Voters Call for Action on Real Issues

The results are now mostly in: Democrats picked up the House and may well take the Senate too. Nationally the Republicans won exactly ZERO seats previously held by Democrats, including the governors, while the Democrats picked up 28 seats in the House and 4-6 in the Senate. State and even local races played out the same, with voters rejecting the Republican agenda of divisive social issues and pie in the sky plans for Iraq in favor of actually doing something that matters to Americans. They demanded an end to worthless debates over flag burning, gay marriage, abortion, and Terri Schiavo's medical condition; instead they have called for action on Iraq, education, repealing the Bush tax cuts, progressive energy policy, better environmental regulation, and an end to the corporate handouts crafted into bills written by lobbyists working hand in hand with House leadership. They have resoundingly rejected the politics of Tom Delay and Dick Army, not only in Washington, but at the state and local levels as well.

"Time for a change" indeed. It's been a long time coming, and it's too bad it took so long for voter disgust to reach this level. Much damage has been done, many opportunities lost. Here's hoping we can all move forward on an agenda that will actually improve conditions for Americans of all stripes, and begin the hard work of restoring our reputation abroad as well.

No Time To Gloat: Get To Work Dems!

Watching the returns pile in the news is almost universally good-- the house has tipped dramatically, the senate is still in play but will end up very close to even. Here in Minnesota Republicans have lost 13 seats on their way to becoming the minority party in the house, and lost another 5 seats in the senate. Even the draconian South Dakota abortion measure appears to have failed by a wide margin. The only major disappointment so far was Patty Wetterling's defeat in Minnesota's 6th district...we'll have to keep a close eye on Bachman because she's something of a conservative loon. Thankfully she'll be a freshman rep in a demoralized and disorganized minority, so can do little damage before having to stand for re-election in 2008. (Note to DFL: Patty was a good candidate but it's time to find someone else to run for this seat.)

Meanwhile, free advice to the Democrats: don't gloat and get right to work. You've been handed power for a reason and have a very short period to prove yourselves worthy of keeping it. 2008 remains wide open and the Republicans could easily reorganize and take back the house if you don't deal honestly and openly with the agenda the people are calling for. That means action on Iraq, oversight of the administration (hearings yes, impeachment no), reform on health care, more support for education, a more enlightened energy policy, and the end of religious extremists dictating policy on topics like medical research, education, and science. Oh- and perhaps a bit of attention to the environment when you get around to it.

But I wouldn't blame the Dems for marginalizing at least a few R's in the house-- say anyone from Leadership that still has a seat. Have fun being irrelevant Denny H.!

Sex Education Outrage: How a Crazy Minority Threatens Our Kids

A recent story on CNN reports that fully 82% of Americans support comprehensive sex education in public schools. But despite a spate of studies showing so-called "abstinence only" programs simply do not work, social conservatives have succeeded in eliminating or severely crippling sex education programs in schools around the nation. This begs the question: WHY ARE OUR CHILDREN BEING TAUGHT IGNORANCE IN RESPONSE TO LESS THAN 18% OF THE PUBLIC?

Pardon me for yelling, but imagine the reduction in teen pregnancy and abortion we might have achieved had we encouraged schools to develop a realistic sex ed curriculum back in the early 1990s. This survey found that even 70% of self-described conservatives favor comprehensive sex ed, so apparently the entire nation is being held hostage to a small sex-phobic clique-- probably the same one that's pushing "creation science" into classrooms as well.

It's time we stood up to the religious bullies and let them know that while they're welcome to teach their kids any superstitions they wish at home, our kids face some very real problems with STDs and pregnancy that simply must be addressed with facts, not fear-mongering or imaginary concepts like "secondary virginity." As we know from recent events, those who are most vocal in their opposition to healthy sexuality are often those with the most problems...we can and must do better.

Republicans Revive Vouchers as Midterms Loom

As Republican desperation over the looming midterms grows, we're seeing more red meat thrown out to energize the base. Today's select cut was another ill-advised attack on public education, in the form of a $100 million plan for vouchers. Despite recent studies showing private school students performed no better than their public school counterparts on standardized tests, sending kids off to private (i.e. religious) schools is still the only solution the Republican leadership can see to the growing crisis in education.

Is it really good public policy to abandon public schools? Do we really want our tax dollars going to private religious schools that are free to discriminate?

No Child Left Behind has been a disaster for public education, forcing teachers to teach the test and producing a generation of high school students with limited critical thinking skills. A voucher system will not solve our education problems. What's really needed is an overhaul of our of educational philosophy. We need to drop the 19th century school calendar and put kids into a system that reflects current knowledge of developmental psychology. We need to empower creative, dedicated teachers and to pay them reasonable salaries that will attract and retain quality candidates. We need to deal directly with the discipline, nutritional, and social problems plaguing our urban schools. And perhaps most importantly, we need to convince parents to become more involved with their childrens' education. Vouchers are not a golden bullet-- they are more akin to euthanasia for our ailing educational system.

Celebrate the 1906 Antiquities Act

I've just returned from a trip to Devil's Tower National Monument, the first site designated as a monument under the 1906 Antiquities Act. Teddy Roosevelt-- Democrats' favorite Republican president --used the Act extensively to protect areas of historic, scientific, and scenic beauty, including the Grand Canyon.

Devil's Tower is an amazing place, well worth the visit if you are traveling through NE Wyoming. The natural site provides a striking contrast to the human-shaped landscape of Mt. Rushmore, a half-day's drive away.

Energy crisis is a matter of demand

Here's my latest newspaper column, hot off the virtual presses:


Energy crisis is a matter of demand
St. Cloud (MN) Times
5 May, 2006

The secret's out: We're in the midst of an energy crisis.

Nine months after most Americans got the message at the gas pump, Energy Secretary Sam Bodman finally acknowledged a problem with our energy supply.

"There's apparently some evidence that we have a crisis," he told Tim Russert on Sunday's "Meet the Press." It was in defense of President Bush's recent decision to halt deposits to the federal strategic petroleum reserve against the charge the move was an election-year ploy.

Certainly Bush, or at least his advisers, know playing around with the reserve will have little noticeable effect on retail prices. And Bush has previously stated his opposition to fooling with the reserves, especially if it's for political purposes.

In fact, in September 2000 he said, "Strategic reserves should not be used as an attempt to drive down oil prices right before an election. It should not be used for short-term political gain at the cost of long-term national security."

So he must have something else in mind.

Perhaps some of the president's advisers should tell him this: We consumed 5.5 billion barrels of crude last year and placed just 14 million into reserves.

Holding back a month's deposits will have no effect on the retail level. When the price of crude was in the $37 range — as recently as January 2005 — the cost of bringing a gallon of gas to the retail pump (including taxes) was about $1.85, fairly close to retail prices at that time.

Since then, the cost of crude has skyrocketed to about $66, a 78 percent increase.

But pump prices are hovering in the $2.75 range, or just 49 percent higher than in January 2005. So while we're feeling the pinch at the pump, current retail gas prices are certainly within reason, given the substantially higher cost of crude.

'70s crisis

We'd have to go back to the summer of 1979 to remember a time when the cost of gas made daily news headlines and energy was a regular topic of dinner-table conversation.

That July, President Carter delivered his now-famous "crisis of confidence" speech excoriating Americans for wasting energy and calling for sacrifice on all levels to relieve the shortage. In 1977 he had warned Americans that "ours is the most wasteful nation on earth," actually wasting more energy than we imported.

By 1979 energy was on everyone's minds because people were having trouble filling up their cars; some stations were even running out of gas. Carter responded to the crisis by establishing a clear set of goals for the future, capped with the bold pronouncement that "this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 — never."

A variety of federal programs were established to promote investment in alternative energy, efficiency and domestic production capabilities.

Though most of the conservation and alternative energy programs died with Ronald Reagan's election, we did push ahead to increase domestic oil production through the 1980s, and within a few years prices came down.

Carter's pledge to reduce imports held true until we broke the 1977 import record in 1993. We have broken it every year since.

In 2005, we imported 3.6 billion barrels of crude, up 50 percent from the line Carter drew in the sand a generation ago and accounting for about one-third of the trade deficit. So the energy is still out there if we're willing to pay market prices for it; there is no crisis of supply.

What we are facing is a crisis of demand.

The problem

Though Carter was slammed for saying it, we are the problem.

We, all of us, use too much energy. We are still among the most wasteful societies on the planet.

We turn our backs on common-sense conservation measures and place the likes of Vice President Dick Cheney in charge of our nation's energy future, the very man who said "conservation may be a sign of personal virtue" but that the key to energy security was increasing production and relaxing environmental laws.

Though many will claim Big Oil or the OPEC cartel controls our destiny, it's really a simple matter of demand. We can chose to drive more efficient cars, better insulate our homes, waste less plastic and invest in alternative sources of energy.

Minnesotans are no better or worse than the rest of the country. In fact, we're pretty average, ranking 21st in population, 21st in petroleum consumption. But we can show our leaders in Washington we know there's more at stake in the current crisis than short-term political gains.

We can adopt new conservation measures, we can reduce demand and we can become part of the solution by changing our profligate ways.

As Carter said in 1979, "there are no short-term solutions to our long-range problems. There is simply no way to avoid sacrifice."

Far better to chose that sacrifice now than have it chosen for us somewhere down the line when we're less able to respond, less prepared to adapt and less willing to admit our own culpability in the problem.

Republican Energy Plan: Have They No Shame?

Just when you thought federal energy policies couldn't get much worse, Senate Republicans-- led by the usual suspects including Charles Grassley of Iowa, Ted Stevens of Alaska, Pete Domenici of New Mexico, and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania --have introduced a bill to provide $100 refunds to all taxpayers to help "ease the pain" of high gas prices. Nice gesture guys-- but two free tanks of gas for America's SUV fleet will not solve the growing energy crisis. Neither will opening ANWR for drilling or any other attempt to increase supply in the short term. We need a conservation plan and a windfall profits tax on Big Oil, not more election-year pandering to voters. CNN has the details.

States Move to Impeach Bush While Historians Consider His Ranking

The anemic congressional response to a litany of complaints about the Bush adminstration-- the Plame affair, Iraq, wiregate, etc. --and Bush's sinking popularity have become an issue of debate in state capitals. This week legistlators in Vermont, Illinois, and California all introduced impeachment resolutions aimed at forcing the US House to take action via a virtually unknown rule from "Jefferson's Manual," an unofficial set of rules long followed by the House. The states are being joined by county and city bodies as well. Though there is little expectation any of this will lead to action by the House, it cannot easily be ignored by the mainstream media and will likely be source of significant distraction for the adminstration in coming weeks.

Meanwhile, The current issue of Rolling Stone features a cover story titled "The Worst President in History?" written by famed historian Sean Wilentz considering Bush's fate in history. The article does a pretty good job of explaining how and why historians rate past presidents, and while it doesn't outright label Bush as the worst it makes a good case for historical comparison.

Has the tide turned? While polls show only four states now actually "red" (i.e. where Bush's approval rating is above 50%) the midterm elections will certainly be the key indicator. If the Democrats are able to capitalize on discontent over Bush, high gas prices, and Congressional behavior we may be in for an historic midterm shift in the balance of Congress that leaves the Bush agenda dead and will likely result in major investigations of events related to the Iraq war, Katrina, and related events. But given the ~95% success rate of incumbent candidates in recent years, a "throw the bums out" campaign may well fizzle as voters continue to support their local congressmen despite concerns over the overall Congress.

Don't amend Minnesota's consitution to fund roads

My April newspaper column takes on an issue Minnesotans have apparently been ignoring: an unnecessary consitutional amendment related to transportation funding that will appear on the November ballot. The competing anti-gay-marriage amendment has gotten all the attention so far, but thankfully the state Senate killed that in committee earlier this week.

-Dr. DRL
###

Vote 'no' on state roads amendment
Derek Larson
St. Cloud (MN) Times

Published: April 05. 2006

---

Our roads and bridges are in bad shape. Public transportation outside our cities is nonexistent. We've put off needed transportation investments far too long and now face tough choices among critical funding priorities. Roads or schools? Mass transit or health care? What's most important to the future of Minnesota?

Unfortunately, rather than making those choices as they were elected to do, Gov. Tim Pawlenty and the Legislature have chosen to sidestep the responsibilities of leadership and are once again playing games so they can spend millions on roads and still claim they didn't raise our taxes.

It's going to take a constitutional amendment to do it and that's a bad idea for several reasons. A constitutional amendment to change transportation funding has already been approved for the November ballot, reading as follows: Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to dedicate revenue from a tax on the sale of new and used motor vehicles over a five-year period, so that after June 30, 2011, all of the revenue is dedicated at least 40 percent for public transit assistance and not more than 60 percent for highway purposes?

What may not be clear to voters is that this is not a new tax, but the Motor Vehicle Sales Tax we already pay. About 45 percent of the funds raised are spent on things other than transportation; the amendment seeks to redirect all of these revenues over the next five years.

It's the principle

The first reason to vote 'no' is a matter of principle. The Constitution is the foundation of our state's democracy and should not be tinkered with lightly. The problem is our leaders could have shifted the MVST revenues to transportation on their own, but they shirked responsibility and tossed the hot potato into the voters' laps.

If the public wants more money spent on transportation, we should replace the governor and the Legislature with candidates who will do that, not clutter our Constitution with unnecessary amendments.

Other reasons to reject the amendment are more pragmatic. Where and how will the money be spent? Will outstate Minnesota see a share at least equal to what we pay in? Or will the benefits accrue primarily to the Twin Cities area? Could "at least 40 percent" spent on transit go as high as 50 percent? Or 75 percent? Might some of that be used to extend Northstar to St. Cloud? Or will it all go to urban projects?

Raise those taxes

Those who like tough questions can answer this one: If we shift these revenues from the general fund, how will they be replaced? The amendment will leave a $300 million hole in the budget during the five years, a hole that can sink other priorities mentioned above.

Certainly our leaders will tell us not to worry, that projected revenues will more than cover the anticipated deficit. But of course that's how the federal government went from a surplus five years ago to massive annual deficits today.

We're being asked to amend the Constitution in part to support Pawlenty's no-new-taxes pledge, at a time when a new tax — combined with responsible bonding — is exactly what's needed to solve the problems with our transportation system.

The best way to pay for necessary transportation improvements is by doing what most other progressive states do: raise the fuel tax.

Paying for roads and transit with fuel taxes has two major advantages over the vehicle sales tax. First, it tends to reduce consumption; people will drive less and favor more efficient vehicles when they do, both of which are good for our state. It also ensures that those who drive the most will pay the largest share. Most importantly, the fuel tax captures revenues from the millions of people who drive on Minnesota roads each year but never pay a dime toward MVST — out-of-state drivers, tourists and seasonal residents.

What's up next

Chambers of commerce, road construction firms, and MnDOT are no doubt rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of million of dollars in new funding for their pet transportation projects. Those aren't necessarily bad things, if the money is spent wisely and fairly.

But we should expect our elected leaders to do their jobs rather than pass the buck. We should pay for roads with a tax system that encourages fuel efficiency and weighs most heavily on those who use the roads more than others.

Minnesotans should vote against the transportation amendment this fall and send the governor and Legislature a message: do the jobs we elected you to do and stop messing with our Constitution simply because you don't want to make tough decisions.

Or we can just tell them to hit the road.