations voted to impose a no-fly zone in the skies over Libya; and because though other nations' air forces are closer, there is no doubt that ours is the most capable and powerful - the President was right to explain himself to the American people.
In his speech on the 28th of March, Obama articulated a reason for the Libyan conflict that could be a policy, a Doctrine, he will apply in future conflicts:
"Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world’s many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act."
Not only when our interests are at stake, but also, perhaps more importantly, when our values are at stake.
Our values - the principles that we extol as examples for other nations, the principles that make us proud to be Americans, the principles that make us Americans - are what set us apart from modern barbarians like Muammar Gaddafi, North Korea's Kim Jong-il, al-Qaeda, and the Iranian state. We cannot sit back and watch, helplessly and impotently, as dictators slaughter their own people.
More importantly, these values are not uniquely American. They are universal - or should be. There is nothing uniquely American about love of freedom, of desire for a government run on democratic principles, of the desire to protect innocents from the vagaries of the powerful. These are human values.
Whether the forcible imposition of these values becomes a true "doctrine," a policy for use in future, unknown and unknowable situations, remains to be seen. But this is certain: it is honorable and even necessary. Even with our military stretched with a war in Afghanistan, extensive residual deployments in Iraq, and doing humanitarian work in Japan, we are capable of a mission such as that in Libya. As long as we are capable, and there is a need, we should act.
Ultimately, though, we cannot free the people of Libya. They must accomplish this goal themselves. They must convince Gaddafi's own military of the rightness of their struggle, convince Gaddafi's inner circle that they are sitting on the wrong side of the table, convince the people of Libya that the cause, that of freedom, is the right one.
Our own Revolutionary War history shows that winning the hearts and minds of the people is at least as important as military victory. It was an internal struggle that we had to fight and win ourselves. But at the same time, with the help of international friends, especially the French, our rebel forces were able to overcome an enemy that seemed superior in almost every way.
Like the French in 1781, the international community allying with the Libyan rebels against Gaddafi could be a turning point in their struggle. And, as in Libya, our help may be needed in other nations in the future.
The best way to bring change is at the ballot box. And change can be had. The people of Southern Sudan overwhelmingly voted for independence in January, and a peaceful separation of Sudan and Southern Sudan is planned for July.
When that sort of change is not possible, the popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia show that the voice of the people can still be heard. Even without a peaceful vote, change can be had with a minimum of bloodshed.
For the intransigent dictator, though, armed conflict may be the only option. The people of Libya thought so. And when the international community saw that the rebels in Libya were serious, the weight of a UN resolution was thrown their way. It is not inconceivable that another such situation could arise in any of a number of other nations.
The Obama Doctrine, if it can truly be called that, is in line with our values and as such should be supported by all Americans. We do not want to get involved in the internal politics of every nation. But when innocent life is at stake, especially when freedom is the ultimate goal, we must be prepared to act.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Nuclear power - a second look
Nuclear power - a second look
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on March 24, 2011.
Recent events in Japan have forced me to reevaluate a position that I have extolled in this space several times over the past years: my support for nuclear power.
The earthquake and resulting tsunami that hit Japan on March 11 left in their wake, as of this writing, over 10,000 casualties and almost 13,000 missing. The earthquake itself was the seventh largest in recorded history, but even that dubious honor may be too low considering that scientists are still poring over data.
The tsunami swept away cars, trains, entire villages. Its effects were felt as far away as California, where it was predicted that millions of dollars in damage was done.
And right in the middle of both natural disasters are the sites of 14 of Japan's 55 nuclear reactors. The reactors at the Tokai and Onagawa sites did have issues and there were shutdowns, but the damage was relatively minor.
Some of the ten reactors at the Fukushima sites, however, were heavily damaged and are causing concern not only in Japan, but across the world.
There is an international nuclear event scale, which tries to put nuclear accidents into some perspective, according to the effects of the incident both on- an off-site. The Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania in 1979 is noted as a level 5 accident. An incident in the Soviet Union in 1957 is the only recorded level 6 accident. And the Chernobyl accident, in 1986, is the only one rated at the highest level, level 7.
Where the Fukushima incident will land on this scale is as yet unknown. Certainly it will be a level 5 incident and may already be a level 6. Everyone is hoping, and some are certain, that it will not become a level 7.
With the on-going issues at Vermont Yankee, and the shock of a minor earthquake, centered near Montreal, coming so soon after the Japanese disaster, many are wondering if what happened there could happen here. And even if reasonable people think that it cannot, can we take the risk? Should Vermont Yankee be completely shut down?
Should any nuclear power plant built along a major fault line, like several have been in California, be allowed to operate further? Should nuclear power be allowed to continue at all?
At times like these, with disaster so fresh in the media and the consequences still rubbing raw in our minds, it is reasonable to ask these questions. But because everything is so fresh, we must not jump to hasty conclusions.
Nuclear power, until we have more viable options in terms of safety, sustainability, low-impact, and absolute power output, is the best way for us to produce the energy that we need. The safety record of U.S. nuclear power plants is very good - issues at Vermont Yankee and incidents like Three Mile Island notwithstanding. The footprint of nuclear power plants is small compared to that needed to have a reasonable wind farm. The nuclear power plant generates electricity 24 hour hours a day, regardless of wind, tides, or sunlight, and without any carbon emissions. We cannot sustain our economy as we do now without them.
This is not to say that I accept nuclear without reservation. The issue of waste is a real and pressing one. I think we could solve much of it with reasonable and common sense recycling of nuclear material, but even that will not solve the waste issue completely.
Reactors the age of those at Vermont Yankee can continue to run safely past their design parameters. But even given that, the issues Yankee has had with leaks show that even if the reactor can continue, the infrastructure supporting it may not be able to.
President Obama has announced his administration's intention to continue to fund and support nuclear power, incorporating all the latest advances into new plants that are safer and more efficient than ever. Scientists continue to look for ways to make fission reactors more and more safe, always with an eye to the holy grail, the fusion reactor.
We must take lessons away from the Japanese disaster, build these lessons into new designs and close or retrofit old plants where necessary. What we cannot afford to do is abandon nuclear power completely - not now, and not in the foreseeable future.
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on March 24, 2011.
Recent events in Japan have forced me to reevaluate a position that I have extolled in this space several times over the past years: my support for nuclear power.
The earthquake and resulting tsunami that hit Japan on March 11 left in their wake, as of this writing, over 10,000 casualties and almost 13,000 missing. The earthquake itself was the seventh largest in recorded history, but even that dubious honor may be too low considering that scientists are still poring over data.
The tsunami swept away cars, trains, entire villages. Its effects were felt as far away as California, where it was predicted that millions of dollars in damage was done.
And right in the middle of both natural disasters are the sites of 14 of Japan's 55 nuclear reactors. The reactors at the Tokai and Onagawa sites did have issues and there were shutdowns, but the damage was relatively minor.
Some of the ten reactors at the Fukushima sites, however, were heavily damaged and are causing concern not only in Japan, but across the world.
There is an international nuclear event scale, which tries to put nuclear accidents into some perspective, according to the effects of the incident both on- an off-site. The Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania in 1979 is noted as a level 5 accident. An incident in the Soviet Union in 1957 is the only recorded level 6 accident. And the Chernobyl accident, in 1986, is the only one rated at the highest level, level 7.
Where the Fukushima incident will land on this scale is as yet unknown. Certainly it will be a level 5 incident and may already be a level 6. Everyone is hoping, and some are certain, that it will not become a level 7.
With the on-going issues at Vermont Yankee, and the shock of a minor earthquake, centered near Montreal, coming so soon after the Japanese disaster, many are wondering if what happened there could happen here. And even if reasonable people think that it cannot, can we take the risk? Should Vermont Yankee be completely shut down?
Should any nuclear power plant built along a major fault line, like several have been in California, be allowed to operate further? Should nuclear power be allowed to continue at all?
At times like these, with disaster so fresh in the media and the consequences still rubbing raw in our minds, it is reasonable to ask these questions. But because everything is so fresh, we must not jump to hasty conclusions.
Nuclear power, until we have more viable options in terms of safety, sustainability, low-impact, and absolute power output, is the best way for us to produce the energy that we need. The safety record of U.S. nuclear power plants is very good - issues at Vermont Yankee and incidents like Three Mile Island notwithstanding. The footprint of nuclear power plants is small compared to that needed to have a reasonable wind farm. The nuclear power plant generates electricity 24 hour hours a day, regardless of wind, tides, or sunlight, and without any carbon emissions. We cannot sustain our economy as we do now without them.
This is not to say that I accept nuclear without reservation. The issue of waste is a real and pressing one. I think we could solve much of it with reasonable and common sense recycling of nuclear material, but even that will not solve the waste issue completely.
Reactors the age of those at Vermont Yankee can continue to run safely past their design parameters. But even given that, the issues Yankee has had with leaks show that even if the reactor can continue, the infrastructure supporting it may not be able to.
President Obama has announced his administration's intention to continue to fund and support nuclear power, incorporating all the latest advances into new plants that are safer and more efficient than ever. Scientists continue to look for ways to make fission reactors more and more safe, always with an eye to the holy grail, the fusion reactor.
We must take lessons away from the Japanese disaster, build these lessons into new designs and close or retrofit old plants where necessary. What we cannot afford to do is abandon nuclear power completely - not now, and not in the foreseeable future.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Explaining Government Shutdowns
Explaining Government Shutdowns
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on March 10, 2011.
The federal government operates on a fiscal year of October 1 to September 30. What this means is that spending for 2011 started back in October. Or, rather, it should have.
Prior to 1976, the fiscal year began in July, which means that a new Congress had just over six months to negotiate and pass a new budget. In 1976, the fiscal year start was shifted to October, to give the Congress an extra three months to figure out the budget.
This brief lesson in the government's fiscal year is intended to help explain how the government came to the brink of shutdown last week, and why it is again at the brink next week.
The last Congress was unable to come to an agreement on the 2011 fiscal year (FY11) budget. Instead, from October through December, 2010, it passed continuing resolutions to duplicate the FY10 budget; in December the Congress did the same, pushing the funding out to March 4, 2011.
Since budget negotiations were at an impasse, and already at least three months late, Democrats were happy to have it done. Republicans, fully aware that they would be taking the reins of power in the House in January, 2011, were happy to know that in just a few months, the budget would be in their hands (the House, by way of explanation, is where all spending bills must originate, so the House has the first crack at them).
But March 4 loomed, and even with Republicans in control of the House (or perhaps especially because they were in control of the House), the two houses of Congress were unable to come to an agreement on a budget. Without one in place, a government shutdown was the only alternative.
There have only been a few government shutdowns in our history, all since 1981. Most were short. In 1981, a budget impasse between President Reagan and Congress lasted just a few hours - federal workers were sent home at lunchtime and came back to work the next morning.
The most severe shutdowns happened in 1995 and 1996. The shutdowns were the result of another impasse between branches of government, with the Republican-controlled Congress on one side and Democratic President Bill Clinton on the other. The shutdowns kept non-essential government workers at home; estimates released by the White House said that in real dollars, the 1995 shutdown cost $800 million - half because government employees, though home, were still paid; and the other half in taxes that went uncollected because IRS agents and investigators were unable to force collection.
Perhaps the bigger cost came in the form of inconvenience to Americans - federal parks were closed; hot-lines at the CDCP went unanswered; new Medicare and Social Security applications went unprocessed; toxic waste cleanup was halted; passport and visa applications were delayed; government-backed loans were delayed; and veterans' health care and services were delayed. Many pundits see the 1995 and 1996 shutdowns as one of the reasons that Clinton won reelection in the 1996 election.
Shutting down the government today would have the same sorts of effects on Americans. The most essential services, including the military, the TSA, those who process and issue Social Security checks, law enforcement personnel, health care personnel, and prison staff, would continue to work.
The rest? Furlough. As in 1995 and 1996, employees are not laid off, not fired, and don't go unpaid. They just don't go to work. In fact, there is a federal law that can be used to prosecute any furloughed employee for doing their job anyway, with up to $5000 in fines and two years' imprisonment.
The newest extension of the budget is good for only two weeks, meaning that as March 18 approaches, we again have a shutdown looming. Democrats are ready to deal, but Republicans, and especially the Tea Party wing, are looking to make waves.
If you're suddenly worried about FY12, you're right to worry. Every day that Congress wastes on the current fiscal year is one less to negotiate for the coming fiscal year. Though it may not be ideal, the Congress should extend the FY10 budget through the rest of FY11, and start work as soon as possible on the next fiscal year, which begins in less than seven months.
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on March 10, 2011.
The federal government operates on a fiscal year of October 1 to September 30. What this means is that spending for 2011 started back in October. Or, rather, it should have.
Prior to 1976, the fiscal year began in July, which means that a new Congress had just over six months to negotiate and pass a new budget. In 1976, the fiscal year start was shifted to October, to give the Congress an extra three months to figure out the budget.
This brief lesson in the government's fiscal year is intended to help explain how the government came to the brink of shutdown last week, and why it is again at the brink next week.
The last Congress was unable to come to an agreement on the 2011 fiscal year (FY11) budget. Instead, from October through December, 2010, it passed continuing resolutions to duplicate the FY10 budget; in December the Congress did the same, pushing the funding out to March 4, 2011.
Since budget negotiations were at an impasse, and already at least three months late, Democrats were happy to have it done. Republicans, fully aware that they would be taking the reins of power in the House in January, 2011, were happy to know that in just a few months, the budget would be in their hands (the House, by way of explanation, is where all spending bills must originate, so the House has the first crack at them).
But March 4 loomed, and even with Republicans in control of the House (or perhaps especially because they were in control of the House), the two houses of Congress were unable to come to an agreement on a budget. Without one in place, a government shutdown was the only alternative.
There have only been a few government shutdowns in our history, all since 1981. Most were short. In 1981, a budget impasse between President Reagan and Congress lasted just a few hours - federal workers were sent home at lunchtime and came back to work the next morning.
The most severe shutdowns happened in 1995 and 1996. The shutdowns were the result of another impasse between branches of government, with the Republican-controlled Congress on one side and Democratic President Bill Clinton on the other. The shutdowns kept non-essential government workers at home; estimates released by the White House said that in real dollars, the 1995 shutdown cost $800 million - half because government employees, though home, were still paid; and the other half in taxes that went uncollected because IRS agents and investigators were unable to force collection.
Perhaps the bigger cost came in the form of inconvenience to Americans - federal parks were closed; hot-lines at the CDCP went unanswered; new Medicare and Social Security applications went unprocessed; toxic waste cleanup was halted; passport and visa applications were delayed; government-backed loans were delayed; and veterans' health care and services were delayed. Many pundits see the 1995 and 1996 shutdowns as one of the reasons that Clinton won reelection in the 1996 election.
Shutting down the government today would have the same sorts of effects on Americans. The most essential services, including the military, the TSA, those who process and issue Social Security checks, law enforcement personnel, health care personnel, and prison staff, would continue to work.
The rest? Furlough. As in 1995 and 1996, employees are not laid off, not fired, and don't go unpaid. They just don't go to work. In fact, there is a federal law that can be used to prosecute any furloughed employee for doing their job anyway, with up to $5000 in fines and two years' imprisonment.
The newest extension of the budget is good for only two weeks, meaning that as March 18 approaches, we again have a shutdown looming. Democrats are ready to deal, but Republicans, and especially the Tea Party wing, are looking to make waves.
If you're suddenly worried about FY12, you're right to worry. Every day that Congress wastes on the current fiscal year is one less to negotiate for the coming fiscal year. Though it may not be ideal, the Congress should extend the FY10 budget through the rest of FY11, and start work as soon as possible on the next fiscal year, which begins in less than seven months.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)