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