Adversity has the effect of eliciting talents which, in prosperous circumstances, would have lain dormant.
Horace
Bill O'Reilly's Similar Hurricane Irene Experience
In my Tuesday blog post about the Hurricane Irene experience I wrote, "I heard an occasional splatter of raindrops on my windows a couple of times, but nothing out of the ordinary when I shut down my PC [with functional Internet] in the early hours Sunday morning... When the sunlight woke me, roughly 7AM that morning, I automatically checked the time on my digital alarm clock--which was blank. Not good. Looking outside, it looked like your everyday sunny summer day. No hint of any severe damage anywhere."
Here's an excerpt from Bill O'Reilly's talking point published Monday (see embedded video below for the full talking point):
Now, during the storm, I didn't even lose electricity and could watch Shepard Smith log hours on Fox News. He did a very nice job, by the way. And then a strange thing happened. About four hours after the storm passed through, the electricity went out. And eight hours after that, the cable went out. And they both stayed out. So I'm thinking: Why did that happen? If the storm is gone, why did the infrastructure collapse on Long Island for hundreds of thousands of people after the fact? I still have not been able to get an answer to that question.
In terms of the local issues, it may be that the storm hadn't finished passing through relevant local areas when we thought; for example, I saw a news report from an adjacent area (Howard County) mentioning a tree fell on a building just before 5 AM. I think the issue had more to do with high winds.
The one thing I caution about in O'Reilly's summary here is that it sounds like a validation of something at the public policy level that I think we have to be very careful of: public infrastructure. I think Bill is a little fuzzy here because presumably his power utility, like me, is run by the private sector, not the public sector, and it seems that Bill seems to jump from a discussion of private to public infrastructure.
Whether the public or private sector, clearly we have cost-benefit analyses going on here. For example, the vulnerability of power lines to falling trees is well-known; are there feasible technical solutions? Why haven't they been deployed? What about redundant delivery systems? Is it simply cheaper to repair snapped lines if and when they occur?
I fully expect Obama once again to focus on infrastructure spending ("investments") as a sort of economic-boosting, miracle grow. I also expect him to cite the Virginia earthquake and Hurricane Irene in the process. And no matter how many times he bangs his head on the wall, I expect him to raise again high-speed rail, despite the fact that we've seen a trio of responsible GOP governors cancel relevant projects with voodoo economic projections behind them.
Yes, I'm aware every time we see a failure of some public infrastructure, whether we are talking about New Orleans levees or a collapsed bridge in Minnesota, we will see a flood of politicians rushing for the microphone to express their righteous indignation at inadequate or diverted funding. Indeed, we are very well of political budget games not only involving infrastructure funding, but grossly unfunded liabilities, such as pensions or various entitlement programs, like Medicare, Medicaid, and social security.
The subject has been discussed in a rather confused fashion. First, we have a question of ongoing infrastructure operations and maintenance, e.g., fixing potholes, which can result in damaged vehicles. Second, we can talk about the need to replace infrastructure, e.g., that has outlived its projected lifetime or is operating beyond designed capacity. Third, we can talk about new infrastructure, e.g., providing quicker, cheaper distribution of goods between producer and consumer, e.g., a canal joining two long waterways, one with an outlet at a coast.
There are a number of salient issues from my point of view. First, there is a question of whether we are talking about the federal government subsidizing state expenses, which I oppose in principle. Second, there is a question of whether funding of infrastructure operations is adequately protected against political raids. Third, there is politicization of the infrastructure funding process itself, which is symbolically represented by the infamous Bridge to Nowhere, a project which was clearly pushing on a string if every there was one, servicing a trivial number of residents and which saw the project budget nearly doubled to $400M from the original. Keep in mind, however, and this is a point Obama constantly refuses to acknowledge, it's a question of whether there is a viable business model for relevant operations. For example, there have been discussions of rail links between DC and Richmond, VA or between Orlando and Tampa Bay.
There are related initiatives I'm wary of, particularly in terms of progressives trying to micromanage the energy usage of individual customers. Could you imagine, for instance, some government bureaucrat deciding how cool you could air-condition your house, how long you can shower (or have warm water for your shower), when you could run your dishwasher, or how warm you could heat your home during the winter? There is already a natural incentive for you to conserve energy: it's called your utility bill... I just see it now: we'll get a Sheryl Crow-endorsed single-sheet-of-toilet-paper dispenser.
Finally, one of the most fundamental reasons I oppose Obama's version of infrastructure spending is the fact that it masks a hidden agenda of industrial policy or crony capitalism. Bloomberg a month ago published an editorial that tells it like it is: "Industrial Policy, Just a Nicer Name for Corporate Welfare". I have been particularly critical of Obama's attempts to manipulate the marketplace to favor green energy companies and their investors.
There are a few quotes I want to emphasize here:
- "The U.S. has an industrial policy -- just not a coherent one. Our government subsidizes agriculture through crop price supports, oil and gas through tax credits, housing through the mortgage-interest deduction, and on and on." I oppose sugar, corn, and other food subsidies. I oppose depletion percentage allowance (versus cost). I oppose the mortgage-interest deduction (duly-noted: I rent and do not own, but I feel this policy contributed to the unsustainable real estate bubble).
- "With almost no public discussion [during and after the 2008 economic tsunami]-- the government owned a controlling interest in General Motors Co. (GM), was arranging the sale of Chrysler Group LLC, ordering banks to borrow government money, creating shotgun weddings among financial institutions, [and] taking over a huge insurance company." I absolutely opposed all of these actions on principle. For example, I'm convinced that the auto companies, once shed of their unsustainable union contracts in bankruptcy court, would have attracted investors from the private sector.
The last time I visited my folks at home, my Dad got all the paperwork I needed to apply for membership in the American Legion (I have yet to join).
I realize that I have been heavily critical of the President lately, and it may look to others like I'm just looking to rationalize an anti-Obama predisposition. But I can think of at least a half dozen times when I've supported things Obama has said or done, e.g., certain international aid efforts, criticisms of the fragmentation and redundancy of certain government agencies, and educational reform (in particular, a competitive education market, including charter schools); I also think that Obama's diplomatic efforts have improved the tone with a number of other nations.
My criticisms are fairly specific and are not necessarily shared by other veterans:
- The speech, in my view, pandered to veterans in terms of their personal self-interest; he's talking about expediting disability claims, he takes credit for various veteran-oriented tax credits and asserts, in addition to increasing the budget for health care of veterans, new educational benefits and increasing the VA budget by the largest percentage increase in decades; he will not let those nefarious Republicans balance the budget on the backs of veterans; he wants new incentives for private industry and has new federal employment initiatives to hire veterans; the government will be more receptive to health claims regarding chemical/environmental exposure, stress disorder, etc. in Vietnam, Iraq, etc. It came across to me as more of a campaign speech seeking the political support of veterans. My personal opinion is that veterans aren't necessarily looking for public acknowledgment or special favors; I think they are motivated more by principle than material self-interest. If you are willing to sacrifice your life for the sake of the nation, why would you not expect to share of painful sacrifices all Americans will have to make to close an unsustainable federal deficit?
- I don't think that the President spoke with integrity; there's no real discussion of the fact that he was sharply critical of our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan prior to his election. He's simply filtering good things to say about what we've done in those countries. To say that you respect the efforts of our military personnel but at the same time you argued against the legitimacy of our involvement there is, in my view, intentionally misleading and somewhat disingenuous. I realize that this is a provocative comparison (which is not between American and German soldiers, but in condemning the mission while honoring the blameless foot soldiers), but I'm using it to get my point across here: it's like praising Nazi German soldiers for their professionalism, efficiency and dedication in running the concentration camps, but holding only the top leadership responsible for the evil of the Holocaust. There were ways to honor the mission in Iraq without backing off a disagreement over principle, e.g., deposing a war criminal whom threatened the stability of the entire Middle East while terrorizing his own fellow citizens was a good thing.
- I think President Obama's praise of military personnel engaged in nation building was confusing and sent the wrong message. I do not see nation building as a military matter but a police matter, and I think this is a fatal flaw in his speech. Going back to the integrity issue, Barack Obama was repeatedly talking about the Iraq/Afghanistan obligation as draining roughly $100B per year over the past decade. I could easily have seen him deliver a speech where he argued for a sustainable national defense, we need to pick our battles better and not get involved in the affairs of two small, obscure countries of dubious strategic import; our military materials and assets have been depleted, our personnel have been repeatedly sent back on tour, overextending them, acting as a policeman instead of a soldier. It causes a morale and recruitment issue for our future military. We need a lessons learned from this past decade's experience and not repeat them for future generations of soldiers. Do I honor the efforts of those personnel involved in nation building? Of course. But at the same time, I don't want future military actions to imply a commitment to nation building and I think with a $14.6T debt, we just can't afford to be in the process of nation building anymore.
Political Humor
"The Justice Dept is trying to block the merger between AT&T and T-Mobile. It’s only fair because AT&T keeps blocking the mergers between me and the people I try to call." - Jimmy Fallon
[Verizon Wireless's CEO called Attorney General Eric Holder to thank him, observing 'You did hear me now ..."]
"In a new interview, President Obama said Ben Franklin is the Founding Father he would most like to meet. Meanwhile, Joe Biden said that Panthro is the ThunderCat he would most like to meet." - Jimmy Fallon
[Who would have ever guessed that the President's favorite Founding Father is the man whom said, 'Certainty? In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes.' There is, of course, the Obama variation, 'Certainty? Nothing is more certain but taxes: even the dead pay taxes."
Or 'A penny saved is a penny earned.' Obama wants to know where Franklin saved his money. He estimates with penalties, by now Franklin's overdue taxes amount to $14.6T dollars.
Or 'Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.' Obama wants to know what Benjamin Franklin would have done with a 'do-nothing Congress', '8 years of failed Bush policies' or 'opposition party hostage-takers'.]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Air Supply, "Lost in Love"
