random rants and references

At his press conference, President Bush re-emphasized the importance of Social Security reform with Personal Accounts and introduced the notion of "progressive indexing" of future benefits. Of course, Big Media and the Democrats have been complaining loudly ever since. They are particularly upset by the "progressive indexing" scheme which, interestingly, is based on a proposal by a Democrat member of the President's Social Security Review Board.

A somewhat different view is taken by this The New York Times Op-Ed Columnist who sees Bush as a modern Robin Hood. He begins his article by saying that:
"Democrats have good reason to be aghast at President Bush's new proposal for Social Security. Someone has finally called their bluff.
They tried yesterday to portray him as just another cruel, rich Republican for suggesting any cuts in future benefits, but that's not what the prime-time audience saw on Thursday night. By proposing to shore up the system while protecting low-income workers, Mr. Bush raised a supremely awkward question for Democrats: which party really cares about the poor?"

And ends the article by saying:
"It was the kind of talk you might expect to hear from a Democrat, except that Democrats don't talk about much these days except the glories of the New Deal. They know that Social Security doesn't even have the money to sustain a program that leaves millions of elderly people in poverty. But it's their system, and they're sticking to it."

Along the way he mentions :
" "The amount of income-related redistribution in Social Security is a lot less than people think," said Jeffrey Liebman, a Harvard economist and a former official in the Clinton administration. "If you get the details right, you can design a personal-account retirement system in which groups with high risks of poverty in old age come out at least as well as with the current system." "

And : " The libertarians at the Cato Institute are trying to strengthen it with a proposal that has been introduced by Republicans in Congress. If your individual account left you with a paltry pension, their plan would guarantee you a subsidy to lift you above the poverty line - and well above what many retirees are now getting from Social Security."

That Cato Institute proposal ( the 6.2 Percent Solution) , along with several other reform plans, is discussed in this pdf document Briefing Paper 92 pdf ,which tells us that:
"The Social Security Administration's Office of the Actuary has officially "scored" the Individual Social Security Investment Program Act (HR 530), introduced by Reps. Sam Johnson (R-TX) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ). That legislation is based on the Cato Institute's 6.2 Percent Solution. ...
The SSA analysis shows that the 6.2 Percent Solution can provide large individual accounts while restoring Social Security to permanent sustainable solvency, and can do so in a fiscally responsible manner. "

There are several other plans which offer personal acccounts and have been scored well by the SSA Actuary. The Ryan-Sununu Plan has been introduced in both houses of Congress and gets full solvency and sustainability with Personal Accounts combined with a plan to restrain the growth of discretionary Federal spending based on cost of living increases for the next 8 years. This plan does not need "progressive indexing" of future benefits and, like the Cato plan, provides assurances that Account Owners will not fall behind a poverty or minimum benefit level.

But can we really expect to hold down the rate of spending growth ( mind you not actually cut back on spending , just on the rate of growth)? This article on Financing Social Secutiry reform with pork shows how easy it would be to get over $2Trillion for SS Reform transistion costs simply by reducing low priority, if not foolish, items. Maybe it's not a big problem, just a matter of priorities.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out now that Congress is actively working on creating legslation. If Congress takes the Ryan-Sununu approach, Bush won't end up as Robin Hood. But that would mean Congress would get serious about living within a real budget. Don't bet against Robin Hood yet.

Could there be a taint to those major media polls about how the public views Social Security reform? You know, all those polls that reinforce the media's and the Democratic Party's bias against Personal Accounts. In his press conference, the President didn't bother to refute reporters on their claims about polls. He chose to simply state that his job is to do the right thing, not to follow the polls like a dog chasing its tail. However, this UPI commentary Outside View: A skunk in the polls detects a distinct odor to the media polls :
" The major media outlets have based most of their headlines and stories on their own polling data. The skunk in the polls is that most media outlets are predetermining the results of their polls by asking the wrong questions. They then distort their stories to indicate that the public opposes personal retirement accounts. The question pollsters ask to determine support for personal retirement accounts rarely focuses on the accounts, but rather on the president himself and his handling of Social Security.
For example, an April 24 ABC News/Washington Post poll asked, "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling Social Security?" 64 percent of respondents disapproved, and 31 percent approved. "

The article contrasts that type of question with the Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, noting :
" The Fox poll is also the only poll that focuses solely on personal retirement accounts, and not on the president or his "handling" of Social Security.
A March 30 Fox poll asked, "Do you favor or oppose giving individuals the choice to invest a portion of their Social Security contributions in stocks or mutual funds?" On this straightforward question, 60 percent favored giving people this option, and 28 percent opposed. "

And as reported here, the latest FOX News Poll - 4/27/05: Most Are 'Pro-Choice' On Social Security show that :
"Though President Bush has talked about voluntary accounts, the new poll finds that while 57 percent of Americans understand the accounts would be voluntary, 27 percent believe they would be mandatory, and the remaining 17 percent are unsure.
Overall, fully 79 percent of the public think people under age 55 should have the right to choose between keeping all of their Social Security contributions in the current system and investing a portion of their funds. That support goes up to 84 percent among respondents under age 55.
On the personal level, 53 percent say they want the choice to invest a portion of their contributions, up from 48 percent in early February — soon after President Bush spoke in his State of the Union address about offering investment accounts. Among those under age 55, almost two-thirds (64 percent) want the option to invest.
More generally, when Social Security is not mentioned, most Americans say they trust themselves (77 percent) over the government (15 percent) when it comes to making retirement investment decisions. "

Another good report on the same poll series is in WILLisms.com: Fox News Poll Analysis which charts the trends from February through April. From the charts you get a clear picture of a rising trend of popularity for personal accounts as people learn more about them (shown by decline in those who are unaware or undecided).

It is very credible that an overwhelming majority of Americans prefer to choose their own investments and to have the choice of Personal Accounts. Seems that the President's 60 day campaign has fared much better than the big news outlets have reported. Perhaps a lot more of the media's coverage of this issue should be subjected to a "sniff" test.

April is over and so is the Minuteman Project (MMP) of citizen volunteer monitors along the southeast Arizona border. So how well have they done this past month? Well, for starters, this large turnout of volunteers didn't shoot anyone or violate any human rights, despite the hand-wringing and woeful predictions of the ACLU and other fearful types.

Their presence did result in a major reduction in illegal border crossings in their area; and their observations and alerts to the Border Patrol led to a number of arrests. More importantly, they showed the value of citizen action and got a lot of national attention on the problem of illegal immigration across our borders and the relatively weak government border controls. And their impact may be getting bigger.

As an example, this LATimes article Gov. Praises 'Minuteman' Campaign notes :
" Schwarzenegger said in a radio interview that the federal government is failing to secure the border with Mexico, and he cast the hundreds of private citizens who have been patrolling the Arizona-Mexico border since April 1 as a popular response to government inaction.
I think they've done a terrific job," Schwarzenegger said of the "Minuteman" volunteers, who plan to expand to California in June. "They've cut down the crossing of illegal immigrants a huge percentage. So it just shows that it works when you go and make an effort and when you work hard. It's a doable thing."
The governor added that, "It's just that our federal government is not doing their job. It's a shame that the private citizen has to go in there and start patrolling our borders." "

And in Michelle Malkin's Washington Times Commentary today :
" This week, following the successful Minuteman Project of citizen border patrols, hundreds of citizen lobbyists descended on Capitol Hill to send the same message. They are led by some of the nation's most influential conservative radio talk shows in every major market -- including organizer Roger Hedgecock from San Diego, Melanie Morgan from San Francisco, "The John and Ken Show" based in Los Angeles, Lars Larson in Portland, and Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia. On their agenda: fixing the nation's broken deportation and detention system; ending policies that give illegal aliens sanctuary; strengthening interior enforcement; and shutting off illegal alien magnets, including health, education and Social Security benefits. "

She also cites considerable interest by Democrat legislators to fix the illegal immigration problem. Perhaps there is hope for more serious government action, perhaps along the lines of stricter border controls combined with some form of legal temporary worker progam. That might be popular combination as indicated by this AP article Voters favor Minutemen, guest workers , that claims :
"In all, 57 percent of those interviewed said they supported the Minuteman Project, while 34 percent were opposed and 9 percent did not know or gave no opinion. Bush's guest worker program drew 62 percent backing, with 29 percent opposed and 9 percent saying they did not know or expressing no opinion."

Chris Simcox, a key organaizer of the MMP, has plans for a next step possibly by this Fall. In a recent interview, he said there are about 15,000 volunteers who have committed to patrolling the border in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. The group is also incorporating, assembling a staff and opening a national fundraising campaign. Sounds like a success story that may be snowballing across the nation - from the Arizona desert no less!

Today, the US Senate Finance Committee began hearings about Social Security Reform by listening to some experts give their views. No doubt, this process will take some time and no one can tell how or when it will end. But Pablo Serra is not concerned; he is smiling at the prospect of getting his pension. Why?

Because Pablo lives in Chile and, on a comparable basis, he can retire on his country's version of a Social Security Personal Account with 3 times as much income as he would in the US Social Security system or, at his option, with 2 times as much annual income and a one-time payment of $250,000 (yes! a Quarter Million$ up front plus twice as much per year).

The Senate can debate the theory about Personal Accounts, and the Democrats may suceed in killing them for US Citizens, but Pablo has had one for over 20 years in Chile and he can smile at our folly while enjoying a long and comfortable retirement.

So, who is Pablo and what do I know about him? Good Questions. I've never met the gentleman; I learned about him from John Tierney, who knew him as a child and wrote a perceptive account of his own and Pablo's experience with the US and Chilean Social Security systems - both of which ran into significant financial problems in the early 1980's. It's a very easy and personal tale to read in the New York Times and the title says it all - The Proof's in the Pension .

He begins his Op-Ed by asking the simple question What would Pablo Serra do? The answer seems to be : smile while buying a nice retirement villa and taking home a large pension. As Mr. Tierney puts it : "After comparing our relative payments to our pension systems (since salaries are higher in America, I had contributed more), we extrapolated what would have happened if I'd put my money into Pablo's mutual fund instead of the Social Security trust fund. We came up with three projections for my old age, each one offering a pension that, like Social Security's, would be indexed to compensate for inflation:

(1) Retire in 10 years, at age 62, with an annual pension of $55,000. That would be more than triple the $18,000 I can expect from Social Security at that age.

(2) Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $70,000. That would be almost triple the $25,000 pension promised by Social Security starting a year later, at age 66.

(3)Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $53,000 and a one-time cash payment of $223,000."

That about sums up the whole lesson. Personal accounts do work. I don't know either Pablo Serra or John Tierney; but I do know what results from putting money over decades into Social Security and into Personal Accounts (call them 401k or equivalents). And Tierney's story is completely credible to me. If you don't trust a US-Chile comparison, just ask anyone who has put comparable amounts of money into FICA taxes and into a personal account like the TIAA - CREF system used by Universities and see which investment paid off better. They will probably tell you that personal accounts did a great deal better; just as Pablo would say. Experience is the best proof.

Want to be a reporter and write, or perhaps edit, stories for international distribution? Well, you can do so from your computer by participating in a collaborative online news journal.
Last year, Wired News reported that :"After doing much in recent years to revolutionize the way an encyclopedia can be built and maintained, the team behind Wikipedia is attempting to apply its collaborative information-gathering model to journalism.
Through a new effort, Wikinews, members of the open-source community who write and edit Wikipedia's encyclopedia entries are encouraged to test their skills as journalists. The news site follows a similar set of rules as the encyclopedia, which allows anyone to edit and post corrections to entries, so long as each change is recorded."

So how is this new news form, Wikinews , doing now? According to this article, there are problems getting and publishing All the News That's Fit to Wiki :
"Nearly six months into an experiment to apply the collaborative, information-gathering model known as a Wiki to the deadline-driven field of breaking news, operators of Wikinews are finding their mission rife with frustrations and challenges.
The site, an offshoot of Wikipedia, the volunteer-maintained online encyclopedia, is facing pressures its parent organization rarely had to contend with, such as ferreting out fake posts, incorporating original sources and updating coverage to reflect rapidly changing current events."

The open source group expected Wikinews to be different from a mainstream journalism operation and that seems to be the case. It has many of the same top stories as bigger news outlets, as well as some that don't get top billing elsewhere. But I could say the same about Google News, which simply aggregates a lot of news reports from many sources around the world. One obvious difference between these two news websites is the quality of writing - Google gets good quality by linking to professional reports. Wikinews is very spotty in terms of grammar and spelling. Both have a tendency to publish some rather slanted or biased (myopic?) reports. But with Wikinews, you can try to fix the "slant" by "editing" or "discussing" the article in question. The contributers come from around the world; but not all regions or political systems are included. So they do have a problem getting balanced reports.

I think Wikinews is an interesting stab at opening up the middle ground between mainstream news media and blogs. It lacks the editorial coherence and control of a blog or of a mainstreamer but does have the blog attribute of many contributers to correct a story. And it has a lot of potential story writers to contribute the first draft and to edit it.

It will be interesting to see its progress over the next year. Progress that will depend on how many new "reporters" decide to participate.

Electric power lines that can "talk", i.e. provide broadband communications, may open a new door to the information age for rural America. Today, many of us have to rely on slow dial-up connections, or seek expensive high speed satellite service, because cable and telephone companies find it uneconomic to extend to us. Besides fixed wireless ( including the new WiMax) services which look very promissing, there is a another possibility for high bandwidth to every rural resident - and that is over the power company lines. We all get electric service over those wires and poles to our farms and homes ; and there is technology to allow those same wires to transmit very high bandwidth data - for internet and other services. It's called Broadband over Power Lines or "BPL".

A year ago, the Cincinnati area started an experiment in using electric power lines to deliver broadband internet services to homes. The experiment gained a serious legal step up last October when the FCC adopted rules to allow utility companies to offer these services as competitive alternatives to broadband communications services provided now by phone and cable companies. Cinergy, a midwest utilty company, is teamed with Current Communications to offer broadband (1-3 Megabits per second) services at about $30 per month to Cinergy customers, who can use it to hook up to the internet basically as easily as plugging into an electric outlet.

This article on Cinergy wired for expansion tells the story of how that experiment is turning into a major new communications business for the utility company; and, perhaps, gives us a glimpse into what might happen in our rural area if BPL proves a success there. Cinergy serves about 1.5 million users and the current BPL deployment passes about 50,000 homes and is growing to over 250,000 homes in 3 years. Although the company is not saying how many users are signing up for internet services, industry observers estimate about 15% of homes passed are signing up - and that's without a big marketing campaign in areas that already have cable and phone options.

Additionally, BPL allows the utility company to reduce its costs on current electric services or to offer new ones. Examples from the article are:
"* Automatic meter reading, which would allow the utility to monitor a home's electric usage without sending a meter-reader.
* Remote monitoring and operation of switches and transformers, alerting the utility to power failures on specific streets due to storms or equipment problems.
* Connecting and disconnecting electric service without sending out a technician.
* New programs to help consumers control electric bills."

It seems that BPL has real advantages in economy and efficiency for a utility company's regular business and opens up a new high growth customer service area. For rural areas, like NEPA, where there are not other broadband service options, that customer service growth could be quite high. Let's hope that is a strong enough incentive to get some interest from our local electric utility companies.

Oh Yes; you can talk over those power lines with BPL by using a phone connected to your computer and Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology instead of a standard telephone connection. The new FCC rules permit that service over BPL and Cinergy is looking into offering it.

It seems clear that we have won the first two major engagements in the poorly named war on terror, in Afganistan and Iraq, and these have created other less obvious successes throughout the Middle East. But the war is not over and it's useful to recap a bit and see what lessons can be learned.

This article by historian Victor Davis Hanson on the War on Terror restates the war as the struggle against Islamic fascism, the autocracies that aid and abet it, and the method of terror that characterizes it. He provides a good perspective on how we are winning and derives some basic rules to guide our actions in future conflicts. The article is worth reading in full, but I'll summarize the rules here :

"1. Political promises must be kept. Had the United States postponed the scheduled January elections in Iraq — once the hue and cry of Washington insiders — the insurrection would have waxed rather than waned.
2. Any warnings to use force — much less unfortunate unguarded braggadocio — should be credible and followed through. The efforts of the terrorists are aimed at the psychological humiliation and loss of face of American power, not its actual military defeat. Appearance is as often important as reality, especially for those who live in the eighth rather than the 21st century.
3. Diplomatic solutions follow, not precede, military reality. Had we failed in Afghanistan, Musharraf would be an Islamic nationalist today, for the sake of his own survival.
4. The worst attitude toward the Europeans and the U.N. is publicly to deprecate their impotent machinations while enlisting their aid in extremis. After being slurred by both, we then asked for their military help, peace-keepers, and political intervention — winning no aid of consequence except contempt in addition to inaction.
5. Do not look for logic and consistency in the Middle East where they are not to be found. It makes no sense to be frustrated that Arab intellectuals and reformers damn us for removing Saddam and simultaneously praise democratic rumblings that followed his fall.

In response, American policy should be predicated not on friendship or the desire for appreciation, but on what is in our national interest and what is right."

I think that Earth Day should be an occasion for celebrating the nation's environmental progress. But, the good news about the environment is bad news for the environmentalist lobby as pointed out by this article on how Environmentalists seek to revive cause :

" As the world marked the 35th anniversary of Earth Day on Friday, environmentalists debated the future of a movement that seems to be losing steam.
President Bush's re-election, the failure to slow global warming and the large number of Americans who dismiss environmentalists as tree-hugging extremists has the movement's leaders looking for new approaches.
And while polls show most Americans want clean air, clean water and wildlife protection, environmental issues rank low on their list of priorities -- behind jobs, health care, education and national security.
"There's this paradox where Americans hold these views, but when it comes time to take action, there are many, many issues that trump environmental concerns," said Peter Teague, environmental programs director at the Nathan Cummings Foundation. "

Well, that may be due to the progress made to date. As G. Tracy Mehan III tells us :

"You’re not hearing much about this, but the environment seems to be doing quite well, ..... America is making astounding progress with a greenhouse-gas emissions rate that is less than a third of its economic-growth rate. On March 1, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its draft annual inventory of greenhouse-gas emissions which reported that emissions increased a mere 13 percent while the U.S. economy cruised along at 46 percent for the period of 1990 to 2003. Clemson economics professor Robert E. McCormick has observed that higher-income countries emit more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, but they also sequester more carbon through landfills, better farming, less burning of wood products, reforestation, and the like. In other words, if the economy continues to grow, McCormick says, “the U.S. is likely to become a carbon sink.”"

and : "This expected progress is consistent with the data for the last 30 years or so. In June of 2003 the EPA released its first “Draft Report on the Environment” in order to provide a national picture of U.S. environmental quality and human health. The document garnered all available scientific data from more than 30 federal agencies, ..... the report documented undeniable progress in terms of environmental protection.
Thus, air pollution declined 25 percent over the past three decades despite (or maybe because of) gross domestic product increasing by 161 percent, a 42-percent increase in energy consumption, and a jump in vehicle-miles-traveled of 149 percent. The percentage of days that air quality violated an applicable health standard dropped from almost 10 percent in 1998 to 3 percent in 2001. Releases of toxic chemical to all media (air, land, and water) also declined by 48 percent since 1988."

In another article, Sally C. Pipes relates impressive progress on clean air and renewed forest growth and argues that the progress is due to grassroots and market activites as much or more than government regulation. Pipes notes that the facts tell a story of progress, not gloom, in which bald eagles, forestlands, and wetlands have all prospered and multiplied. As she says:

"For example, while activists continue to warn about the dangers of carbon dioxide, man-made emissions of the gas have increased by only half of what was predicted. Even the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) projects that car emissions — one of the largest contributors to the problem — will be reduced by more than 80 percent over the next 25 years. .......

Air quality in the ten largest metropolitan areas — four of which are in California — has improved by more than 53 percent since 1980. The midwestern states have done even better. Their numerous coal-fired power plants were long seen as the largest contributors to ozone pollution and acid rain, but now the Department of Energy is reporting a massive shift.
In the department’s state-by-state breakdown, ten midwestern and southern states have reduced the total amount of sulfur-dioxide emissions by 93 percent for the whole country.

At the same time, wildlife is thriving in this cleaner environment. Forestland in the eastern half of the United States is increasing at a net rate of one million acres a year. Wetlands are also multiplying. After three centuries of decline, we now see a growth of some 26,000 acres a year on private land alone.

And the proud bald eagle? Our national symbol has made quite a comeback — from only 500 nesting pairs in 1965 to 7,500 today. It can finally be taken off the Endangered Species List."

The bottom line is that, while there are environmental challenges ahead, we have accomplished a lot and our economic growth is not the problem but the engine that drives that progress.

I think Sally Pipes sums it up well : " All the good news may put green lobbies in a panic, but perhaps it’s time Americans gave themselves a pat on the back. We have taken on and solved a visible problem, and made real contributions to technologies that will bring about a greener and cleaner Earth."

A week ago, I posted on the so-called "nuclear" option that would let a majority of senators vote to stop a filbuster of a nominee to a judicial postion. I thought it was a lot of noise about partisan politics as usual, with the minority party (Democrats today) trying to use a PR campaign to dominate the majority party.

I learned something new from this article on the Filibuster about a more seriously "nuclear" cloture option than the current one. How about a Senate proposal that : " would amend Senate rules to end all filibusters, not just those against judicial nominees. The proposal’s sponsor said that “the filibuster rules are unconstitutional” and was quoted as saying “the filibuster is nothing short of legislative piracy.” He announced his intent to end all filibusters with an unambiguous statement: “We cannot allow the filibuster to bring Congress to a grinding halt. So today I start a drive to do away with a dinosaur — the filibuster rule.”"

You haven't heard about that "Biggest Filibuster Nuke" proposal? : "Why? Because the proposal wasn’t offered by Republicans; it was introduced in 1995 by senior Democrats, including Sens. Lieberman and Tom Harkin (D., Iowa). When it came to a vote, 19 Democrats, including leading blue-state senators such as Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, supported the measure."

As I said, it's all politics as usual - it's just that now the Democrats need a filibuster to stop a Republican President and Senate majority from making appointments. In fact, there is a long tradition of majority voting for nominees without filbusters; and a strong case that anything else is unconstitutional. As the article notes : "the restoration of Senate rules and traditions for judicial nominees enjoys both historical support and Senate precedent. But the constitutional power of a majority of Senators to strengthen, improve, and reform Senate rules and procedures is also expressly stated in the Constitution, and was unanimously endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Ballin.
In Ballin, the Court unanimously held that unless the Constitution expressly provides for a supermajority vote, the constitutional rule is majority vote."

Of course, there is no supermajority provision in the Constitution for Senate Advise and Consent on nominees. Seems the more we learn about this issue, the weaker the Democrat's case gets.

There is a lot of media attention today to Intel's announcement of its new WiMax chip, but I like Business Week's lead best- Intel's WiMax: Like Wi-Fi On Steroids . It's a good analogy because Intel plans to combine both WiFi and WiMax functionality on the same chip by 2007 and to use WiMax now to open up a large global market for very high speed wireless communications. A key starting market will be areas that do not get cable or DSL broadband services today - i.e. much of rural America, including the Endless Mountains of NE PA. That gap between rural homes and the superfast fiber-based Internet is the "last mile" that many telecommunications companies are racing to fill.

Currently, WiFi nets are cheap and easy to buy and set up for home use or to connect your laptop to a public 'hotspot' like Starbucks. WiFi provides high bandwidth connections for about 100 or so feet; and that fine for a home net or a library. But you still need to get a fast internet connection to your home; and many of us don't have that. WiMax offers Broadband speeds of over 70Mbps for over 30 miles. Standard DSL (phone line) and Cable broadband connections are in the 0.3- 1.0Mbps range; and these are not available to subscribers who are not within 3 miles of an upgraded switch (DSL) or a few 100's of feet from an existing cable drop. The expense of ugrading switchs and lines and/or running new lines and coax is why we rural dwellers lack these services. WiMax should be a relatively inexpensive way to extend service to rural folks. And that is part of the Intel strategy for marketing their new chip. As Business Week puts it Intel :

" had to bring on board telecom companies, which aren't traditionally Intel customers: They're the ones who will sell the service. So the chipmaker created a WiMax forum with such heavyweights as SBC, Sprint, and Nokia to hammer out common standards for its chips. ... (initially, it) will be used to bring high-speed Internet to homes and businesses that lack service. But in a couple of years, WiMax will go mobile, allowing people to download movies, games, and other content without being tethered to a local hot spot, as Wi-Fi requires. ....

For consumers, WiMax could shake up the broadband world by helping to eliminate the cable and DSL duopoly that dominates the market. That could lead to lower prices and higher speeds. Upstarts could use WiMax to break cheaply into incumbents' markets. Clearwire, for example, has introduced a precursor to WiMax in four cities in Florida, Texas, and Minnesota; ....
Big players will be able to enter each other's territories, too. For example, in February a Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ ) subsidiary, Verizon Avenue, began offering a WiMax-like service in Monterey, Calif., a market currently served by rival SBC. "


Some technical aspects are in this Internet News article that also notes :
"Intel also touts WiMAX as a last mile alternative to remote areas not currently served by DSL or cable, as well as making it possible to wirelessly connect buildings up to several miles apart.

The opportunity for 802.16 equipment is forecast to reach a value of approximately $1 billion in 2008, according to a recent study by Visant Strategies. The report, entitled 802.16/WiMAX Technologies: World Market Forecasts 2003-2008, found last mile access will be the first application for 802.16a, but mobility will follow via 802.16e. .....

Some of the carriers working with Intel to enable a broad ecosystem around WiMAX include AT&T, Altitude Telecom, British Telecom, Brasil Telecom, ETB out of Columbia, Iberband, Millicom, Qwest, Sify, Speakeasy, Telkom, Telmex, TowerStream, and UHT out of the Ukraine. "

That's an impressive line-up of international partners ; and they also mention that the chip includes features for VoIP(Voice over Internet Protocol), which means you will be able to use a WiMax connection for phone calls over the internet. While the first version is for fixed sites, the second version (2007) will include mobile applications. The market for WiMax is expected to grow from $1Billion in 2008 to over $20Billion by 2015. This potential may explain why phone companies are so heavily involved in the WiMax technology and standards.

The New York Times notes that : " Scott Richardson, manager of Intel's broadband wireless division, said that more than 100 commercial WiMax tests were under way. He said he expected the service to become available more widely starting in about 18 months on a city-by-city basis.
"Initially, the technology will be deployed where cable and D.S.L. don't exist," Mr. Richardson said. "Our view is this technology and broadband helps connect the next billion users." "

And InformationWeek provides another good summary, adding information about current experiments in the US Army as well as some market data : "The market for fixed, or single-location, wireless services, including Wi-Fi and WiMax, is expected to reach $12.4 billion by 2010. ..... The WiMax Forum, an industry association, has finalized specifications for fixed WiMax (802.16d) and plans to begin testing equipment for certification this summer. The forum is still working on specs for mobile WiMax (802.16e), which will enable use by people walking down the street or traveling in cars. ....

The U.S. Army is testing prestandard WiMax gear from Telos Corp. at bases such as Fort Carson in Colorado for point-to-point and point-to-multipoint communications. .... Telos says the technology is being used to extend the Army's wired network to hard-to-reach places. The system provides speeds of up to 72 Mbps at a range of 50 miles in point-to-point mode or 15 miles in point-to-multipoint mode."

I am particularly heartened by this statement in Information Week which is the key point and the best hope for us in rural America to get broadband services soon :
"Local phone company BellSouth sees WiMax as a promising technology that "enables us to fill in the gaps in our DSL coverage to extend broadband services to rural areas and in the future introduce new and unique wireless services to complement our wireline services," says Mel Levine, director of product development at BellSouth's science and technology division."

Let's hope it is so. WiMax for the "last" mile sounds good to me.

There continues to be a lot of angst about the prospect that Senate Republicans will go "Nuclear" for Bush's judicial nominees. Let's be clear that ALL this incredibly misnamed action, if taken, will do is to allow the full Senate to vote up or down on the nominees approved out of the Judiciary Committee. Gee; is that really a Constitution Buster?

Actually, No! It merely allows the Senate to perform its Constitutional duty rather than be obstructed by a new minority party policy of using a senate rule in a manner never intended. One could argue quite reasonably that the Democrats went "Nuclear" in 2003 and are still there. Some facts might help to clear up the emotion and to recognize that all the noise is really just hardball political gamesmanship from the minority party. Nothing wrong with that. But, it's just politics as usual, not a Constitutional crisis.

Let's first note that the filibuster has been around for a long time but was never used to deny a full Senate vote on a nominee untill 2003, when the Democrats adopted it as an explicit policy to obstruct voting on the President's judicial nominees. Wait! didn't Bush get all but 10 nominees approved and isn't it in the Constitution ? One at a time : As the Lawyer at The Hedgehog Blog explains :
"All 10 of the nominations that the Democrats have blocked are Court of Appeals judges. The Democrats have been very accommodating in confirming district court judges, who sit in trial courts, not appellate courts. That is not surprising; it's no big deal for the opposition party to approve trial court judges.

No, it is over nominations to the United States Courts of Appeals that the Democrats have chosen to fight. Unlike district court decisions, Court of Appeals decisions actually set judicial precedents (often called "making law"). Perhaps more important, talented Court of Appeals judges are one step away from the Supreme Court and can use their appellate seats to qualify themselves for appointment to the Supreme Court.

That's what the Democrats want to prevent-- someone like Miguel Estrada getting appointed to the Big One. Estrada is a very talented lawyer with a superb legal education and pedigree; he's a mainstream conservative thinker, not an extremist, and (horrors!) he is Hispanic. It's just not good politics for the Democrats to allow Bush to groom that kind of bright young conservative for a Supreme Court nomination-- especially when the potential nominee would help Bush cut into one of the ethnic constituencies that Democrats are desperate to hang on to. (Estrada is no longer a nominee, by the way; he gave up after being held up for a year. He is, however, a fine example of the type of nominee that the Democrats want to block.)

I think that sums up a good case for a game of hardball politics being played out. I might add that the game did not work out well in November 2004 for the Democrats. With a lot of publicity about Judicial Obstruction, Senate Minority Leader Daschle was ousted by the voters and the Republicans gained both Senate and House seats. One could say that the electorate spoke strongly and has good reason to expect that their elected representatives will listen to their voice.

OK. But we all know that the Constitution is there to protect the rights of the minority from abuse by the majority. True, but it's not there to foster the tryanny of the minority either. Regarding the Constitution, it's useful to consult the document or a good guide to it. You could get this by linking from the Hedgehog Blog above, but Doug TenNapel's blog on Filibusted is worth quoting in full :
"The U.S. Constitution is careful to limit Supermajorities to key votes...votes that are extraordinary and require broad bipartisan support because they are so weighty. Here are the only nine instances where a Supermajority is allowed:

1. Convicting an Impeachment (2/3 majority in the Senate - Article 1, Section 3)

2. Expulsion of a member of one house of Congress (2/3 vote of the house in question - Article 1, Section 5)

3. Override a Presidential Veto (2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate - Article 1, Section 7)

4. Ratify a treaty (2/3 majority in the Senate - Article 2, Section 2)

5. Passing of a Constitutional Amendment by Congress (2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate - Article 5)

6. Calling for a Constitutional Convention (2/3 of the state legislatures - Article 5)

7. Ratifying a Constitutional Amendment (3/4 of the states - Article 5)

8. Restore the ability of certain rebels to serve in the government (2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate - 14th Amendment)

9. Approval or removal of the President from his position after the Vice President and the Cabinet approve such removal and after the President contests the removal (2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate 25th Amendment)."

That's right, no mention of a Supermajority to confirm Presidential nominees; or even for cloture. What was expected was that the Senate would provide its Advice and Consent to the President's nominees. Instead, a minority of Senators are claiming the right to preclude the full Senate from doing this duty. We are dealing with an internal rule that was never used before to prevent a full Senate vote on nominees. The voters gave a very strong statement in the last election that they want this obstruction to end.

It would seem that the Senate Republicans owe it to the voters to end this practice by changing their internal rule and by performing their duty to vote on nominees. So, are they really going "Nuclear" by doing this, or just ending the Democrat's "Nuclear Obstruction" policy?

The Arizona Minuteman Project (MMP) has had a good first 2 weeks with the Border Patrol acknowledging 317 calls from the MMP area, resulting in 846 arrests of illegal aliens. And as the Washington Times reports, their Border patrols inspire imitation, noting that the MMP :

"border vigil, which has nearly shut down a 20-mile corridor of the U.S.-Mexico border to illegal aliens, has spawned the creation of similar civilian patrols from California to Texas.
One of the new patrols, known as the "Yuma Patriots," was scheduled to begin operations today along the U.S.-Mexico border south of Yuma, Ariz., to curb rising numbers of illegal aliens flooding into southwestern Arizona."

And while the US Government officialdom is reluctant to comment :

"Mr. Simcox's Minuteman partner, James T. Gilchrist, said several Border Patrol field agents told him they "tremendously appreciate" what the volunteers are doing to bring attention to the porous border.
He said the agents, all of whom asked not to be identified, reported that since the volunteers arrived, apprehensions in the 20-mile area where the Minutemen have set up observation posts have dropped from 1,000 a day to less than 20.
Before the beginning of the Minuteman vigil, volunteers -- more than 600 of whom have completed a four-hour training session and spent at least one eight-hour shift on the border -- were accused of being armed racists prone to violence. No incidents have occurred during the first two weeks of operation."

But, perhaps the MMP shouldn't get all the credit for the huge decline in illegal border crossing. They may have had help as suggested by this provocatively titled story from - WorldNetDaily: ACLU aiding illegal entry into U.S.? . They report that an interviewee : " told Joseph Farah's nationally syndicated "WorldNetDaily RadioActive" audience yesterday that ACLU monitors sent to the border to watch Minuteman activity and report civil-liberties abuses to authorities have begun flashing lights, sounding horns and warning off illegals and their "coyote" human smugglers from entering territory patrolled by the volunteers." And that : "Border Patrol sources say the Mexican army recently moved about 1,000 troops to the Agua Prieta region, just south of where the Minutemen are. These troops, the sources say, are diverting all of the illegal alien and drug-smuggling traffic away from the Minutemen."

So, does that mean the ACLU is helping the Mexican authorities help the illegal border crossers find safer places to cross? Or has the ACLU given up on its goal of "monitoring" the MMP volunteers for human rights abuses and opted to become noise-makers instead?

Either way, they seemed to have not stopped the MMP from succeeding in making their goals of slowing illegal crossings, getting national attention to a serious national issue, and, even, inspiring some emulation. My first post on this suggested that the US Border Patrol should team with the MMP and treat this exercise as a learning experiment in civilian-official cooperation to solve a common problem. Well, some other civilians are now extending the experiment, and its still a good idea to cooperate with them officially.

Oh Yes - Sleeping Dogs. Well, from the Times article : "Several homeowners along the border have told The Washington Times that the presence of the Minuteman volunteers had resulted in the first time in years that their dogs were quiet and they could get a full night's sleep."

So, it seems the ACLU didn't stop the MMP and couldn't even keep the US homeowners and their dogs awake. But maybe they helped those Mexican folks divert the crossers to better routes.

Connecting up a smart home? You mean high bandwidth in-home networking of all our hi-tech gear? Even here in NE PA where, like many rural parts of the country, we lack adequate access to high bandwidth communications for internet as well as mobile services? Yes! Because sometimes the solution to a tough problem is to come at it from a different direction by solving a seperate easier problem using a technique that applies to the original problem. That can create the conditions ( the popular or political pressure) to permit solution of the original problem.

Today, many of us in rural America have to rely on slow dial-up connections, or seek expensive high speed satellite service, because cable and telephone companies find it uneconomic to extend to us. Besides fixed wireless services which look very promissing, there is a another possibility for high bandwidth to every rural resident - and that is over the power company lines. We all get electric service over those wires and poles to our farms and homes ; and there is technology to allow those same wires to transmit very high bandwidth data - for internet and other services.

That could be a very attractive alternative if the power companies can overcome government regulations and deploy the technology. We don't hear much about that option, but there may be a way to bring it into the public forum and get people excited about what it could do for them.

There is some new attention going to the use of similar technology to move lots of data between gadgets and locations within the house using the electric wiring as an everywhere inexpensive network. The potential bandwidth is very high, over 150Mbits per second compared with 11 -50Mbits per second for most WiFi nets. There are several ways to create a future in-house network, e.g. ethernets or coax cables , wireless nets, the electric wire nets, or combinations. But why?

A good discussion of the whys and hows is provided by Eric Taub in his NYTimes article Everything's Connected, Yes. But How? As he puts it:

"Consumer technology seers say they think they have a good idea about the home of the future. It will be a place where photos, television shows, movies and music will be stored centrally and available in any room on demand.

It is called the connected home, where television sets, digital video recorders, DVD and music players and computers are all tied together. But an important question must be answered before the connected home becomes a reality: how will everything actually be connected?"

It's worth reading to get a feeling for the options and how real they may be. There are several technology approaches and standards that the engineers can argue about. But I think the issue is summed up best in one sentence by Panasonic North America's chief technology officer; it's a qoute that expresses perfectly the business thinking that is making today's consumer electronics ubiquitous :

"There will be a place for all of this stuff," said Mr. Liao of Panasonic. "You won't need it all, but it will become cheap enough to get it all."

Indeed ! And maybe even some spillover into cheap high bandwidth communications for rural America from the power line grid.

There has been a lot in the news about how the Senate should treat Presidential nominations and, more recently, about the hearings on John Bolton's nomination to become American Ambassador to the UN. It seems to me that these hearings and Senate procedures are being grossly overdramatized - and for all the wrong reasons. They strike me as more about publicity and partisan interest and obstructionism than national interest.

As an example, this brief statement by James Taranto in his WSJ Best of the Web Today column captures the essence of the Bolton nomination Senate Hearings : "The Washington Post's Dana Milbank gives the game away, though:

"Most Republicans skipped the hearing, leaving Democrats largely unchallenged as they assailed Bolton's knack for making enemies and disparaging the very organization he would serve."

That would be the U.N.--but of course the American ambassador to the U.N. is supposed to serve America, not the U.N."

Of course, some may have a different view of the American Ambassador's prmary duty - i.e. to promote the coming of "global governance". That view is discussed by David Brooks in today's New York Times OP-ED .As he says, regarding John Bolton : " it is ridiculous to say he doesn't believe in the United Nations. This is a canard spread by journalists who haven't bothered to read his stuff and by crafty politicians who aren't willing to say what the Bolton debate is really about.

The Bolton controversy isn't about whether we believe in the U.N. mission. It's about which U.N. mission we believe in.

From the start, the U.N. has had two rival missions. Some people saw it as a place where sovereign nations could work together to solve problems. But other people saw it as the beginnings of a world government.

This world government dream crashed on the rocks of reality, but as Jeremy Rabkin of Cornell has observed, the federalist idea has been replaced by a squishier but equally pervasive concept: the dream of "global governance."

Mr. Brooks goes on to give five good reasons why Americans will never subscribe to the "global governance" model and that Bolton is the right man to make these American points. I would add that Bolton's appointment comes is at the right time to help the UN to reform itself into a relevant and useful player on the world scene. Or as Brooks says about Bolton : " Time and time again, he has pointed out that the U.N. can be an effective forum where nations can go to work together, but it can never be a legitimate supranational authority in its own right.

Sometimes it takes sharp elbows to assert independence. But this is certain: We will never be so seduced by vapid pieties about global cooperation that we'll join a system that is both unworkable and undemocratic."

Sounds good and realistic to me. I think the debates on this nomination and those on judicial nominations reflect a deep divide between those who believe the world is better if we keep our national soveriegnty and and strength and those who don't; and between those who believe in the exercise of government power under democratic elections and constitutuional safeguards and those who favor enacting new policy by judicial adjudication rather than by representative legislation.

It seems that Presidential nominations are being treated as publicity opportunities by the minority party rather than as an honest exercise of advise and consent responsibilities. I wonder whether our political parties are really reflecting that great philosophical divide or actively exagerating and fostering it. There is a line between resposible minority oppostion and partisan obstructionism. It may not be an easy line to distinguish, but one sign of the crossing may be the extent of personal vituperation and emotionalism employed by the minority. I think we have been seeing too much of that lately.

Well, in this case, I find it easy to vote for Bolton over global governance and I think he will do America's work at the UN. As he should.

There is new hope for retaining freedom of speech over the Internet with the introduction of the Online Freedom of Speech Act in the House of Representatives by Congressman Jeb Hensarling(R-Tx). Combined with a matching senate bill by Senator Harry Reid, this could be a real bipartisan chance to fix the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, at least for free speech on the internet. It deserves support from our congressman and senators.

This posting by . RedState.org || tells the story very well and provides the text of the 'Act' - all one sentence of it. Author Krempasky has been a key motivator in digging out facts on this FEC case and in getting both blogger and news media attention on it. As he reports it:

"This is a bill that deserves bipartisan support, and it's exciting to see it off to a good start.

In short - if this bill passes both houses and becomes law in the next 50 or-so days, the disastrous FEC rulemaking process will be rendered moot. Remember, the FEC is only creating regulations for Internet activity because Congress didn't specifically mention the Internet at all, and a federal judge ruled that even in the absence of specific direction of Congress, the FEC had to do so anyway.

This bill provides that direction, and creates that exclusion. It might not solve *all* the problems of regulation, but it's miles and away the best solution right now. I've already heard from some liberal colleagues in the blogosphere, and we're going to push this bill - and hard.

The blogosophere has proven extraordinary aptitude when it comes to attacking or stopping something, let's prove that we can be just as much a powerful influence when it comes to creating and moving something forward.

Full bill text as well as Represenative Hensarling's "Dear Colleague Letter" are beneath the fold.
Print This Story
Apr 13th, 2005: 16:43:33, Not Rated

Bill text: (resolution number pending)

Paragraph (22) of section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended by adding at the end of the following new sentence: "Such term shall not include communications over the Internet."

Hensarling's letter to other House Members:

Dear Colleague:

When Congress passed campaign finance reform in 2002, the legislation did not identify the Internet as a target of regulation, and rightly so. The explosion of new technology has done much to democratize our politics, encourage grassroots political involvement, and act as a tremendous catalyst for civic engagement across our country. With the emergence of blogs, the Internet truly puts the power in the hands of the people.

Unfortunately, a federal judge has ruled that the FEC's previous broad exemption of the Internet was impermissible absent clear direction from Congress. Within the next sixty days, the FEC is expected to finalize rules and regulations that could squash not only free speech and citizen activism, but could well impede innovation and technology – unless Congress acts now.

Today, I introduced the Online Freedom of Speech Act to offer that direction, amending federal election law to specifically exclude communications over the Internet from the definition of "public communication" for purposes of regulation. It will allow the growth and expansion of new voices in our political process without interference. An identical bill (S.678) has been introduced in the Senate by the distinguished Minority Leader signifying that this effort is not a partisan one.

We ought to embrace these newcomers to our political process instead of applying complex and chilling regulatory burdens. Please cosponsor this important legislation and help me protect bloggers and online activists from the heavy hand of federal regulation. For more information, please call Gerry O’Shea on my staff at 5-3484.

Congressman Jeb Hensarling
5th District, Texas "


That's the whole story and that 1-liner IS the whole "ACT". Wish all government acts and laws were so briefly stated and easy to understand. This effort is worth support and our congressional representatives should hear from us on it.

MIT is trying to start a new revolutionary Boston T-Party aimed at Rethinking Computers . The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is teaming with Quanta Computer( world's largest maker of laptop computers) in a five-year, $20 million research effort to define the future of computing by creating the next generation of computer-communications platforms and products. That's a pretty ambitious project for the money. According to the article:

"While some T-Party technologies might find their way into commercial products before the project is completed in 2010, many of them will be geared to laying the foundation for a new era, when computer hardware recedes into the background and computing is all but invisible to the average person.

"An ultimate form would be for you to walk into a room and your biometrics would validate you and give you your data," Brooks said, referring to fingerprint or iris scanning that could enable the display of information on electronics-embedded surfaces or mobile devices.

The marriage of MIT's research expertise and Quanta's production prowess - the Taiwanese company is the world's largest maker of laptop computers - is intended to eliminate the clunkiness of personal computers and the frustration of having to use devices that do not easily talk to each other, including cellphones, digital calendars and hand-held computers. The goal is to make accessing data more intuitive while addressing tricky issues like information transfer, configurations, security, maintenance, backups and upgrades."

MIT and Stanford have been key pioneers in the art of blending industry and academia in useful entrepreneural activities. They were the intellectual engines that drove the development of the Route 128 and Silicon Valley phenomena, responsible for much of our modern electronics and automation.

Last Saturday, I posted on Wireless Philadelphia - Reality & Model? . I noted that the clever blending of technology and business approaches could be a good model for other deployments. Fortunately, I also used a "?" and noted that : "if states pass laws that restrict municipal broadband deployments, cities will not even be able to use their creativity to come up with innovative models such as the one devised by Philadelpia.
Unfortunately, I think Pennsylvannia has passed HB30 which seems to have just that chilling effect on the ability of the rest of the state to get as creative as Philly, which got an exemption for this project. Doesn't seem fair does it? "

Well this Monday, eWeek published an article, Philadelphia: Muni Wi-Fi's Worst-Case Scenario , that argues Philadelphia sold out the rest of the state, especially the rural areas that really need new broadband services, by dropping its opposition to HB30. The author makes two interesting points : first, that the City has extensive broadband (except for areas where people had no computers); and that the city's plans may be so ambitious and high profile, that failure will make it easier for opponents to forestall other municipal efforts to serve their citizens in other states as well as in Pennslyvania . The article correctly states that: " it's the smaller communities and rural environments in Pennsylvania—where there either is no service or where a single provider with no competition extorts prohibitive fees for service—where muni Wi-Fi makes the most sense."

The same author cites Kutztown,PA, as a better example of how a small community can be creative and leverage a lot of competition to the benefit of its residents in this article on Municipal Wireless . Unfortunately, this effort may be shut out by PA law, HB30. Kutztown is close enough that our county could learn some first hand lessons from their experiences; especially about how to partner with and get concessions from existing telecommunications companies.

HB30 puts a lot of leverage in the hands of the local Telco (Verizon or CTCO); but it also requires them to provide broadband on an accelerated schedule. That latter requirement can be a strong inducement to partner creatively with a wireless company to solve a municipal or county need, with the local government acting as a facilitator to the partnering. As an example, new wireless mesh network technology, combined with WiMax and metro-scale WiFi, provides an incumbent local exchange carrier( e.g. CTCO) a new way to extend its current network to distant clusters of users. Depending on the topography and demographics, this approach could provide broadband service at less investment cost than upgrading existing lines and switches for DSL service.

I hear that Cisco is going to produce mesh network gear; that may be a good sign that the "mesh" market is about to heat up. "Mesh" nets basically string a series of radios out from a single very high bandwidth wired (or fiber) entry point; the radios are much cheaper than the entry point (or DSL switch upgrade) gear. This technique lets a broadband signal bounce from radio to radio over long distances, potentially at much lower cost than a DSL upgrade. That's good for users in low population rural areas; and for the Telco that needs to satisfy its HB30 obligations.

One company, Tropos Networks , has been deploying metro-scale mesh networks and is now working on participating in the Philadelphia effort. While their business model favors clusters, they may find it attractive to flex it to our rural envirinment if they get more engaged in PA. Among the municipal models they have worked with, according to this Municipal Broadband article, are:

Munis using the mesh strictly as a private network for police, fire, emergency and other city services. This model is currently in use in Framingham, Mass.; Milpitas and San Mateo, Calif.; and Franklin, Tenn. Munis acting as an ISP for their residents, a model followed in Chaska, Minn. Munis owning the network for use with city services but selling excess capacity to ISPs, which, in turn, offer services to residents. Munis engaging in a cable TV franchise-style model, making rights of way available to a private operator in exchange for some sort of consideration. Madison, Wis., and Tucson and Tempe, Ariz., currently use this model.

That last method is close to a model that might be viable for rural Pennsylvania, even under HB30; Perhaps by brokering the use of right of ways and facititating the partnering of a local Telco and a wireless company.

I don't know that any of these approaches will work out soon for us rural folks. But I do think we can increase the liklihood of getting more broadband sooner if we look at these developments as opportunities and look for others willing to help us take advantage of them. That gives us a chance to create our own rural wireless broadband model and make it a reality.

Reading two articles in today's Washington papers suggests a neat market-based opportunity for protecting the borders from terrorist infiltration and getting better control over the (currently illegal) immigration of alien workers. Let's review the bidding and look for an opportunity.

President Bush would like to get an Immigrant Temporary Worker program to allow Mexicans (or others) to enter the country and work legally for short defined time periods. This could greatly reduce the amount ( and enforcement costs) of the current illegal border crossing problem; potentially allowing more border resources to be focused on terrorist infiltration. This program is not selling very well as people are concerned that it will devolve into an amnesty program with substantial social and economic costs. Perhaps, but a review of two articles in today's Washington papers suggests a some interesting facts.

The Washinton Post reports on a GSA investigation that faults border monitoring system . It seems that there are serious problems of functionality and accountability in a network of cameras and sensors installed for the U.S. Border Patrol along the Mexican and Canadian borders. : "The problems with the $239 million Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System (ISIS), which U.S. officials call crucial to defending the country against terrorist infiltrators, are under investigation by the inspector general of the General Services Administration. .....
Homeland Security officials say the ISIS network of cameras and sensors is helpful in spotting intruders and guiding border agents in hot pursuit, but needs to be expanded. It covers only a few hundred miles of the 6,500-mile Canadian and Mexican borders, and can be evaded by crossing the border where there is no ISIS gear."

Ok , we spent $239Million to cover only , maybe, 4%-5% of the border and it doesn't work very well. Does that mean that for $5-6Billion, we could cover all the border equally ineffectively (but "helpfully")? Keep that number in mind. Also note the basic fact that barriers get bypassed.

The Arizona Minuteman Project (MMP) is a volunteer effort, so it didn't cost $240Million and 8 years to learn, as the Washington times reports, that Illegal aliens dodge sentinels along border . For their first week, the MMP volunteers have reported over 300 illegal aliens to the Border Patrol for arrest. But as the article notes : " Minuteman Project volunteers, manning outposts along a 20-mile stretch of the Arizona-Mexico border, have managed to block a major corridor used by migrants headed north.
Those intent on illegally entering the United States, however, found new routes east and west of here. .....
Last year, more than 40 percent of the 1.15 million illegal aliens caught by the Border Patrol were taken into custody in this southern Arizona region, known as the Tucson sector. ...
The Sonora State Preventive Police were working with the Mexican military and Grupa Beta, a government-funded humanitarian organization, to route would-be migrants to Aqua Prieta, just across the border from Douglas, ....
Smugglers, known as "coyotes," diverted operations in the past several days to move the northbound migrants through Douglas and Nogales, ....
The smugglers make an average of $1,000 per person brought illegally into the United States, officials said. "

Once again, put up a barrier and illegal immigrants walk around it. Of course in this case, the Mexican government and its agencies helpfully assist them to do so. And the immigrant workers pay a lot for help in crossing. Is that a Border Crossing market - Could it be an opportunity?

Let's do a little math on those numbers and include that fact that the Border Patrol claims they only catch about 33% of the aliens illegally crossing the border. That would indicate that about 3.5 million aliens cross each year; and 40% of those, or about 1.4 million cross in the Tucson sector alone. If these Tucson area crossers are paying "coyotes" $1,ooo each, that's a $1.4Billion annual business (potentially $3.5Billion nationwide). Paid by would-be workers to get into the US for low wage employment, all that money goes to border criminals; none of it to us.

Why not view it as a $1.4 Billion/year market and take advantage of it to benefit ourselves as well as the market clients (alien workers) ? $1.4Billion is enough to pay for and equip, at $100K each, 14,000 border agents. But we don't need that many; the border experts want about 2000 more agents, mostly for the SouthWest. Using that $100k guestimate, 2000 agents should cost about $200Million.

Now suppose we sell aliens annual crossing privileges - with worker permits and ID's as control measures - for say $500 ? The "coyotes" are out of business; and the immigrant worker saves $500 and avoids all the risks of crossing plus the hassle of living illegally once here. The US Immigration folks make $700Million. Deducting $200Million for the 2,000 new agents (which may not be needed if we went this way), leaves $500Million/year to pay for sensor systems and anti-infiltration efforts focused on the terrorist threat. And that's just the Tucson sector.

Of, course we are only talking about 40% of the problem here; so the numbers could be a lot higher - as much as 2.5 times higher or $2.5Billion annually. At that rate, we could fully fund a nice "helpful" ISIS in two years. OK, so it's not really that big a market. But, even at a 50% reduction, it could go a long way towards solving the Mexican border and immigrant worker problem; and provide some funding to address the other social-economic problems of our long history of winking at illegal worker immigration.

So why not view the border control and temporary-worker immigration problem as a market opportunity and solve it like good free market capitalists - instead of creating a black market for criminals to exploit?

This article discusses three recent Australian conferences on climate change as a Debate Down Under on what the science is and what policy is wise in a post-Kyoto world. The Australians seem to be taking a refreshingly open and realistic look at the facts and options. The article really says it all quite well and is worth the read. A few key points are :
"Science featured prominently in the discussions. For the first time in Australia, Australia's leading advocates of the Kyoto model were required to publicly defend the "official" UN science supporting Kyoto to their peers. They were not successful. Doubts about the UN science are increasing in Australia.
Meanwhile, the Kyoto Protocol is moribund. This was crystal clear at the UN climate change conference in Argentina last November. The US, Italy, China and developing countries decided Kyoto would not extend beyond 2012. Overtures by the EU to extend it were rejected.
Most greens pretend this did not occur. They also ignore something else. Most governments around the world are not persuaded by the claims that global warming presents a cataclysmic threat. It they were, they would not have walked away from the Kyoto Protocol.
The Australian conferences all focused on one question: What climate change strategies should we adopt in the future? Two options have emerged. Replace the fractured Kyoto model with another model using regulations to reduce greenhouse gases; or change tack and foster technologies that reduce emissions."

"The preferred international approach now is the US strategy to develop low emission technologies. It is the only realistic global strategy. Kyoto stalled because the threat to growth it presented was unacceptable to developing countries. The more radical alternative is even more unacceptable."

The following two statements address the underlying science issues and view the current global climate situation from a longer term earth science perspective:

"Dr. John Zillman, former head of Australia's meteorology bureau and Australia's leading scientific member of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) argued its processes were as good as you would get and its science sound. Ross McKitrick from the University of Guelph, Ontario, took the conference through the detail of research which demonstrated as unsupportable the analysis which produced the famous "hockey stick" chart. This chart demonstrated the twentieth century is the hottest on record. It was endorsed by the IPCC which headlined it to support the case that human activity was causing global warming. McKitrick's analysis that the modeling was fundamentally flawed and the data unrepresentative is now regarded as correct. The work behind the chart was not checked before the IPCC endorsed and headlined it."

"Professor Bob Carter, a geologist from the University of Townsville, then put the discussion over the IPCC climate change science into an Earth science framework. He considered it suspicious that the IPCC work only used the last 1000 years as the frame of reference. He demonstrated that in a million year timescale we were in one of the few interglacial warming periods and the next expected long term development in climate should be a cooling possibly leading to an ice age. He also produced analysis which showed that the historical pattern is that levels of CO2 in the atmosphere rise after temperature increases, not the other way around, as is supposed in the "official" science of greenhouse warming which presumes increases in carbon dioxide are causing global warming. In passing he debunked the conventional claim that most scientists are agreed on the "official" science."

Finally, this last statement is crisp and honest and applies equally strongly to us.

"The debate on science is just starting in Australia. There has never been an independent assessment in Australia of the science of global warming or the implications for Australia. Most focus has been on the economic effects. This was a result of an unspoken decision by government officials and big business over a decade ago not to contest the science. The result is that most Australian officials in government agencies who work on climate change policy are uninformed about the science. This is true in most countries."

Indeed.

April 9 was the 2nd anniversary of the liberation of Iraq and the government declared it a holiday. In a clear sign of progress towards a free democracy, remnants of the government opposition staged a March in Baghdad without any political repression. Although billed as a "million man march", only a few thousand showed up. Well, that's what happened; but you might not get that impression from reading some of the US 'MainStreamMedia' (MSM). Let's look at two views .

This Dexter Filkins story gets a prominent place in todays NYTimes with a headline that reflects the continued "balance" of the NYT as well as the author's tale that Demonstrators in Iraq Demand That U.S. Leave . As Filkins tells it : "Most protesters were followers of Moktada al-Sadr, the rebel Shiite cleric who has led several armed uprisings against American forces but who has recently begun to take part in democratic politics."
And later in the story : "The demonstration illustrated the ability of Mr. Sadr to mobilize his followers peacefully and capitalize on resentment here caused by the presence of more than 150,000 foreign troops. ...... Last year, Mr. Sadr's armed followers, called the Mahdi Army, were routed by American forces after they rose up in cities across the south. The mauling of his army is believed to be one of the chief factors behind Mr. Sadr's entry into the political mainstream. He now commands one of the largest blocs in the Shiite alliance that makes up the government.
Still, the principal leaders in the Shiite alliance have publicly said that they want American forces to stay."

Golly Gee! How can it be that those leaders, elected by Millions of Iraqis, are so resistant to a few 1000's of supporters of a defeated rebel party. Could it be that they feel that al-Sadr's party is about as close to Iraq's political mainstream as the Socialist Workers party is to America's ?

The NYT story doesn't have much to say about any Iraqi happiness about this date; it seems to be pretty much a dismal view. I wonder if there is another perspective?

Let's start with the view of an Iraqi in the blog, IRAQ THE MODEL , who has this to say in a post called 'The Eid of Liberty' ( the grammer and spelling may not be up to NYT standards, but the reality compensates ) : "I don't think I need to tell you how close is the 9th of April to my heart. And now, after two years happiness is still the same for me; one person among millions who were freed on that great day. .... Some naysayers and losers will say that terror had marked the past two years in Iraq but we the Iraqis believe that terrorism is merely the defeated remnants of evil fed by the other tyrants who got terrified from the fall of their demonic master. They're holding onto a weak thread that will soon be broken no matter how hard they try.
Today we can see the idol of terror shaking and losing balance from the powerful strike Iraqis had given it on the glorious election day; the day when the world stood amazed before the extraordinary bravery of Iraqis defying fear and walking through bullets and bombs to say their word and give terror the purple finger. .....
So today we're offering a last chance to choose between joining the real world and joining Muqtada and Harith Al-Dhari.
Go and chant with them, condemn democracy and march against freedom if you like but don't forget that those thugs represent no one but themselves. They rejected democracy from the beginning and missed the chance of joining the greatest election of our time. .....
Finally, I would like to say it again and say it loud:
Thank you our liberators."

And another Iraqi's view is reported on the PowerLine Blog, Power Line , which also has a good photo of Iraqis marching on the 2nd anniversary of their liberation. The sign in the photo says, in English: "The mass graves are proof enough to find Saddam guilty and hang him." Quoting their Iraqi correspondent, Haider, the blog entry says : " Haider continues:
"Iraqis take to the streets on the second anniversary of the liberation of Baghdad. Iraqi government declared it as national day, the day Iraq was freed from Saddam’s barbaric rule. Many of the banners call for the Trial of Saddam and his gang. Other banners condemn terrorist and terrorism. Al-Sadr (who received no seats in the current parliament, because very few voted for him) is taking this opportunity to call for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq. His request is counter to what the elected government is asking for."

Haider makes a very fundamental point here, one that is absent from all of the MSM stories I've seen on the al-Sadr anti-American demonstrations: Al-Sadr's slate got so few votes in January's election that they didn't get a single seat in the Iraqi parliament. Yet, it seems, their ability to turn out a few tattered demonstrators is enough to garner headlines throughout the U.S. Why?"

A good question. Why ??

Philadelphia is on a breakthrough path to providing all residents with wireless broadband and voice over wireless services, including WiFi, WiMax, and mesh networks. As reported in MuniWireless.com, Muniwireless: Philadelphia announces business plan and RFP, which show a good blend of government and multiple business partnerings : "Philadelphia has officially released the business plan for "Wireless Philadelphia", the citywide wireless broadband network, and the RFP. They are using the Cooperative Wholesale model (similar to the model used by UTOPIA in Utah). You can also go to www.phila.gov/wireless to view these documents. There will be a web conference today at 15:00 Eastern time - details for joining the conference are here.

I spoke to Dianah Neff (City CIO) about the city's plans, the model they are using and what they expect to gain through it. Under the Cooperative Wholesale model, the city will create a non-profit organization whose task is to build the network by contracting out to private parties. The non-profit will get its funding through foundation grants and bank loans; it plans to earn revenue by selling access to private ISPs at wholesale prices. .... What's interesting as well is that a number of national and local ISPs have told Dianah that they are definitely interested in purchasing access from the non-profit because the ISPs don't have to set up their own infrastructure (getting roof and pole rights, having put to their own equipment on light poles). The projected wholesale prices range from $9 for residential (fixed and nomadic) to $100 for premium business (T1 with local loop; service directly using WiMAX base stations). The estimated typical residential end user price would be $16-$20 and low-income residents will have even cheaper broadband (target is $5 per month). .... The only opposition they have received has come from the incumbent telcos. This is not surprising since Philadelphia is essentially developing a telco-bypass network. .... The Philadelphia plan shows that cities can get creative about designing public-private partnerships that involve as many private enterprises as possible and that lower the cost of communications for businesses and residents. However, if states pass laws that restrict municipal broadband deployments, cities will not even be able to use their creativity to come up with innovative models such as the one devised by Philadelphia."

More details can be found in the pdf version of the plan here : Wireless-Phila-Business-Plan.

Unfortunately, I think Pennsylvannia has passed HB30 which seems to have just that chilling effect on the ability of the rest of the state to get as creative as Philly, which got an exemption for this project. Doesn't seem fair does it? Well, while we could use this capability in NEPA and other rural parts of the state, we don't seem to be ready yet in terms of political organization. When we are, there should be some useful experience from the 'Wireless Philadelphia' project to guide us. Alternatively, existing service providers may get motivated to offer more and better services to rural residents by then. Competition, even the fear of it, can do wonders.

It's time to look at Social Security (SS) again. The President is continuing his grass roots campaign. Recently, he made a show of visiting a fle drawer, the bottom one in a cabinet, that contains the 270 pieces of paper that are the legal embodiment of the Social Security Trust Fund. These special non-negotiable bonds are it. These bonds are promises by the Government to itself; quite different from negotiable bonds that are issued to US and Foriegn buyers. For one thing, if you write a bond, or IOU, to yourself, you can change the terms of the agreement by youself --- decide to pay later or with less cost of living adjustments, etc.. And that is exactly what the government can do with the bonds in the trust fund and has done several times already.

His point is obvious to those of us who understand the simple facts - there are no assets backing up the SS Trust Fund. Once the income from the FICA Tax cannot pay the full bill for SS retirees, the Government must borrow or tax to find the money - just as it would if there were no fund. Or, unilaterally change the terms of the deal; e.g. by paying less or paying it later.

The New SS Trustees report is out and it tells us of the 3 critical dates for SS : 2041, when the fund will be exhausted; 2017, when the FICA will take in less than needed and new money must be found; and 2008, when the FICA surplus revenues start to decline towards Zero in 2017. The 2041 date only means that then by law SS payments to retirees must be cut by over 27%. It's important because of the wording of the law; but the other two dates are the economically important ones. Something must happen by 2017 to get more money, since there is none in the trust fund. The 2008 date is when we can see surplus revenue dwindle and with it the opportunity dwindles for using those surplus revenues to help fix the SS problem. These numbers tell us we need to act now to fix the problem before it becomes increasingly expensive.

But the news media and the polls they report tell us that no one listens to the President and that Americans don't believe there is a problem. Polls are funny things; so much depends on how you ask the question and what population sample you ask. I find much of this about as credible as all the exit polls that said Bush lost on election day. So let's look at another view for balance.

Patrick Ruffini's blog has consistently good commentary on Social Security issues including the latest poll that shows 60% of Americans Support Personal Accounts . More importantly, the younger you are , the more you're likely to want personal accounts; Under 30 folks prefer them by 76% to 16% ( almost 5-1) and all under 55 folks prefer them by 64% to 26% ( about 2.5-1). Even the over 55 folks, who would not be affected by any of the proposals, favor letting people choose these account by 56% to 31% (almost 2-1). You can check the full raw data on this link to the FOX - Opinion Dynamics Poll . These results strike me as common sense; most people can see the advantage of personal accounts; and the younger you are the greater the advantage for your own retirement. It's hard to reconcile these poll numbers with most of the stories coming out of the mainstream media - but then those same media "experts" had Bush losing badly to Kerry in their polls and commentary last year.

This poll does seem like good news; and it was conducted without the media recognizing or reporting on the upcoming legislation proposed by the House and Senate Republicans. Already 4 plans, with personal accounts, have undergone SS Actuarial scrutiny and have come out as sustainable solutions. I think it will be increasingly harder for the Democrats and big media press to spin this issue in the absence of a real factual argument much less a counterplan. Meanwhile let's look at a lead SS Reform contender that will soon be joint Senate - House proposed legislation.

In this interview, Senator John Sununu discusses how his forthcoming legislative package would use Personal Accounts to Improve Social Security . The Sununu senate bill is matched by the Ryan bill in the house; these bills will not cut benefits and will guarantee everyone a minimum payment equal to what they would get under current Social Security.

Per Senator Sununu : "We took our plan as I've described it to you--10% of the first $10,000 and 5% after that up to the Social Security earnings limit--and we still guarantee a minimum benefit for retirees equal to today's benefit structure. We don't change benefits at all. We submitted that plan to the Social Security actuary and asked: What's the impact on the Social Security trust fund balances? And does this system establish solvency in perpetuity--forever? The answer to the second question was, yes, it makes the system solvent forever, in perpetuity. And the answer to the first is, we maintain positive balances in the Social Security trust fund over the next 75 years.

It does make the system solvent, and it makes the system solvent because the accounts are of a significant size to enable a worker earning $30,000 per year to build enough in their account to give them a benefit at or above what Social Security otherwise would have given them. Therefore, they do not have to draw a check directly from the general fund or the Social Security trust fund. They will be provided that benefit over their Social Security benefit, out of their own personal account."

Of course there is a substantial transistion cash flow cost, but this is handled in a novel way - by forcing a cut in the rate of increased government spending. This is not cut in spending, only in how fast the spending increases each year. As Senator Sununu says : "The plan is evaluated by the Social Security actuary as a whole. The reduction in the growth of government spending from 4.6% per year to 3.6% per year over the first eight years of the plan gives you resources to finance the transition. And then after the first eight years, we assume we go back to the 4.6% growth. But because the baseline is lower, it will be lower for decades to come and continue to provide resources that aren't anticipated today. We have transition financing required for a shortfall in the current system over the next 30 years. That shortfall is going to remain almost under any plan. We cover that shortfall by doing a better job of controlling government spending."

Somehow this plan strikes me as win-win for the taxpayer and the retiree. (For more details, see my earlier post on Social Security Reform - Fears and Prospects ). Keeping Federal government spending growth down to only a little more than cost of living growth seems a good thing in itself. And look what it buys us - workers keep low taxes and get a real personal wealth building account for their FICA taxes and retirees get at least as much as currently promised. Most future retirees should get a lot more from their personal accounts than just that, and they can leave the funds to their heirs. As an extra benefit, the SS Actuaries estimate that the SS System should become fiscally solvent and stable enough to reduce the FICA tax.

So why isn't this proposal a clear winner ? Well, as Newt Gingrich has written in HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE : "Personal accounts offer workers far greater personal choice, ownership and control than the current system. .... Personal accounts that are large enough (around 6%) will also eliminate the long-term deficits of Social Security by shifting so much of those program’s promised future benefit obligations to the accounts that the program will be left in permanent surplus. .... the bill sponsored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R.-Wis.) and Sen. John Sununu (R.-N.H.), which was designed to maximize the net gain for workers, so it would have enormous populist grassroots appeal.It brilliantly maintains the social safety net by guaranteeing that all workers would get at least the benefits promised by Social Security under current law.

Ryan-Sununu also includes a federal spending-limitation measure and budget process reform to help finance the transition, and that would require Washington to make the tough choices instead of shifting the burden to the worker."


AH Yes! It's that last sentence that is most likely the fatal flaw in this scheme. It would mean that both Democrats and Republicans would have to commit to cut back on their mutual spending spree and and make the tough choices to balance the budget with only moderate annual increases. Perhaps, it will never happen because of that; then again, Senator Sununu thinks there are 5-10 Democrat senators "who are very interested" in this reform idea and who would "prefer their own leadership wasn't being so heavy-handed on this". Wouldn't we all! Let's see how this plays out.