My latest newspaper column: Cash for Appliances Up Next

Hot off the virtual (and real) presses. The linked version goes to the paper, which includes a chat feature that usually brings out the local nutcases if you're into that sort of thing.


St. Cloud (MN) Times
December 2, 2009

Cash for appliances can pay off

As this summer's Cash for Clunkers program fades into memory the results are still being debated. According to federal data, the program paid out nearly $3 billion in subsidies on more than 675,000 car and truck purchases in July and removed more than 550,000 trucks, vans and SUVs from our highways.

Some argue the influx of sales saved the auto industry; others argue that it simply prompted people who would have bought cars in the fall to do it sooner. In either case, the program was clearly flawed in several ways, not the least of which was subsidizing the purchase of terribly inefficient new vehicles that undermined the potential for the program to increase the overall economy of the vehicle fleet.

Now, lurking just around the corner, comes another federal subsidy program aimed at boosting retail sales and supporting conservation efforts: cash-for-appliances.

Unnoticed by most of the public, last winter's massive stimulus bill — the nearly $800 billion American Recovery and Investment Act — included $300 million to encourage the purchase of energy-efficient appliances.

The funds were to be distributed to the states by the U.S. Department of Energy upon the approval of a state plan to offer rebates to residents purchasing Energy Star-rated major appliances. Minnesota's plan was approved last month and the state will soon receive $5 million to distribute through the state Department of Commerce's Office of Energy Security. Rebates of $100 to $200 on energy-efficient refrigerators, freezers, dishwashers and washing machines should be available in Minnesota by next March.

The program raises a host of questions. Will it increase sales? Will it improve our energy efficiency? Is it worth the cost?

Like cash-for-clunkers, some of these questions can't be answered until the final numbers are in. Others may depend on your ideological or political views about government intrusion in the marketplace or the efficacy of deficit spending as an economic stimulus. But from a purely family-economics standpoint it may make sense for some to participate.

If you have large appliances that are 10 or more years old and plan on staying in your house at least another five years, it's worth giving some thought to upgrading at least your refrigerator to a more efficient model and taking advantage of the $100 rebate from the state.

Here's an example: Imagine you bought a new refrigerator in 2000 and moved your even older 1985 model to the basement rec room. According to EPA averages, running both in our area will cost you about $245 annually for electricity. But if you bought a new Energy Star-rated model — $850 retail will get you a nice one — to replace the main unit, moved the 2000 fridge to the basement, and recycled the antique, you'd save about $137 per year on electricity.

After the $100 rebate that new fridge would pay for itself in energy savings in a little more than five years. If you were wiser you'd decide to recycle both of the old units, resolving to climb the stairs when you wanted a cold beer, and save about $200 annually running just the new fridge. In that case the payback period drops to less than four years.

Not a bad deal, especially if you're concerned about the environmental impact of all that wasted electricity — or you just want to get rid of that avocado or harvest gold monstrosity in the basement.

The cash-for-appliances program is unlikely to spur a rush on appliance stores like cash-for-clunkers did for cars. Because it's funded at just 10 percent the level of the auto program it clearly can't have the same economic impact either. But for many families that extra $100 or $200 in savings may be just enough to push the payback on a new appliance into the realm of consideration.

If so, it could provide a modest boost to local retailers and because only highly efficient models will qualify for the rebates, it will undoubtedly have some positive effect on household energy bills.

-Dr. DRL

My lastest newspaper column: what to put on that Christmas list

Here's my latest newspaper column- no hard-hitting commentary this time around, but some advice for folks shopping for kids this holiday season.

-Dr. DRL
--------------------------------

Times Writers Group: Put classics at top of wish list

St. Cloud (MN) Times

By Derek Larson • November 4, 2009

The holiday shopping season unofficially began last weekend as department stores demoted leftover Halloween merchandise to clearance racks and Christmas displays took center stage.

Though most department stores no longer publish the giant "wish book" toy catalogs that children poured over a generation ago, their advertisements in newspapers and television are busy telling kids what should be on the lists they send Santa: products linked to media campaigns, toys that work mostly on their own, and games that train them to be good consumers.

There's Dora for toddlers, Diego for preschoolers, pretend McDonald's food — and even cash registers — for grade school kids, and, of course, an endless supply of video-games-inspired-by-movies (or vice-versa) for older children.

So what's a parent to do? How can we chose gifts for our kids they will love to receive, that will provide lasting enjoyment, that counter the commercial hype of advertisements, and that might even offer some educational benefit in the long run?

Happily the answer is simple: look for the toys you, your parents and probably even your grandparents played with. Most of them didn't require batteries but did require imagination. Most weren't made of plastic, didn't come from China, and weren't even advertised much.

Instead they were made of wood and metal in American factories and were bought by generations of parents because they knew they worked. Kids loved these simple toys because playing with them was what play was intended to be: unscripted, imaginative and endlessly fun.

Parents need only think back to the things they cherished as children to be inspired. Board games really were better than today's meager fare, many of which are just repackaged movie scripts or are baldly intended to teach kids to shop.

Instead, why not revive the original Candyland, Sorry!, Chinese checkers, Monopoly, Scrabble, Life or Clue? None of them require batteries, none involve a simulated credit card, and most (with the possible exception of Candyland) are fun for adults as well.

Or how about the classic toys of the 1960s and 1970s that are still part of our popular culture, like Play-Doh, Mr. Potato Head, Battleship, Hot Wheel and Matchbox cars, Raggedy Ann dolls and even the Easy-Bake Oven?

They all require active play and imagination from children, as did virtually every product from Fisher-Price, Playskool, Mattel and Hasbro in the days before video games and fast-food marketing campaigns lowered our standards.

Anyone older than age 25 can easily make a shopping list of guaranteed hits. It would include basic items like blocks, doll houses and dress-up clothes for toddlers. Or musical toys, especially simple percussion instruments, for teaching rhythm and for group play. Trains, planes and automobiles or paints and craft materials for grade schoolers. Building sets, including Lego and Erector, for preteens. Age-appropriate board games (and adults to play them with) for all ages. And outdoor items from sports equipment to BB guns, bows & arrows, and even pocket knives for mature kids.

Remember when getting a kid version of a grown-up tool was a rite of passage and how good it made you feel? Despite our safety-obsessed culture, these "dangerous" toys still have a place too.

As you make your holiday shopping list skip the latest Bakugan movie/toy/video game tie-in and the Bratz movie/doll/video game empire. Why buy your kids things that only teach them to want more things, not-so-subtly training them to be better consumers?

Instead, remember what you played with as a kid. It's probably still on the market, if not in the holiday ads. If you're lucky, you can recapture a bit of the magic of your own childhood to share with the children in your life this year.

-Dr. DRL

Make. Them. Filibuster.

Seriously. If the knuckle-draggers want to threaten a filibuster on health care, MAKE THEM DO IT! How many hours/days/weeks/months will the public stand for the spectacle of the Party of No and their Blue Dog conservative Democrat allies blocking all work in the Senate? How long before their whole house of ideological cards crashes down around them?

Harry Reid needs to borrow some balls (try the House, there seem to be some extras over there) and take a stand on the public option. Get a bill on the floor and force a vote. Let's see how long the opposition lasts when it is exposed to the light of day, rather than making backroom deals.

No more threats. No more "compromise." The D's hold a position of strength and the public wants action.

Make. Them. Filibuster.

-Dr.DRL

Wingnuts fear flu shots may sterilize them

It's getting funnier by the day: now the right wingers are trying to drum up fear over the H1N1 vaccine, warning people that it may in fact be a government plot to sterilize them. One could only hope...

MN near top of state-by-state healthcare rankings-- guess who's at the bottom?

The Commonwealth Fund has produced a great interactive map ranking the states on healthcare access. Not surprisingly the states with more progressive government ranked highly (Vermont is #1, my state of Minnesota #4). The states represented by Republicans or Blue Dogs in Congress are at the bottom. Indeed, the map looks a lot like the 2008 electoral map...people in the deep south have poor healthcare AND bad government. Coincidence? I think not.

My monthly newspaper column: health care reform

Times Writers Group: Masses ignored in health debate

St. Cloud (MN) Times

October 7, 2009

Here is a simple fact: The United States spends more per capita on health care than any other nation, and we get sadly lackluster results.

Among Germany, France, Japan, Sweden, Australia, Canada and the U.K., we rank last in life expectancy and highest in infant mortality, despite spending 58 percent more on health care per capita than Germany and 220 percent more than Canada, according to a 2007 analysis by The Commonwealth Fund.

The comparatively poor state of American health care is widely known. But the state of our politics has made it almost impossible to have a rational debate about fixing it. As a result, many solutions that make sense to a dispassionate observer are not even open for discussion.

For example, no bill proposing a European-style, single payer, universal system has even made it out of committee, much less to a floor vote in Congress. The debate began by taking what many think is the obvious solution off the table, despite the fact that a single-payer system has substantial public support (49 percent in a Time magazine poll in July) and even rates highly among American physicians, 42 percent of whom approve of the idea, according to a report in the Journal of General Internal Medicine last winter.

The political process has been constrained by powerful minorities that either want to protect the status quo or impose their ideological requirements. This is evident in the controversy about a “public option” for uninsured.

This political reality was illustrated last week when House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner told Politico “I’m still trying to find the first American to talk to who’s in favor of the public option, other than a member of Congress or the administration.”

Because a Sept. 16 Quinnipiac poll found 57 percent of Ohio residents — the state Boehner represents — support a public option, this seemed a bit odd. The only logical conclusion is Boehner is so insulated within his right-wing bubble that he has literally never spoken to one of the about 6 million residents of his state who doesn’t share his predetermined conclusions.

Other political leaders have conveniently ignored the millions who favor a government plan, be they the 76 percent who felt offering a public option was “important” in an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll in June or the 50 percent who supported a “national health care plan for all” in a Kaiser Family Foundation survey in July.

Instead we have been subjected to misinformation and hyperbole calculated to turn people against decent reform.

The 1 percent of Americans who watch Glenn Beck’s television broadcasts have somehow come to represent us all.

Our own 6th District U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann’s antics exemplify the situation well. In speaking about to a conservative audience in Colorado in August, she proclaimed “What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass. We will do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn’t pass.” Last week she took to the House floor to warn that government “sex clinics” in the schools could be used to funnel teenagers to Planned Parenthood clinics for abortions without their parents’ knowledge.

As crazy as it sounds, her strategy is working. There is no debate about a single-payer national health care plan.

The voices of millions who favor a public option are being ignored and talk of reining in abuses by insurers has faded.

Hopefully the next time we have a shot at health care reform we will get to discuss a cure, rather than allowing a few ersatz tea parties, some insincere calls for bipartisanship, and a handful of talk-media divas to limit the debate to a choice between putting a bandage on an open wound or doing nothing at all.

An eloquent comment from a NY Times reader

This comment-- submitted at the NYT on a Tim Eagan story --really deserves to be published widely. It captures the essence of our current politics, which are really not that much different from those of the 20th century (just a bit louder).


23. September 17, 2009 3:43 am Link

1. Neither of my parents graduated from high school. My father went to work at 12 to support help support his mothers and sisters after his father died — he worked on a milk truck and sold chewing gum at the subway stations in East Harlem — and, during the depression, my teenage mother was for a short time the sole support of her parents and three younger siblings. All four of my grandparents had been immigrants, and all four died before age 60.

   In the nineteen fifties, my uncles became union members. My mother, an office worker, benefited from ILGWU contracts at the department store at which she was employed. All had good hourly wages, benefits and retirement pensions and, as a result, my sister, cousins and I grew up in decent surroundings and attended college, and our parents had comfortable, if not affluent retirements. I have graduate and professional degrees from an ivy league college. We all became middle class.

   Despite their lack of education, my parents and their siblings never engaged in the ignorant, delusional and hate-filled behavior that I have witnessed among right-wing working class protestors over the past few months. They were not civil rights activists — theirs was the wrong generation for that — but they were not racists, either. African-Americans worked side by side with them in the transit, sanitation, police, carpenters, longshoremen’s and other unions, and my family respected that work and those fellow Americans by whom it was performed. Nor were my parents, aunts and uncles deluded as to their best interests. They also knew, as my mother often told me, that “The Republicans were for the rich people; we’re poor, and we vote Democrat.” They knew those who were on their side, and those who were not.

   I have witnessed the economic decline of people like my parents with horror and dismay. Even more troubling has been the descent of such working Americans into an ignorance that my parents never knew — a decline abetted and encouraged by the Republican Party. There appear to be no progressive organizations in our era that can harness the anger and despair of the working class so as to help rather than harm these good people. Instead, we have crazy talk show hosts, corrupt politician, and the cynical corporate interests that finance them.

   Were it not for unions and other progressive movements, my parents’ generation would have never climbed out of the numbing poverty that killed my grandparents, and my own generation would not be enjoying those middle-class benefits that we now have. Who will rescue the working-class this time around? President Obama is trying, but the forces of reaction and greed bar his way, and there is no organizational structure — no working class movement — to help the poor save themselves.

   It is a heart-breaking, frustrating situation. Last Saturday, I watched working-class America march itself into perdition.

   — Mary Romeo

I said it today, The Onion said it better

So while I was composing my polite little op-ed about helicopter parents The Onion was producing a cute little TV satire on the same topic. Good stuff.

-Dr.DRL

My latest newspaper column, for your enjoyment

Parents, let students go, grow

St. Cloud (MN) Times

September 2, 2009

As new college students settle into residence halls and begin their first classes, many faculty and staff who work with them are wondering “how long before the first parent calls?”

For some academics the most striking change between this generation of students and the one before is not their ability to navigate the digital world, their growing diversity or their politics, but the extent to which their parents are involved in their daily lives.

Much has been written about “helicopter parents” in recent years. Few would argue that having parents involved in their adult offspring’s lives is a bad thing. But it can go too far. Everyone in higher education has heard stories about parents calling the dean to demand a new roommate at the first sign of conflict, calling the department chair to complain about an “unfair” exam when a grade is lower than expected, or even calling their student directly each morning as a sort of wake-up service.

At the extremes these parental behaviors prevent students from taking responsibility for their actions, slow their progress into adulthood, and waste time and resources better spent on education.

In a world where grocery carts come with sanitizing wipes, “tween” sleepovers are viewed as risky, and many children never go outside without a parent this level of engagement may not be surprising. But how far is too far?

One study found 31 percent of students had a parent call a professor to complain about a grade and 38 percent had parents attend meetings with their academic advisers. While students generally value their parents’ advice — 65 percent in this poll — fully 25 percent reported their parents’ behavior “was either annoying or embarrassing.”

Annoying parents are a universal reality among teens, but at least it used to stop by the time they left for college. No longer though. Even graduate schools are reporting unforeseen levels of parental “involvement” and are having to develop policies to manage them.

A parent’s responsibility to a child changes with time. Surely everyone recognizes that the close monitoring appropriate to a toddler is unnecessary for a tween and likely detrimental to a teenager. Children need the freedom to make choices, experience life, and learn from their own successes and failures.

College used to be the line of demarcation between childhood and adulthood, to one side of which parents rarely strayed, coming to campus for move-in, graduation and perhaps a concert or sporting event in between. But today’s parents are not only physically on campus much more, they are connected with their students by cell phone and e-mail at any whim. A Boston Globe report last spring noted one parent admitting to 144 phone calls with her daughter in a single month!

Rather than giving in to overinvolved parents, some colleges are trying to educate families on how best to negotiate the transition to adulthood. Orientation sessions for new students and their parents may specifically address the issue.

Parents are asked to let their students make their own choices and accept (and learn from) the consequences. Faculty and staff are encouraged to ask parents to send their students to meetings rather than call in their place. More information than ever is being provided to families, who can now keep track of their students’ grades, charge accounts, class schedule, and disciplinary records — sometimes even online.

The hope is to inform parents and to foster communication within families, so minor problems on campus don’t escalate to major ones in a flood of texts, voice messages and e-mails that culminate in a frantic call to the dean by a parent who may have only heard one side of the story.

The solution to this problem is not to silence or exclude parents. Instead, we as a society should encourage young adults to accept greater responsibility. College students should chose their own majors, pick their own classes, settle conflicts with their roommates, and question their professors directly.

If we collectively decide to extend childhood into the 20s, where do we stop? Will parents start attending job interviews with their college graduates? Negotiating prenups for their 30-somethings?

There is no doubt that having parents involved in their adult children’s lives is a good thing. But both parties need to make wise decisions about where and when to draw the line.

-Dr. DRL

Why Fox News lacks all credibility on, well, everything

And it's not even a political story this time. Does a bear scat in the woods? Thanks to WJW Fox 8 in Cleveland for confirming my belief that Fox and its affiliates are run by (and for) utter idiots.

-Dr.DRL

Ideological orientation: why we still have problems

In contrast to the party affiliation map posted below, this recent survey of ideological orientation shows why we can't seem to get anything done. Though the country has repudiated George W. Bush's brand of neo-con insanity it remains are heart very conservative.

This map also explains why people like me much prefer to live in the Pacific Northwest or New England-- and it ain't just the weather.

-Dr. DRL

Reality in a map: national party affiliation

Here's a recent map produced by Gallup from their polling data:




It's hard not to notice the very small bit of red there. The problem is, even the deep blue states are electing Democrats that aren't at all progressive, so the majorities in congress are meaningless. A 60 seat Senate majority isn't going to accomplish much at all if ten of them are conservatives who will vote with the minority on every important bill.

But still, one would hope this map reflects a long-term change that will lead to the marginalization of the neo-cons and their remaining few cultural conservative allies who actually hold power (vs. the blubberheads on TV and radio who exploit the rank-and-file dunderheads for profit).

-Dr.DRL

Healthcare post-mortem: how the bastards won

It doesn't get much clearer than this statement from Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR), one of the Blue Dog leadership and a pawn of the insurance industry:


"We ensured that if there is a government option, it will be just that -- an option -- and it won't be mandated on anybody. If it had been based on Medicare rates, I can assure you that it would have eventually ended up resulting in a single payer-type system, because Medicare has really good rates, because they're negotiating for every senior in America. Private insurance companies could not have competed with that."

So the problem with a single-payer system is that it would be cheaper, perhaps as cheap as Medicare, so that's off the table because private for-profit companies couldn't compete. Instead of controlling costs by negotiating prices and encouraging economies of scale, my personal funds AND my tax dollars will continue to line the pockets of insurance industry execs and their stockholders who bring literally nothing to health care except their parasitic drain on the system.

All because people like Mike Ross think it's more important to keep the parasites afloat than to make health care accessible and affordable to all Americans.

Bastards.

-Dr. DRL

Time to euthanize health care reform

It's time to pack it in folks. The Democrats have proven they don't have the political will to actually produce a reasonable bill this year, so I'd rather see health care reform defeated entirely. There's little value to passing a "reform" that fails in include a public option, fails to control prescription costs, and basically gives the store away to the insurance industry.

Blame Harry Reid for this; the Senate blew it from day one. If the Democrats had any balls (that goes for the few women in the Senate as well) they would have told the Republicans to screw themselves and simply passed a good bill for the president to sign. Instead, they have blown a once-in-a-generation chance at meaningful reform in favor of "bipartisanship" and pandering.

Obama hasn't helped. His willingness to cave on every important aspect of reform shows he was never really a progressive-- he's a Clinton centrist at heart --who wants a political victory more than a meaningful solution.

The really sad thing about this is that we had only one chance. The Democrats have pissed it away by pandering to the right, to the Blue Dogs, and to the Republicans because they are afraid of them. What we really need is another LBJ in the Senate, rather than candy-ass Harry Reid, and a president who is willing to expend some political capital to achieve what no others could do.

As people said last fall "elections have consequences." If nothing else, George Bush realized that and acted on it. But in this case, the major consequence for America is that we've lost what was probably the best chance we've ever had at joining the rest of the industrialized world in having a 20th century health care system (there was never any chance of having a 21st century system). It won't come again for a generation. Hopefully by then Reid will have been sent out to pasture and we'll have a president who really means what he says when he's talking to progressives.

-Dr.DRL

August column: Expanding the "Clunkers" Program

My latest newspaper column is now up at the St. Cloud Times website. Oddly enough, the editorial board chose to write on the same topic today (even more surprisingly our positions aren't really contradictory).

The full text of my column is below; the online archive at the paper is only free for seven days but thanks to the generous support of an anonymous donor this blog is always free.

-Dr. DRL

PS: I'm kidding about the donor, natch.
-------------------------------------------

August 5, 2009

Times Writers Group: Raise standards, renew clunkers

By Derek Larson

The “cash for clunkers” program was intended to jump-start the sagging auto industry and provide consumers with an incentive to purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles.

A victim of its own success, the program’s $1 billion was exhausted in about a week. Congress is debating whether to fund an extension, which it should, but with changes to make it more effective and fair.

As consumers rushed last week to take advantage of the deal, auto dealers struggled with a massive backlog in the federal system for reimbursement.

Though no complete results have been published, The Associated Press reported the Obama administration claiming that of the first 80,000 transactions, the average efficiency of the clunker was 15.8 mpg and the new vehicle 25.4 mpg. So on its face the program clearly succeeded in stimulating sales and boosting average fuel efficiency of the replacement vehicles.

But before Congress appropriates additional funding, the law should be tweaked to favor more efficient vehicles and to open it up to more consumers. Under the program a car or truck must have an EPA efficiency rating of 18 mpg or less to qualify, and the replacement vehicle must exceed that rating by a minimum of 2 mpg for light trucks or 4 mpg for cars.

That threshold is ridiculously low. A person could trade a 1994 Suburban in on a 2010 Hummer H3 and receive a $3,500 subsidy for achieving a 2 mpg increase — all the way to 14 mpg! A more sensible approach would be to base the incentive on the percentage increase in fuel efficiency achieved, with a minimum increase of 30 percent to qualify for $2,000 and the subsidy increasing proportionally to 70 percent, above which all trades would qualify for $4,500.

This would prevent the public funding more gas hogs while still allowing those who needed trucks or SUVs to use the program. Those who chose more efficient upgrade paths, however, would be rewarded with proportionally larger subsidies.

The second change should be to eliminate the 18 mpg cap for clunkers. If a consumer wants to trade a car that gets 22 mpg for one that gets 28.6 mpg (receiving $2,000 for meeting the 30 percent minimum) the goals of the program would still be met. To receive the maximum benefit ($4,500 paid at 70 percent or more) the replacement car would have to reach 37.4 mpg.

Third, the program should be opened to late-model used cars under similar terms. While such sales would not address the problem of stalled domestic production, they would still have a positive ripple effect in the local economy. Moreover, they would open the program to participation from those who simply cannot afford the payments on a new car, the cheapest of which are still running about $8,000 after the clunker deal. Moving less affluent families into safer, more efficient cars is also a worthy goal, even if those cars are used.

Once these changes are made Congress should consider appropriating several billion dollars to fund the clunkers program through the end of the year. It’s obviously working. Demand for new cars — and the desire for a deal — is strong. We can track and easily identify the impacts of the program, which will yield not only economic benefits but an automobile fleet that is more efficient and safer than the one it replaces.

The program empowers consumers, is market-based and benefits business — solid conservative principles. But it’s also transparent, good for the environment and, with the changes noted above, could be accessible for the working class — things liberals demand.

Of all the billions spent on bailouts and stimulus schemes since last fall, the clunkers program is the one that has actually worked as designed, quickly, and had a direct impact on Main Street. Keep it going and the echoes might make it to Wall Street as well.

This is the opinion of Derek Larson, who teaches history and environmental studies at The College of St. Benedict/St. John’s University. He welcomes comments at dereklarson@charter.net. His column is published the first Wednesday of the month.

My June newspaper column: ending the same-sex marriage debate

My apologies for the stupid headline; the copy editors didn't like the one I submitted so cooked up something so vague it doesn't even convey the topic of the article, much less my position. it's generated 111 comments so far though, so I guess some people read it. If you're interested in the online discussion it can be found on the Times web page for seven days after publication before it goes away.

-Derek
---------------------------------------------------------

There's a solution to this problem
St. Cloud (MN) Times
June 3, 2009

When the Iowa Supreme Court upheld a lower-court ruling throwing out that state’s ban on same-sex marriage in April folks from Maine to Oregon suddenly took notice of our sister state.

The California state Supreme Court’s decision not to overturn a similar ban last week only served to fan the flames over this divisive issue. Nearly fifty bills or constitutional amendments involving same-sex marriage are being debated around the country this year.

But, the solution to the entire problem is actually fairly simple: get government out of the marriage business and bar churches from any role in determining people’s status outside their faith communities.

There is no compelling reason for government to be involved with the institution of marriage. It should not be regulated, taxed, recorded, or in any other way intertwined with any public agency. Faith communities must be allowed to define marriage in keeping with their own traditions and the needs of their congregants. If a particular church proclaims it will only sanctify marriages between a woman and a man, so be it. Whatever standards are set by a particular group of believers will apply only to them and have no bearing on anyone who is not a member of their church. Thus faith and marriage remain personal choices, “the sanctity of marriage” can be protected by and for those who feel it is somehow threatened, and the rights of one group to define marriage as they see fit will not impede the rights of others who view the institution differently.

Rather than playing a role in marriage, local, state, and federal governments should simply be in the business of recording domestic partnerships. Registered domestic partners would hold a common tax status, own property jointly, enjoy shared custody of their children, be covered under one another’s health insurance policies, have hospital visitation rights, be liable under alimony laws if the partnership is dissolved, and generally be treated as legally married couples are today. Everyone in a registered partnership would be treated equally under the law and domestic partnership would apply to everyone; currently married couples would have to register their partnerships just as the newly “partnered” would in the future. There would be no restrictions on who could enter into a domestic partnership other than basic standards for a minimum age and a reasonable degree of familial separation. The gender, race, religion, and even state of residence of the partners would be Social change is hard to predict and harder to legislate.

By separating marriage — a religious issue — from domestic partnership — a civil issue — we would short-circuit much of the heated rhetoric in the debates over same-sex marriage. Most importantly though, we would ensure equal treatment to all our citizens because the outcomes of the religious debates would no longer dictate whose relationships held legal status, whose rights ended at the hospital door, which couples were able to adopt, or who in the household was eligible for medical coverage. Religious marriage would continue to be an option for those who wanted it and whose faith communities offered it, but everyone who wanted to join their lives together could engage in a domestic partnership.

Laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are likely to fall in the coming years regardless of what we do today, quite possibly in one fell swoop at the hand of the U.S. Supreme Court. Citing the equal protection clause in striking down existing bans on interracial marriage in 1967, the court noted that “Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.” It is not much of a leap to see the same logic applied to gender. The question is really how long it will take. Rather than draw the issue out over many years, creating a confusing and uneven patchwork of discriminatory state laws, wouldn’t it be wiser to simply settle it now in a way that reflects our country’s highest traditions of freedom of choice, individual responsibility, and equality for all?

And after all, as any Californian can tell you, once something’s been decided in Iowa it’s probably well past time we moved on to the next big concern anyway.

###

Dr.DRL

Right wing markdown in progress

This was on DailyKos today and I couldn't resist posting it here. From a Target store somewhere in the midwest...

Monthly newspaper column: Why worry about the flu?

Times Writers Group: Why worry about flu? See 1918

By Derek Larson • May 6, 2009

St. Cloud (MN) Times

How worried should we be about "novel H1N1 influenza" or swine flu?

The World Health Organization has issued a "phase five pandemic alert," indicating a pandemic is imminent. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended schools with proven cases be closed for two weeks and shipped stockpiled antiviral medications to every state. On the fringes of the Internet, survivalists are chatting excitedly about which guns are best for home defense if civil order collapses during a pandemic.

So what's all the fuss? It's clearly not about the numbers because swine flu has so far been confirmed in less than 1,100 people worldwide and only 26 deaths have been documented. Compared to typical seasonal influenza, which kills about 36,000 in the United States alone each year, the swine flu is a joke. Globally, malaria kills in excess of 1 million people annually and rotavirus another 400,000. Most of these victims are children, and both diseases are preventable.

So why the panic over a rare outbreak of swine flu? History.

In the spring of 1918, cases of an especially virulent influenza appeared among soldiers in Europe and the United States, though not enough to spark great concern. Indeed, in April of 1918, The New York Times reported that despite some cases of the flu "the health of the Army in the United States continues good." Two months later, amid reports of widespread infection among the German troops, the paper patriotically reported "no influenza in our Army."

But in August, passengers on a Norwegian liner arriving in New York had taken ill, leading to discussions about quarantine. By September, officials were warning people to be on the lookout for symptoms and urging them to practice the now familiar steps of avoiding crowds, covering coughs and frequently washing hands. (They also recommended loose-fitting clothes and chewing your food well.)

The state of medicine in 1918 was primitive by today's standards, as was the ability of the media to raise public awareness and that of the common citizen to understand the threat of an emerging pandemic. That fall the first confirmed case of flu in Minnesota was announced Sept. 25. Within a week there were more than 1,000 cases in Minneapolis alone. On Oct. 10, public meetings were banned, and the following day schools, churches and theaters were ordered closed. By Oct. 17 nearly 3,000 people had died in Minneapolis, part of a pandemic that sickened some 75,000 Minnesotans and killed almost 12,000.

As frightening as the Minnesota numbers might be, the death toll here was much lower than in many other states. While accurate figures are hard to come by — cause of death was often listed as pneumonia, rather than influenza — conservative estimates suggest about 675,000 Americans died in the 1918 pandemic. Worldwide, the total was 50 million to 100 million dead.

It is the 1918 pandemic that scares public health officials today. While later outbreaks took far fewer lives in the United States (70,000 in 1957 and 33,000 in 1968), scientists have warned for decades that a natural mutation could once again produce a virus as deadly as the 1918 strain. With modern travel, it would be nearly impossible to prevent its rapid spread. Models of a 21st century pandemic predict in excess of 100 million dead worldwide, with 1.9 million dead in the United States and 32,000 in Minnesota. In sum, about 50 years' worth of typical seasonal flu deaths could come in the space of 18 months.

Before we dismiss the concerns of the doctors, researchers and public health professionals charged with warning us about possible disease outbreaks, we should understand the magnitude of the threat. The difference between 1918 and today, of course, is that now we have modern medicine and communications on our side. Antiviral medications have been stockpiled, and the odds of developing a vaccine before the virus becomes widespread are promising. And there's always the chance that this strain won't turn out to be as bad as the 1918 version.

But until we're sure, taking reasonable precautions to prevent the spread of influenza seems like a minor inconvenience.

-Dr. DRL

Earth Week Goes Mainstream

Did you notice Earth Week this year? Back in 1990 lots of people turned out for the 20th anniversary of Earth Day to volunteer on cleanups but there was little commercial impact and almost nothing done in the days before or after April 22nd. By 2000 some college campuses (including ours) had built a week of activities around Earth Day in an attempt to expand the engagement over a longer period and make it about more than just picking up trash.

This year the green really hit the fan. Sure, the same old groups were out picking up trash and the predictable speakers were talking about environmental issues on campuses across the country. But in this post-Bush world "green" is no longer something to sneer at and as a result Earth Week went mainstream. While a Google search turns up mostly campus events the most telling sign of change to me came from our local newspaper-- or rather, the ad inserts in our local paper. Companies from Target to Home Depot to Macy's were running Earth Week promotions and many of the ads actually had green color schemes in place us the usual corporate red/orange/blue.

This isn't to say that Target's display of cheap Chinese gardening tools makes them green. But it is a sign that green has gone mainstream. It may be a fad, it may be a sign of the state of the economy, or it may be a shallow attempt to market to people's general fears that things aren't going well environmentally.

But wouldn't it be cool if it was really a signal that change has come, conspicuous consumption is falling out of favor, and that consumers may actually be choosing stores and products based on factors besides price? Here's hoping that ten years down the road we can look back and say 2009 marked the beginning of a trend that really did lead to some positive changes for the planet and the entire community of life on Earth.

-Dr. DRL

Court slams door shut on Norm Coleman's fingers

In case you out-of-state readers missed it, the ruling on Norm Coleman's election challenge came down today and his claims were dismissed with prejudice. He's done, even if he tried to push this to the MN Supremes for a final appeal. Gov. Pawlenty should issue a certificate of election tomorrow but it sounds like he's going to wait for the court to refuse to hear Norm's case first.

A great rundown of the decision has been posted on DailyKos, with lots of juicy legal detail at Campaign Silo.

Franken is no Paul Wellstone but he's a damn sight closer than Coleman and could grow into the role. Hopefully he'll be seated soon so we Minnesotans will actually have two senators again.

-Dr. DRL

Conservative "tea party" protest another astroturf project

This may come as no surprise, but a bit of digging by progressive bloggers has turned up the dope on the "tea party" protests conservatives planned for April 15th. Lauded by conservative blowhards like Glen Beck as a grassroots response to Obama's economic plan, they are in fact a carefully orchestrated effort by conservative foundations to spread anti-tax propaganda. Just like virtually every other conservative "grassroots" project in recent decades, the teabaggers' party is also turning out to be just another example of astroturf, fake grass that costs a lot more than the real thing and isn't nearly as good.

Details at Think Progress and Firedog Lake. For an up-to-the-minute summary of all the teabagging you can handle, check out Save The Rich for more.

The best part? The tea parties are backed by Freedomworks.org which is run by our old friend, former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey. That's some real grassroots man!

-Dr. DRL

April newspaper column: paying taxes is patriotic?

Here's my April newspaper column. Since it ran on April 1 the local right wingers pretended it was a joke-- but I'm serious. Before condemning taxes in general we really should recognize the benefits they bring. Minnesota is fortunate to have had good leaders in the past but we've been coasting on their investments for a decade now.

-Dr. DRL
----------------------------------------------------------

Times Writers Group: 'Taxes are bad' is disingenuous

By Derek Larson • April 1, 2009

St. Cloud (MN) Times


Tax Day is just two weeks away. While most of us paid our taxes for 2008 long ago, anti-tax complaints are rising in the media and likely around kitchen tables as well. A bit of historical perspective, though, shows that Americans haven't always felt so bitter about paying their taxes. In fact, at times it seemed like the patriotic thing to do — even when the top rate climbed above 90 percent.

During World War II, cartoon celebrity Donald Duck appeared in short features calling on all Americans to pay "taxes to beat the Axis."

"Taxes," the narrator proclaimed, "will keep democracy on the march!" Not a very subtle piece of propaganda but likely an effective one during that time of global crisis.

Today we face another global crisis — an economic one this time — and our country is engaged in not one but two wars. But instead of silly cartoon ducks reminding us to pay our income tax on time, we face a regular media barrage from conservatives claiming taxation is destroying the economy and that government is really something we'd be better off without.

Of course, some of them also have directly stated the goal of destroying government by starving it of operating funds, so that sentiment is no surprise. What is surprising, however, is that so few people speak out in support of the opposite view — that taxes are the price we pay for everything from abstract goods like "freedom" to literally concrete things like highways. Not paying your fair share, as Donald Duck knew, is fundamentally unpatriotic.

Minnesotans know that folks elsewhere envy us. Our state and many of our cities rank highly in "most livable" surveys every year. Thousands of newcomers move here annually, despite the sometimes challenging climate. Corporations invest here. Students come here for college.

We are national leaders in many things and rank near the bottom in very few. Minnesota enjoys frequent top five rankings among "best states to live in." Top 10 rankings for most statistics that matter to children, including quality of education, children who are read to daily, and bottom 10 rankings for children living in poverty. The highest voting rates in the country. A No. 1 ranking for adults with high school diplomas. The list is almost endless.

But all this comes at a price. Our state tax burden falls somewhere between No. 10 and No. 17, depending on how it is calculated and which year's figures you use. While the anti-tax zealots are quick to point out our relatively high tax burden, they always ignore the benefits those taxes bring: quality of life unmatched in other states and a society that does better than most at making sure those toward the bottom have what they need to get by.

There is an alternative of course: We could slash taxes and government programs, as many conservatives suggest. But the economic renaissance and subsequent golden age they predict is at best a fantasy and at worst an intentional deception.

The Census Bureau's list of the 10 states with the lowest per capita tax rates includes Oregon, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee, Missouri, Colorado, New Hampshire, Texas and South Dakota. Of these only South Dakota and Colorado even break into the top 25 places to live, much less the top 10. Many on the low-tax list are used as object lessons about how not to run a state or as places you'd never want your job transferred, essentially the opposite status that Minnesota enjoys.

As our leaders face tough budget decisions in St. Paul and Washington, they would all do well to remember Donald Duck's lesson. Thankfully we're no longer fighting a war against global fascism, but we are fighting real wars on multiple fronts, at home and abroad.

Taxes are the primary source of revenue for the public goods and services that make Minnesota and the country as a whole places people want to live. Citizens will always have complaints about government priorities but claiming taxes are the root of all evil is the sort of inflammatory rhetoric that Minnesotans can live without.

-----------------

This column will be available on the St. Cloud Times web site until it moved to the pay archive on April 8th.

AIG, Madoff, and populist resentment of the moneyed class

As public outrage grows over the multi-million dollar bonuses paid to AIG employees in the wake of the multi-billion dollar bailout, it's useful to recognize this fact: the very rich live in a different world from the rest of us. While giving someone a seven-million-dollar bonus for destroying a company seems insane to most, it's business as usual on Wall Street. "This is how we do things" says AIG, and it's important to note that AIG does not exist in a vacuum. It's entirely common for people in the financial industry to "earn" annual bonuses that exceed the expected lifetime earnings of a working-class family.

But is it right?

NPR just reported this morning that Bernie Madoff's wife will be forced to surrender $2.5 million worth of jewelry given to her by her husband. These baubles are worth the equivalent of 40 years income for the typical American family of four. Is there any rational reason for anyone to have that kind of disposable weath?

In the late 19th century populists turned against the excesses of "robber barons," ultimately giving rise to a political movement that led to massive regulation of business, new social programs, and perhaps most importantly of all, the federal income tax. The examples of AIG and Madoff, though obviously extremes, demonstrate a reality that most Americans simply ignore: the very rich exist in a world of their own, where the rules that apply to the rest of us are scoffed at daily, and rewards come from being part of the club, not for doing good or even for doing well.

It's time for another populist revolt. At the very least the top income tax bracket should be moved back to 75% (it was over 90% for much of the 20th century). There is no defensible reason for anyone to receive more income in a year than an average family of four can expect over a working lifetime. If that makes me a socialist, so be it. Let them keep, say, ten times the median annual income (that would be $500,000) then raise the marginal tax rate to 90% beyond that.

We've been trying 1920s-style trickle down economics since 1981 and it has failed utterly. It's time to try something else. The tax system of the 1930s/1940s couldn't possibly be worse than what we have now, and it would certainly be more fair. "Soak the rich" they called it in 1935. I prefer to call it "screw the irresponsible, unworthy, and immoral" because anyone who's not would most likely be quite happy with $500K per year plus 10% of everything after that-- just like they got in the 1940s.

-Dr. DRL

My latest newspaper column: class warfare?

This is my March column from the St. Cloud (MN) Times.

---------------------------

Times Writers Group: Class warfare? Know who wins

March 4, 2009

On Thursday the Fox News Forum responded to President Obama's address to Congress with a column titled "Will Taxes Become Obama's Weapon of Class Destruction?"In his rambling address to the Conservative Political Action Conference on Saturday, Rush Limbaugh accused Obama of "fueling the emotions of class envy." On Sunday Bob Erlich, the former Republican governor of Maryland, told Chris Matthews on Hardball that Obama's budget was "all about class warfare."

If buzzwords were stocks "class warfare" would be the hottest investment in the market now, which is strange for a country that treats class like a taboo subject.

A majority of Americans self-identify as "middle class" and the social barriers that once prevented those who worked for a living from rubbing elbows with inherited wealth have substantially disappeared. The patterns of speech, habits of dress, in some cases even the neighborhoods that once divided people according to their wealth have been suppressed, co-opted, or driven behind closed doors as everyone in America aspires to appear middle class.

But the truth is we're not all middle class.

For the sake of argument let's imagine there are five classes in the United States, each with equal populations. For convenience we'll call them the working poor, working class, middle class, upper middle class, and wealthy.

From the end of World War II until 1980, the real incomes of all five groups increased dramatically, more than doubling for all but the wealthy, who realized a 94 percent increase.

But between 1980-2000 things were starkly different. Incomes for the bottom 40 percent — the working poor and working class -increased by only single digits. The middle class saw an 11 percent increase and the upper middle class a 19 percent increase. But the wealthy enjoyed a 42 percent increase during the same period.

Good for them, some will say. But was it good for anyone else?

According to the U.S. Census Bureau the median household income today is just a hair more than $50,000. Half of all families earn less, half earn more. Conveniently, the per capita GDP for the United States is also close to $50,000, so if the GDP were divided equally among all Americans a family of four would earn about $200,000 annually. But in reality almost half of all income goes to the top 20 percent, the "wealthy" class. The wealthiest among them — the top 5 percent overall — actually receive about 22 percent of all income each year.

The Associated Press reports the Obama tax plan that conservatives are decrying would result in a median family — four people living on an income of $50,000 — owing no federal income tax at all. Tax cuts would continue for families earning up to $150,000.

This sounds like a policy that favors the interest of at least the 80 percent of Americans who fall below our arbitrary definition of wealthy. The tax increase being touted as "class warfare" by some is actually just a proposal to let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire, restoring a top rate of 39.6 percent for couples earning more than $250,000 per year.

In past times of crisis the wealthy were asked to contribute more because they had to means to do so. The top tax rate World War I was 77 percent. In 1933, at the start of the New Deal, it was 63 percent. At the end of World War II it was 94 percent and remained above 80 percent until 1963. In 1982 it dropped to 50 percent and since 2003 has been just 35 percent.

According to many economists and most pundits, we are in an economic crisis rivaled only by the Great Depression. If that's the case, how can asking the wealthy to contribute on the same level they did during the booming 1990s be a case of class warfare?

The next time Rush, someone on Fox or any politician complains about class warfare ask yourself this: Whose interests are they really representing?

The answer will help you sort the wheat from the chaff and to realize that what's best for the top 5 percent maybe isn't always best for those of us in the 95 percent below them.

-Dr.DRL

Yucca Mountain is Dead. Long Live Yucca Mountain!

Bloomberg reports that the Obama administration plans to pound the budgetary stake through Yucca Mountain's not-quite-yet radioactive heart. Assuming no resurrection, this brings the $9 billion project to an end, leaving the country with no nuclear waste respository. That's probably less of a worry that the idea of trucking waste across the country and sticking it in tunnels under an earthquake prone mountain an hour from Las Vegas.

-Dr. DRL

Happy 150th Oregon!

Today-- February 14th --is Oregon's 150th birthday. In my desk at work I have a commemorative coin minted for the centennial in 1959, back when Mark Hatfield was a young governor. I wish I could be in Oregon today to celebrate but will pass on my good wishes to all Oregonians virtually.

Happy Birthday Oregon!

Here's a gift for everyone: a link to an audio podcast of the entire 1959 Stan Freberg musical production Oregon! Oregon! Listen and enjoy!

February newspaper column: fixing the stimulus bill

Here's my monthly newspaper column, this one a followup to October's (available in the archive at right) condemning the bailout bill.

Learn from last stimulus error

Sr. Cloud (MN) Times

By Derek Larson • February 4, 2009

Congress is debating an $800 billion stimulus bill that's bogged down in partisan and ideological infighting about a few million dollars targeted for things like contraception and anti-smoking programs while ignoring the opportunity to actually deliver on the "change" promised in the 2008 election.

What's really needed to fix the economy is not more tax cuts or slapdash spending, but smart investment in the future that moves past the business-as-usual orientation of Congress.

If we're going to spend close to a trillion dollars again we should get something substantial for the money. Universal health care, 21st century infrastructure and a stronger education system should top the list.

Federal spending on these three priorities will have a direct impact on Main Street that will last decades, rather than the short-term benefits of direct refunds to individuals or tax cuts for businesses that will disappear just as quickly as rebate checks did last spring, with nary a ripple. Actual investment in the public good makes much more sense than short-lived solutions for the private few.

Everyone knows our health care system is broken. Millions lack insurance and cannot afford even basic health care. The system of employer-funded health care is an accident of history that is crippling our economy and hurting our citizens.

Surely several hundred billion dollars could help shift us away from this anachronism and toward a 21st century system that provides health care for all Americans. Think of it as an investment in our future health, as well as a major boon to businesses as the cost of employer-provided insurance declines over time.

Similarly, in a country where a bridge falls into a river and some counties are contemplating reverting from asphalt to gravel roads to save on maintenance costs, we could stand to invest in our infrastructure.

Several hundred billion would go a long way toward rebuilding highways, dams and bridges. It would also have a massive impact on local economies, as construction contracts employed local workers, used locally produced materials, and pumped payroll dollars into local economies. And once again, business would benefit from reduced transportation costs as the modern system was completed.

Smart investment in education offers short- and long-term benefits as well. Like our roads, the nation's schools are crumbling. Replacing outdated schools and updating serviceable ones with energy-efficient mechanical systems and modern instructional equipment offers the same short-term employment boost as road projects, but carries the added bonus of future savings for school districts and improved learning outcomes for students.

Packaged with funds for improving access to higher education, educational funding on this scale could have the same long-term impact at the GI Bill of the 1950s, producing a generation of workers ready for 21st century jobs.

In October, I wrote a column marking the "collapse" of the Bush administration's $700 billion bailout of the financial industry, which then appeared to be going down in flames due to massive public opposition. I criticized the plan because it rewarded risky behavior by socializing the resulting losses and included almost nothing to address the foreclosure crisis itself.

When Congress regrouped and passed a slightly revised bill a few days later many warned it did too little to prop up the economy and too much to prop up private investors. Ultimately, $700 billion was added to the national debt and it didn't appear to fix much of anything.

No wonder the American people shouted "NO!" They know it wasn't fair and they knew it wouldn't work.

Now the time has come to shout "YES!" to a plan for economic recovery, but the problem is we're stuck with the status quo in Washington. We probably won't get the stimulus bill we need out of this Congress because too many members remain stuck in the ideologically rigid, partisan past.

And until voters send those members packing, we'll likely get the bill we deserve.

Single-payer may see the light of day

Now that the Obama Administration is a reality there's hope for progress on many fronts, including health care. While Obama has made statements placating the insurance lobby nothing has yet been determined that closes the door on a single-payer solution to our healthcare crisis. Indeed, spending some of the economic recovery funds to expand health care makes sense in many ways-- just as long as it's not simply in the shape of handing public funds to private for-profit industry.

CQ offers this update on the prospects for single-payer in the new congress.

-Dr.DRL

Change you can see already...

Take a look at the White House web page. Notice anything different?

[I don't mean the photo-- I mean the fact that it suddenly has content, is interactive, and isn't full of neocon propaganda.]

That's change you can believe in.

-Dr.DRL

Time to change those bumperstickers!

Don't forget-- today is the day to scrape off all those bumperstickers you put on your car over the past eight years.

"A Village Somewhere is Missing Its Idiot"
"What WMDs?"
"F*** the President"

Get the razor blades going!

Watching movies with George W. Bush...

Vanity Fair ran a column recently that I quite enjoyed. It's from a college friend of Barbara's who got invited to the White House frequently in 2001-2002, then ended up regretting saying "yes." Worth a read.

January newspaper column: DC is born again

We spent a week in DC around New Years, the first long period I've spent in the District since living there in 1988 (but one of many trips back since then). The place feels different-- there's an air of excitement, anticipation, and relief evident pretty much everywhere you go.

D.C. has new air of excitement

St. Cloud (MN) Times

By Derek Larson • January 7, 2009

As my return flight from Washington, D.C., approached the Twin Cities late Sunday night, I thought about how dramatically the nation's capital has changed since I first visited 30 years ago.

Then the Metro subway system and I.M. Pei's striking East Wing of the National Gallery of Art were new and exciting. Away from the Capitol mall vacant lots still stood as reminders of the April 1968 riots that destroyed much of inner-city Washington, but downtown looked fresh and vibrant. The mood seemed light even though the times were tough, the nation mired deep in a cycle of inflation and skyrocketing energy prices. Though Watergate was fresh in people's memories, tourists still flocked to see the icons of American government, to visit the Capitol and tour the White House.

When I moved to Washington 10 years later, the bloom had fallen off the rose. During the Reagan years, poverty, homelessness, crack cocaine and AIDS had torn into the fabric of the rebuilding city. Homeless people clustered on steam grates outside federal buildings and drug deals were commonplace. The local news ran a regular segment called "DC: Streets of Shame" that featured my neighborhood, warning people to avoid it at night. Aggressive panhandlers and mentally ill homeless people made walking downtown interesting even in the daytime.

I left Washington a few weeks before the 1989 inauguration of George H.W. Bush but have returned many times since. The most striking changes I noticed came in the wake of 9/11.

Streets were closed, security multiplied, and the federal core took on the feeling of a place under siege. Security bollards — those steel and concrete posts that protect building entrances — were planted everywhere, traffic was rerouted and metal detectors became common.

Snipers could occasionally be seen atop the White House. The city that had once been among the most open capitals took on a grim air of crisis, forever on orange alert.

Last week's trip felt different though. Many new attractions have opened in recent years, including the National World War II Memorial, the National Museum of the American Indian, the privately owned Newseum, and the $620 million U.S. Capitol Visitors Center, which was dedicated just last month.

But what had really changed since I'd visited last January was the mood of the people we met. Everyone seemed happy — cheerful even — and not just the tourists. Police officers, museum employees, hotel desk clerks and even people riding the Metro late at night were chatty, smiling and overtly friendly. The city feels like something exciting is about to happen.

Everywhere we went people were preparing for the anticipated record crowds coming to witness the historic swearing-in of the next president. Fences and scaffolding ring the Capitol. Giant posts for speakers and jumbo TV screens dot the mall. Reviewing stands have been constructed on Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House.

Barack Obama souvenirs are being hawked not only by street vendors, but in the Smithsonian gift shops alongside copies of the inaugural addresses of Lincoln and FDR. Even the Metro system got in on the game; the fare cards we purchased Sunday afternoon were marked by an image of the president-elect.

Change is coming to Washington and the excitement is palpable. Whatever the result, early 2009 will likely be a good time to visit the nation's capital, if only because everyone will be smiling for a while longer. Here's hoping we all have reason to smile long after the bunting is taken down, the streets swept clean and the city returned to its more languid self.