Ban the Blowers

I pulled into the parking lot at work Monday morning about the same time as Wayne, another faculty member. As we got out of our cars (he a truck, to be precise) our ears were assaulted by the horrendous volume of one of the groundskeepers running one of those leaf blower machines. The air was filled with choking dust. We griped about it to each other, remarking that the San Jaoquin valley is already one of the asthma capitals of the nation. Wayne, an anatomy and biology professor, said he had a mind to talk to the college president about it.

Later on, as I neared my own building, another one of the infernal devices was being used on the pavement there. It created a similar atmosphere, pun intended, of ear-damaging noise and lung-contaminating particulates. Are these things really necessary? I think I'd support banning the wretched nuisances as health hazards.

They have been banned in 20 California cities so far. You can go to a site explaining their ill effects, listing the cities that have prohibited them, and containing a sample resolution your city council can pass here. The site is called "What You Should Know About Leaf Blowers." The pithiest sentence there is this: "Leaf blowers are more accurately dust blowers; they blow dust from one place to another, containing fertilizers, pesticides, dog and cat fecal matter, top soil, etc." They operate at 90 decibels when 85 causes hearing loss, and gas-powered machines emit "as much tailpipe emissions in an hour as an automobile does over 350 miles. The difference is that a car emits all that pollution over a big stretch of road while the leaf blower deposits it all in one back or front yard."

Neocons Back At It

Back in 1997 a group of prominent people interested in foreign policy formed an organization to advance their view of America's role in the world. You can still visit the website of the Project for a New American Century. There you can read the views of such people as William Kristol, Donald Kagan, Dick Cheney, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld on how the United States needed, in the new post-Soviet world, to increase its military might and use that might to cow the world into submission to American interests during a "New American Century." This new "neoconservative" world view led to the fiasco of the Iraq War, which has empowered Iran, isolated the United States in the region and all but shelved progress on the Israeli-Palestinian question for six years.

Undeterred by the ignominy of the horrendous results of all they advocated, the principals of this band of ideological bulls in the global china shop are at it again. Apparently at least aware that their previous vehicle has lost a bit of credibility thanks not only to its crackpot advocacy of American aggression but also to the pathetic incompetence of some of its central personages in carrying it out (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Senor, Libby, for instance) they have now set up a new think tank to advocate the same lunacy all over again. Like a bad 1950s Wolfman sequel, no matter how many times the monster is killed he always returns in the latest remake at the next full moon. It seems those who call for more defense spending and more war are never at a loss for funding.

The latest apparition is called The Foreign Policy Initiative, an innocuous-sounding name for the same old philosophy of trying to dominate the world through the threat and use of military force. Robert Kagan, William Kristol and Dan Senor are the leading lights, if such is a fair description of what it is they shed on the literate public. It is ironic commentary on society that there is seemingly still a market for ideas that have been so decisively refuted by their application while doing such grievous harm to their practitioners. If the American people ever again put anyone else in power who is in the least way associated with these gentlemen or their schemes they will unfortunately prove themselves richly deserving of all that will thenceforth ensue.

Obama Stays on Budget Message

President Obama held his second official press conference tonight. It was clearly part of his recent outreach efforts to build support for his budget. The nationally-televised prime time event followed a well-publicized trip to California in which he shared a stage with Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and appeared on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. He was next interviewed on "60 Minutes." With new CBS and Gallup surveys showing Obama's approval/disapproval ratings increasing to 64-20 and 65-26, the president is clearly lasering in on his message. The message consistently is, "We can't wait," "My critics have no plan," "Things will get better," but "It is going to take time."

Nine of the thirteen questions Obama fielded in the one-hour question and answer session had to do with the economy or the budget. It was quite remarkable there were no questions about Iraq or Afghanistan. The only reference about Iran was when the president brought it up. In that sense, the press was focused where Obama wanted the spotlight fixed: on the budget and economic matters. You can see the conference here or read a transcript of it here.

The most provocative question came from where you would expect, Major Garrett of Fox News. Garrett's question, however, was more a rant attempting to link "Communist," "socialist," and "left-center," together in the same sentence with Obama's name and was virtually unintelligible. Chip Reid of CBS asked what was probably the sharpest question. Reid raised alarms about the large projected deficit, which ranged from Obama's estimate of $7 trillion over the next decade to the Congressional Budget Office's $9.3 trillion. He mentioned Obama's oft-repeated admonition against passing current problems along and asked whether this was not a case of his doing that himself. He quoted Republicans as saying this might be the most irresponsible budget ever.

Obama's response laid his entire approach out for inspection. First to discredit the critics he said it seems some Republicans have very short memories about the budget deficit and overall mess they left him after their tenure in office. Next he explained the difference in the projections: he assumes a 2.6% growth rate, they a 2.2%. A small difference like that over can mean a lot of money over time. And finally, his cardinal assumption: "If we don't invest in energy, education and health then we don't grow."

Obama was utterly persuasive. "The critics propose no alternative," he said. If we save money now by doing nothing about energy, who thinks the problem will get better or go away? The longer we wait the more it eventually will cost. "We can't wait; we have been delaying for thirty years." On education he observed about China and India, "If they out teach us today they'll out compete us tomorrow." Who thinks neglecting to invest in education now will pay dividends for us down the road? The same with health care. "Health costs will swamp our economy, particularly as our population ages." We cannot compete or balance our budget until health costs are contained. Every day we pay 17% of our GDP on health while our competitors get the job done better for 11% is one more day we fall behind and one more day our costs make us uncompetitive. We can't wait.

Obama gets the big picture. We must act. We have taken the easy choices for too long and now that the day of reckoning is upon us we have to swallow the medicine and do what needs to be done. Obama was successful in balancing the urgency of the need to act with optimism that such action made sense and could work. It is a major achievement to have defused the aura of crisis that gripped the nation a few weeks ago. Perhaps the reason for that is most clearly illustrated by Obama's best line of the night. Ed Henry of CNN badgered the president a bit about why he waited three days after the AIG bailout story broke to register his "outrage" rather than weighing in immediately. In what seems a rarity among the Washington political class, Obama replied, "It took a couple of days because I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak."

Education Remains Critical Priority

There was a fair amount of Republican criticism about the stimulus bill regarding money going to keep state school systems from laying off teachers. Additional angst has accompanied initiatives in the budget proposal to invest strongly in education, energy and health care. We cannot afford, some critics say, to spend money on these things during a recession.

That is more of the same kind of short-term thinking that got us into our current massive problems in the first place, and the longer we delay the more they eventually will cost. Take education, for example. The following figures are drawn from Jack Z. Smith of the Dallas Star-Telegram.

The February figures put the national unemployment rate at 8.1%. It is undoubtedly higher, but that is the "official" figure the way it is calculated. A closer look into the numbers breakdown shows unemployment is 12.6% for those without a high school diploma, 8.3% for high school graduates and 4.1% for college graduates. In other words, a high school grad is twice as likely to be out of work as a college grad. A high school dropout is three times as likely.

The Census Bureau found these median 2007 incomes. Bear in mind a median is not an average. It means half the people in the group are above the figure and half below.

$19,405, people with less than a high school diploma.
$26,894, associates (community college) degree or some college
$46,805, bachelor's degree
$61,287, graduate or professional degree

Between the unemployment figure and the income figure the value of an education couldn't be clearer. Both in the short and the long term this is something we cannot as a nation afford to scrimp on. Indeed, with the emphasis on education now taking place in Asian countries, it is quite clear that much greater efforts will be required to even remain competitive with them in the world economy. Now is most definitely not the time to reduce the national commitment to education. In fact, the time to do that would be, in a word, never.

People Angry at Local Shenanigans Too

Here is a little local evidence that the same cluelessness that led to the AIG bonus issue is not an isolated case. Here in the Central Valley of California, our Tulare County Board of Supervisors put themselves into a lot of hot water by approving raises for themselves in a surreptitious fashion at a time when they were cutting budgets and laying off full-time county employees.

Last September 30 the Board unanimously approved the "Consent Calendar" on their agenda without discussion. According to the local Visalia Times-Delta newspaper, "The board spent less than 10 seconds on the consent agenda." Items are customarily placed on the Consent Calendar portion of an agenda when they are matters of such a routine and non-controversial nature that they are not thought worth the Board's or the public's time to discuss individually.

At the Board Meeting on September 30 the Consent Calendar contained 20 items. On one of them, "The agenda listing said simply, 'Approve changes for employees in Units 9, 10, 11,19,20, and 21.'" These changes turned out to include 4.56% raises for the Supervisors themselves, plus $500 bonuses, plus an augmentation to the Supervisors' "flex credit," in other words, their health plan.

This did not come to light until January 12, when the Times-Delta learned the increase had gone into effect on January 4. The newspaper's and the public's responses were immediate and harsh. Meanwhile, all the supervisors claimed the process was open and transparent. Board President Phil Cox said, "If any member of the public was interested in that item, they should have asked the board to pull that item off so the board could discuss it separately." Supervisor Pete Vander Poel said, "...anyone could have gone back and into the agenda where it's covered in detail." It should be noted Vander Poel was not on the Board at the time. He has replaced Connie Conway, who was elected to the State Assembly in November. Supervisor and Vice Chairman Steve Worthley said of the process, "I think its been effective." Supervisors Allen Ishida and Mike Ennis refused to comment.

Matters finally came to a head at the meeting of February 10, when thanks to public outcry the Supervisors unanimously voted to rescind their raises. Their earlier statements defending their actions were quickly forgotten in the face of public anger. I have been to other bodies where the subject of raises for a governing Board was brought up and discussed in public by the Board itself, which invited public comment. The item was not hidden away in a subclause of an innocuously titled part of the agenda.

I for one do not begrudge public servants at least making a decent living. But this case was indefensible on two grounds. First, it had every appearance of the Board trying to pull a fast one and hiding a raise for themselves in an obscure place where no one was likely to find it. An honest and astute (in tune with the constituents) politician would know an issue like this needed full transparency and would provide it without needing to be asked. Second, the timing was all wrong for a raise. Leaders cannot be giving themselves a raise when times are bad for the rank and file and regular working people in the organization are being laid off. That is heartless and an absolute failure to lead by example.

There is now a movement afoot in the community to set up a recall of the County Supervisors. We will see if it makes headway and if the public's memory is long enough that any serious challenges are mounted against the incumbents the next time they run. In the meantime we can see the importance of local investigative newspaper work and the strength of an aroused citizenry. It isn't only in Washington and New York that people are sick and tired of business as usual and are demanding change.

Postscript: Reader Arielle's comment prompted me to do a little more research. The supervisors also get a yearly car allowance of $6615. That's enough for a $551 a month car payment. It basically means a free county-provided car on top of the salary, benefits and bonus. They also spent a combined $100,000 on travel last year. Source.

Enough of "Too Big to Fail"

One result of the financial industry crisis is a startling awareness of just how vulnerable the American economy and citizenry are to the policies and performances of megacorporations. Cases such as AIG and Citigroup make plain that the private decisions of such large and crucially positioned companies can have very public ramifications. They are are deemed "too big to fail." With this realization has come the dawning comprehension that their profits may be private but their liabilities, when they become serious enough, fall to the public charge. That is because of the fear that their failure would drag the rest of the national economy down into Depression with them, a fear that may well be true.

What do you do when the public of a democracy is at the mercy of people who are not accountable to the public? For starters, companies that have received federal "bailouts" should be under some rather strict federal requirements as a condition for getting the funds. It seems the Bush Administration utterly failed in this regard. Thus far as the case of AIG seems to indicate, the Obama Administration is not off to a very good start either. Perhaps the "stress tests" financial institutions are undergoing may yield some benefits, but up to now the government has acted as though it is afraid of the big banks.

That has to stop. Those who seek money are the ones with hat in hand. Contrast the harsh terms imposed on the automakers, with blue-collar workers having to grant concessions in exchange for their bosses getting money, with the lack of requirements made of banks as they continue with lavish bonuses and a reluctance to evidence transparency. Obama's rhetoric on this has been excellent. But up to now the oversight of his minions appears to be sorely disappointing.

A second point is that once the government (the taxpayers, the people) has contributed enough to have a majority stake in an entity, they should own it with all the rights that implies. AIG, for instance, has gotten enough help to be 80% government-owned. Companies like that should be in receivership like bankrupted citizens or failed banks taken over by the FDIC. There could be terms for them to repay the assistance or buy back their shares and return to private status, but only after they have met their obligations to the people who have acquired them first. And that is us.

Third, we need to consider not allowing anyone to get "too big to fail" any more. There was a time when antitrust was enforced, but that seemingly was a long time ago. America's Community Banks see the inequity and are complaining about it. C. R. Clouthier, President of Midsouth Bank in Louisiana, told the House antitrust subcommittee Tuesday, "Excessive concentration has led to systemic risk and the banking crisis we now face." Speaking for the Independent Community Bankers of America, Clouthier said his fellow small bankers felt it is patently unfair that big banks get bailed out while community banks are summarily shut down. "Community banks are angry," he said. See an article on this here.

The solution, he offered, was for Congress to "identify banks or other financial institutions that have become so large that their failure poses a systemic risk and put them under federal supervision." These might be placed under the Federal Reserve. The idea calls to mind the old Public Utilities Commission, which used to regulate "Ma Bell," the one national phone company, for decades.

The idea no doubt has merit if the alternative is to simply leave the economy once again at the mercy of the greedy and shortsighted grubbers on Wall Street. Of course, another approach might also be to prevent anyone from getting that big, as antitrust was wont to do in the days of someone like Teddy Roosevelt vis a vis Standard Oil. But perhaps that is hoping for too much of a good thing.

Aspirin Found to Reduce Heart Attack Risk

A new study touts the benefits of taking a small daily dose of aspirin to ward off heart attacks and strokes. ABC News reported tonight on the finding of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that will soon be published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. You can read a synopsis here.

According to the panel, men should begin at age 45 and women at 55. Both are recommended to take an 81-milligram "baby-aspirin" dose. There is no evidence that larger doses work better. The regimen appears to reduce the risk of heart attacks and strokes by over 20%, probably by reducing the incidence of artery-blocking blood clots.

Dr. Randal Thomas, director of cardiovascular health at the Mayo Clinic, agrees with the findings and adds, "more people take statin drugs, cholesterol-blocking drugs such as Lipitor, Crestor and Zocor, than take aspirin. Aspirin costs far less and may do as much or more to protect one's health." Despite two decades of publicity about aspirin's helpful effects, another study found only 16.6% of people in the effective age group were taking aspirin.

The Task Force recommended people of both age groups stop aspirin treatment by age 80 unless their doctor advises otherwise. That's because at that point the possible risks of bleeding in the stomach or brain become more pronounced. It is considered "a risk that is small, but can be fatal in some cases."

Dr. Thomas remarks, "People may ask themselves, 'Am I at risk for heart attack or a stroke.' If you're above age 45 and male, if you're above age 55 and female, the answer is most likely yes, and you will most likely benefit from taking a small dose of aspirin a day."