Ron Amundson’s Political Blog

GovTrack: H.R. 5351: Text of Legislation passed the house

The Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008 has a provision to encourage bicycle commuting. In fact, employers would be able to offer a tax exempt fringe benefit of up to $20 a month for those who commute by bicycle.

Granted, being I coordinate virtual teams in my business, who don’t commute, and are not employees, the ability to offer this fringe benefit has limited value to me, other than it will reduce emissions. If I ever decide to go the route of onsite employees again, this is something I will have to highly consider.

Years ago, one of my techs, as well as a co-engineer used to commute by bicycle. Even I had to prove it to myself I could do so… on one of the coldest days of the year. I figured if I could ride 3.5 miles in -23 deg F weather, I would have no excuse for not doing so on any other day. Well, I didn’t bicycle commute very often, but it did convince me it was possible.

Thus, I think this is a great addition to the bill. The cost to the govt is pretty low, the cost to employers who choose to offer it is pretty low, and apart from reducing carbon emissions, it is likely to also result in lower medical costs, and even efficiency gains due to healthier employees. Its also one of those fringe benefits that can give an employer an edge when it comes to recruiting. Not so much from a benefit standpoint in and of itself, but that an employer is on the ball, and wants to encourage energy conservation, as well as improved employee health… and such a stance can make a difference when it comes to recruiting, at least in some sectors.

H.F. No. 2800, 4th Engrossment - 85th Legislative Session 2007-2008
E85

Initially, when I first heard of this, it was like whoa… a gas tax increase with the economy taking a header, not cool. But alas, in politics as in other aspects of life, whats on the surface is often times not the whole story. Thus, it was time to do some digging.

Well, first I come to find out, this is the first time the gas tax has increased since 1988.. and that makes me go hmmm. A quick run over to the Federal Reserve’s CPI calculator makes for an interesting analysis. 20 cents in 1988 equates to 36 cents in 2008. Granted, the CPI is a bit broad, but if we look at the cost of fuel, vs the cost of construction, its probably a reasonable calculation. Thus, in looking at the last 20 years, the MN legislature should have acted way before now. Secondly, with October’s 28 cent gas tax, it ends up being 8 cents less than it would have been in 1988 dollars. Now, I wouldn’t go so far and play the game that the legislature came up with a tax decrease, but it is interesting to note the difference in the value of a dollar over time.

The next thing I did, was run some numbers, to see how the tax increase would impact me in a worst case scenario. One of my highest mileage years ended up being upwards of 43000 miles traveled. And being my vehicle is not super great on gas mileage,  that works out to about $140 as a fuel cost increase. However… thats not the full story by any means. Poorly maintained roads raise havoc from a preventative maintenance standpoint. Suspension parts and tires take a major hit in life span, but also vibration can lead to failure of other parts.

Being I have over 12 years of historical data on my car, as well as road conditions, I’m able to hazard a more quantitative guess than most. (still a lot of hand waving though, as road condition is quite subjective, without onboard datalogging and vibration sensors…. and component life span can be affected by a multitude of non-road related factors) Ultimately, I found that poorly maintained roads ended up on average increasing my maintenance costs roughly $37 a year. Yet, it should be noted that I do all maintenance work myself, thus that figure is probably two or three times greater if one were to use a commercial garage or perhaps even more at a dealership.

Then there is the aspect of safety and comfort while driving. No one likes to be riding on a buckboard as it can be pretty fatiguing, but there is also a safety factor to be considered. One trip into a corn field is a ton more expensive than even a few years of this tax increase.

And of course, the last thing is a detailed read of the bill itself, and a few things came to mind as good calls. First as concerns transfers, I know this was an issue some years back, where in there was a push to take from the airport fund and transfer it to the general budget. I think, as the bill reads, that effort was thwarted, and it is one I agree with. Aircraft fuel tax should be used to fund airport ops, not everything else under the sun, especially since airport funding is pretty tight, and aviation is already a huge source of general tax revenue.

Lastly there is a provision for a low income tax credit to offset the financial aspects of this tax. While the amount of the credit is pretty low,  to add more tax to the less fortunate for the benefit of the masses is not cool, and this credit mitigates that a bit.

This, I think the legislature made the right call on this one, although ideally they would have passed such a tax increase when the economy was good and fuel was much cheaper, and this coming from a guy who dislikes tax increases as a general principle.

Back in my Republican days, I used to enjoy sitting down and talking with Steve Sviggum, who was speaker of the MN house at the time. Sometimes we’d agree, sometimes not, but it was always a blast just to jaw with him. One of the things I remember asking, was whats the deal with all this hate stuff. I remember him saying, they could have huge disagreements on the floor, yet, at the end of the day be willing to go have a beer across party lines etc.

Twenty years ago, when I was involved with the IA state govt (no, not as an elected guy), I found the same thing. We might have substantial disagreements in the meeting sessions, yet, when finished for the day, it was a real blast to sit back and share experiences… many of which ended up being not all that different…. apart from the difference in official pov.

Thus, it does seem to be the case, that in actual political work, hate doesn’t enter the picture all that much, folks ultimately do have to work with one another. Yet, it seems more and more, the MSM likes to focus on the disagreements, and spin such into hate in order to bump up market share, and thus ad revenue. Its somewhat similar on websites…. intense controversy teetering on hate brings up traffic counts, which again helps page rank, SEO, and ultimately ad revenue. (hate in and of itself on the web is a real problem though… just ask any webmaster… there is a fine line not to be crossed, something the MSM doesn’t have to deal with).

The problem is… hate is an insideous thing, and it can propagate from the screen or newspaper into real life fast if left unchecked. These 2 guys got into it, and one ended up in the hospital, and another in jail.

Its great to be passionate about ones candidate or issues, even so far as being vocal, but hate….whoa, thats going too far.

Defense of Democracies Offers to Debate Rep. Walz on Terrorist Surveillance « Defense of Democracies

An interesting, and well versed response and a request for dialog. I think thats a good thing. Certainly I doubt that any person reasonably skilled in this arena believes FISA in and of itself is adequate. Many things have changed over the last 30 years, threats and technology are only two of them.

Yet, the author fails to mention the sunset provisions of the Protect American Act.

(d) Authorizations in Effect- Authorizations for the acquisition of foreign intelligence information pursuant to the amendments made by this Act, and directives issued pursuant to such authorizations, shall remain in effect until their expiration. Such acquisitions shall be governed by the applicable provisions of such amendments and shall not be deemed to constitute electronic surveillance as that term is defined in section 101(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801(f)).

Thus, unless someone really dropped the ball, the only gap is the immunity issue… and the last news I heard, is that the phone companies are on board even without immunity as of late last week. Thus, for now, even though the Protect America Act expired, the authorizations remain in force until they expire.

What I find odd though, is that certainly Tim Walz is aware of this, citizenry who follow such arena’s in legislation are aware of this…. and yet the author left it out. Sure, its spin, but to what audience. Certainly not to those who he is likely to dialog with, nor those who have been following such legislation. It likely will serve just to aggravate them, rather than to engage…. And I think wide scale engagement and discussion of the rather complex issues is the key to resolving how best to move forward. Few will sacrifice liberty for safety. Many will be outraged to sacrifice safety for the phone company, or for a 30 year old law. Thus, all parties have very much the same goal in mind, the problem is how to get there. Spin may work forsome, but not very well for the concerned and informed citizen. Tim Walz was right, congress and the executive branch had time to work this out. There is no reason to let things slide. The end goal is too important.

Please bear in mind, I don’t want the phone companies hung out to dry. They appear to have acted in good faith, most certainly last week, and they should not be penalized for it… but more importantly, neither should the general public.

 Defense of Democracy is a new group

And talk about spin city…. but it is free speech.

I appreciated that they included details of their commercial on their website. It actually makes it pretty easy to use as a template to create a counter one. Thus…. here is some proposed audio. If anyone wants to run with it, by all means feel free to use this in any form you like. Kaltura makes for a pretty easy way to put together collaborative video projects.

• (Music ramps up)
• Midnight.
• February 16th.
• The law that lets the phone companies off the hook expires….
• Senate Democrats and Republicans vote overwhelmingly to protect the phone co.
• But the House refuses to vote on H.R.3773 (as amended by the Senate) and instead….
• want to protect the lives of American citizens AND their civil liberties.
• So the phone company looses
• Tell the House of Representatives to do its job and continue to block the Senate’s Terror Surveillance Bill. FISA must be updated based upon todays technology, AND it must also protect the civil liberties of American Citizens.

I’m not anti phone co… well ok, I’m anti alltel, but thats another story entirely. Protecting the phone company from being hung out to dry is a good thing to ensure continued cooperation in grey areas of the law, but it best not be a deciding factor as to whether FISA is updated or not. American lives may be at stake.

I also have even greater respect for Barack Obama, who chose to vote NO when the bill was before the senate. For reference, Hillary did not vote, and John McCain voted for it.

Here is a letter from Barack Obama to one of his constituents. I’ve copied a part of  it here.

On February 12, 2008, the Senate passed S. 2248, making its own reforms to FISA. I am disappointed that S. 2248, if signed into law, will grant an unprecedented level of immunity for telecommunications companies that cooperated with the President’s warrantless wiretapping program. I was proud to cosponsor several amendments, including the Dodd-Feingold amendment to strike the immunity provision, that would have enhanced privacy protections while maintaining the tools to fight terrorism. However, with the defeat of this amendment, telecom companies will not be held accountable even if it could be proven that they clearly and knowingly broke the law and nullified the privacy rights of Americans. I am frustrated by the President’s decision to play politics by threatening to veto any legislation not containing immunity. Why the President continues to try to hold this important legislation captive to that special interest provision defies explanation. The House and Senate must reconcile differences between the two versions of the bill before being signed into law.

The American people understand that new threats require flexible responses to keep them safe, and that our intelligence gathering capability needs to be improved. What they do not want is for the President or the Congress to use these imperatives as a pretext for promoting policies that not only go further than necessary to meet a real threat, but also violate some of the most basic tenets of our democracy. Like most members of Congress, I continue to believe that the essential objective of conducting effective domestic surveillance in the War on Terror can be achieved without discarding our constitutionally protected civil liberties.

And thank you as well to congressman Tim Walz for taking a stand on this.

GovTrack: S. 2433: Text of Legislation

Wow, talk about a ruckus over at FRC. Whats really scary, is I used to contribute to them….

Assuming the figure is $845 billion, and being I have yet to find a GAO analysis, its a big unknown what the real cost will be, I find the outrage more than a bit out of line. If one were to ask a grade school kid, if they would give $1.29 a day to help others in the world who were not so fortunate, the vast majority would probably be for it. Then if you told them that it will help folks who live on under $1/day, even more youngsters would no doubt chime in.

Granted, there are legitimate concerns, there also exists tie-ins to other UN programs, which can raise additional concerns. Yet, the biggest outrage seems to be cost….  It really makes me wonder.

Daily Kos: I Refuse to Buy into the Obama Hype now a supporter

This is one of the best, least biased reviews of legislative records I’ve read. Significant insight can be gained by the legislative records in and of themselves, much more so, than debates, sound bites, or tv ads. It really shoots holes in the argument that Barack doesn’t have much substance.

However, looking at successful bill passage, as well as co-sponsorship of bills likely doesn’t show the whole story. Certainly, Hillary’s supporters are very vocal of her accomplishments, albeit the public records don’t seem to correlate very well with that pov.

Yet, what if successful legislation is not the desired outcome? Perhaps Hillary’s success potentially lies more along the lines of stopping legislation rather than moving forward. Doing so could be viewed as a successful approach, albeit not the way we normally think of success. Ie, how many roadblocks did she put up, how many really bad bills were killed off or put on hold due to her efforts. Granted, I am an Obama supporter, and in no way am trying to defend her, but there has to be a reason for the level of support she has. Perhaps a negative approach is the key. Of course, trying to ferret out that information makes navigating the Library of Congress legislative info website seem simple. Its a huge unknown, at least to me, as to why her supporters are so positive, when the published track record doesn’t back up such an assertion.

Ultimately though, roadblocks to progress, while a laudable approach, and one I shared years back, no doubt has contributed to much of the mess we find ourselves in today. Ie, in the past, I always liked to see a mixed legislative and executive branch, as such a combination likely decreases the potential for radical legislation on either side. Yet, the lack of forward action, combined with poor decisions and judgment, has resulted in absolute disaster, both in foreign and domestic policy arenas.

—Hello?

–Hi, Mr./Mrs. Doe?

–Yes.

–Hi, my name is ____, I’m calling from the Barack Obama for President campaign….

(First hurdle right here–Repubs, not interesteds, hangups, etc.)

…and I wanted to remind you of the Democratic primary on Tuesday the 19th…

(This sounds dumb, nice and honest, and I’ve found it works. Give them a quick pause for an “uh-huh”)

…we’re calling to say we hope you’ll consider voting for Barack Obama on the 19th. We believe he has the best chance to beat John McCain in the general election in November.

(By now, without asking them any threatening questions like “who you gonna vote for”, you’ve found out everything you’ll need to know. They’ll either hang up early, or they’ll disagree with you on the electability question and say they’re supporting Clinton, or they’ll clearly be undecided and you can say why you are drawn to him, or they’ll chime right in and agree about Obama, etc.)

Dear Friends,

Its pretty funny reading some of the comments on HRC’s phone bank ticker… Ie, at the rate they are going, its likely they will run out of potential voters to call in the near future. Thus, either the numbers are wild estimates, calculated based upon pledged activity time, the result of robocalls, so some combination of the above.

And we all hate robocalls, yet for some odd reason, they must be at least somewhat effective… maybe, or else the robocaller sales guy is one amazing sales dude.

Ultimately, though, what I think makes a difference with the Barack campaign, is the average Joe getting on the phone, and making calls. The website walks you right through the process, although I must admit the script may come across a bit stilted…. but its likely there to get over the initial fear factor of cold calling,  and how to go about doing so.

Granted, when I started, I only knew a few of the issues Barack had talked about, but over the past few days, I’ve been spending a lot of time on the issues and getting up to speed on both sides. For one, it reinforces why I am campaigning for him…I agree much much more than disagree with his views. Secondly, with confidence on the issues, phone banking is loads easier. Ultimately, I know personal phone banking is effective, despite my aversion to the phone, (I prefer text) and its actually not that hard… even on the early days, when I was quite the novice on issues, the scripting process made it pretty easy. A lot of folks rarely ask issues questions, but at least now, I can respond with a level of confidence, rather than saying, well uh, you can go to www.barackobama.com and then click on issues.

The other thing I found incredibly helpful, was this blog entry by marytnurse. It also is helpful to read some of the comments, both by folks who have had success, and others who ran into a difficult character. It is quite the encouragement and help.