« May 2008 |
Main
| July 2008 »
June 2008 archives
Over the last week, Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama have engaged in a serious policy debate over energy policy. With oil pushing $140 a barrel, and gasoline breaking $5 a gallon in some parts of California, the debate shows the contrasts between the two candidates and, unfortunately, the shortsightedness of American politics in general.
John McCain's proposals to bring down energy costs are based primarily on the economic theories of supply and demand. McCain wants to increase supplies by allowing offshore drilling and domestic exploration, and constrain demand by challenging the private sector to develop new, gas-sipping technologies. What else would you expect from a Republican?
Barack Obama's idea for bringing down oil and gas prices, however, should offend anyone who got a passing grade in their freshman economics class in college. Obama's plan to bring down gas prices would be to tax oil companies' profits. Of course, after those profits are taxed the cost of the tax would have to be passed on to the revenue-generating side of the equation, to the consumer. Obama would then redistribute these taxes to help poorer Americans pay at the pump. What else would you expect from a Democrat?
But what we need in America are not partisan "solutions" like those but real alternatives for Americans to stop using gasoline altogether. The best way to end America's dependence on foreign oil is to get Americans to stop using oil. And the fastest way to accomplish this in a long-term way is to adopt new transportation and planning policies which allow Americans to abandon their automobiles altogether.
Out of the blue this weekend, my parents commented that they really liked my story about the cobwebs growing on my car eight weeks ago then struck the fear of God asking me if I thought they could live in my neighborhood without a car. After catching my breath, I found the polite response: "I am sure you could live without a car in Texas, too."
But, really, such a lifestyle is impossible in a subdivision outside San Antonio's Loop 1604, but there are plenty of parts of the city where such a lifestyle would be possible as long as two elements are present: density and mass transit.
Detroit won't like it and neither will our "friends" the Saudis, but if enough Americans abandon the idea that they must have a half-acre estate with the white picket fence, a haven best accessed by car, not subway, bus or train, we really could use less oil. Instead of suburban sprawl, we should pursue a model of Jeffersonian Urbanism, where we live in dense, but walkable and livable, neighborhoods. Only when we can get out of our cars will we forget about the price of gas.
With transportation infrastructure - highways and subways - the axiom is and has always been, "build it and they will come." Expand the freeway and, over time, people will just move further away from their jobs and the freeway will be congested. Build a subway and jobs and housing density will increase near the subway stops until a natural built-in ridership exists. One clearly reduces car and oil dependency, the other doesn't.
So let's take those royalties from John McCain's offshore drilling, or the receipts from Barack Obama's windfall profits tax, and invest them in mass transit. Let's also ease environmental rules not on oil companies, but on towns and cities, so that they can use their planning process to create livable, dense, walkable, urban neighborhoods. Do that, and only those who choose to live a car-oriented lifestyle would complain about gas prices. But it would be their choice, and American's don't look kindly on poor lifestyle choices.
The motto of the United States Marine Corps is simple and profound: "Semper Fidelis", Latin for "always faithful." And, as any Marine can tell you, there is no such thing as being a "former" member of the corp. "Once a Marine," goes the saying, "always a Marine."
But the government these men and women serve does not always live up to the promise of loyalty it asks its members to make. That's a sleeping problem for the thousands of gay and lesbians who have served our nation honorably in the Marines, or any branch of the Armed Services. At any time, a recent veteran could risk losing his or her health, education or other benefits, even after years of service and their spouses will never be treated equally under the law.
Even after the California Supreme Court's historic decision granting marriage equality, not all Californians have the right to marry - and those who don't are the ones who deserve the right most. With a nervy nonchalance, in it's Q&A on Gay Marriage, the Los Angeles Times states that, "Marrying or attempting to marry a person of the same sex is grounds for dismissal from the service."
That just seems just plain wrong particularly since the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policies let many gays in the military serve with honor and distinction. But the awkward compromise of the Clinton era doesn't just apply to those on active duty. According to the Service Members Legal Defense Network, an organization that fights for equal rights for gays in the military, the injustice of Don't Ask, Don't Tell extends far beyond one's enlistment. It covers veterans of all wars and of all ages.
Regardless of when they served, gay and lesbian veterans and their spouses are denied equal treatment in life and death. Although my grandfather violated military laws by joining the Army before he was eighteen, the enthusiastic soldier lays buried in the cemetery at Fort Sam Houston. Next to him lay my grandmother, who never served a day in her life but was entitled to be buried next to her husband as a dutiful - and legally recognized - spouse. Such a privilege would not be afforded to a gay draftee from World War II or Vietnam.
It is even worse for the men and women who are just now returning from Afghanistan and Iraq. While nearly three thousand service members have been dismissed under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" since the beginning of the Global War on Terror, tens of thousands more have left the service after their first enlistment. Although they survived in the closet for years and finished their active duty honorably, as they return to civilian life, they must still keep the closet door shut, or risk being discharged and imperiling their veterans' benefits. Soldiers, sailors or marines who are no longer on active duty are subject to the provisions of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". So are veteran members of the National Guard, Reserves or Individual Ready Reserves even after they have left active duty and are allegedly living civilian lifestyles. For all these men and women, that means no statements regarding their sexual orientation, nor sodomy, nor hugging, nor hand-holding...and most certainly no marriage!
The burden on these veteran reservists is already great enough. After putting their lives on the line to defend our freedom in combat, they are returned to civilian life with a years-long noose around their neck: the threat that, one day, they may very likely get called back to duty.
For some, this burden can result in a near paralysis, where the uncertainty of their future keeps them from making any commitments beyond the time that they know they have for certain in civilian life. And for our gay and lesbian veterans, the military is telling them that they must go it alone. Anyone who says they support the troops should find this contradiction morally repugnant.
According to SLDN, not only is gay marriage out of the question, but so are accepting domestic partnership health care benefits, joining a group like the Log Cabin Republicans, or being added to a partner's USAA policy (or vice versa), if the law is strictly followed. And these are rules governing civilians in strictly civilian settings.
For gay and lesbian veterans, the unfortunate reality is that, until "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is repealed, they must hope that the ones they love, and those that love them, are more abiding by the spirit of Semper Fi than the government they've so loyally served.
If you think gas prices approaching five dollars a gallon are putting a pinch on your lifestyle, well, be glad you are not trying to run an airline. Only a couple years ago, did America's air carriers return to profitability after the double-sucker-punches of 9/11 and the fear of jet-fuel - literally - SARS pandemic. Today businesses that were profitable when oil cost $60 or $70 a barrel are facing fuel costs nearly double.
The average American can respond to the rising cost of gasoline in four ways: Cut our gas consumption, cut other costs, find new revenue sources or go further into debt and hope that someday something will happen to sort everything out. That seems to be the approach being taken by America's air carriers as well.
To conserve fuel, the airlines are flying at slower speeds and grounding inefficient planes. To cut costs, the airlines continue to reduce meals served on board and using fewer flight attendants.
In order to pick up a few extra bucks, the airlines are raising the costs of some on-board food options, and charging customers to check a bag - following a model of European low-cost carriers like EasyJet and Ryanair.
But none of these measures will save the industry if crude hits $200 a barrel, as some predict. At that point, the only option will be for the American air carriers to whip out the credit card of corporate debt until they are saved by bankruptcy or a bail out.
When Wall Street faced a credit meltdown earlire this year, a weak dollar meant that foreign cash was able to stabilize the markets. Money from sovereign wealth funds kept the financial services sector afloat amid the violent credit contraction called by the nation's housing meltdown. For the airlines, however, such a bailout is not an option; foreign investment in American air carriers is limited to a 25 percent.
Unfortunately, it is the foreign air carriers who seem to know how to run an airline these days. Outside the United States, it feels like the golden age of flying as Singapore breaks in the new Airbus A380, Emirates introduces a new level of luxury to premium cabins and Lufthansa controls an network of national air carriers that rivals many empires.
So rather than having to bail out the airlines with taxpayer dollars - yet again - why not let foreign investors bail out our air carriers? Let's see if the golden age of flying we see abroad can be extended to our shores!
There are a number of myths behind the limits on foreign investment: We need American carriers for national defense to transport our troops in times of war, foreign carriers do not have the same safety or security standards, American workers will lose jobs, only the most profitable routes would be flown, and so on.
Most of these arguments can be addressed either by simply looking at the realities of today's airline industry. Safety and maintenance are already being outsourced to foreign countries. American workers already are losing their jobs and unprofitable routes are being cut. Minor adjustments to existing regulations would also address concerns.
So why not rid the airline industry of the ban on foreign investment and see what happens? Would Lufthansa add United to Swiss, Austrian and its other affiliated carriers? Would an EmirContinentalates Airline, based in Houston and Dubai become the global superpower linking the USA and the Middle East? What innovations could these successful foreign carriers bring to our failing airline industry?
Until Congress allows foreign investment in American airlines, they can pass all the passenger bills of rights they want, but it won't improve the bottom line of American air carriers to the point that they can invest in more fuel-efficient, environmentally-friendly airplanes.
And your rights as a passenger won't matter if your carrier one day says, "Aloha!"
As Hillary Clinton prepares to bow out of the Democratic race, I cannot help but feel that she is doing the nation, and her party a disservice by leaving the campaign.
She's clearly got support. And not just from folks like me who began this political year vowing to "vote for a New Yorker."
Since the media all but declared Sen. Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee in February, the voters have tried sending a message: he is not their man. Since March 1st, Obama suffered major losses in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and was trounced at the polls in Rhode Island, Kentucky, West Virginia and Puerto Rico. Since Obama became the party's front-runner the actual Democrats going to the polls have rejected his campaign of ideological extremism.
Somehow that message hasn't made it past the media hype supporting Obama. And given the Democratic National Committee's resistance to count every vote, maybe it is time for Hillary Clinton to concede the nomination. But she shouldn't give up on getting to the White House.
Independent campaigns that work apart from established parties often have more impact on day-to-day politics than we - or party historians - like to acknowledge. Lincoln's support came from abolitionists working outside mainstream politics. Teddy Roosevelt's ideas about 20th Century governing - encapsulated in his run for the White House as the "Bull Moose" candidate - led to substantive changes in the Republican Party politics. The Clintons themselves benefitted from independent Ross Perot's messages on fiscal policy - and heeded them once they gained th White House. If Clinton truly believes that the Democratic Party is disenfranchising voters in key swing states, then she should denounce its efforts, just as Obama, eventually, denounced his former pastor and church and launch her own run for the White House.
In doing so, Hillary Clinton can remind Democrats what the party used to stand for, and return to her husband's roots as a populist centrist. Hillary has an opportunity to wake up the echoes, cheering the names of Hiram Johnson and Susan B. Anthony, to lead a post-partisan, Post-Progressive coalition to victory, whether the odds be great or small.
A post-partisan, Post-Progressive Clinton would have a chance to win because - unlike other years - the two main parties choices are so stark. And I think many Americans like me are a little turned off by the choice between Republican John McCain and Democrat Obama. With McCain we have a Washington veteran, who claims to be conservative, but is best known for bucking the party of small government to advocate big government programs and regulating our freedoms. The alternative - a partisan ideologue whose oratory is easy on the ears but has shown no ability to accomplish anything other than win the affections of young voters and the popular press - is no more attractive.
Making things worse: At this juncture in the campaign, Obama and McCain have spent so much political capital speaking to their base that they have forgotten to speak for Americans. So who knows what they'll do once they're elected? A third-party Hillary Clinton, freed of the shackles of Democratic ideology, could talk to real Americans and address the issues straightforwardly.
On Iraq, she could say that, based on the intelligence given, her vote to authorize the war was the right one, and anyone who voted against the president - given what we thought we knew - would be dangerous to have in the White House. Now that we know that we had faulty intelligence, she can say she regrets the vote, but the U.S. must now focus on how we can keep winning the peace and bring our troops home victorious. That's straight talk you won't hear from Obama or McCain.
Clinton could focus on balancing the budget, just as her husband did, by growing the economy and controlling spending. While McCain's fighting pork-barrel spending sounds nice, it produces but a drop in the bucket when it comes to balancing the budget. Meanwhile Obama's plans would vastly expand government spending, while his tax hikes would send the economy back into recession.
A third-party Clinton could talk honestly about healthcare, free of the shackles of the nurses unions and other special interests which get in the way of true reform, and could offer a safety-net of care for Americans supplemented by insurance for those who need private healthcare.
And a Post-Progressive Movement for the 21st Century could tackle the 800-pound gorilla in Washington: entitlement reform. Ross Perot scared the bejesus out of voters with charts talking about how Social Security and Medicare would eat up the Federal Budget, helping Bill Clinton gain the White House. The problems Perot outlined in 1992, are about to come to roost and the Clintons owe it to America to be talking about them, now. Understanding that we have no option but to fix these systems, the American people will rally behind a candidate who talks solutions that are not seen as partisan.
By returning to her Democratic Leadership Council roots - the path of moderation that served the Democratic Party well - Hillary Clinton today has the ability to transcend politics and be the post-partisan leader Americans have been seeking. She can choose to fall in line and put party ahead of principle, give in to the will of the media ahead of the will of the voters, and prove correct those who selected a candidate other than the inevitable Clinton. This is an important choice for one other reason: If she cannot stand up for the voters who supported her, then we should not trust her to stand up for America when it counts.
