Mantra should be "Tax and Invest"

For at least thirty years Republicans have been accusing Democrats of "tax and spend" as if all the evils in the country were caused by taxation and government spending.  As too often is the case, the Democrats have been on the defensive rather than making strong arguments for taxation and spending as necessary to invest in a civil society.

E. J. Dionne, Jr. stated this counter-argument succinctly, "And it should be expanding public investments in the nation’s future, not cutting them."  - "Can America still lead?" Washington Post, 2011-08-07, republished in the Star Tribune, 2011-08-09

I scribbled a few notes on our copy of the Strib about how inconsistent "tax and spend" complainers can be:

Spend on nuclear power subsidies, but don't invest in medical care for its side effects.

Low taxes for mining companies but no investment in the health care and safety of their workers or in the repair of the destruction of the environment.

Spend on a mammoth war machine, but little investment in conflict resolution.

A geography lesson - Japan and Minnesota

We keep getting questions about how our son is doing in Japan after the earthquake near Sendai and the nuclear reactor problems in Fukushima.  To me, it's like others asking how we are doing if a tornado hit the Twin Cities or how we're doing with the Red River flooding in Fargo ND.

Sendai is about 225 miles from Tokyo and the Fukushima plant is about 150.  Fargo is about 242 from Duluth and Minneapolis is about 150.

Oh, yes, there are two nuclear plants near us.  Monticello is about 150 miles away and Prairie Island is about 224.  Prairie Island has far too much spent fuel stored on the premises.  If any of those casks are breached and we lived downstream in LaCrosse WI, then maybe you should worry about us.

Business-friendly? Friendly to which businesses?

One of the current political buzzwords is "business-friendly" or more likely "business-unfriendly".  "Business friendly" generally means minimum or no interference with businesses or giving of breaks, tax or otherwise, to businesses.

Although some consider "business-friendly" to mean "people-unfriendly", one "business-friendly" act for one business can be "business-unfriendly" to another business.

I read a case of this in today's Star Tribune, "TCF gains in fight over debit-card fee limits", 2011-01-21.  TCF and other banks are complaining that new Federal Reserve rules on exchange-fee limits will hamper their profits.

However, other businesses complain that the exchange fees cut into their profits.  And of course, the exchange fees may cut into people's pockets with higher prices.

It wouldn't surprise me that many of the proponents of higher fees see no conflict with their call for lower taxes.  It's all right for businesses to raise prices when their costs go up but not all right for government to raise taxes when its costs go up.

Another example of one business' gain being another business' loss is fuel costs.  Maybe the producers will have more profits, but the truckers and the airlines, will have higher costs.  The fuel users will do their best to raise their prices, but another fuel user, the governments that clear the snow will be constrained.

Maybe we should have a mantra to match "No new taxes" with a people-friendly "No new prices".

The same issue of the Star Tribune reports that the newly elected governor of Wisconsin want to increase the setback for wind-farms, "Wind showdown".  On first glance, this would seem a business-unfriendly move.  But I suspect it's only towards a new business many Republicans don't like - alternative energy.

Were these politicians opposing a high-voltage power line when many Wisconsin residents were fighting against it?  The line went across, not near, their property, and they were forced to sell the right-away at a cost determined by others.  Doesn't sound very free market to me.

I wonder if the Wisconsin Republicans will bend to the popular will if there is land-owner opposition to a new nuclear plant.

Nuclear power is safe and clean?

If nuclear power is safe and clean, why do bugs around some nuclear plants mutate at ten times the rate of bugs elsewhere.  And that's not ten times a very small fraction.  The overall rate is three percent, but one scientific illustrator found the mutation rate can be 30 percent around nuclear plants.

See "Swiss Artist Catalogs Mutant Insects Around Nuke Plants", Wired, 2010-04-19

Could these be another form of canaries in the mine?

See also "Nuclear weapons and climate change - is there a connection?"