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.