Clearly New Mexico

The next two weeks mark the American quadrennial event of party conventions for both Democrats and Republicans.

Of course, this week the Democrats meet in Denver, while the Republicans gather next week in my town(s) of origin, the Twin Cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis.

For a time, the seat of American political power will shift away from Washington, D.C. The figurative shift is noteworthy because it marks a time-honored tradition for our political system.

The unfortunate reality about this presidential election year is that another, much more disturbing shift is taking place.

I'm talking about the eyebrow-raising shift in PAC donations from Republicans to Democrats. Seems money finds its way to the party most favored to have power after the upcoming election.

Now, I'm not naïve. The money always follows the power. But, given all of the public corruptions scandals, haven't Americans had enough of money and powerful lobbyists ruling the roost?

I sure hope they have.

Take some time to peruse the list. I strongly suspect the interests represented by the various PAC's do not make investments without expecting some kind of return on their investments.

Now that the PAC donation shift is in full swing, you can bet the various PAC representatives will be working overtime in Denver this week.

This kind of brazen influence peddling has to stop.

For the next two weeks, Center for Civic Action Director of New Media Tracy Dingmann will be on-location, first in Denver, then in St. Paul. Dingmann will be our eyes and ears for the respective major party conventions, filing blog posts on a daily basis.

So, watch for interesting dispatches from the author of the T-Files!

We've all felt a big financial squeeze over the past year. But, a recent study from the Commonwealth Fund crystalizes the role skyrocketing insurance costs play in the big squeeze.

Last week, the Washington Post ran an editorial questioning key arguments of opponents of outer continental shelf drilling. The questions raised some important points. (WaPo Editorial)

Problem is, instead of closing the case on outer continental shelf drilling, the editorial page of the Washington Post just raised additional questions about the wisdom of drilling.

Again, I invite you to read the editorial for yourself.

What follows a point/counterpoint between the WAPO and questions left unanswered about off shore drilling.

WAPO Argument #1: The Washington post points out the conventional wisdom that the United States has only 3% of known world oil reserves. Evidently, this is based on old data.

The Post argues for updating the data, using modern equipment. Demand is on a permanent upswing, the argument goes, so the U.S. should make absolutely sure it knows just how much oil is available. This would help develop a clearer picture of the advantages and disadvantages of drilling.

Questions: True, but at what cost and what diversion from the real business of delving headlong into the development of wind, biomass, solar and other forms of renewable energy? Is the trade-off of exploration worth the loss in progress with other innovations? Plus, how much is the additional exploration and developing of proper inventory of extraction equipment going to cost the average consumer?

WAPO Argument #2: Oil leases aren't considered active unless they pump 130,000 barrels of oil a day. And, oil companies pay rent on leases that are not considered "active." So, the argument goes, oil companies are not just sitting on existing leases, and would actually be foolish to do so with the price of oil being so high.

Question: Why not focus all efforts on developing the existing leases and the proper extraction technology to extract fossil fuel from said leases? Let's maximize existing leases before spending capital (consumer capital) on additional exploration.

WAPO Argument #3: Technological developments have made modern-day drilling much more environmentally friendly. Other countries drill off their coast. So should we.

Questions: We have an opportunity, right now while people are mobilized, captivated and ready for a real solution to the fossil fuel addiction. So, why continue justifying the development and extraction of fossil fuels? What is so threatening about pursuing a bold solution? The American people are ready to pool their efforts and lay a foundation for the next generation. The time is now.

If we're going to continue fossil exploration and extraction (and I know we are), we need to match that action with a carbon auction program.

Such a program would pump money back into the pockets of consumers, while also producing the necessary resources for alternative energy development. While we're at it, we should eliminate tax subsidies for companies engaging in fossil fuel extraction and transfer them to companies taking risks in developing renewable energy.

After all, with all of the demand projected from China, India and south Asian countries, there's no need to continue assistance to an industry that's proven it has no problem making a buck.

The cost of health coverage continues to devastate the average American family. In fact, health care costs are the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in our country.

Seniors are perhaps most vulnerable to this alarming trend.

When the New Mexico State Legislature convenes on August 15, I certainly hope cost doesn't get sacrificed at the altar of coverage.

Covering all New Mexicans is absolutely critical. But, there must be measures taken to ensure that by doing so, we don't turn it into a boondoggle for the already thriving insurance industry.

A good start would be to require more meaningful transparency at the point of purchasing a policy. One bill introduced during the 2007 legislative session provided such transparency. Broker fees, the amount of money that gets spent on actual health care (called "Medical Loss Ratio" in official parlance) and the rate of premium cost increases over the previous five years were all included in the bill.

The bill was defeated quickly on the Senate floor.

But, this kind of transparency will be necessary if we mandate coverage on hundreds of thousands of New Mexicans.

Just look at what Massachusetts is going through. They extended coverage to all residents last year. But, they failed to address the sky rocketing cost of private insurance. They are now forced to retrofit the system with measures (like greater transparency) to control costs. Not an easy prospect, given the insurance lobby.

Let's learn from Massachusetts and not make the same mistake here.

Over the past two months, rising gas prices have fueled a heated debate. And, if you think the debate is raging now, just wait for the winter months to hit consumers.

Between home heating costs and gas prices, it's not going to be pretty.

As the debate rages on, the most frequently asked questions by public officials and the press seem to be the following.

Should we drill more on the outer continental shelf?

Should we open the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for drilling? (Proponents like to call it "exploration," but this isn't an ad campaign, so I'm going to stick with "drilling").

Why didn't Congress dramatically raise the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards ten, fifteen, or even twenty years ago?

None of these questions is terribly productive. Sure, pondering the historical roadblocks to increasing CAFE standards is instructive. But it really doesn't do much for future planning around our country's energy problem.

It's like we're stuck in the energy twilight zone, waiting for the inevitably macabre ending. Instead of more shortsightedness and attempts at political point scoring, the real questions we should be asking include:

When will we get about the business of moving toward a new energy economy, featuring the greatly enhanced use of renewable sources of energy like wind, solar, biomass and geothermal?

How can we mobilize a workforce, with proper training, to prepare for the inevitable transition?

How soon can we institute a true carbon auction at the federal level, using the proceeds to both help consumers and spurn research and development?

We simply have to stop the narrow fossil fuel supply discussion. A recent Washington Post article outlines the stark reality of world fossil fuel supply.

Here's the money line.

The United States is at the leading edge of what may lie ahead for worldwide oil production. Global petroleum output is still rising, but the rate of growth is slowing. Supply is not increasing fast enough to keep up with soaring global demand, putting ever more upward pressure on oil prices.

There it is, supply will never again keep up with demand. So, let's cut the nonsense.

Over the past decade, job transitions have become increasingly common in the United States. Perhaps the technology boom of the late 1990's perpetuated the change, or perhaps it is because of the move toward corporate consolidation of most major economic sectors.

Whatever the reason, there's no denying it; the era of working an entire career for one company is over.

As Americans become more mobile in their professional lives, they need something more than the stagnant, employer-based health coverage system we currently have in this country.

Accordingly, insurance companies really need to get their act together and figure out how their increasingly unpopular product is going to best serve a mobile workforce.

Sure, the insurance industry will tout the benefits of COBRA as a good plan for job transitions. But, all COBRA really does is give a worker the same coverage they had at their previous job, at double or triple the cost.

Good for insurance companies, bad for you.

Imagine this. You just graduated from college. You're excited because you scored a great job with a good entry-level salary. Unfortunately, the start date for your job is not until three months after graduation.   Read More »

The "not a drop" chorus is getting louder with each passing day.

Atrisco Oil and Gas CEO Peter Sanchez, along with New Mexico Oil and Gas Association President Bob Gallagher sing the tune here.

Former United States Senators Trent Lott and John Breaux sing it here.
Finally, United States Senator Kit Bond sings it here.
Boy, I wonder who wrote that tune.

The average cost of health insurance premiums has nearly doubled since 2000. While corporations and large businesses have been best equipped to weather the insurance premium storm, small businesses have been abandoned, left to fend for themselves on an increasingly slanted playing field.

Small business is the backbone of our economy, providing jobs and fulfilling the American dream for so many entrepreneurs. But, our health care policies force small business to bear the brunt of health care costs, effectively killing the American dream for so many.

Perhaps that's why I get so disillusioned when I hear public officials talk about the importance of small business, only to turn around and hurt said American Economic Backbone by supporting the status quo.

Firms in Taiwan, or Germany, or Denmark have an incredible advantage over small businesses in the United States. In fact, a person starting a small business, today, in one of the aforementioned countries does not even have to consider health care as a major line item in their budget.

Can you imagine how much more competitive American small businesses would be if they were not forced to agonize over health care costs?

This is not to say we must retrofit American health coverage with a system from another country. No, we have a uniquely American problem with our system-a problem that requires an evidence-based, American solution.

At least one solution appears to be gaining traction in a few states, and in Congress. That solution is based on the old adage of power in numbers.

The basic concept is to allow small businesses, perhaps even across state lines, to form purchasing pools. The larger pools would help mitigate risk and thus lower costs.

Predictably, insurance companies are against the idea, blocking it in state capitals across the country. You can bet that when federal legislation on small business purchasing pools is introduced next year, the insurance lobby will be out in full force.

As small businesses in United States continue to bear the brunt of rising insurance premiums, they must look past the rhetoric and discover who's ready to fight on behalf of their interests.

It was revealed yesterday that in October 2007, representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency were sent to explain to Congress how climate change would negatively impact public health. That was until the Vice President's office got hold of the prepared testimony and slashed an entire section. (link)

Lovely.

Consider the irony in this. On the same day we're being presented with more evidence of the Vice President's campaign against reality, here in New Mexico we have a lame duck state representative lamely bloviating about so-called "left-wing" media bias. Reality bites.

Two numbers have been seared into the minds of millions of Americans: $4/per gallon of gas and $145/per barrel of crude oil. Explanations abound for how we arrived at this seemingly inconceivable position. Increased demand from China and India, as well as price speculation appear to be the front-runners.

However, what is less clear is how we as a country begin to find solutions to skyrocketing costs. One idea that appears to be gaining favor among the general public is to step up exploration for domestic sources of oil.

But, will increasing supply through domestic exploration really help the average consumer?

I posed this question in a previous post, offering contradictory evidence to the claim that more drilling will solve our problem of run away pump prices. The basic message from the NPR story linked in the post was that even if we open up all available areas of ANWAR and the outer continental shelf, the possibility of increasing supply would not come about for at least ten years. Furthermore, the market for ANWAR and outer continental shelf oil would not be restricted to the United States. No, folks, it would be for sale to the highest bidder on the planet (think of those pesky Chinese and Indians).

In the intervening weeks, I have yet to see a credible study, a credible report, or a credible economic forecast regarding the utility (for today's consumer of fossil fuel) of increased drilling. I did find plenty of evidence regarding the daunting scientific challenges of global climate change, which is irrefutably linked to increased fossil fuel use. But, I've yet to uncover anything compelling on the broad economic advantages of ANWAR/outer continental shelf drilling.

So, I turn to you, reader of the Clearly New Mexico blog. Do you have credible evidence of how the American public stands to gain from more domestic exploration? If so, please post something in the comments section. Or, email me at mattbrix@gmail.com.

Really, I am interested in knowing if the evidence exists.

As aggregate spending on health care in the United States approaches $2.5 trillion (yes, that's trillion with a "T"), there is growing concern that people might be getting less than what they are paying for.

Per capita spending on health care in the United States far exceeds that of any other industrialized nation in the world. Yet, Americans are still less healthy than people living in other countries, in terms of life expectancy, infant mortality rate and survival rates for chronic disease.

If the United States has the best health care in the world, as is often the refrain when discussions of reform arise, then these indisputable indicators of American health would look very different.

The unfortunate reality is that the American health care system is infested with perverse incentives, resulting in a lower quality of care for a much higher cost.

Students graduating from medical school today face daunting loan sums, often exceeding $150,000. Graduates interested in research or family practice need only look at the numbers to realize that opting instead to become a specialist almost certainly means an income two or three times higher. On the face of it, this looks like simple supply and demand, but consider what a system with diminishing emphasis on primary care, wellness and prevention means for the health of a population.

The perverse incentives keep coming once a doctor begins practicing medicine. The trend to improve efficiency via electronic medical records is picking up steam at the state and federal level. But, while insurance companies often reap the greatest benefits of the move to electronic records, the cost of care keeps rising. So, a worthy idea (electronic medical records) gets put on hold because there is little benefit for both doctor and patient.

Finally, consider the use of cutting-edge technology to detect early signs of heart disease. On the face of it, capitalizing on American ingenuity to prevent medical problems from escalating appears to be a solution to our problems. However, research indicates that the use of new medical technology is more often driven by monetary incentives than improved medical outcomes.

Perverse incentives are slowly eroding our health care in the United States. We must recognize this dynamic and begin the hard work of restoring the patient as the focal point of our system.

Over the last week, we here at Clearly New Mexico have registered our disgust with the direction of the debate and the level of rhetoric over American energy policy (link)(link). Billions of dollars in public subsidies for oil and gas companies continue, while productive incentives for renewable energy languish. And, the inane idea of drilling for oil in coastal areas on the outer continental shelf is being billed as a legitimate response to the problem of $4.00 per gallon.

The Albuquerque Journal (subscription required) saw fit to ignore reality and jump on the "black gold" bandwagon in its Sunday editorial. Like Congress and the president, the Journal is no help at all for the people of New Mexico.

Because the president and his apologists in the press are beating the domestic drilling drum, I though it might be interesting to find out just what kind of a marginal effect, if any, increased American oil exploration would have. So, I did what any armchair research novice would do; I jumped on Google.

My grandiose plans of finding a slick econometric analysis quickly ended when I came across a story on NPR, one that put the nonsense about offshore drilling into simple perspective.

Henry Lee of the Kennedy School of Government talks about the 8-14 year time line for getting outer continental shelf drilling on-line and fully operational. High-end estimates put daily production at about 1 million barrels per day, or less than 1% of the world's daily oil consumption. This is hardly the kind of volume that would make a discernible dent. Plus, with growing needs from China, India and other Asian countries, oil from the outer continental shelf would have virtually zero impact on world demand. (NPR story)

There you have it. When it comes to finding a sensible solution to the related crises of skyrocketing fossil fuel costs and global climate change, leaders in Washington are ignoring plain facts. Instead of serving the public interest, leaders in Washington, and our own Albuquerque Journal, are no help at all.

Yesterday, Senate Republicans blocked an important bill from coming to the Senate floor. The bill would have extended billions of dollars in tax credits to the renewable energy industry. In an effort to refrain from sending the nation further into debt, the bill proposed paying for the incentive package by taxing the hedge fund industry (you know, the very industry that is driving oil prices up through speculation). (Abq. Journal story link)

This is maddening.

At a time in which regular Americans are getting hammered by high gas prices, forty-two Senators decided that being irresponsible with the federal budget was more important than the need for renewable energy.

One of the most disconcerting aspects of politics is the ascendancy of policies that are without merit. Examples of this dynamic on the federal level include the 2001 and 2003 federal tax cuts.

The so-called red light program is a local example of the very same dynamic. Remember, the red light program was ostensibly developed for public safety reasons, not to pad the city budget.

When policy is made by way of blind ideology, or to mask budgetary shortcomings, we the people eventually pay the price.

Nowhere is this truer than in the realm of health care.

For years, even decades, there have been discussions about how to cover more people, while simultaneously preventing insurance premiums from outpacing inflation. Needless to say, trends indicate an abject failure on both fronts.

I believe a primary reason for failing to extend coverage and keep costs manageable is the skyrocketing growth of money's role in the political process. Perverse incentives that push medical students away from primary care work are a big problem. So is the fact that our system places a heavy emphasis on treating sickness, instead of promoting wellness. But, the influence of money on the political process, which creates conditions unfit for truly evidence-based discussions, is the real elephant in the room.

There must be an honest recognition that we are stuck in a quagmire. The existing process is simply not equipped to make evidence-based decisions regarding the overhaul of our health care system.

In order to develop sustainable solutions to the looming health care crisis, New Mexico must develop a process that will allow for evidence-based outcomes. The only option for such a process is the development of an independent health care authority.
   Read More »

Major General Mel Montaño of Albuquerque has a stinging critique in today's Las Cruces Sun News. In the piece, Montaño takes President George Bush, Senator John McCain, Congressman Steve Pearce and Congresswoman Heather Wilson to task for refusing to support Senator Jim Webb's (D-VA) GI Bill.

The flagship provision of the bill is to provide full college scholarships for veterans that served in either Afghanistan or Iraq. The bill's annual price tag is estimated at $3-$4 billion-a paltry sum to help our returning service men and women. We spend more in Iraq on any given week.

By opposing this common sense initiative, we have to ask President Bush, Senator McCain, Congressman Pearce and Congresswoman Wilson where their priorities lie.

As if on cue, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will gather this Thursday to mark up what should be an interesting report.

Now this isn't just any report on accounting practices or procurement problems in an obscure agency. Nope. This is a report on Jack Abramoff's contacts and connections with the White House.

A rather tenacious fellow from California named Henry Waxman chairs the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. This is a sampling of how Congressman Waxman runs his committee, especially in the face of a hostile witness and a less than supportive ranking member. Really, the guy does not pull punches.

The issue of nefarious connections between people in positions of power and those who ostensibly petition their government through lobbying has been well documented. Also well documented is the trouble this dynamic causes when the connections are built with money (gifts, travel, meals, beverages, large campaign contributions, etc.).

But, Thursday's hearing raises another dynamic-the proverbial gift that keeps on giving.

The Abramoff scandal broke before the 2006 mid-term elections, causing a backlash against the party in power at the time. Incumbents from the party in power were thrown out in favor of new faces promising ethics reform. Here we are two years later and this particular ethics scandal is still haunting Members of Congress and the White House.

Bottom line, this theme of exposing nefarious connections and striving for reform is not going away. Not in Washington and certainly not in Santa Fe.

(See the the irresistible force meet the immovable object, courtesy of TPM.)

Yesterday, the New Mexico Independent highlighted the University of New Mexico Hospital's new ban on gifts from pharmaceutical companies. It seems UNMH has correctly identified the potential conflict of interest that comes with gifts from reps of big pharma.

The New Mexico state legislature has taken action on limiting gifts. Taking a page from UNMH and banning all gifts would go a long way toward giving New Mexicans confidence in the legislative process.

At this point during election years in New Mexico, familiar themes seem to emerge. Candidates for office at all levels define themselves and their opponents (aggressively in some cases), while radio and television are flooded with all manner of advertisements. Our state also draws an inordinate amount of national attention, especially during presidential election years.

New Mexico's election years are beginning to add another theme to the list of familiars. That theme of course is the inaccuracy and malfunctioning of the Secretary of State's online reporting system. Unfortunately for the people of our state, this problem is rather unique to The Land of Enchantment. In the year 2008, practically every state in the country has a functioning, real-time campaign reporting system that is fully searchable and easy-to-use.

In order to understand the magnitude of this painful saga, I believe it is instructive to review the lack of progress over the past five years.

Let's take a look at the time line.

2003: The legislature overwhelmingly approves amendments (including requirements for electronic filing of campaign reports) to the Campaign Reporting Act. The amendments are set to go into effect in 2006, giving the Secretary of State a full three years to implement a workable system.

2004-2005: Advocates, supportive elected officials and state employees work to help implement the electronic filing system.

2006: After a three-year grace period, amendments to the Campaign Reporting Act, including electronic reporting requirements, go into effect (January 1). Beginning with the primary elections, candidates for public office, the media and the public quickly learn of major system deficiencies. The general election brings the deficiencies into full view.

2007: After a disastrous first-run with the electronic filing system, there is a major effort in the legislature to return to paper records. Thankfully, this effort is thwarted.

2008: Five years after the passage of amendments to the Campaign Reporting Act, the electronic filing system at the Secretary of State's office is still completely deficient (link) (link).

There you have it, folks. Five years and we are still waiting for some semblance of transparency and accurate information from the Secretary of State's office.

The political season seems old already, because of the need for perpetual fundraising. In order to "compete" in the modern campaign, candidates for federal office must spend, on average, 4-6 hours per day calling donors.

In colloquial terms, this is known as "dialing for dollars."

The fundraising dynamic is nothing new to politics. It's just that the numbers have grown at an almost exponential rate over the past decade.

The advent of Internet fundraising has helped level the playing field in terms of giving smaller donors a meaningful way of participating. But donors, who call themselves bundlers, rangers, or any other campaign-created distinction reserved for the wealthy, are still driving fundraising for federal candidates.

So why do candidates perpetuate this madness? The short answer is because they've been told this is what it takes to win.

In all fairness, the presidential public financing system has not kept up with inflation and thus must be repaired. Candidates need to believe they are not unilaterally disarming by accepting public financing. Accordingly, when the new Congress convenes next year, there must be immediate action taken to fix the system and offer proper stipend amounts.

What makes this election year different from the past is that all of the remaining presidential candidates ostensibly support the idea of expanding public financing systems to Congressional races. Despite their rhetoric on the issue, they have all danced around the idea of using the system for the general election.

This is wrong.

   Read More »