Debating Myself

Regardless of what you think about Hillary staying in the race or not, you have to be excited about the way the prolonged primary has forced the candidates to engage people across the country who never were touched by election politics before.

This Washington Post article about Bill Clinton touring rural communities in North Carolina and speaking in them made me really excited for the prospect of the Democratic Primary descending on Montana. This election season has really brought the election to all fifty states in a way that hasn’t happened for a long time.

Small town America suddenly has big time political significance–that is a pretty exciting prospect.

Today I turned in the fruits of over a year of my labor–my senior thesis in Politics and Government at Pacific University. It is a good feeling and I am actually very proud of the finished product. It is not quite a publishable paper, largely due to a lack of data, but it is a good paper calling for further avenues of research in rural education policy. You can read the abstract below to find out what the paper is all about, but I thought it would be fun to take a statistical look at my thesis:

Vital Stats:

• Pages: 41
• Words: 11,857
• Footnotes: 42
• Words (with footnotes): 13, 337
• Sources Cited: 38
• Sources Consulted: 74
• Appendixes: 1

For those of you interested, here is a summary of the thesis and what it entails:

Rural education policy research has traditionally focused on the sociological aspects of rural areas and often failed to take into account analyses of politics and power. Utilizing a more formal political analysis, this study describes the political universe within which educational policy in rural areas is formed. Using two case studies of the implementation of a national grant program, the Reading First grant, this study seeks to explore the different intergovernmental relationships that rural and urban school districts experience, and the institutional features of No Child Left Behind that place rural areas at a disadvantage when implementing national educational policy. The study concludes by suggesting ways that policy makers and school districts alike can craft future policies to accommodate the unique advantages and disadvantages of both urban and rural school districts.

If that sounds interesting I invite you to download the PDF and take a glance. It is a bit dry, so if you want to be spared the details you can skip to the conclusion and find the most salient points summarized nicely there.

The Myth of the Oak Tree (PDF)

The important thing is that it is done, and that I am proud of the finished product.

Montana Governor Brian Schweizter speaking in Washington D.C. in May 2006. I just stumbled across this video and had to share it. It just reminds me what I like about Montana voters and Montana politics, and what is often misunderstood about us. Montanans vote for the “right” thing when they are told honestly and directly what is at stake. With some honest talk and innovative policies Montana is doing the best it has for the past 12 years or so. Other Democratic politicians in the west should listen closely.

Only the most obsessive political junkies may have noticed it, but this week the opening shot was fired in what could be another great democratic primary race. That’s right, I’m talking about the Montana Gubernatorial Primary. It is already attracting some attention in the blogosphere…

The storyline is eerily similar to the national race–an upstart ticket taking on the democratic establishment hoping to alter the national conversation about a number of issues, grounded in grassroots campaigning, and supported by a very slick online presence. Yes, the Neiffer/Pogreba ticket has a unique opportunity to make some noise, even if it is just a little, in what was promising to be an open and shut nomination for incumbent (and widely approved) Governor Brian Schweitzer (I’m a big Schweitzer fan myself…)

Neiffer and Pogreba know they face long odds, but it seems their hearts are really in the right place. As the Billings Gazette story on the two reports:

They are especially interested in offering their views on education, environmental and energy policy.

“We’re not overwhelmingly optimistic there is going to be a great discussion of education in a general election campaign,” Pogreba said.

If you check out their website, also found in the Blogroll, you can get a good idea of the kinds of innovative ideas these two stand for. If they could push even some of their ideas about education onto the state agenda Montana students would be much better off. Why shouldn’t a couple of dedicated teachers make a political statement and push their own ideas onto the agenda–outside of the traditional channels of the teacher’s union and Office of Public Instruction?

There are of course many naysayers. Some argue that these two are just running to allow Brian Schweitzer to raise more money in the primary season by facing a contested primary.

Doubtful. These are two guys who are passionate about teaching and with strong political ideas about how to improve the state of education in Montana–they just happened to be savvy enough (or perhaps crazy enough) to jump into active politics in an effort to actually get something changed.

Kudos to them. Can’t wait to see how the primary race unfolds.

For more, be sure to check out their long running blog on politics in Montana and the wider world…

You may or may not be one of the millions of Americans who receive junk mail daily. I personally am still young enough to enjoy the novelty of receiving mail every single day, even if it is only another of the countless pleas for me to apply for a United Mileage Plus Visa. Yet for many Americans these daily mailings are not only a nuisance, but wasteful and a potential privacy risk.

Some sensible people have created some grassroots movements in state legislatures to allow citizens to opt out of junk mailings through a “do-not-mail” list similar to the national “do-not-call” registry. Remember, they are not banning the sending of junk mail, just giving consumers the option to opt out of it…

It is fair to say I was shocked when I read in the Washington Post that:

Then came the pushback from the postmasters, who told Pearson and other lawmakers that “standard” mail, the post office’s name for junk mail, has become the lifeblood of the U.S. Postal Service and that jobs depend on it.

Yes, that is the United States Postal Service attempting to block some perfectly sensible legislation for the preservation of jobs that it claims only exist to pass on useless junk mail to consumers! So, we pay for the salaries of postal workers with our tax dollars in order to receive superfluous mass mailings directly to our mailbox every day? Now that’s government service for you.

The article is full of little nuggets of madness. Here are a few choice selections:

Barred by law from lobbying, the Postal Service is nonetheless trying to make its case before a growing number of state legislatures… The agency has printed 3,000 “information packets” about the economic value of standard mail, with specific data for each of the 18 states that have considered a Do Not Mail Registry.

The Postal Service is working closely with the Direct Marketing Association, the trade group that represents retailers and the printing industry, in its new campaign — Mail Moves America — which is designed to quash the Do Not Mail initiatives.

Right, this sounds nothing like lobbying…

So far, their efforts appear effective. None of the states where Do Not Mail legislation has been introduced since 2007 has approved a law. And no similar legislation is pending in Congress.

Let’s step back here and consider some of the bigger issues:

Government Jobs

Every government job should in theory, by virtue of it being funded through the tax dollars of all, provide a public service. In this case postal workers supposedly hold together a mail system that delivers us mail in a timely and orderly fashion. If the creation of a Do-Not-Mail list threatens some jobs, admittedly government jobs with strong pension plans, doesn’t that mean that those jobs really only exist to support junk mail? Yes. Is junk mail really a public good the government should be providing?

The Environment

Anyone who knows me knows that I am about as far from an environmentalist as they get–I’m much too lazy to recycle normally–but shouldn’t environmentally conscious people be able to reduce their environmental impact by getting rid of unwanted solicitation? Phone solicitation has no tangible environmental impact, but not only do the mailings waste paper, but they also lead to greater landfill usage and increased emissions and fuel costs from the transportation of that trash to landfills. Perhaps we should tax direct-mail advertisers to cover this cost instead of allowing people to opt-out? I’m sure if that proposal is made an opt-out by consumers will start sounding really appealing.

Economics

Local governments, as I have mentioned, are already stretched pretty thin… so why should they have to continue to bear the burden of hauling around this useless garbage? It may not be a huge cost, but with rising fuel costs every trip to the landfill becomes more and more burdensome.

Government and Lobbying

Is it really appropriate for the Postal Service to make such intimate ties with industry lobbying groups? The Direct Marketing Association gave a modest $800,000 to lobbying firms in 2007, but certainly is targeting specific individuals–including including $6,610 to Sen. Thomas R. Carper (chair of the Postal Services subcommittee).

Government agencies lobbying lawmakers constitutes not only a direct conflict of interests–by driving a wedge between voters’ interests and the actions of policymakers–but it also makes the government more inefficient. The Postal Service already enjoys a monopoly and by shaping legislation that controls the agency the Postal Service can prevent even reasonable democratic pressures from forcing it to become moderately more efficient.

Obviously impeding the ability of citizens to control branches of the government is particularly dangerous in an unwieldy bureaucracy where many decisions may already be made through processes that are far from transparent. The Postal Office may be a rather benign example, but if the Post Office is so efficient that only $250 million (just a guess) is wasted each year—why should we accept that?

The Bright Side

I’m stumped. This hurts everyone except a small number of postal employees who could probably find another job–even in today’s unstable economy. The big shipping firms always seem to be hiring and would probably gladly take workers with package handling experience.

So, I guess all that is left to say is that if we can’t get rid of our junk mail, we should all do something useful with it and raise up arms to make the government hear our demands for a “Do-Not-Mail” registry. Here’s a start–

Image courtesy of www.dellfreedomriders.com

Anyone who has been to a gas pump lately can attest to the impact of rising energy prices. The price of oil rising to record highs hardly qualifies as news, but it does beg the question–what are some of the wider effects we will see from rising gas prices?

Some of the biggest consumers of fuel are local governments. Metro systems, school buses, and police cars are just a few of the major sources of fuel expenditures that local districts face. The Washington Post published a great article a few days ago about the pressure local budgets are facing due to rising fuel costs. Despite not having to pay fuel taxes and creative ways of purchasing fuel to save money, some local governments are at a breaking point. As prices increase much more rapidly than the expectations of local governments, these governments are faced with hard decisions–reducing police patrols or bus service to disabled or the elderly. (Interestingly, private consumers may be being hit by a double-whammy as a lot of new roads being constructed in urban areas are toll roads–to reduce traffic congestion–as part of a new transportation philosophy championed by the Bush administration)

In the few areas local governments could shift to other modes of transportation, they will also face rising costs on air fare as well. United recently hiked air fares across the board up to $50 to deal with rising fuel costs of its own–a move speculated to be copied by airlines across the industry. In short, transportation will continue to eat up a larger portion of local governments’ budgets–continuing to exceed even the anticipated price hikes built into those budgets.

Aside from the obvious issues consumers face through increased fuel prices, lets look at a few less obvious ways that these higher fuel prices could affect government services and those that rely on them.

Fewer Police Patrols

Rising fuel costs mean that local governments will have to struggle to keep their police cruisers fueled. Aside from switching from gas-guzzling SUVs, police forces have little options open to maintain a police presence and expend less fuel. A particular problem may arise if police forces opt for reducing presence in areas with lower property values (aka poorer) in order to avoid leaving citizens responsible for paying higher taxes feeling unprotected. Of course lower police presence also could lead to a spike in petty crime–increasing insurance rates in some areas.

Decreased Bus Coverage

This could, paradoxically, force some people into driving in order to get to work on time. It could also lead to some people being unable to reach their job, or having to look for employment closer to home. Obviously this is particularly damaging for people dependent on buses, because they already have less financial flexibility.

School District Shifts

School districts that are particularly spread out and face large busing costs, and are typically already financially stretched, may have to start reducing other services within the school, freeze wages, and put off maintenance for school facilities to allow room in the budget for increased transportation costs.

Inflexibility

A major problem is that many of these local governments were already stretched thin, leaving them unable to shift toward more fuel-efficient transportation options. Purchasing more fuel efficient vehicles and optimizing current vehicles for fuel efficiency are capital intensive tasks, and local districts will have difficulties raising the capital to accomplish this.

Positives

There are some positive aspects of the increase in fuel costs. Local governments may feel the crunch, but they will be forced to become more efficient, while also taking steps toward reducing fuel waste. If price hikes are sustained for a reasonable amount of time (a year or so) even if prices come back down it is likely that governments would keep their expense reduction schemes in place to hedge against future price increases. This not only decreases the carbon footprint of local government (good for Mother Nature) but it also increases the fiscal efficiency of the local government (good for Joe and Jane Taxpayer).

Another glass-half-full way of looking at the crunch on local government funds due to fuel costs is that it may force local governments to be more innovative in the delivery of their services–for example by implementing some e-government services–and driving a more consumer oriented form of service delivery to their tax payers. E-government seems to be a place where local governments could see the most gains, and blogger Che Tibby has an interesting way to conceptualize the provision of e-government services online.