Refined Nonsense

We've had two really interesting stories in Arizona this past week--the proposal to put an oil refinery in the middle of the desert south of Phoenix, and Rep. J.D. Hayworth's bariatric surgery. Ol' J.D. holds a press conference, discusses exactly how the surgeons rearranged his innards, and how many of the ol' avoirdupois the big guy is now walking around without--you know, the whole nine-yards-and-show-the-surgical-scars deal. Some reporter then has the temerity to ask if the Congressman's federal health insurance paid for the surgery, and J.D. goes all, "Well, there has to be a zone of privacy for public figures blah blah blah." Oh, I see; actual surgery, now that's public. Health care finance and money--ye gods, that's personal.

Anyway, back to the refinery. Not only is this the same location in Mobile, AZ that was supposed to be the site of the late and unlamented ENSCO incinerator (isn't some level of government still paying off bonds related to that failed project?), but given that there really isn't very much out there, it's pretty remarkable that the refinery proponents managed to come up with a site next to an elementary school. Not an easy thing to do, but they did it.

And I couldn't figure out an entire column about the downsized Hayworth, but still managed to sneak in a reference into a column about the refinery. Not an easy thing to do, either.


REFINERY IDEA TOTALLY RIDICULOUS
East Valley Tribune, Sep. 7, 2003

Hey, that whole Iraq business has worked so well, perhaps we should listen to the same folks who now want to build an oil refinery here in Arizona. We’ll topple a statue, cut a ribbon, and I’m sure it’ll all go just fine.

Am I missing something here? How does putting a refinery in the desert south of Phoenix help us avoid depending on pipelines, when there’s no oil in Arizona and any refinery would have to ship oil here -- by pipeline? Does it really matter whether the pipe carries crude oil, aviation fuel, or gasoline if there’s only so much existing (and increasingly aging) pipeline capacity?

Never mind the environmental arguments, which are pretty compelling. Refineries use lots of water, of which there isn’t much in Mobile, and expel tons of air pollutants, the same hydrocarbon emissions that we need to reduce, not expand, if we don’t want tourists to call winter in the Valley of the Sun the “brown cloud season.”

Focus instead on the economic facts. Maybe there’s a reason no private business has built an entirely new refinery in this country for 30 years, even in places with easy access to crude oil, water, skilled labor, and refined product shipment pipelines -- none of which Arizona has. (Don’t forget about better access to capital, too.)

And the refinery would be the easy part. The real fun would come in building the new pipeline to carry crude oil to the new refinery -- from where, exactly? Our “seaport,” San Luis? From Mexico somehow? That’s the real, pardon the expression, pipe dream, that somehow we’d be able to run a new pipeline hundreds of miles through national parks, Indian reservations, and the Barry Goldwater bombing range (“And Red Leader, try not to hit the oil pipeline this time, OK?”)

There’s a reason the private sector isn’t jumping at the chance to start turning dirt on this project. It’s because it’s a colossally stupid idea. If some bozo with billions wants to try, go ahead, but let him do it on his own money and let’s keep our tax dollars out of it. No government subsidies, OK? It’s a refinery, not a Scottsdale Wal-Mart -- or Rep. J.D. Hayworth’s stomach-stapling surgery.

The usual response by proponents to these kinds of overwhelming technical problems is to say, “Well, they said we couldn’t put a man on the moon.” (Never mind that there really aren’t that many people still alive who possibly could have said it was impossible to put a man on the moon.) But no astronauts are lining up to invest their own money into this scheme. What if the refinery works exactly as well as the moon landings -- for a grand total of three years, and then that’s it?

Sure, it would be nice to have a spanking new, pollution-sensitive, absolutely fabulous oil refinery in the state. Heck, it would be nice to build a working cold-fusion reactor, too. But don’t bet on either happening.

The truly bizarre part is that the people pushing the refinery are largely the same crew who also are pushing electricity deregulation, which is based on creating huge regional markets for power, generated far away and then transmitted long distances to actual consumers. The idea that our electricity increasingly comes from longer distances through aging and inefficient transmission systems is perfectly acceptable. But suddenly this exact same model makes no sense for gasoline, which unlike electricity can be stored for days or weeks until needed.

At the Olympics, is there a gold medal in dumb? We’ve got a contender, folks.

In Space, No One Can Hear Your Ideology

I had a short deadline on this week's column due to the Labor Day holiday; had to get my opinions in early so the staff could get out of town for the holiday weekend. I was running behind and couldn't figure out what to write about when in Thursday morning's Tribune, the editorial page opined in favor of a renewed space shuttle program. Inspiration!

Here's an interesting note for grammarians: The editorial originally ran in the paper with the headline, "To boldly return." I made the "boldly split infinitives" crack in my column, and now the archived version on the Tribune website has a different headline, "Reviving NASA." Proofreaders rule!

Did you hear that Clint Eastwood decided to take a theology course on the New Testament, because a man's gotta understand his Lamentations?


CONSERVATIVES DON'T MIND WASTE IN SPACE
East Valley Tribune, Aug. 31, 2003

Consider a government program which, despite important successes, has suffered even-more-dramatic failures. Worse, the failures weren’t random, but rather grew from fundamental organizational flaws. Despite a through investigation after one such failure and promises to reform, the agency backslid and another huge tragedy resulted.

Two separate investigations, several years apart, found ineffective leadership and flawed communication -- institutional failings that not only cost money, but lives. Many thoughtful people find these costs unacceptable, because despite the claims of the program’s supporters about the needs involved and supposed future benefits, the program hasn’t provided practical, measurable payback to taxpayers.

When the federal budget deficit is the largest (in nominal terms, which used to be the only way people discussed it) in history, and when The Tribune repeatedly has said that the problem is simply too much spending , you’d guess that I’d be arguing to spend more money on the program and The Tribune would be demanding immediate cuts.

But we’re talking NASA (and not CPS), so the usual roles get reversed.

What is it about space that makes libertarians and conservatives go all weak-kneed about aging, 30-year-old technology and big government? I understand the romance of space; I race through dinner to watch "Enterprise" with my youngest kid, own "Next Generation" toys, DVDs, and books, and took my first date to see "2001: A Space Odyssey" (for which I’m still apologizing.) But just as Tom Clancy novels don’t justify building new submarines, why do dreams of space travel exempt a program of limited utility from the usual scrutiny of those who decry government spending?

The shuttle program and space station aren’t much good for scientific knowledge, except for experiments directly related, and only relevant, to the shuttle and space station themselves. Other experiments could be performed by machines or remote control -- and often are, with the astronauts simply babysitters. The civilian technology spin-offs have been limited, and the current shuttle fleet uses technology less sophisticated and current than many readily-available consumer items.

Rather than reexamining the program, too many Republicans who can’t abide by money being spent on earth have absolutely no problem spending tax dollars in space -- and want to spend more. Such romantics!

These folks usually demand that every government program justify its worth, and always do more with less. Unfortunately, the Columbia investigation found that NASA, in response to White House and congressional pressure, tried to do more with less and to meet unrealistic deadlines and goal -- with tragic results. The “do more with less” exhortation was a recipe for disaster. So will these people stop demanding it from other programs? Of course not.

Apparently because everything turns upside-down in space, the Republican/conservative/libertarian response is an expanded commitment -- more money for NASA, a new shuttle fleet, and the same commitment that put men on the moon by 1969 (and that hasn’t had them back there since 1972).

Usually it’s liberals demanding more money for failed government programs on the grounds that inadequate funding meant that we really hadn’t tried them yet. Aren’t conservatives supposed to abhor that kind of dreamy-eyed wishful thinking? But lately it’s conservatives who let dreams blind them to reality.

Whether it’s Iraqis greeting American troops with rose petals, or Middle Eastern democracy spontaneously sprouting, or the budget deficit miraculously turning around, or that Bush’s tax cuts will create 5.5 million new jobs this year, conservatives now let their dreams decouple them from reality.

The space program may let editorialists boldly split infinitives, but it’s a government program -- and should be judged by the same standards as every other government program. By that standard, the shuttle flunks.

Gilligan's Island Economics

This week's East Valley Tribune column didn't get the best headline, but read through to the punch line instead. I think I've found a way to describe Bush's tax policy--it's Gilligan's Island economics, designed by people who watched the show as kids and identified with the Millionaire.

I first recalled the character's name as "J. Thurston Howell III," but according to the Internet Movie Database, it's Thurston Howell III, played by Jim ("Mr. Magoo") Backus. No first initial. I must have been thinking of J. Fife Symington III.


BUSH'S TAX SETUP PAMPERS THE PLUMP WHILE PLUNDERING PENSIONS
East Valley Tribune, Aug. 24, 2003

The latest example of President Bush’s disregard for Americans making less than $350,000 annually is the incredibly obscure Windfall Elimination Provision and the Government Pension Offset, which afflicts former public servants who change careers. People who worked in the U.S. Army, or as teachers in a state (like Texas) with a separate retirement system, who then retire and start a second career, find that Social Security doesn’t work for them like it does for everybody else.

Current law treats anyone vested in a separate public pension system as getting a “windfall.” Their Social Security benefits -- both the employee’s and any spousal benefits -- get reduced by two-thirds of the employee’s other retirement benefits.

The WEP/GPO only affects workers who participated in public pension systems separate from Social Security. But many teachers, Air Force, and Postal Service retirees work second careers, pay the same Social Security taxes, but then don’t get the same benefits as a co-worker with the same tenure and salary. Two-thirds of their earned Social Security benefits essentially get taxed away because these employees -- and only these retired public employees -- earned a second pension.

There are wrinkles in the WEP/GPO; the tax gets reduced after working more than 20 years in the Social Security system, and eliminated entirely after 30 years. But police officers or military personnel retiring from duty and starting second careers may not want to work another 30 years -- and may have counted on Social Security so they don’t have to.

Like the Alternative Minimum Tax, the WEP/GPO originally was intended to affect only highly-compensated individuals. But while it may have made sense decades ago to treat public pensions differently than private ones, inflation has swept middle-class families into both the AMT and the WEP/GPO. Everyone in Washington knows that we need to reform the AMT, and it makes no sense to tax teachers’ and firefighters’ pensions punitively, either. But unfortunately, the Bush administration believes people making $350,000 annually need our help more.

The administration’s unwillingness to fix the AMT and WEP/GPO problems highlights some of Bush’s lies about his tax policies. When Bush remembers to insert the qualifier, he claims he’s cutting taxes for everyone who pays income taxes. But even that’s a lie; about 10 percent of people paying income tax will get nothing.

But frequently Bush and other GOP partisans claim their tax cuts benefit everyone who pays taxes -- without the “income” qualifier. To make that claim, they must pretend that Social Security taxes aren’t taxes, but rather just pension payments, all of which taxpayers get back eventually. (This trick requires them to forget years of their rhetoric about Social Security privatization, but forgetting what you said last year is apparently a right-wing specialty.)

But the WEP/GPO problem shows that’s a lie, too. These public-system retirees working a second career don’t get back their Social Security payments. They just pay the taxes.

How hard is it to understand that Social Security taxes are taxes? They’re regressive, affect everyone, and haven’t and won’t be cut. Instead, Bush has cut taxes on dividends, the estate tax, and income taxes at the top brackets, all to benefit people making more than $350,000 a year -- and at the expense of middle-class AMT payers and retired teachers and military personnel facing the WEP/GPO.

I finally understand the Bush mind-set. He’s watched too many reruns of Gilligan’s Island. (Everybody sing: “A four year cruise.”) Bush wants to stiff Gilligan, the Skipper, the Professor, and Mary Ann, all so he can give massive tax breaks to millionaire Thurston Howell III.

It’s a Yale thing; you wouldn’t understand.

Some of the Religion, Some of the Time

The quip at the beginning of last week's entry became this week's column. The column is also available at the East Valley Tribune website here. And, yes, it gave me yet another chance to use the Pirates of the Caribbean line. That's should pretty much beat it into the ground. Anyway, I hope I can shake the Unitarians among you right down to your unitards.

I did make some progress with one of my right-wing readers, convincing him that if Dennis Prager says something, that doesn't mean all Jews believe it. Another reader, who usually doesn't agree with me, also noted that we hear far fewer sermons against gluttony these days, and most of them are followed by invitations to a church supper. And how about Dr. Laura becoming a Christian? Talk about a trade that helps one team, anyway.

Selective Morality
RIGHT-WINGERS TAKE SMORGASBORD APPROACH TO BIBLE
East Valley Tribune, Aug. 17, 2003

When did the sum total of religion and morality in public life get condensed down to making abortion illegal and, while of course having nothing against homosexuals personally, insisting that they don’t do anything too homosexual?

I guess those big unabridged Bibles got too heavy to cart around, much less consult, so as a labor-saving device, the religious right trimmed it down to the really, really abridged version, opposing abortion and homosexuality. Oh, that and making my kids say a Len Munsil-approved prayer in school.

All that other stuff about helping the poor, the sick, the stranger, and the least among you, much less opposing capital punishment -- well, to quote Captain Barbossa in Pirates of the Caribbean, it’s not a code, really, it’s more like “guidelines.”

Nice little morality you got there, which requires only that you impose your beliefs regarding abortions, sex, and prayer on other people.

To gain entry to heaven, just push other people around or, even better, have the government do it for you. It’s an even better deal than the "virgins in paradise" myth for suicide bombers. Bossing other people on earth must be fun, or so many people wouldn’t do so much of it.

“But government shouldn’t enforce charity,” some might object. Well, if government should get back into the business of outlawing abortion and homosexual acts, or requiring prayers, to fulfill religious dictates certainly not shared by all Americans, why shouldn’t government also get into the business of making sure we’re healing the sick, feeding the poor, and caring for the least among us? Aren’t those mandates somewhat more prominent in the actual text?

(Sure, the Bible does contain much fire-and-brimstone about homosexuality. It also commands that we should stone disrespectful children to death, but we’ve managed to interpret our way around that one. But the Bible itself is quite vague about abortion, which actually is a latecomer in this debate -- which only makes the reduction of all of Judeo-Christian morality to these issues, and only these issues, even more absurd.)

If we’re supposed to use the criminal law to make everybody, of whatever faith, behave according to what Tom DeLay and Pat Robertson say the Bible says, then what’s stopping us from revising the tax code to “encourage” people to act more religiously in other ways? If you’re willing to throw gays and pregnant women in jail to get them to behave as you believe, what’s the possible objection to a little coerced charity and doing unto others?

Why, when it comes to capital punishment, or autistic kids needing treatment, or sick adults unable to afford health insurance or prescription drugs, or illegal aliens dying in the desert, all of these people wanting to wear their religion on your sleeve suddenly become pro-choice? They can’t let government enforce that sort of morality. It might cost money! Instead, government should stick to that old-time supply-side religion -- the kind that lines the pockets of the rich, and requires devotion only from other people.

I missed the passage where Jesus urged that the wealthy pay less in taxes and control others’ behavior; maybe an additional sermon available only to Republicans explains the religious basis of this “trickle-down morality.”

These so-called moralists are thumping an amazingly abbreviated version of the Bible. If they really want more religion in public life, then bring it all in, not just the comfortable stuff that burdens only other people. Maybe if they push using government to feed the hungry and heal the sick and to end capital punishment, then their talk about morality and religion won’t seem quite so amoral and hypocritical.

If Gay Marriage Upsets You, Then Don't Have One

I decided to shake a stick at this particular hornets' nest again. The emails already have been a lot of fun, but surprisingly more positive than negative.

I'm just trying to figure out how the sum total of morality in public life supposedly consists of anti-abortion and anti-gay positions. I guess those big Bibles were too heavy to carry around and consult all the time, so the religious right had to trim it down to the really, really condensed version: opposing the "Big 2." All that other stuff about helping the poor, the sick, the infirm, and the stranger among you, much less opposing capital punishment--well, to quote Pirates of the Caribbean, it's not a code, actually, it's more like "guidelines." Nice little morality you got there, where all you need to do is say that other people can't have abortions and/or sex, and all you need to do to enter the Kingdom of Heaven is throw stones at them. But that's next week's column.

If you're really up for a treat, the Marianne Jennings column alluded to in the fifth paragraph is available here. Enjoy. And the J.D. Hayworth joke made the paper!


The 'Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy'
WHOM DO GAY MARRIAGES REALLY HURT? NOBODY
East Valley Tribune, Aug. 10, 2003

It doesn’t strike me as odd that Catholics would believe one thing and Episcopalians another, and that as a Jew, I wouldn’t believe either. But those upset with society’s increasing acceptance of homosexuals have a different agenda. For them, it’s not enough for each faith to decide what is and isn’t allowed. No, some -- and certainly not all -- religions need buttressing by governmental fiat.

Apparently the Almighty isn’t all that mighty; without a constitutional amendment, these folks believe it’s curtains for divine Providence -- and welcome instead to Providence, R.I., whose gay mayor received about 80 percent of the vote.

It’s an amazingly selective sensibility that lets these people see migrants dying in the desert or kids denied health care, and blithely say, “That’s life” -- but gays entering into civil unions in Vermont rocks their very core.

President Bush isn’t sure about a constitutional amendment that, separation be darned, will let government assist certain, and certainly not all, religions. The lawyers are “looking into it.” Searching for “controlling legal authority,” no doubt. Sure, the phrase “separation of church and state” never appears in the Constitution. Neither does “presumption of innocence.” So unless you abandon both those principles, give that old chestnut a rest.

The Tribune’s other extremist columnist (in the other direction) last week denounced a Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy encouraging societal acceptance of homosexuality. (Hey -- if there’s a Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, why not admit the existence of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy?)

She complained that gays have been able to hijack the culture partly because they’re better educated; on average gays are twice as likely to have a college degree. Such an unfair advantage -- if you can’t get them pregnant, it’s so much harder to keep them barefoot and ignorant.

Nobody can coherently explain why if two gays marry that somehow jeopardizes everybody else’s marriages, when even repeated failed heterosexual marriages don’t. Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh are each on their third “until death do us part,” but failures in their first two tries each doesn’t stop them hectoring everybody else about morality.

Look, if gay marriage upsets you, then don’t have one.

Why do ‘wingers, who complain about the “nanny state” when it tried to provide health care, education, and housing to people in actual need, suddenly want government to protect their feelings?

Don’t give me shopworn “slippery slope” arguments, either. When you stop two gay adults from having a relationship, who’s being protected? There’s no statistically valid evidence that people in committed gay relationships commit crimes, or don’t live as long, or threaten children. This prejudice doesn’t protect anyone, just some people’s sense of what’s yucky.

Ultimately, the arguments against gay marriage have no factual basis; they come down to somebody deciding what they find personally repugnant also should be outlawed. But lots of things that make lots of people go “yuck!” should remain perfectly legal.

Ever see open-heart surgery? Smell a dairy farm? Eat sauerkraut? Try to visualize the physical circumstances that allowed Congressman J. D. Hayworth to become a father. If that doesn’t make you go “yuck!” then you’re just not visualizing hard enough.

But “yuck!” ain’t good enough. It’s no basis in a free society for imposing what is essentially personal sensibility upon consenting adults whose sensibilities are different, and who don’t need you to “protect” them from themselves.

I’m enjoying this argument, because I think it’ll end one of the more tiresome tropes of the current liberals-vs.-conservatives debate, the one about which side is more fun. Sure, liberals want to take away ethnic and sexist jokes. But conservatives’ version of political correctness wants to take away sex.

Conservative-Approved Judicial Activism

Here's a case where both liberals and conservatives can applaud activist federal judges who second-guess local governments--in condemnation!

Yeah, it's a boring legal topic--hard to make condemnation sexy, or angry. My excuse is that I was on vacation last week, nothing (via the Internet) seemed to be happening in Arizona politics, and August 3rd was Ice Cream for Breakfast Day in our household, a family tradition that I stole from a law school classmate and you're free to steal from us. If you're a kid and live in Arizona, where it's 90 degrees for the low temperature and 110 for the high and school starts this coming Monday, you need something to look forward to in August.


Municipal Condemnation
COURTS FIND TAKINGS FOR PRIVATE USE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
East Valley Tribune, Aug. 3, 2003

A recent federal district court decision, called Aaron v. Target Corp., helps show that federal courts increasingly will oversee municipal condemnation, regardless of what the Arizona Legislature eventually does.

The Aaron case -- based on the opinion as reported by Prof. Patrick Randolph of the University of Missouri at Kansas City -- shows municipal condemnation at its worst. Target wanted to replace an existing St. Louis store, built on leased ground, with a larger store with additional parking on a second landlord’s property. (Rote disclosures: I own some Target stock, and shop there, too.) Target approached the landlords, who were interested in striking a deal if Target also renegotiated the rent.

Instead of negotiating, Target acted like a sports franchise and went to city hall. Target claimed that because of the landlords’ “unreasonableness,” unless the city helped acquire the land, Target would close the store, eliminating both jobs and municipal tax revenues.

Target and the city then got a very successful store declared a “blighted” area. Together they ordered a study, with Target’s lawyers helping draft it. The study found blight (surprise!) based on the building and parking areas being “physically deteriorated, unsafe and dangerous” -- but the lease made Target responsible for maintenance. The study also found “blight” due to Target’s “substandard” computer and network systems, which weren’t real property.

There’s more, of course; the city never sent the report to the two landlords, but rather to Target in Minneapolis, so the landlords lacked notice of the public hearing. The city also granted Target $4 million in property tax abatements over 10 years. The city’s redevelopment authority then offered to purchase the property involved for less than $3 million, which the landlords considered an outrage.

Anticipating a condemnation, the landlords raced to federal court seeking an injunction to stop it -- and convinced the judge that they wouldn’t be treated fairly. The judge noted Target’s considerable involvement in the process, the landlords’ lack of notice, and the difficulty in condemnation of fighting the reasons for the government’s actions. The court found the denial of the landlords’ due process rights “manifest and palpable,” whether or not the landlords got just compensation.

But much of what happened in Aaron occurs in any condemnation case. The judge was offended by Target’s extensive involvement, but in a “good” redevelopment project, the municipality works closely with private developers. The landlords didn’t get notice, but it’s often difficult, if not impossible, to track down all owners in slum areas. The fast deadlines and limits on discovery apply to all condemnation cases. Making any sort of viable downtown won’t happen in Arizona without extensive public support. So procedural rules that apply in every case will slow or stop “good” condemnations as well as “bad” ones.

The Aaron decision is one of several recent federal court decisions questioning whether condemnations actually serve a public purpose when the ultimate goal is moving property from one private owner to another. These cases have found a taking for a purely private use unconstitutional, even if just compensation is paid, despite the supposed deference by courts to local determinations of local issues.

Courts increasingly are second-guessing municipalities on such condemnation decisions, regardless of whether state legislatures impose additional procedural hurdles on the condemnation power. Courts may be better for fixing abuses of condemnation, because they can do case-by-case analysis, and legislatures can’t.

If the Legislature still wants to act, then limit local development concessions everywhere but in downtowns and true slum areas. The Aaron court stopped the condemnation, but not Target’s $4 million tax abatement. Focusing less on procedure, and more on substance, might result in legislation with a better chance of success next session.