Category: Government & Society

Is “Cash for Clunkers” a clunker?

I’m not always in agreement with David Nicklaus but the St. Louis Post-Dispatch business columnist makes a good case against the Cash for Clunkers program. For those of you unfamiliar with Cash for Clunkers, its a stimulus program that gives people with “clunkers” rebates ($3,500 or $4,500) for turning them in when purchasing a new, more efficient automobile. Nicklaus makes two main points in his piece. First, that the program benefits wealthier Americans as the expense of low-income consumers, and second, that the program will not encourage more car buying.

The first point is valid, insomuch that the Americans who need the most lift generally are not the ones who can afford automobiles.

The clunkers program, MacDonald says, is “purely a handout,” and not a very egalitarian one at that. Because the people who can afford a new car tend to be wealthier than those who cannot, we’re doing the opposite of what Robin Hood tried to accomplish.

Buried within this argument is another that Nicklaus makes, which is that the program is underfunded to boot. So, not only does this program not benefit low-income Americans, it does not even do a good job of helping the middle class. Nicklaus cites the following, “Germany, a smaller country than the U.S., started a similar program with more than $2 billion and soon tripled the budget. Congress should have known that $1 billion wouldn’t last long.” The House recently approved another $2 billion to go with the first $1 billion – which was exhausted quickly – but the Senate is yet to confirm.

The second point Nicklaus makes is supported by the following logic:

A billion dollars was enough to subsidize about 250,000 trade-in deals, but much of the money goes to people who would have bought cars anyway. Some delayed their purchases when they heard that a clunkers credit was coming, and others moved up purchases that they would have made this fall or winter.

Glenn MacDonald, the Olin professor of economics and strategy at Washington University, has a harsher assessment. “The total number of cars sold isn’t going to go up an inch,” he said. “You’re just moving it around in time. You are going to sell more cars now and fewer cars later.”

I suppose that there may be some benefit to increasing sales now at the expense of sales later, but not if the boost was offset by those who delayed their purchases. My wife and I purchased a new automobile earlier this year, partly to stimulate the economy and partly because we wanted a new car, but not because we needed one. We timed the purchase with the federal tax rebate for hybrids. I’m guessing that if that rebate had expired, we may have waited for another incentive to get a better deal. Case in point.

The final issued (kind of) raised by Nicklaus in the article, and the one most relevant to this blog, is the environmental effect of this program. On its surface, Cash for Clunkers was designed to replace very inefficient automobiles with slightly less inefficient automobiles. In theory, that’s a fabulous objection. The problem is the always forgotten environmental cost to produce something. This cost stands in direct contrast to the goal of creating jobs, but is nonetheless real. Nicklaus argues, “Even worse, we’re destroying a lot of perfectly good used cars. With fewer $2,000 heaps available, low-income people are likely to pay more for basic transportation.” His point is more economic but is still valid. Not only are we dumping perfectly good cars in the trash, we’re reducing the availability of affordable private transportation. Go us. The energy used to produce one new car is so astronomical relative to the 10 miles per gallon increase it delivers in efficiency that it will take years to mitigate.

So, is Cash for Clunkers a clunker? I think so.

A Life Including Service

Today is one of those days that reinforces why I volunteer and selfishly, the satisfaction I get from doing so. I waver almost daily on how much involvement I want to have in my community. There are days I just want to hole up and not deal with the struggle of trying to make things better. This is America after all. I eat what I kill and if the system is unfair, too bad. Fortunately I don’t rest on that attitude for long. My “whatever” thinking is generally fleeting.  This is America after all. I can make a difference - little ol’ me.

This line of thinking reminds me of an episode of Friends in which Joey and Phoebe are debating whether or not there is such a thing as a selfless good deed. My thought is that there are, but they are fewer and further between than most people would like to believe. I’m fairly certain I’ve never committed a selfless good deed because helping others and volunteering makes me feel good, even when I receive nothing tangible in return, as was the case today. I’m not sure I’d do what I do if I didn’t get something out of it.

This morning was the bimonthly board meeting of an organization with which I’m involved called St. Louis Artworks. I’ve been a board member about a year and a half, and while I haven’t contributed as much as I’d have liked to, I’ve been able to influence the direction of the organization in a positive way . . . at least that’s what I’ve been led to believe. Today’s board meeting was different from most because it was the most connected to the actual inner workings – the employment of youth in artistic disciplines – of the group since I joined the board. After the board meeting the members were given an informal tour of three of the disciplines being taught this summer – ceramics, printmaking and sculpture. Each discipline is staffed with some good kids.

While there are exceptions, most of the students who participate live in the City of St. Louis, are African American and come from low to moderate income households.  A few months ago I had the opportunity to interview these students for admission into the program. Today I got to see those who were selected hard at work. The most amazing part of what I saw this morning is that some of these students are finally in an environment that allows them to thrive, or at least be enlightened to subjects they would never know about were it not for this program. Their minds are opened and hope is permitted to build inside of them.

One such young gentlemen came up to me today and introduced himself the second I walked into the room. He took me on a tour of the room and showed me what his group was working on. He was courteous and professional. This student was one of the more outgoing of the bunch, but for most this is their first job. The interview day I mentioned earlier is often their first exposure to the working world and the intimidation and reservation these kids feel is palpable in the room. I don’t know this particular student’s background but he told me he wanted to go to school to become an architectural engineer. I told him my degree is in engineering and he asked if it was hard. I told him yes but while he seemed slightly dejected he was simultaneously upbeat. He said he was at going to try nonetheless. I told him the best things in life aren’t easy. That little bit of undefinable, immeasurable ambition is fuel to my fire and will keep me going for a little bit longer.

If you long to feel worthy I encourage you to spend some time with those different from you and offer whatever it is you have to offer. Everyone will be better off for it.

Say “No” to Nukes

I really, really, really hope this:

“AmerenUE CEO Tom Voss said the company is suspending its efforts to build a second nuclear plant in Missouri because of the failure of legislation it was pushing in the General Assembly,”

is true. And by true, I mean that I hope this is a long term decision. So long in fact, that solar and wind energy have supplanted the dirty “nastinest” that currently powers America. Down with nuclear, down with coal!

There’s some chatter that Ameren is just regrouping and will be on the attack again. I trust the good guys will snuff out any efforts before they gain momentum. For those of you who haven’t been following this issue, the main point of contention hasn’t been nuclear power as the source of new energy in Missouri, but how the consumers would be affected by the construction of a new nuclear plant. In summary:

“At a news conference at Ameren’s St. Louis headquarters this morning, Voss said he had asked lawmakers to withdraw from consideration the bill the company had been pushing to repeal the state’s construction work in progress law. If passed, the bill would have allowed the utility to charge consumers for some costs of the proposed $6 billion-plus facility before it were up and running. Critics, including consumer groups and large industrial companies, said the bill would have led to huge price hikes and would have gutted the consumer protections available to the Public Service Commission.”

It’s the construction work in progress law, commonly known as CWIP, that’s the issue. AmerenUE embarked on a pretty expensive public relations campaign to convince the public that they wouldn’t get royally screwed by the company’s endeavor. Fortunately, for once, most of our elected officials weren’t fooled.

What’s next, clean coal?! Ha.

Of Two Faiths, Gay and Armed

Quick post today. I read an article about the defrocking of a minister that I thought needed to be shared. And now it has been! The piece is about a Episcopal minister becoming a Muslim while holding on to her Christianity. Fascinating stuff. If we can get everyone to accept all the theories we’d see how crazy each one actually is on its own. Then we could make some progress, like Iowa did today backing gay marriage. If only we could stop people from being so damn trigger happy. The irony of people getting gunned down while taking a test to become citizens of a developed country with one of the most liberal gun laws should not be lost on you. Have a good weekend.

A Most Terrible Trend

Most mornings I take our dog out in the morning to eliminate, as “they” call it. Usually, there’s a steady stream of regulars going to and from the homeless shelter that sits adjacent to our condo building. The presence of a homeless shelter next to my home, let alone the existence of one period, may have shocked the suburbanites reading this. Please, take a moment. Demographic diversity is real, and you can’t hide from it forever!

Most of the vagabonds are single black men, donning layers upon layers of borrowed clothes to stay warm in the winter. They appear and disappear on 15th Street, coming from or going to any host of destinations. Some have chemical dependencies, others have mental disabilities, and yes, some are just the lazy and entitled who are enabled by a broken system of support. Generally these folks keep to themselves, their heads sheltered by hoods and their eyes focused on the ground. A few are frequently in inexplicably good spirits and will say hello, talk directly to the dog without acknowledging me, do a combination of both, or immediately try to sell me a serving of Jesus – because, you know, it’s working out so well for them. Even rarer is the irate man, like the one who verbally abused my wife and dog on Wednesday night. He was out of his mind, but that’s no excuse.

Most of these people I’ve seen off and on for years. They are the chronically homeless. I feel terrible saying this, but being so close to the misfortune has made me numb to it, but only to a degree. Dare I say the sparsely attended parade of the downtrodden adds a bit of life to a relatively quiet street.

Most recently, I’ve noticed a different demographic of American patronizing the shelter – entire families. I’m not referring to the occasional single parent and child, almost always a product of a similar situation, a generation removed, mixed with a hearty helping of gross irresponsibility and lust. No, I’m referring to a nuclear family – father, mother, and child(ren). These people are clearly new to the party.

Most of the fathers are surrounded by a cloud of humiliation and defeat. They make weak eye contact, embarrassed to be towing everything they own and swore to protect from a place to sleep to a place to eat. Still, the inate instinct  to protect remains. They’re cautious in engaging anyone, anyone at all. Their eyes are constantly surveying. The mothers are usually occupied by their children. When they have a precious free moment, they become muted caricatures of their husbands, careful but more disarming. A smile is often faintly detectable and the eye contact a little stronger, longer. I think they’re trying to tell me they’re okay, almost apologizing for letting me see them like this, even though they’re shredded on the inside. The children are seemingly ignorant to the strife. Surely they are uncomfortable and questioning the situation. But, they’re too young to comprehend the gravity of the here and now. This sucks mom, let’s go home.

Most of these new homeless have nice teeth, nice clothes and strollers. They’re hair isn’t deshelved and they enunciate well. Give it time. Most of me hopes this trend has peaked, while a small part of me wishes it will get bad enough that people – you and me people, not the digusting shells of people we elect to help us - are forced into a state of awareness and action. No more bandages. It’s time to break the bone and reset it. Patching up a flawed model of life, which we do so often with great intentions and limited results, is a terrible, terrible waste of time and money. If you promise to help, I’ll promise to have whichever sadistic organ that wishes further ill on the suffering removed.

People are suffering in greater numbers every single day. If you don’t believe me, come hang out any given morning on 15th Street.

Stimulated by Stuff

Stuff. Things. Trinkets. Widgets. Doohickeys. Our economy is based on the consumption of the aforementioned. That’s not a good thing, but that’s reality. I would love to live in a world where “things” lasted longer than they do now and money was spent on, and people were employed providing, services to enhance our overall quality of life. A new enlightenment if you will, but structured around experience, health, awareness, etc . . . Dream over. The issue at hand is how can the economy be “righted” by spending money on stuff. Infrastructure aside, the debate revolves around whether people should be put to work directly through government spending or by giving taxpayers money back to spend how they see fit . . . in theory at least. This is where the problem in logic arises.

How can conservatives think increasing tax cuts will more quickly recover the economy? Seriously. I’m all for more money in my pocket but that’s exactly where it will stay. In this conservative La La Land of economic thinking, those who need money the most will get the least. Further, some conservatives don’t want to give any relief to those who don’t pay taxes. Ignoring for a moment that these are the people who have been most marginalized by society and need the most help, isn’t the idea here to help those who need help, not give a pro rata share of money back to those who paid it in? It’s one thing to hold this thinking as a philosophy, it’s entirely another to think it will stimulate the economy.

There are items in the latest stimulus bill which give me pause but spending money on infrastructure and creating a domino effect of spending through job creation seem like the most effective and speedy ways of invigorating the economy. Tax cuts and/or rebates will go into consumer spending or savings. The former doesn’t create jobs in the short term because everything being bought has already been made, and once the stimulus money is exhausted, spending will stop. Companies will not hire more people or ramp up production in anticipation of this and because they all the need extra money to shore up losses or pay people who are owed money. The latter may catalyze markets but most of this money will just sit in cash accounts until something worth investing in comes along, which will be a while if we’re not investing in anything substantial.

The vote along party lines for the stimulus bill doesn’t bode well for Obama’s dream of putting partisan politics aside and working together to help “one America”. Fortunately my team has the majority of votes. Unfortunately that doesn’t necessarily mean wise decisions. Hopefully the new transparency professed by Obama’s adminstration will shed light on waste and eliminate it. I’m happy to see the philosophical basis of majority of our elected officials in Washington move toward compassion and selflessness but we must all remain aware that wasting money is arguably worse than being efficient but selfish with it.

I Can See Clearly Now

It’s been a good week, both politically and personally. We, as a nation, experienced yet another peaceful transfer of power. Beyond the splendor of “the moment”, as CNN called it, were the images of celebrations in other countries. These were the most moving; children playing in the streets of Africa with “Obama” written across their foreheads and business people enjoying happy hour in English pubs after a long day at work, their eyes glued to the “teles”.

Concerning “the moment”, which refers to the instant Barack Hussein Obama was sworn in, CNN put together a rather amazing collage of photographs using software called Photosynth. A link to the image(s) can be found here. The software takes images taken and submitted by thousands of strangers and “sews” them together into one large image, which is fully navigable. It’s schweet.

Greater writers than myself have done justice to the collective sigh of relief felt by the county, and the world, when George W. Bush took off in that helicopter for Andrews Air Force Base. But, I must say one thing. Please, President Bush, spend time actually learning how to work on your ranch and stay the hell away from the rest of us. Please.

After all of the pomp and circumstance, we are left with a new president. His mandate was only in the form of results of the electoral college, a dated and sinister method of electing a leader, but it is a mandate nonetheless. The onus of repairing this nation is now on him, and some very capable and experienced team members. I wish them all luck.

On a completely unrelated note, though linked by the title of this post, I done got my eyeballs did on inauguration day. Technically, I had implantable lens put in my eyes, which is essentially laser surgery on crack. As I write this, the 48th hour since the procedure has passed, and the future looks bright. 20/20 vision baby . . . with a little blurriness and light sensitivity that should subside over time. (If you want more information on what I had done just leave a comment.) Post procedure, my wife and I spent the day on the couch, navigating the DVR through CNN’s sometimes banal coverage of the day’s events; it’s a bit hard to lay the blame entirely on the reporters though because occasionally absolutely nothing at all was happening. Absolutely nothing I say!

Guantanamo’s fate appears sealed, “trials” for those held there are on hold, new ethics guidelines are in place and every executive order on what was Dubya’s desk has been stopped. And it’s been less than two days. Yeah! More so than after the election, I have a new found hope for the future of this country and its people. With the new administration and my newly enhanced eyeballs, I can truly see clearly now.

The Future of Proposition C

I received an email today from Clean Energy Works for Missouri, the organization sponsored by the Missouri Coalition for the Environment, Renew Missouri and the Union of Concerned Scientists (according to the website). But, I’m not entirely clear on which organizations are actually part of the Clean Energy Works for Missouri team because the email lists Missouri Coalition for the Environment, Missouri Votes Conservation, Renew Missouri and the Sierra Club as the organizations that “spearheaded, funded, and staffed the Proposition C campaign” and “are now forming the “Clean Energy Works for Missouri” Collaborative that will continue to move Missouri toward a clean energy future utilizing renewable energy and energy efficiency.

The theme? What’s Next for Clean Energy in Missouri. Taken directly from the email:

What’s Next?

Thanks to our grassroots effort to get Prop C passed, Missouri now has an activated constituency of over 25,000 educated, informed, and enthusiastic clean energy supporters, including you! The passage of Prop C is only the first step toward Missouri’s clean energy future – we have many energy challenges to face and opportunities to advance in 2009. We still need your help.

The first challenge is implementation of Proposition C. Before the law goes into effect, the Public Service Commission (PSC) begins a 12-month rulemaking process. Our partnership of renewable industry and environmental advocates will work diligently to ensure utility lobbyists do not pressure the PSC to dilute the Proposition. We will also watchdog the General Assembly to ensure that there are no legislative efforts to weaken or undercut Proposition C.

Via this email list serve, we will periodically inform you of opportunities so you can help implement Prop C and advance other initiatives important to Missouri’s clean energy future.

Sign up for email updates here.

From what I’ve heard, the opposition was non-existent during the election because of the process mentioned above. The theory is that those opposed will be able to strip the legislation of all substance through the PSC meetings, and with the announcement of St. Louis as the targeted national “clean coal” headquarters, the odds that pressure to dilute Prop C during the PSC hearings has increased. We can’t let this happen. Stay active, stay informed, make some noise!

A New Day

My high from the election is waning, but my hope is doing anything but, even as evidence against a bright short-term future mounts. My only complaint from the regional election is that two public transportation propositions failed in Missouri. Sucks. Does doing something that’s the exact opposite of right justify stupidity? What next, bailing out poorly managed companies that signed bad labor deals and put out junky products for the last few decades? Oh wait . . .

Obama & Co. seems to be doing as promised thus far. His team seems qualified, though not as new to Washington as I had hoped. Perhaps the Clintonites will add the experience Obama’s detractors thinks he lacks. We’ll see. Their task is monumental.

So, last week, the Oxford English Dictionary awarded ”hypermiling” its word of the year award, 15+ months after yours truly posted “A Mile Case of Hypermiling” on this very site. Check out both links, and kudos to the OED for finally getting its stuff together. I’m kidding of course.

Anheuser-Busch is no more. Half a victim of a crappy US Dollar and half a victim of a crappy foreign growth strategy, the All American Beer is now Belzilian (Belgian + Brazilian). Oh well. While it’s a sad day in STL, the future of this city hangs on so much more than one company. Let’s get over it and kick some ass.

I’m all over the place today. Woo hoo!

Prop C, Baby!

Two days left, for a lot of things, but especially for Proposition C in Missouri. My last post was about the measure as is this one. I spent a few hours this morning canvassing with literature outside the Edward Jones prior to the Cardinals @ Rams game.

I believe the Proposition is polling well, upwards of 70% for it, it ain’t over until it’s over. Keep in mind that while this measure would make Missouri the 27th state to have a Renewable Energy Standard, it would be one of the least ambitious standard in these united states. I don’t say that to insult the effort to make this point: if other states can implement more aggressive Renewable Energy Standards, then Missouri should have no problem implementing a more conservative one.

Remember, the RES in Missouri is to require investor-owned utilities to sources 15% of their energy from renewable resources by 2020. Compare that to the measure on the ballot in California. This one requires the state to sources 20% of its energy from renewable resources by 2010. That’s 5% more energy 10 years earlier. Wow!

So please, vote on Tuesday and vote “yes” for Proposition C. Oh yeah, GObama!