Author Archives: rff_blog_admin

Weasels and Social Security

Posted on by

I’ve tried to maintain interest in politics, but it is challenging. Republican candidates demean each other while the Democrats demean the Republicans ranking highest in the polls at the moment.   The spectacle brings to mind an article titled “On Weasels and Removal Thereof Though Unified Action” by Susan Westfall. The author wrote that she “…decided to settle on a word to use when referring to politicians…and special interest groups who work so hard to sell the sovereign countries of the world down the road for personal gain, all the while espousing their good intentions for the ‘general welfare’ of the people.”  “Ultimately, I settled upon the term ‘weasel’.” That term is used to describe people who are acting in “…a cunning/and or deceitful fashion to achieve desired ends.”

We need fewer politicians willing act like weasels to buy enough votes to be reelected. Government entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare are popular with voters and any politician mentioning changes to improve the long term economics of the programs will face the wrath of voters. Too many politicians buy votes by defending both of the programs even though they know the programs need to be fixed.

President Clinton spent a year at town hall meetings talking about Social Security and that we should “…fix the roof while the sun is shining.” He was and is a clever politician, and he didn’t lay out details of how to fix the program. That resulted in people nodding knowingly that something should be done.

George W. Bush wasn’t as clever. He actually suggested that we begin to fix the Social Security by letting younger people voluntarily put a third of their Social Security “contributions” into private retirement accounts similar to IRAs. The account owner could then select how the money was invested, and they could select treasury bills or insured certificates of deposit if they wanted to be conservative to assure the money was there for them when they retired. They could also select the beneficiary, while Social Security is limited to dependent children and legal spouses (and is therefore homophobic).  Democrats were mortified. Robert Reich, who had been Clinton’s Labor Secretary, responded, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!” Alliances were formed with older people who were told Bush wanted to destroy Social Security by “privatizing it.” I was discouraged that members of Congress and evidently their voting constituents believed the government could more intelligently manage money than the people who originally earned the money.  Bush lost, and future politicians received a clear message. Act like a weasel if you want to be reelected.

I have one hope, and that is some future politician will have the courage to offer what Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed in an address given November 14, 1934. “It takes so very much money to provide even a moderate pension for everybody, that when the funds are raised from taxation only a “means test” must necessarily be made a condition of the grant of pensions.” He not only recommended a means test to determine whether people should receive a benefit, he also said he believed the taxpayers should only support the program for thirty years (until about 1965) at which time it would be replaced by private accounts.  When Bush’s opponents commented that Bush wanted to “destroy FDR’s legacy program,” they apparently believed what he had proposed didn’t go nearly far enough to implement FDR’s vision.

(Some readers might hesitate to believe the previous paragraph. A link is provided for those who want to read FDR’s comments in context. I predict you will find what I’ve written is accurate. Links are also provided to speeches by President Clinton and George W. Bush on the Social Security web site.)

Realistically, FDR probably would have been pleased with the backlash at Bush for suggesting changes. He even predicted that once the program was put in place “…no damn politician…” would ever be able to change it.  An advisor told FDR that Social Security wasn’t good economics. FDR famously responded, “I guess you’re right on the economics, but those taxes were never a problem of economics. They were politics all the way through.”

A few years back there was a bumper sticker popular in areas of the country where you would find large concentrations of retirees on vacation that read, “We’re spending our children’s inheritance.”   I hadn’t seen the sticker lately, and it occurred to me that message is no longer valid.  We retirees are no longer satisfied with spending only the children’s inheritance.  The Social Security program is diligently collecting substantial portions of incomes from the salaries of young workers and transferring it to those of us who are retired after skimming the cost of operating the bureaucracy.  Not fixing the program means we are willing to take that money with the promise workers under the age of about forty won’t receive equivalent benefits unless more money is taken from paychecks of the shrinking numbers of employed younger people.

I have advocated ending the cost of living adjustments to Social Security beneficiaries, and I’m guessing that one suggestion means there’s no risk of me being elected to any political position. However, I promise I’ll vote for people who show the courage to do something to improve future prospects for the country. My appeal is for others to join me in a quest to show the weasels the door. The other alternative is to wait for the eventual bankruptcy of the U.S. economy and the end of those monthly Social Security checks. I don’t think I’m the only grandparent who is willing to see changes to the Social Security program that would  give our families a better future.

Jefferson County Parkway and the Rocky Flats Plant II

Posted on by

This is an update based on a news article published in the Arvada YourHub the day after the original post. The article by Karen Groves says that Golden has withdrawn their support for the project and filed suit “…challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision to transfer land from the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge to the proposed Jefferson Parkway toll highway.”  Golden had originally agreed to the road after being offered $57 million for traffic and noise mitigation after “…months of negotiations between Golden and parkway proponents (Jefferson Country, Arvada, The Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority, and the Colorado Department of Transportation to reach an agreement.” Golden official decided to file the litigation after an outcry from citizens despite the fact “…the outcome would be expensive and uncertain.”

Golden citizens mentioned the “…danger of plutonium disturbance…” during construction of a highway next to the site where the Rocky Flats Plant built nuclear weapons components for the military. I will reiterate my comments that I disagree with the contentions about the risk from the plutonium. The entire world and all inhabitants are contaminated with plutonium from atmospheric nuclear weapons testing. Details about that and the Rocky Flats Plant’s record of plutonium releases are discussed in Chapter 25 of “An Insider’s View of Rocky Flats, Urban Myths Debunked.”

The battle over a parkway has been going on for decades. I recently received a message from a former Rocky Flats Plant official mentioning that proponents of various parkway options had wanted public support from the plant in the late 1980s while Greenpeace had requested they officially oppose the project.

Jefferson Country Parkway and the Rocky Flats Plant

Posted on by

There has been long-time opposition to completing the metropolitan beltway by constructing a parkway for vehicles and bicycles on the eastern edge of the site where the Rocky Flats Plant once constructed plutonium components for nuclear weapons. There was a previous posting about the controversy, which is mostly about the plutonium contamination in the area of the proposed parkway. I’ve exchanged emails with the group that was formed to oppose the parkway to discuss and disagree with their contentions about the risk from plutonium. Chapter 25 of the book “An Insider’s View of Rocky Flats, Urban Myths Debunked,” gives detailed information about plutonium releases from the plant, and there was much less released than critics would like you to believe. The bottom line is that plutonium is everywhere from the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, and disputing construction of the parkway on the basis of plutonium contamination is, in my opinion, a flawed argument.

A recent article in the Denver Post by Bruce Finley describes recent developments. Some of the long-time opponents of the Parkway have recently changed their positions because of a proposed land swap that would open more public open space and lock in “…an open-space bridge to the mountains.” “The emerging green ring around Denver includes Rocky Flats, the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge, Barr Lake State Park, Cherry Creek State Park, Chatfield State Park and seven or so county and municipal parks set against the foothills.”

The city of Golden recently modified a proposal to create a bicycle and pedestrian trail where the parkway is proposed to be constructed. They then withdrew their opposition to the toll road after being promised $57 million for traffic and noise mitigation. However, the town of Superior plans to file a lawsuit to block the swap because of failure “…to conduct a sufficient review of likely environmental impacts…”

An article in Westword by Patricia Calhoun titled, “Plans for the Jefferson Country Parkway are kicking up lots of dust,” expresses some skepticism. The regional director of Fish and Wildlife commented, “Accepting this exchange proposal will significantly expand the Rocky Flats NWR (National Wildlife Refuge) not only for the benefit of wildlife, but it will also anchor a network of green space for the people of the Denver metro area to enjoy for years to come.”

The author then adds, “If you don’t mind a little radioactive dust in your picnic.”

The article also provides more detail about the basis for Superior’s lawsuit. “The conclusion of the environmental assessment should have been that a full study leading to an Environmental Impact Statement was necessary to fully understand and evaluate the impact of the expansion of the refuge and the building of a four-lane toll road.”

I’ve told opponents of the toll road that I am not taking a position; several friends are opposed to the road. My position is that opposing the road because of plutonium contamination in the area of the proposed construction is a very weak argument.

Electricity Generation Problems and Politics

Posted on by

I began doing research on solar generation of power for this posting, but expanded to asking how we continue to power our society in the most cost-effective and environmentally friendly manner. Let’s make a few generalizations. Everyone wants inexpensive energy, and we would prefer to have as little impact on the planet as possible. Some of us might even want to drive cars that are battery powered, which means the batteries have to be recharged from some source of electricity generation. Solar and wind generated electricity are “darlings,” because they don’t use those ugly petrochemicals and don’t emit carbon dioxide. However, they aren’t as dependable as plants that burn coal or natural gas. They are also unfortunately more expensive. Many consumers want to turn on their computers and feel superior because they think the energy is coming from a renewable source such as solar or wind. Some might also selfishly want the energy to be inexpensive and dependable.

This is an immensely complicated problem, but let’s begins with costs for various methods of generating electrical energy. Mark Jaffe wrote an article in the Denver Post that is a pretty good summary of the costs and dependability of various methods of energy production. The flaw is that nuclear power generation is not mentioned. I’ll attempt to summarize the excellent data in the article. Natural gas costs between 6.6 to 10.9 cents to generate a kilowatt of electricity, coal is 7.4 to 13.5, wind is 4.4 to 11.5, and solar comes in last ( in the cost race) at 14.1 to 21. The dependability is perhaps more concerning in comparing “renewable” solar and wind to oil and natural gas.  Coal and natural gas are rated at about 70-90 percent dependable. Solar and wind are rated at twenty-two to forty-two percent dependable.

Let’s try to be honest. Would you prefer to accept a less than fifty percent chance of having your home heating or air conditioning to work or your computer to be powered to be between 70-90 percent dependable, or would you be willing to accept a less than fifty percent chance of that energy being available?

Solar has especially come under pressure recently. An article in the Wall Street Journal by Yuliya Chernova reports that 8% more solar panels would be installed in 2011 than in 2010, but that increases are expected to end in 2012. The United States is about the only country that is expected to have stable or increased demand in this New Year, and that is because utilities have to install new panels to meet State mandates. Price competition for the panels, to include from the Chinese where the government directed banks to lend freely to new manufacturers, is driving companies out of business. At least seven solar panel producers, including Solyndra, filed for bankruptcy in 2011. Stock prices have of course plummeted.

And now let’s discuss nuclear power generation. I know it has been successfully vilified by those who are against anything that is titled “nuclear,” and Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and the recent problems in Japan after the tsunami haven’t done anything to encourage people to advocate that source of electricity. However, let’s think about this. Nuclear power doesn’t generate carbon dioxide, and therefore doesn’t contribute to the currently frightening “boogieman” (which I don’t believe) of global warming. For those who are so selfish to be interested in costs of electricity, nuclear power generation is the least expensive method. It is also dependable so long as a tsunami doesn’t wipe out the cooling systems.

The criminal investigation of government loans to Solyndra won’t help the reputation of the solar industry. An article in the Washington Post by Joe Stephens and Carol D. Leonnig reprinted in the Denver Post contains some troubling information. The loans that were made “…were thick with political considerations.” Thousands of memos, company records, and internal e-mails show that the government was almost exclusively worried about how the story would impact Obama’s campaign for reelection. There was rarely if ever a discussion of the impact Solyndra’s collapse would have on laid-off workers, the development of solar power, or the impact on taxpayers. The discussions were almost exclusively about “How are we going to manage this politically?” The bottom line is that senior officials pushed career bureaucrats to rush their positive decision on making the loans so Vice President Joe Biden could announce it on a trip to California.

A matrix at the end of the Washington Post article presents connections between Solyndra, the Department of Energy, several senior members of the administration, and Solyndra investors. One of those investors was the billionaire George Kaiser who was a “bundler” for the Obama campaign.

Unintended Consequences of Financial Regulations

Posted on by

I’ve expressed skepticism about the move by regulators to take advantage of the 2008 financial crisis to impose more control on business by government in previous postings on this link. The negative impacts from the massive Dodd-Frank law continue to mount. I don’t know how to measure the impact from businesses being cautious about their plans until the hundreds of new regulations are finally developed and implemented. However, there are some negative impacts being experienced by small businesses and people employed by the banking industry.

David Migoya wrote an article in the Denver Post discussing how the limits on bank card fees are adding costs to small businesses that are or will be passed to consumers. Dodd-Frank decided that the previous charges to retailers of 42 cents per swipe of a debit card was excessive, and capped the charges at 22 cents per swipe. They had previously charged as low as 2 cents for a dollar transaction and that escalated on a graduated scale up to the maximum of 42 cents. Debit card companies began charging 22 cents for every swipe after Dodd-Frank passed. According to Mr. Migoya’s article a popular site in a food court in downtown Denver was losing 3.8 % of revenue to the new fees, and the owners were worried that they would have to raise prices to remain profitable. Businesses that “…primarily run charges of less than $10 are being slammed.” Vending businesses are faced with raising prices to protect already thin profit margins. I expect that Mr. Dodd and Mr. Frank would explain that it was worth it to try and prevent banks from making a profit.

A report by the Financial Services Committee titled “One Year Later: The Consequences of the Dodd-Frank Act” by Chairman Spencer Bachus and Vice-Chairman Jeb Hensnarling does not report that the act had the intended consequences of improving the economy. The hundreds of new Federal Regulations creating massive bureaucracies when the economy is fragile had the opposite effect. The regulations did not address “too big to fail,” but instead provided financial support to large financial companies while businesses “…too small to save are left to fend for themselves.” The Federal Reserve Board’s Chairman acknowledged “…that the government is not capable of calculating the effect of the cumulative regulatory burden imposed over the past year…on the strength of the U. S. economy.”

It is really quite simple. The government decided that there were 387 new sets of rules needed. Most of the new bureaucracies haven’t had high level positions filled to impose the regulations, few if any deadlines to impose regulations have been met, and businesses that could be the engine to economic growth are waiting to see what the government is going to do.

Let me ask a question that makes the question personal. What would you do if you were contemplating a new business if you didn’t know what the government was going to require? What would you do if you were an existing business that will undoubtedly be impacted by whatever the new regulations might be? Would you hire people thinking the new regulations will be “business friendly?” I think the answer is “Not likely.”

I saw a report on CNBC about the banking industry, and there have been about 40,000 jobs cut from large banks, I’m guessing the people who lost their jobs were not those who received huge bonuses for driving the businesses into huge losses during the 2008 economic crisis. They were probably “middle class Americans” who had nothing to do with the risky investments that caused the crisis. Of course the Dodd-Frank law didn’t do anything to help those people since they were associated with “big banks.”

The quest of the government to protect “average Americans” has harmed thousands of “average Americans.” Perhaps someday we will learn that more government doesn’t help. Perhaps not.

First Anniversary for RockyFlatsFacts.com

Posted on by

We launched  the web site in November 2010, so this posting is a bit late. The “About” link of the web site describes that we established this site to share a book about the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons production plant in Colorado titled “An Insider’s View of Rocky Flats, Urban Myths Debunked.”  We consider that to be a success. We didn’t add a counter to the link for the book until a couple of months after it posting it, but there had been over 2000 views of it by the end of November. Several of my colleagues at Rocky Flats told me they had been forwarded electronic versions of the book, which wouldn’t show up on the counter. There have also been a couple hundred paperbacks sold by Amazon to those who prefer to hold a real book. We’re quite proud that four people have chosen to review the book and gave it excellent ratings (one reviewer gave it four stars and three others gave it five stars). There is also a Kindle version of the book, which has numerous photos.

The only other link with a counter on the web site is the blog, and there were about fifteen thousand visits to that link between January and November. We did 64 postings the first year, and have approved 246 comments. We blog about just about anything that we think is interesting, and the history category wins the most postings with 20. That makes sense, since I often refer to myself as an “amateur historian.” There were 17 postings about the Rocky Flats Plant. Other popular posting subjects were historical figures, current events, and economics.

There is a link on the web site for book reviews. There were 52 postings (which is consistent with the goal of posting a review each Wednesday).  I think my favorite review is the first one posted about “Venona, Decoding Soviet Espionage in America, by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr.

The greatest challenge in doing reviews is that I don’t want to do a book the disservice, and have often had to post reviews in multiple parts. I’ve convinced myself I really should work at restricting a review to no more than two typed pages. We’ll see whether I have the discipline to follow that guideline.

There have been 73 expressions posted, and several people helped me with ideas for that link. It is interesting to learn the origin of common expressions. An example is “making money hand over fist.” It turns out that one is literal, since it came from the process of making coins by pounding blanks of metal with a template.

Thanks to everyone who helped me get this going, the people who have provided me suggestions for improvement and content, and the people who take the time to read the posts.  Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!  I intend to search for content that has interest and value and to work at writing and editing with care. My New Year resolution is to work at respecting your time if you choose to read what has been posted.