I know that for many of you—if not most of you—this sounds absolutely incredulous.
The United States already has a staggering debt load of more than $14 trillion and to now raise the debt ceiling which would in effect allow the government to borrow even more money must sound crazy. After all, shouldn’t we be doing everything as a country to reduce the amount our country borrows each year thereby reducing overall what we owe the rest of the world? And in a twist of irony that must have Stalin and Mao laughing wherever they are, we owe most of it to the Chinese.
I sat down this past weekend and planned my budget for the next three months and as I attempted to squeeze more out of less (old man inflation is not playing), I realized that our government currently borrows an almost unbelievable $100 billion each month just to keep the doors open and the lights on.
Before we go any further, let’s try to understand just what the debt ceiling is anyway. When you acquire a credit card, it usually comes with a specific dollar limit you are allowed to spend. Go over that limit and you will either pay a massive amount of fees for doing so or you will simply have your card declined.
The United States Government also has a credit limit but it is not set by those we borrow from. It is instead, set by the U.S. Congress which has passed legislation allowing the government to borrow up to a ceiling. Currently, under the existing law, that limit is $14.3 trillion. Our ability to get credit so that we can keep borrowing money is believe it or not, not relevant in this discussion because after all, we have laws that limit the amount we can borrow as a country.
So what is the fuss all about? The Republicans who have already shoved through Congress a $38.5 billion cut during the recent budget fight are now screaming that before they will approve any legislation that is designed to raise the amount the government can borrow, they want to see even more cuts in spending. While the verbiage is a little mean-spirited, and some of what they want to cut is even more mean-spirited, they unfortunately have somewhat of a point. More importantly, most Americans are coming around to their way of thinking on the issue of American debt because after all, who doesn’t worry about debt, especially the crushing debt our government owes its creditors today.
Despite the fact that the GOP has a point on this matter, any cuts that are taken need to be done sensibly and fairly. While I agree with some of what the Republicans are saying, my level of agreement is not total. That is, we must cut the budget as much as possible, but those budget cuts should first be a tax policy that will remove the subsidies to big oil companies and raise the taxes that are barely paid by the extremely wealthy. Cutting and/or eliminating programs like Head Start, affordable housing, tax credits for discovering and producing alternative energy sources, education, cancer research and other similar initiatives is not only NOT going to put a serious dent in our deficit, it may actually end up adding to it.
This is the reality: If we are unable to borrow more money because the U.S. Congress has decided to disallow borrowing at a higher level, then one of two things could happen:
1. Default: Let’s assume that we fail to raise the debt ceiling. Simultaneously, Congress fails to reduce the amount of money we spend. When there is no money, it has to come from somewhere. Possibly the cash could come from the payments our government makes to pay off our debt. This would be similar to each of us paying the minimum on the balance due on our credit card each month or worse, determining that we are not going to make any payments. This action would amount to hundreds of billions of dollars each and every year. By not paying, and allowing our debt to default, the government would then have lots of money to pay for everything else, including paying federal employees, paying for the military to operate, holding up Medicare and Social Security, and all of the myriad services Uncle Sam provides.
Just as if you chose this option, there would be an unfortunate result. For us, as a country, the result would be very high inflation. Our creditors would rapidly come to the conclusion that if America could no longer honor its debts, then there would be an uncontrollable urge on their part to dump dollars and loans supported by the dollar onto world markets. This would of course, cause a tsunami of dollars worldwide, seriously devaluing our currency. When that happens, anything we purchased from other countries would quickly escalate in price. If you think $4.00 a gallon gas is an ordeal now, think of what $40.00 a gallon would do to your family.
This super inflation would cause our country, and probably most of the rest of the world to plunge into a depression which would make the Great American Depression of the 1930s look like a birthday party by comparison.
2. Not to worry, there is a second option, raise the taxes and cut the benefits: Exercising this option would result in our continuing to pay off our debt in order to protect our currency from being trashed on world markets. Unfortunately, without the ability to borrow more money to keep paying off old debts—and this is where it gets tricky because it sounds crazy to do that—again, the money has to come from somewhere. That somewhere would be guess who? That’s right—you and me—the taxpayer.
Once again, the resulting scenario is not a pretty one. Now, the government would have to continue to pay down its debt, but in order to keep the government running while the debt is being paid down, we would have to cut programs and services that Americans have for the most part, come to take for granted. Our government expects to borrow approximately $1.4 trillion this year alone, so that means for the remaining eight months of the this year, somewhere around $871 billion more would need to be cut from the federal budget. This of course would have an immediate devastating impact on our economy, resulting in slashing Social Security payments in half, shutting all of our national parks down, firing the vast majority of federal employees and much more. It would, unfortunately be a disaster not that much different from the first option presented above.
The only conclusion I can come to is that as crazy as it sounds, option two is the lesser of two disasters. Consequently, each of us needs to contact our respective legislators and tell them you want them to approve raising the debt ceiling.
Correction: Last week I incorrectly cited the National Organization for Women (NOW) as the organization the Republicans were attempting to eliminate funding for in the federal budget. The organization they wanted to no longer fund is actually Planned Parenthood. As most of you know, the bid to eliminate Planned Parenthood by the GOP was unsuccessful. My apologies…
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Thursday, April 21, 2011
What a mess!
As I watched television the night the government almost shut down, there was one recurring theme being pounded all over the airwaves—that the stalemate over the budget was the fault of the Democrats because they had failed to pass the budget prior to the mid-term elections when they owned the majority in both Houses of Congress AND the White House. Given the frequency with which it was raised, an examination of what actually happened is required.
Margaret Wolfe Hungerford once said, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” (no it was not Shakespeare) and I think she was absolutely right. Another similar truism is that history is in the mind of the beholder. Much of how we feel about a certain issue today is governed by our particular sense of the history behind that issue. So, let’s take a little stroll down memory lane together and see if our collective minds are in sync.
As most people hopefully recognize, the recent budget fight has to do with the current fiscal year. Historically, the funding that keeps the federal government operating would have been worked out months ago and the Congress would now be preparing itself for a debate focused on next year’s funding (it seems the only person in Congress focused on next year right now is Paul Ryan). But the 111th Congress failed to do its job and so it fell to the 112th Congress, which already is showing similar symptoms of legislative fatigue and is not doing a great job of accomplishing anything either.
So, most Republicans and no small amount of Independents are making the argument that Democrats are somehow to blame for the almost-shutdown of the federal government because when they were in charge prior to the 2010 mid-term elections, they failed to complete and pass a budget. Even a Democratic politician or two voiced this sentiment such as when Representative Norm Dicks (D-Wash) said that Democrats bear “some responsibility” for the budget mess because his party failed to get the job done.
ABC’s Jake Tapper and CNN’s Wolf Blitzer have been making this same point—over and over and over. Mr. Tapper said (paraphrasing here) that it was remarkable to hear Democrats slam the GOP for not passing last year’s budget when Democrats ruled the roost…
Conservatives have voiced this same sentiment, so much so that it is easy to slip into a fog and think that it is an accurate portrayal of what happened. While I believe that the Democrats failed miserably during the first two years of the Obama administration, I think people who truly believe it is all the fault of the Democrats are actually getting confused about the difference between a budget resolution and appropriations bills. The reality, as it is in most cases like this, is that there truly is enough blame for everyone.
To begin with, because the Democratic Party was suffering from an anticipated sense of doom due to the mid-term elections and their own intra-party fights, Congressional Democrats chose to avoid a fight over spending by not governing. Also, somewhere in those little brains must have been the sense that delaying any debate regarding spending would keep them from ultimately being beaten in the mid-terms. Funny how that turned out isn’t it. Obviously that strategy failed miserably.
Then, there were the events of February of this year. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan called for $32 billion in budget cuts for the rest of this fiscal year. The Democrats took this proposal seriously and also thought that because Ryan was so respected in the GOP that the number was a real one.
So, the Democrats gave in without so much as a whimper and gave the Republicans $33 billion in cuts. One would have thought at that point the GOP would raise the flag and declare victory. However that did not happen. Instead, because of strong pressure from the right wing of the Republican Party which is now bolstered by first year Tea Party legislators, both Ryan and House Speaker John Boehner went back on their word and instead demanded more cuts. The Democrats, bloodied by this whole turn of events fought back and said “No.”
The real kicker is that the Republicans didn’t just ask for more cuts, they also wanted to de-fund the National Organization of Women who receives federal monies to provide healthcare to large groups of women around the country and to basically take all authority from the Environmental Protection Agency in the name of good business legislation.
Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson put it this way: “The less-than-serious faction of the Republican Party is intent on squeezing more savings out of the 2011 budget or pursuing a government shutdown as an end in itself. Some of this bloc is composed of House freshmen, who share the unrealistic expectations of the Tea Party base — the undoing of modern government by one-half of one branch of that government. Others are more senior members of the Republican caucus — representatives such as Mike Pence and Michele Bachmann — who seek to raise their profiles by establishing themselves as rebel leaders.”
In the end, the Democrats made all kinds of concessions and the Republicans, despite their grandstanding and huffing and puffing got a pretty sweet deal. Even the White House has jumped on the concession bandwagon endorsing spending cuts in excess of what House GOP members even requested back in February.
For those of you who like watching car wrecks on the side of the road, good news—the 2012 budget battle and the war over raising the United States debt ceiling are right around the corner.
Margaret Wolfe Hungerford once said, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” (no it was not Shakespeare) and I think she was absolutely right. Another similar truism is that history is in the mind of the beholder. Much of how we feel about a certain issue today is governed by our particular sense of the history behind that issue. So, let’s take a little stroll down memory lane together and see if our collective minds are in sync.
As most people hopefully recognize, the recent budget fight has to do with the current fiscal year. Historically, the funding that keeps the federal government operating would have been worked out months ago and the Congress would now be preparing itself for a debate focused on next year’s funding (it seems the only person in Congress focused on next year right now is Paul Ryan). But the 111th Congress failed to do its job and so it fell to the 112th Congress, which already is showing similar symptoms of legislative fatigue and is not doing a great job of accomplishing anything either.
So, most Republicans and no small amount of Independents are making the argument that Democrats are somehow to blame for the almost-shutdown of the federal government because when they were in charge prior to the 2010 mid-term elections, they failed to complete and pass a budget. Even a Democratic politician or two voiced this sentiment such as when Representative Norm Dicks (D-Wash) said that Democrats bear “some responsibility” for the budget mess because his party failed to get the job done.
ABC’s Jake Tapper and CNN’s Wolf Blitzer have been making this same point—over and over and over. Mr. Tapper said (paraphrasing here) that it was remarkable to hear Democrats slam the GOP for not passing last year’s budget when Democrats ruled the roost…
Conservatives have voiced this same sentiment, so much so that it is easy to slip into a fog and think that it is an accurate portrayal of what happened. While I believe that the Democrats failed miserably during the first two years of the Obama administration, I think people who truly believe it is all the fault of the Democrats are actually getting confused about the difference between a budget resolution and appropriations bills. The reality, as it is in most cases like this, is that there truly is enough blame for everyone.
To begin with, because the Democratic Party was suffering from an anticipated sense of doom due to the mid-term elections and their own intra-party fights, Congressional Democrats chose to avoid a fight over spending by not governing. Also, somewhere in those little brains must have been the sense that delaying any debate regarding spending would keep them from ultimately being beaten in the mid-terms. Funny how that turned out isn’t it. Obviously that strategy failed miserably.
Then, there were the events of February of this year. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan called for $32 billion in budget cuts for the rest of this fiscal year. The Democrats took this proposal seriously and also thought that because Ryan was so respected in the GOP that the number was a real one.
So, the Democrats gave in without so much as a whimper and gave the Republicans $33 billion in cuts. One would have thought at that point the GOP would raise the flag and declare victory. However that did not happen. Instead, because of strong pressure from the right wing of the Republican Party which is now bolstered by first year Tea Party legislators, both Ryan and House Speaker John Boehner went back on their word and instead demanded more cuts. The Democrats, bloodied by this whole turn of events fought back and said “No.”
The real kicker is that the Republicans didn’t just ask for more cuts, they also wanted to de-fund the National Organization of Women who receives federal monies to provide healthcare to large groups of women around the country and to basically take all authority from the Environmental Protection Agency in the name of good business legislation.
Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson put it this way: “The less-than-serious faction of the Republican Party is intent on squeezing more savings out of the 2011 budget or pursuing a government shutdown as an end in itself. Some of this bloc is composed of House freshmen, who share the unrealistic expectations of the Tea Party base — the undoing of modern government by one-half of one branch of that government. Others are more senior members of the Republican caucus — representatives such as Mike Pence and Michele Bachmann — who seek to raise their profiles by establishing themselves as rebel leaders.”
In the end, the Democrats made all kinds of concessions and the Republicans, despite their grandstanding and huffing and puffing got a pretty sweet deal. Even the White House has jumped on the concession bandwagon endorsing spending cuts in excess of what House GOP members even requested back in February.
For those of you who like watching car wrecks on the side of the road, good news—the 2012 budget battle and the war over raising the United States debt ceiling are right around the corner.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Winning is not all it's cracked up to be...
Each week, I read the news voraciously, not only seeking enlightenment but also looking for the topic that will drive that week’s post to Birth of a Notion. I try hard to keep the topic relevant, topical and timely but sometimes I feel as if everyone is addressing the same topic in their blog, article or column so I set out to seek something different.
This news of this past week was dominated by the so-called budget compromise that ensued from the bloody budget battle that took place primarily between the United States Congress and the White House although there were sporadic but murderous fire fights that took place within both the Republican and Democratic Parties. With the Democrats it was between the liberal and moderate wings of the Party and with Republicans it was between the old line conservatives and the new upstart Tea Party freshman legislators.
I did not think I could add anything to that discussion so I looked around for something else and as important as the budget battle was, I wanted something that was possibly more important. And I think I found it. The year 2010 was a year for taking the United States census and among the many types of impact a count of our nation’s population creates, there is one that seems to get lost in the fog of data, policy and law—the redistricting of the United States Congress. The drawing of electoral districts is among the least transparent processes in democratic governance. All too often, redistricting authorities maintain their power by obstructing public participation. The resulting districts embody the goals of politicians to the detriment of the representational interests of communities and the public at large.
After the tidal wave of Republican victories in last year’s mid-term elections, it appeared that the GOP was poised to make redistricting history. In theory at least, Republicans seemed armed to the teeth to engage in the decennial activity of redistricting which this time around has ignited almost unprecedented public interest, to say nothing of the possible litigation waiting in the wings.
Now that the GOP has major control over the majority of state legislatures that historically are tasked with redistricting new legislative boundaries, they will have an opportunity to influence how more than 200 congressional districts around the country will be drawn.
But wait a minute! The Democrats despite their horrific defeat at the mid-term election polls are not exactly without some power of their own. Because the Republicans control so many seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, they now have to turn their attentions on to solidly-held Democratic Districts in order to expand their power and influence. That said, the 2010 census shows a demographic paradigm shift, particularly in the growth of the Hispanic population, and this time the demographic shifts tend to favor Democrats and could even cause the Republicans to retreat somewhat in their fervor to control everything.
In a sense, the Republican Party and their new Tea Party allies have themselves to blame. They have increased their majority in the House so much—particularly in swing districts—they now have the most to lose in states that are faced with eliminating congressional seats in order to be in compliance with the new districting requirements of the 2010 census. Louisiana is a prime example. Here, the state will lose a seat and the six Republicans who make up Louisiana’s delegation (there is also a lone Democrat) will begin to kill each other off as each congress person is engaged in the mad scramble to save their seat from extinction due to the new census.
In addition to Louisiana, Republicans also control the redistricting process in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Texas. Ohio loses two seats, Pennsylvania loses one, while Florida gains two seats and Texas will gain four new seats. In each of these states however, a mirror image of the fight in the U.S. Congress between the GOP Old Guard and the new Tea Party adherents will erupt at the state level as a fight for survival engulfs the old-line conservatives and their not-always-friendly allies, the take-no-prisoner Tea Party legislators.
One exception by the way to all this bloodletting is California where there, the ever innovative people of that state have put the task of redistricting squarely in the hands of an independent commission.
If however, you think that the new flock of tax and budget cutting Republicans will force incumbents to slink off into the darkness, think again. Legislators will do everything they can to draw districts that will help them hold onto their seat. Incumbents are developing new strategies to retain their seats such as instituting legal challenges to the entire redistricting process or as has been reported recently in the New York Times, hired consultants and lobbyists to help them keep their seats.
As always with matters like these, the courts will play an important role in determining final outcomes. Some Republicans have already promised to go to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia instead of the normal route, which has been appealing to the United States Justice Department. Republicans are avoiding this step because they feel there will be no one in Justice who has any empathy for their situation particularly since most of the appointments there come from the Obama administration. Keeping that dog from hunting however, is that historically, lower courts tend to defer to the Justice Department. Also, going to court—any court, involves expense, delays and of course there is always the chance you can lose.
Republicans however do have plenty of reasons to be happy. Due to the twin victories of a Supreme Court ruling which opened the floodgates of corporate political donations and the Federal Election Commission approving the collection of soft money for a National Democratic Redistricting Trust, the GOP now sits in the cat bird seat and with their control of the majority of state legislatures around the country, this could be an ugly fight.
Some political experts have already made the claim that political mud-slinging will be far worse this year than even last year, given what is at stake for the next ten years. Andrew Beveridge, a sociology professor at Queens College in New York City was quoted as saying, “What you are going to see is a game of musical chairs. I think it will be a big fight and it will be both state and national.”
This news of this past week was dominated by the so-called budget compromise that ensued from the bloody budget battle that took place primarily between the United States Congress and the White House although there were sporadic but murderous fire fights that took place within both the Republican and Democratic Parties. With the Democrats it was between the liberal and moderate wings of the Party and with Republicans it was between the old line conservatives and the new upstart Tea Party freshman legislators.
I did not think I could add anything to that discussion so I looked around for something else and as important as the budget battle was, I wanted something that was possibly more important. And I think I found it. The year 2010 was a year for taking the United States census and among the many types of impact a count of our nation’s population creates, there is one that seems to get lost in the fog of data, policy and law—the redistricting of the United States Congress. The drawing of electoral districts is among the least transparent processes in democratic governance. All too often, redistricting authorities maintain their power by obstructing public participation. The resulting districts embody the goals of politicians to the detriment of the representational interests of communities and the public at large.
After the tidal wave of Republican victories in last year’s mid-term elections, it appeared that the GOP was poised to make redistricting history. In theory at least, Republicans seemed armed to the teeth to engage in the decennial activity of redistricting which this time around has ignited almost unprecedented public interest, to say nothing of the possible litigation waiting in the wings.
Now that the GOP has major control over the majority of state legislatures that historically are tasked with redistricting new legislative boundaries, they will have an opportunity to influence how more than 200 congressional districts around the country will be drawn.
But wait a minute! The Democrats despite their horrific defeat at the mid-term election polls are not exactly without some power of their own. Because the Republicans control so many seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, they now have to turn their attentions on to solidly-held Democratic Districts in order to expand their power and influence. That said, the 2010 census shows a demographic paradigm shift, particularly in the growth of the Hispanic population, and this time the demographic shifts tend to favor Democrats and could even cause the Republicans to retreat somewhat in their fervor to control everything.
In a sense, the Republican Party and their new Tea Party allies have themselves to blame. They have increased their majority in the House so much—particularly in swing districts—they now have the most to lose in states that are faced with eliminating congressional seats in order to be in compliance with the new districting requirements of the 2010 census. Louisiana is a prime example. Here, the state will lose a seat and the six Republicans who make up Louisiana’s delegation (there is also a lone Democrat) will begin to kill each other off as each congress person is engaged in the mad scramble to save their seat from extinction due to the new census.
In addition to Louisiana, Republicans also control the redistricting process in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Texas. Ohio loses two seats, Pennsylvania loses one, while Florida gains two seats and Texas will gain four new seats. In each of these states however, a mirror image of the fight in the U.S. Congress between the GOP Old Guard and the new Tea Party adherents will erupt at the state level as a fight for survival engulfs the old-line conservatives and their not-always-friendly allies, the take-no-prisoner Tea Party legislators.
One exception by the way to all this bloodletting is California where there, the ever innovative people of that state have put the task of redistricting squarely in the hands of an independent commission.
If however, you think that the new flock of tax and budget cutting Republicans will force incumbents to slink off into the darkness, think again. Legislators will do everything they can to draw districts that will help them hold onto their seat. Incumbents are developing new strategies to retain their seats such as instituting legal challenges to the entire redistricting process or as has been reported recently in the New York Times, hired consultants and lobbyists to help them keep their seats.
As always with matters like these, the courts will play an important role in determining final outcomes. Some Republicans have already promised to go to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia instead of the normal route, which has been appealing to the United States Justice Department. Republicans are avoiding this step because they feel there will be no one in Justice who has any empathy for their situation particularly since most of the appointments there come from the Obama administration. Keeping that dog from hunting however, is that historically, lower courts tend to defer to the Justice Department. Also, going to court—any court, involves expense, delays and of course there is always the chance you can lose.
Republicans however do have plenty of reasons to be happy. Due to the twin victories of a Supreme Court ruling which opened the floodgates of corporate political donations and the Federal Election Commission approving the collection of soft money for a National Democratic Redistricting Trust, the GOP now sits in the cat bird seat and with their control of the majority of state legislatures around the country, this could be an ugly fight.
Some political experts have already made the claim that political mud-slinging will be far worse this year than even last year, given what is at stake for the next ten years. Andrew Beveridge, a sociology professor at Queens College in New York City was quoted as saying, “What you are going to see is a game of musical chairs. I think it will be a big fight and it will be both state and national.”
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Tea Anyone--Round Three
Love them or hate them—the tea party movement is a dominant force in American politics. This is especially true within the ranks of the Grand Old Party as Republican leadership in the House is now struggling with their new tea party freshman representatives.
Despite their hateful rhetoric, the tea partiers managed to completely dominate the 2010 GOP legislative and gubernatorial primaries and then went on to win almost every contested Republican primary race. Particularly hurt in the 2010 season of political upheaval were the long-time conservative senators and governors defeated in GOP conventions and primaries, because, as far as the tea party was concerned, the GOP of days gone by were just that—to liberal, too accommodating, too willing to compromise and most importantly, guilty of taxation gone wild.
But not every tea party candidate who roared to victory in their primary, ultimately won in their respective general elections. Two of the more notable general election defeats were losers Christine O’Donnell in Delaware and Sharron Angle in Nevada.
Remaining cognizant of the power of the tea party movement, how will their newly won influence impact the 2012 race to the White House? No Republican candidate is going to be the GOP nominee for the presidency unless he or she is embraced by the Tea Party. So, based on that realization, the process of elimination is not that difficult.
Mitt Romney while extremely conservative has adopted the strategy in the early goings on for the 2010 nomination to distance himself as far as he can from the Tea Party. What’s more, his authorship and support for the Massachusetts healthcare bill Romneycare (Come on, what’s fair is fair) is just too much for the tea partiers to stomach.
Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour spent too many years in DC as a beltway lobbyist and also as head of the Republican National Committee which means he fed at the trough for much too long. In the immortal words of Bob Dylan, “The only thing I did wrong was I stayed in Mississippi a day too long.” Haley, you stayed in DC years too long.
Jon Huntsman, former Obama ambassador to China and also known as the “liberal” Republican in Iowa has as much chance of being nominated without Tea Party support as I do.
Newt Gingrich, the man of a thousand positions—just as long as it is juxtaposed to President Obama’s has been married too many times, cheated on his many wives too many times, is constantly tripping over his own forked tongue and has no credibility with the Tea Party, the coffee party and the soft drink party.
Newest possible candidate for the nomination Donald Trump could not win an election to be dog catcher. He may have some in his corner because they support the stupid things he says about China, but tea partiers are simply not moved. Also, once the Tea Party discovers that in the past Mr. Trump has bankrolled several Democratic candidacies, he will be doomed.
And please forget the also-rans like Rudy Giuliani and Rick Santorum who attempted to use the Libyan crisis as a political hook they could hang their hat on.
That said, who can the Tea Party embrace?
Well, it seems that Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann is getting all the attention right now. Sarah Palin was the darling of the tea partiers but Ms. Bachman has replaced her, mostly by acting like Sarah Palin multiplied by ten.
Tim Pawlenty, the consummate politician is attempting to be everything to everyone. The downside of that is when you choose to say yes to everyone, you end up being of no value to anyone. He is walking the very tricky tightrope of trying to appease both the Republican establishment while simultaneously wooing the Tea Party. Ain’t going to happen.
Ron Paul is a true libertarian which makes it difficult for the Tea Party to fully embrace him. Like most libertarian politicians however, he does have a small but devoted and almost fanatical base but it is not enough of one to get him the nomination.
Finally, Huckabee despite his initial strong start in the 2008 race fizzled rapidly after Iowa and New Hampshire and ultimately his campaign simply crashed and burned. Today, he might be considered the front runner, but if that is all they got—the Republicans got problems.
Ultimately, the new upstart Tea Party will heavily influence the selection of the 2010 GOP nominee but that is absolutely no guarantee that he or she will win the general election for the presidency. Michelle Bachmann could end up being the next Christine O’Donnell if for no other reason that her witch credentials are more easily proven. In any event, Congresswoman Bachmann will never attract enough independent voters to win the White House.
I don’t know about you, but I can hardly wait for this thing to start…
Despite their hateful rhetoric, the tea partiers managed to completely dominate the 2010 GOP legislative and gubernatorial primaries and then went on to win almost every contested Republican primary race. Particularly hurt in the 2010 season of political upheaval were the long-time conservative senators and governors defeated in GOP conventions and primaries, because, as far as the tea party was concerned, the GOP of days gone by were just that—to liberal, too accommodating, too willing to compromise and most importantly, guilty of taxation gone wild.
But not every tea party candidate who roared to victory in their primary, ultimately won in their respective general elections. Two of the more notable general election defeats were losers Christine O’Donnell in Delaware and Sharron Angle in Nevada.
Remaining cognizant of the power of the tea party movement, how will their newly won influence impact the 2012 race to the White House? No Republican candidate is going to be the GOP nominee for the presidency unless he or she is embraced by the Tea Party. So, based on that realization, the process of elimination is not that difficult.
Mitt Romney while extremely conservative has adopted the strategy in the early goings on for the 2010 nomination to distance himself as far as he can from the Tea Party. What’s more, his authorship and support for the Massachusetts healthcare bill Romneycare (Come on, what’s fair is fair) is just too much for the tea partiers to stomach.
Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour spent too many years in DC as a beltway lobbyist and also as head of the Republican National Committee which means he fed at the trough for much too long. In the immortal words of Bob Dylan, “The only thing I did wrong was I stayed in Mississippi a day too long.” Haley, you stayed in DC years too long.
Jon Huntsman, former Obama ambassador to China and also known as the “liberal” Republican in Iowa has as much chance of being nominated without Tea Party support as I do.
Newt Gingrich, the man of a thousand positions—just as long as it is juxtaposed to President Obama’s has been married too many times, cheated on his many wives too many times, is constantly tripping over his own forked tongue and has no credibility with the Tea Party, the coffee party and the soft drink party.
Newest possible candidate for the nomination Donald Trump could not win an election to be dog catcher. He may have some in his corner because they support the stupid things he says about China, but tea partiers are simply not moved. Also, once the Tea Party discovers that in the past Mr. Trump has bankrolled several Democratic candidacies, he will be doomed.
And please forget the also-rans like Rudy Giuliani and Rick Santorum who attempted to use the Libyan crisis as a political hook they could hang their hat on.
That said, who can the Tea Party embrace?
Well, it seems that Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann is getting all the attention right now. Sarah Palin was the darling of the tea partiers but Ms. Bachman has replaced her, mostly by acting like Sarah Palin multiplied by ten.
Tim Pawlenty, the consummate politician is attempting to be everything to everyone. The downside of that is when you choose to say yes to everyone, you end up being of no value to anyone. He is walking the very tricky tightrope of trying to appease both the Republican establishment while simultaneously wooing the Tea Party. Ain’t going to happen.
Ron Paul is a true libertarian which makes it difficult for the Tea Party to fully embrace him. Like most libertarian politicians however, he does have a small but devoted and almost fanatical base but it is not enough of one to get him the nomination.
Finally, Huckabee despite his initial strong start in the 2008 race fizzled rapidly after Iowa and New Hampshire and ultimately his campaign simply crashed and burned. Today, he might be considered the front runner, but if that is all they got—the Republicans got problems.
Ultimately, the new upstart Tea Party will heavily influence the selection of the 2010 GOP nominee but that is absolutely no guarantee that he or she will win the general election for the presidency. Michelle Bachmann could end up being the next Christine O’Donnell if for no other reason that her witch credentials are more easily proven. In any event, Congresswoman Bachmann will never attract enough independent voters to win the White House.
I don’t know about you, but I can hardly wait for this thing to start…
Thursday, March 31, 2011
The GOP's Knee-Jerk Strategy for 2012
Since the crisis in Libya began to unfold, the potential Republican 2012 presidential candidates have expressed a broad array of views on whether and how the United States should intervene. Although the prospective GOP contenders differ from each other—and in one glaring example, Newt Gingrich seemed to disagree with himself—there appears to be one area in which they have found unity: all have argued that President Obama has handled the Libyan crisis badly.
As early developments in Libya transpired in an unpredictable manner, the prospective Republican contenders were initially reluctant to make any bold statements. But, when the Obama administrations was seemingly hesitant in their reaction to the crisis, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Pennsylvania United States Senator Rick Santorum jumped at the opportunity to criticize. All three called on the establishment of a no-fly zone before President Obama could put together international support to implement one.
Rick Santorum made it clear that he at least had it all figured out, “In a very short time he’ll be gone” he predicted of Moammar Gaddafi, should air strikes be carried out and a no fly zone be initiated.
In contrast to Santorum’s hawkish proposal, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour and Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachman spoke out against military intervention. Eleven days before President Obama gave his Monday night address to the country, Bachman cited a lack of intelligence on the motives and backgrounds of Libyan rebels as a reason to strike at Gaddafi.
“For us to go in with American soldiers on the ground, right now would be a mistake,” Bachman said, “We should not go that route. The same with arming—I think that would be a mistake right now.” This of course has led her supporters to spread the word that Libyan rebels fighting against Gaddafi are actually Al Qaeda and because of that, we should stay out of Libya.
Once however the President authorized U.S. led air strikes on March 19th, the prospective Republican candidates en masse echoed a unified message that Obama was managing the situation poorly. Days after the President ordered air strikes former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney broke his silence on Libya stating that while he supported military action, he believed the President had not shown an ability to “construct a coherent foreign policy.”
“He calls for the removal of Gaddafi but then conditions our action on the directions we get from the Arab League and the United Nations” Romney said. Other GOP candidates and prospective candidates agreed with Romney suggesting that President Obama was too concerned with multilateralism.
Almost before the cameras switched to news commentators immediately following the President’s Monday night speech, former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin escalated her own consistent criticism of the President on anything he says or anything she thinks he said by stating on FOX News that the President’s address was “profoundly disappointing.” She went on to say that “We’re not hearing from our President what the end game is here. And with Gaddafi still in power, if we’re not going to oust him via killing or capturing, then there is not an acceptable end state.”
Huh?
The strategy of the Republicans thus far is to pour constant criticism on the White House and on the President’s every move. This incessant criticism and disparagement of our commander-in-chief could however, prove to be risky business at a time when once again U.S. soldiers, sailors and the air force are deployed into a difficult and complicated military operation.
On March 29th, the day after President Obama’s address to the nation on his Libyan policy, that bastion of American conservatism, the Wall Street Journal, while stating its own criticism of Obama’s authorization of a no-fly zone also condemned what it called an “instinctive temptation” among Republicans to oppose the Libyan mission without sufficient reason.
The editorial targeted Haley Barbour in particular for offering what it called a “glib troupe to the isolationist left” in response to the Mississippi Governor’s warning against nation-building in Libya.
The Wall Street Journal’s disdain for the brand of GOP politics that seems to simply attack for the sake of attacking is exemplified by its ridiculing of Newt Gingrich who seemed to take a 180-degree shift in his position—first by calling for intervention prior to the deployment of the no fly zone to then arguing against intervention once the no fly zone had been implemented.
This past week’s cacophony of Republican response to the President simply means one thing: that the Republican Party is in disarray and that the more conservative wing of the GOP has determined that the way to win in 2012 is to dispute everything the President says. If you still require proof of this, simply remember their outrage when the President had the unmitigated gall to give a speech urging America’s young people to stay in school.
As early developments in Libya transpired in an unpredictable manner, the prospective Republican contenders were initially reluctant to make any bold statements. But, when the Obama administrations was seemingly hesitant in their reaction to the crisis, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Pennsylvania United States Senator Rick Santorum jumped at the opportunity to criticize. All three called on the establishment of a no-fly zone before President Obama could put together international support to implement one.
Rick Santorum made it clear that he at least had it all figured out, “In a very short time he’ll be gone” he predicted of Moammar Gaddafi, should air strikes be carried out and a no fly zone be initiated.
In contrast to Santorum’s hawkish proposal, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour and Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachman spoke out against military intervention. Eleven days before President Obama gave his Monday night address to the country, Bachman cited a lack of intelligence on the motives and backgrounds of Libyan rebels as a reason to strike at Gaddafi.
“For us to go in with American soldiers on the ground, right now would be a mistake,” Bachman said, “We should not go that route. The same with arming—I think that would be a mistake right now.” This of course has led her supporters to spread the word that Libyan rebels fighting against Gaddafi are actually Al Qaeda and because of that, we should stay out of Libya.
Once however the President authorized U.S. led air strikes on March 19th, the prospective Republican candidates en masse echoed a unified message that Obama was managing the situation poorly. Days after the President ordered air strikes former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney broke his silence on Libya stating that while he supported military action, he believed the President had not shown an ability to “construct a coherent foreign policy.”
“He calls for the removal of Gaddafi but then conditions our action on the directions we get from the Arab League and the United Nations” Romney said. Other GOP candidates and prospective candidates agreed with Romney suggesting that President Obama was too concerned with multilateralism.
Almost before the cameras switched to news commentators immediately following the President’s Monday night speech, former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin escalated her own consistent criticism of the President on anything he says or anything she thinks he said by stating on FOX News that the President’s address was “profoundly disappointing.” She went on to say that “We’re not hearing from our President what the end game is here. And with Gaddafi still in power, if we’re not going to oust him via killing or capturing, then there is not an acceptable end state.”
Huh?
The strategy of the Republicans thus far is to pour constant criticism on the White House and on the President’s every move. This incessant criticism and disparagement of our commander-in-chief could however, prove to be risky business at a time when once again U.S. soldiers, sailors and the air force are deployed into a difficult and complicated military operation.
On March 29th, the day after President Obama’s address to the nation on his Libyan policy, that bastion of American conservatism, the Wall Street Journal, while stating its own criticism of Obama’s authorization of a no-fly zone also condemned what it called an “instinctive temptation” among Republicans to oppose the Libyan mission without sufficient reason.
The editorial targeted Haley Barbour in particular for offering what it called a “glib troupe to the isolationist left” in response to the Mississippi Governor’s warning against nation-building in Libya.
The Wall Street Journal’s disdain for the brand of GOP politics that seems to simply attack for the sake of attacking is exemplified by its ridiculing of Newt Gingrich who seemed to take a 180-degree shift in his position—first by calling for intervention prior to the deployment of the no fly zone to then arguing against intervention once the no fly zone had been implemented.
This past week’s cacophony of Republican response to the President simply means one thing: that the Republican Party is in disarray and that the more conservative wing of the GOP has determined that the way to win in 2012 is to dispute everything the President says. If you still require proof of this, simply remember their outrage when the President had the unmitigated gall to give a speech urging America’s young people to stay in school.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Three Little Words
Three short words, “No Fly Zone” sums up the current moral quandary for the world on where and when our responsibility to save lives should be more important that the supposed sanctity of national borders.
Not that long ago, when the global community agonized over the horrors taking place in Rwanda and Bosnia, observing as some kind of disinterested bystander while mass slaughter took place unchallenged by anyone, there was real support for the idea in the late 1990s that the international community did after all have a collective “responsibility to protect” people if their respective national governments failed to do so.
Then there was the long, bloody catastrophe that began with the US invasion of Iraq and the idea of a “kind and just war” became passé. The 2003 Iraqi invasion was justified by the George W Bush administration by claims of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but when the WMD failed to materialize, both the United States and the United Kingdom attempted to play the humanitarian card by claiming they were in fact “liberating the Iraqi people.”
With the outbreak of the Libyan conflict, the pendulum has swung back towards action, but only part of the way. Britain’s conservative prime-minister, David Cameron, who until recently spoke out vehemently against any kind of meddling in Libya, is now maintaining that military intervention in the form of a no fly zone is necessary and is its most passionate supporter. He is joined, ironically enough, by the President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy whose government is deftly trying to shed its image in the Middle East as Gadaffi’s best friend.
In between all this, is an agonized Washington, D.C., which would of course ultimately finance, manage and carry most of the political and emotional baggage for a no fly zone. As always, Washington is divided between humanitarian idealists, hard-headed realists and the ever popular undecided contingent.
President Obama’s dilemma was further exacerbated by the muddiness of the whole thing. Gadaffi’s air force had not yet caused huge numbers of civilian casualties. The threat of that is ever present however and what his planes had managed to do, at least up until March 19th, was to keep the rag tag rebels under cover—unable to come out and fight. And, despite the Arab League’s endorsement of a no fly zone on March 12th, their views are still mixed and seem to go back and forth with the time of day.
Now however, all bets are off and the no fly zone is in effect. Driven by the March 12th endorsement of the Arab League, lukewarm as it was, President Obama has instituted the Libyan no fly zone—a huge gamble that if nothing else, places American pilots at grave risk.
There is now however, a veneer of legality for the action, given the UN approval, the position taken by the Arab League and the participation of some Arab states in the coalition formed to patrol and enforce the no fly zone. But the consequences of this action remain difficult to predict.
Not everyone however is in favor of a no fly zone in Libya. Even as coalition pilots enforce the no fly zone, China and Russia lead the case for the opposing viewpoint. Neither of them has ever embraced the concept of a planet earth police force but instead has continuously insisted on the inviolability of national borders. Also, several of the so called “non-aligned” countries like Brazil and South Africa are skeptical, to say the least.
There is however one thing that is relatively easy to predict—at least one presumptive Republican candidate for President in 2012 has absolutely no answers. Earlier this month, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was hammering President Obama for not intervening in Libya. Asked then what he would do about Libya Gingrich responded “Exercise a no-fly zone this evening…We do not need to have the United Nations. All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we’re intervening.”
During appearances that same day, Gingrich also said that he would provide help to the Libyan rebels on top of the no-fly zone, “This is a moment to get rid of him. Do it. Get it over with.” He later mocked President Obama for filling out an NCAA bracket while France took the lead on intervention.
Now that Obama has initiated a no-fly zone over Libya, Gingrich has completely reversed his position with no apparent explanation. He told the web-based news service Politico over this past weekend—less than 24 hours after President Obama took action that “it is impossible to make sense of the standard for intervention in Libya except for opportunism and news media publicity.” This morning (March 23rd) on the Today Show, he said plainly, “I would not have intervened.”
It is nice to know that there are still some things we can all depend on.
Not that long ago, when the global community agonized over the horrors taking place in Rwanda and Bosnia, observing as some kind of disinterested bystander while mass slaughter took place unchallenged by anyone, there was real support for the idea in the late 1990s that the international community did after all have a collective “responsibility to protect” people if their respective national governments failed to do so.
Then there was the long, bloody catastrophe that began with the US invasion of Iraq and the idea of a “kind and just war” became passé. The 2003 Iraqi invasion was justified by the George W Bush administration by claims of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but when the WMD failed to materialize, both the United States and the United Kingdom attempted to play the humanitarian card by claiming they were in fact “liberating the Iraqi people.”
With the outbreak of the Libyan conflict, the pendulum has swung back towards action, but only part of the way. Britain’s conservative prime-minister, David Cameron, who until recently spoke out vehemently against any kind of meddling in Libya, is now maintaining that military intervention in the form of a no fly zone is necessary and is its most passionate supporter. He is joined, ironically enough, by the President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy whose government is deftly trying to shed its image in the Middle East as Gadaffi’s best friend.
In between all this, is an agonized Washington, D.C., which would of course ultimately finance, manage and carry most of the political and emotional baggage for a no fly zone. As always, Washington is divided between humanitarian idealists, hard-headed realists and the ever popular undecided contingent.
President Obama’s dilemma was further exacerbated by the muddiness of the whole thing. Gadaffi’s air force had not yet caused huge numbers of civilian casualties. The threat of that is ever present however and what his planes had managed to do, at least up until March 19th, was to keep the rag tag rebels under cover—unable to come out and fight. And, despite the Arab League’s endorsement of a no fly zone on March 12th, their views are still mixed and seem to go back and forth with the time of day.
Now however, all bets are off and the no fly zone is in effect. Driven by the March 12th endorsement of the Arab League, lukewarm as it was, President Obama has instituted the Libyan no fly zone—a huge gamble that if nothing else, places American pilots at grave risk.
There is now however, a veneer of legality for the action, given the UN approval, the position taken by the Arab League and the participation of some Arab states in the coalition formed to patrol and enforce the no fly zone. But the consequences of this action remain difficult to predict.
Not everyone however is in favor of a no fly zone in Libya. Even as coalition pilots enforce the no fly zone, China and Russia lead the case for the opposing viewpoint. Neither of them has ever embraced the concept of a planet earth police force but instead has continuously insisted on the inviolability of national borders. Also, several of the so called “non-aligned” countries like Brazil and South Africa are skeptical, to say the least.
There is however one thing that is relatively easy to predict—at least one presumptive Republican candidate for President in 2012 has absolutely no answers. Earlier this month, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was hammering President Obama for not intervening in Libya. Asked then what he would do about Libya Gingrich responded “Exercise a no-fly zone this evening…We do not need to have the United Nations. All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we’re intervening.”
During appearances that same day, Gingrich also said that he would provide help to the Libyan rebels on top of the no-fly zone, “This is a moment to get rid of him. Do it. Get it over with.” He later mocked President Obama for filling out an NCAA bracket while France took the lead on intervention.
Now that Obama has initiated a no-fly zone over Libya, Gingrich has completely reversed his position with no apparent explanation. He told the web-based news service Politico over this past weekend—less than 24 hours after President Obama took action that “it is impossible to make sense of the standard for intervention in Libya except for opportunism and news media publicity.” This morning (March 23rd) on the Today Show, he said plainly, “I would not have intervened.”
It is nice to know that there are still some things we can all depend on.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
What Can We Learn from the Horrible Japanese Nuclear Disaster?
As the world trembles while witnessing the terrible aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that recently hit Japan and specifically the possible meltdowns of several nuclear reactors that were directly in the path of the tsunami wave, it is natural to ask about the safety systems in place for America’s nuclear power generating facilities. Some of what we are asking ourselves surrounds such issues as: What safety procedures are in place at our nuclear plants and is there any amount of engineering that can plan for the multitude of disaster scenarios that are playing out in Japan today? What should the Japanese nuclear reactor crisis mean to America and the rest of the world?
The hydrogen explosions, melting fuel rods and radiation leaks at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant are having an immediate impact on perceptions of nuclear power worldwide as many countries are desperately searching for alternatives to fossil fuels. Safety has always been and will continue to be a major concern, particularly now as emergency workers in Japan continue struggling to keep spent fuel rods that were stored on site at Fukushima Daiichi from melting down.
Even before this latest disaster in the world of nuclear powered energy could be brought under control and investigated, Germany, earlier this week became the first European country to shut down seven of its nuclear plants that went online prior to 1980 in the wake of the crisis in Japan as the European Union almost simultaneously announced plans to test all 143 nuclear power plants in its 27 countries.
In the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) announced this past Thursday that it was cancelling next week’s meeting to discuss a restart of Progress Energy’s Crystal River plant on Florida’s west coast after the company reported problems with repair work on a containment wall. Crystal River shut down in the fall of 2009 for “a planned refueling that included the replacement of steam generators.” To install the new generators, workers needed to remove concrete in the containment wall and it was during this task that they discovered “a gap” in the wall.
Entergy Corporation, which just last week had received NRC approval for a 20-year operating license extension at its Vermont Yankee plant, must now, in the wake of Japan’s crisis obtain final approval from Vermont lawmakers, who in 2010 voted against re-licensing the facility after 2012. Three other Entergy nuclear sites, including New York’s controversial Indian Point, are also up for license extensions.
When asked what the incident at the Fukushima Daiichi plant means for the nuclear industry in Japan and the rest of the world, Najmedin Meshkati, a professor of civil, environmental, industrial and systems engineering at the University of Southern California’s Viterbi School of Engineering in Los Angeles made the following response: “It’s too soon to make a judgment on its impact on the nuclear renaissance that started in the United States five or six years ago. The most accurate statement I can make is that it’s going to seriously hamper the expected growth rate of this movement. On the other hand, it’s going to really put more scrutiny on nuclear safety related issues, which is not bad. In particular, the storage of spent nuclear fuel at plant sites should be reexamined. One of the most serious problems happening in Fukushima Daiichi is the spent fuel pool fire at the fourth reactor. We have likewise been storing spent nuclear fuel at our nuclear plant sites since the country first began using nuclear energy. This poses a serious safety problem and a serious safety risk of a terrorist attack to get these materials.”
In 1982, a decision was made by the United States Department of Energy to build a permanent nuclear waste repository. Most Americans can remember that in 2002, President George W. Bush approved Nevada’s Yucca Mountain, approximately 256 miles northwest of Las Vegas, as the site and to move nuclear waste there.
Due to a combination of incompetence, political fighting, partisan bickering and bureaucracy within the Department of Energy however, that site is still in limbo today. One positive outcome of the Japan disaster may very well be that discussions regarding Yucca Mountain as a repository for spent fuel rods might be revived. Had there not been spent fuel stored at the Fukushima plant, the Japanese government might not be faced with so many diverse challenges today.
For all 65 nuclear sites in the U.S. there are resident NRC inspectors at the different sites. When a nuclear site applies for a license extension or for basically getting a new extension on the life of the reactor, they need to go through a very rigorous risk analysis of their “reactor vessel” and other hardware. For example, a reactor vessel becoming brittle is a major issue. Ironically, there has been some discussion in the United States, even before the Japanese crisis, to change this regulation to one that is less rigorous and more “risk-based.”
One of the reasons to use risk-based analysis is to save money and to make regulations more “reasonable.” The risk-based approach gained some popularity during the George W. Bush administration because they wanted to get away from the “heavy hand of the regulator.” But experts like Professor Meshkati question its robustness when quantifying the contributions of human and organizational error to failures within the nuclear industry.
By comparison, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) follows an “absolute decision-making model,” which requires checks of passenger aircraft at prescribed periods. One of these checks occurs every 12 to 18 months, after a specific number of flight hours. During this prescribed inspection, aircraft mechanics and technicians take the aircraft to a maintenance hangar, strip it down and replace any number of parts based on the number of hours of flight—not necessarily waiting until they spot a defect or in response to a part’s failure.
As the world’s third largest economy, Japan is facing more than one kind of meltdown. In its first joint action in over a decade, the Group of Seven (G7) sold yen to halt its rise and help spur Japanese exports. The decision on Friday night (March 18th) to step in and try to control a rapidly appreciating Japanese yen is an indicator of how serious the problem is. The yen spiked to levels not seen since World War II earlier this week, mostly a panic reaction by currency traders, but a potential threat to the Japanese economy as it tries to remain strong and viable.
The reality is that while a strong yen might sound good in and of itself, it also has the impact of making Japanese products more expensive outside of Japan. Toyota has estimated that “for every yen the currency rises against the dollar, the company loses 30 billion yen in earnings” (today’s exchange rate is just around 90 yen equaling one dollar). Consequently, the G7 has stepped in with a plan to sell off yen, pushing it down against the dollar and the Euro.
Just yesterday, Japanese engineers conceded that burying a crippled nuclear reactor in sand and concrete may be the only way to prevent a catastrophic radiation leak. This is in fact, the method used to seal huge leakages from Chernobyl in 1986.
Japanese officials added that they still hoped to repair a power cable to reactors, enabling them to restart water pumps that are desperately needed to cool overheating nuclear fuel rods. Workers also sprayed water on the number three reactor, one of the most critical of the plant’s total of six. This bit of news while sounding positive is also proof that the use of helicopters dumping water on the reactors fuel rods has been thus far, totally unsuccessful.
The plight of hundreds of thousands of Japanese people left homeless by the earthquake and resulting tsunami worsened following a cold snap that has brought heavy snow to the worst-affected areas of the country. Supplies of water, heating oil and fuel are low at evacuation centers where many survivors wait huddled close together and bundled in blankets.
Tohuku Electric Power reported that approximately 30,000 homes in the north of Japan were still without electricity in near-freezing weather while the government added that at least 1.6 million households are without running water.
The National Police Agency reported yesterday that it has confirmed 5,692 deaths from the earthquake and tsunami disaster, while 9,522 are still unaccounted for.
The hydrogen explosions, melting fuel rods and radiation leaks at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant are having an immediate impact on perceptions of nuclear power worldwide as many countries are desperately searching for alternatives to fossil fuels. Safety has always been and will continue to be a major concern, particularly now as emergency workers in Japan continue struggling to keep spent fuel rods that were stored on site at Fukushima Daiichi from melting down.
Even before this latest disaster in the world of nuclear powered energy could be brought under control and investigated, Germany, earlier this week became the first European country to shut down seven of its nuclear plants that went online prior to 1980 in the wake of the crisis in Japan as the European Union almost simultaneously announced plans to test all 143 nuclear power plants in its 27 countries.
In the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) announced this past Thursday that it was cancelling next week’s meeting to discuss a restart of Progress Energy’s Crystal River plant on Florida’s west coast after the company reported problems with repair work on a containment wall. Crystal River shut down in the fall of 2009 for “a planned refueling that included the replacement of steam generators.” To install the new generators, workers needed to remove concrete in the containment wall and it was during this task that they discovered “a gap” in the wall.
Entergy Corporation, which just last week had received NRC approval for a 20-year operating license extension at its Vermont Yankee plant, must now, in the wake of Japan’s crisis obtain final approval from Vermont lawmakers, who in 2010 voted against re-licensing the facility after 2012. Three other Entergy nuclear sites, including New York’s controversial Indian Point, are also up for license extensions.
When asked what the incident at the Fukushima Daiichi plant means for the nuclear industry in Japan and the rest of the world, Najmedin Meshkati, a professor of civil, environmental, industrial and systems engineering at the University of Southern California’s Viterbi School of Engineering in Los Angeles made the following response: “It’s too soon to make a judgment on its impact on the nuclear renaissance that started in the United States five or six years ago. The most accurate statement I can make is that it’s going to seriously hamper the expected growth rate of this movement. On the other hand, it’s going to really put more scrutiny on nuclear safety related issues, which is not bad. In particular, the storage of spent nuclear fuel at plant sites should be reexamined. One of the most serious problems happening in Fukushima Daiichi is the spent fuel pool fire at the fourth reactor. We have likewise been storing spent nuclear fuel at our nuclear plant sites since the country first began using nuclear energy. This poses a serious safety problem and a serious safety risk of a terrorist attack to get these materials.”
In 1982, a decision was made by the United States Department of Energy to build a permanent nuclear waste repository. Most Americans can remember that in 2002, President George W. Bush approved Nevada’s Yucca Mountain, approximately 256 miles northwest of Las Vegas, as the site and to move nuclear waste there.
Due to a combination of incompetence, political fighting, partisan bickering and bureaucracy within the Department of Energy however, that site is still in limbo today. One positive outcome of the Japan disaster may very well be that discussions regarding Yucca Mountain as a repository for spent fuel rods might be revived. Had there not been spent fuel stored at the Fukushima plant, the Japanese government might not be faced with so many diverse challenges today.
For all 65 nuclear sites in the U.S. there are resident NRC inspectors at the different sites. When a nuclear site applies for a license extension or for basically getting a new extension on the life of the reactor, they need to go through a very rigorous risk analysis of their “reactor vessel” and other hardware. For example, a reactor vessel becoming brittle is a major issue. Ironically, there has been some discussion in the United States, even before the Japanese crisis, to change this regulation to one that is less rigorous and more “risk-based.”
One of the reasons to use risk-based analysis is to save money and to make regulations more “reasonable.” The risk-based approach gained some popularity during the George W. Bush administration because they wanted to get away from the “heavy hand of the regulator.” But experts like Professor Meshkati question its robustness when quantifying the contributions of human and organizational error to failures within the nuclear industry.
By comparison, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) follows an “absolute decision-making model,” which requires checks of passenger aircraft at prescribed periods. One of these checks occurs every 12 to 18 months, after a specific number of flight hours. During this prescribed inspection, aircraft mechanics and technicians take the aircraft to a maintenance hangar, strip it down and replace any number of parts based on the number of hours of flight—not necessarily waiting until they spot a defect or in response to a part’s failure.
As the world’s third largest economy, Japan is facing more than one kind of meltdown. In its first joint action in over a decade, the Group of Seven (G7) sold yen to halt its rise and help spur Japanese exports. The decision on Friday night (March 18th) to step in and try to control a rapidly appreciating Japanese yen is an indicator of how serious the problem is. The yen spiked to levels not seen since World War II earlier this week, mostly a panic reaction by currency traders, but a potential threat to the Japanese economy as it tries to remain strong and viable.
The reality is that while a strong yen might sound good in and of itself, it also has the impact of making Japanese products more expensive outside of Japan. Toyota has estimated that “for every yen the currency rises against the dollar, the company loses 30 billion yen in earnings” (today’s exchange rate is just around 90 yen equaling one dollar). Consequently, the G7 has stepped in with a plan to sell off yen, pushing it down against the dollar and the Euro.
Just yesterday, Japanese engineers conceded that burying a crippled nuclear reactor in sand and concrete may be the only way to prevent a catastrophic radiation leak. This is in fact, the method used to seal huge leakages from Chernobyl in 1986.
Japanese officials added that they still hoped to repair a power cable to reactors, enabling them to restart water pumps that are desperately needed to cool overheating nuclear fuel rods. Workers also sprayed water on the number three reactor, one of the most critical of the plant’s total of six. This bit of news while sounding positive is also proof that the use of helicopters dumping water on the reactors fuel rods has been thus far, totally unsuccessful.
The plight of hundreds of thousands of Japanese people left homeless by the earthquake and resulting tsunami worsened following a cold snap that has brought heavy snow to the worst-affected areas of the country. Supplies of water, heating oil and fuel are low at evacuation centers where many survivors wait huddled close together and bundled in blankets.
Tohuku Electric Power reported that approximately 30,000 homes in the north of Japan were still without electricity in near-freezing weather while the government added that at least 1.6 million households are without running water.
The National Police Agency reported yesterday that it has confirmed 5,692 deaths from the earthquake and tsunami disaster, while 9,522 are still unaccounted for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
