The congressional icebreaker session

A poll released in January revealed that Canadians rank Arctic sovereignty as the nation’s top foreign policy priority. We’re mostly worried about threats from the Russians, since they consider it as much a part of their national identity as we do. (By “we,” I mean “people who actually care,” which doesn’t include me.) Apparently now the Americans are starting to worry about it, with the fate of a poorly maintained icebreaker suddenly in dispute.

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Rep. Don Young (R-AK) have teamed up with the White House to fight the House’s effort to decommission the Polar Star, one of three remaining icebreakers still in service. Its sister ship, the Polar Sea, is scheduled to be decommissioned “in the near future”; the third, the Healy, is primarily a research ship. The costs of keeping both in dock amounts in the “tens of millions of dollars a year,” according to Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ), and that money could be better spent.

Young’s interest speaks for itself, and Cantwell has an interest in this because both icebreakers are in dock near Seattle, and employ hundreds of people. She also estimates that the U.S. will require ten total icebreakers to satisfy the Navy and Coast Guard’s needs; the melting of Arctic ice will mean more exploration for oil and other resources, and of course the U.S. will want a piece of the action. Given the jobs potential in the Arctic, there is a future economic argument to be made for more breakers, if not a defensive or present one.

So the issue is timing: Should they decommission Polar Star so they can save some money for new ones now, or keep it, refurbish it and save some money for new ones later? As Cantwell points out, the former solution would be more expensive and take more time, but create more jobs. More government-funded jobs, of course, but jobs nonetheless. LoBiondo, on the other hand, doesn’t seem convinced that either option is preferable when America’s needs in the Arctic have yet to be clearly specified.

Since the Polar Star was already scheduled for reactivation in 2013, I’d say that from the perspective from someone who knows nothing about how much repair it actually needs – which includes the majority of Congress – refurbishing it makes more economic sense. I personally don’t foresee that the U.S. will actually need to use an icebreaker for some time. They might as well keep it as a back-up and start work on the nine new others.

As for Canada? We only have six icebreakers, and the Russians have 25, and much more Arctic territory just shy of their northern border. Call us if you need a commentary on low icebreaking capacity.

Merry Christmas, you old Congress & Loan

The prospect of a federal infrastructure bank has been kicked around the Beltway since 2007. It may be President Obama’s last chance at real results on job creation, and even those results would be insufficient to save his political hopes, as I will explain. Even so, it may be an fairly effective way to fund related projects around the country – which, paradoxically, seem to be left aside until after the economic straits become dire.

The bank would serve as a lender for private investors, local and state governments and public-private partnerships who wish to fund large-scale building and transportation projects. The bank’s directors, who would be independent of the government, would review loan applications for cost-effectiveness, and would not provide more than 50 percent of the needed money. But it would be enough to create a few jobs.

Under normal circumstances, this would be lauded as a sensible model for avoiding funding these badly needed efforts on an ad hoc basis. Forbes would still not be impressed, citing Japan’s example, which is rife with corruption and cronyism. (In Japan? I’m floored.) It’s a legitimate concern, although not one that would persuade me to disavow the notion. However, I would hope that someone had an idea to safeguard against it.

But don’t think this would be the economic silver bullet Obama has been searching for. The jobs that come with these projects would be, by their nature, temporary. Certain areas of the country would have a much shorter window to take advantage of the loans based on climate. That’s not counting the governors who fear the political fallout of accepting them from the eeeevil feds.

If there is enough support for a federal infrastructure bank, it should be encouraged. This is one area of the economy that deserves constant attention, not just convenient attention, as broken bridges continually demonstrate. It may even satisfy the economists who encourage more stimulus, without a stimulus package. This is no substitute for a formula that ensures permanent, full-time, well-paying jobs.

While I am not positive that any sitting politician can be trusted to devise one, I know Obama cannot. I’ve encouraged patience and a holistic view of his political, constitutional and economic roadblocks. But he has not proven an ability to overcome them in what is now a fair amount of time. That was his most important task as president, and he has failed at it.

Planes, brains and automatic unions

It’s a week of planes here at The Future American; I flew to Toronto on business yesterday, where I will be until Saturday (more on that at a later date), and now I’m writing about the partial shutdown of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA is one of several federal agencies to be the victim of recent budget cuts. Unfortunately, the people who seem to be fighting for them the loudest could have helped them avoid those cuts.

The issue is over $16.5 million in cuts to subsidies that help airlines serving rural communities. House Republicans proposed them, then agreed to leave them off the table in exchange for Senate Democrats accepting an overturn of a National Mediation Board rule that allows airline and railroad employees to unionize with only a 50-percent-plus majority. The Democrats said no, and the FAA is now partially shut down, hindering multiple construction projects and furloughing 4,000 FAA workers.

Now, legislative deals don’t get much more politically charged than this. I fail to see why the Republicans think making unionization more difficult – or, more accurately, making them as difficult as they were last year, when said rule went on the books – should be taken as a replacement for budget cuts. If one would like to explain why this isn’t an excuse to go after the unions, be my guest.

But the Democrats have not demonstrated why airline and railroad workers should have an easier time unionizing than anyone else, or why most Americans would accept such roadblocks to their air travel as a result. Furthermore, if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is correct in saying this is all an attack on the “anti-workers” Delta, why have workers there failed to make up even a simple majority? Out of choice, perhaps? (Let’s hope it’s an informed choice.)

Keep in mind that a good chunk of the people affected by the shutdown are employees of the FAA, not airlines, and the rest are employed by construction companies. Why their jobs should be linked to airline labor relations completely escapes me. The Republicans may have started making that connection, but the Democrats are extending it to ridiculous lengths. They should accept the concession, get the subsidies back and get on with the important stuff.

I’m starting to believe that the only people who would choose unionization over any wage at all, if the two cannot mutually co-exist, are the unions themselves and the occasional activist or politician.

A neglected bridge too far

Those who came for a scathing commentary on yesterday’s Canadian federal budget debacle will have to wait until Saturday. (That’s right.) We’re keeping it in the States today, specifically in areas facing major weaknesses in their infrastructure, especially when it comes to roads, bridges and existing transit systems. These weaknesses are what congressional Republicans would prefer to fund over the next six years, with a price tag of less than $240 billion, less than a similar 2006 bill, but with the same idea.

The alternative would be to supply $53 billion for nationwide high-speed rail, one of President Obama’s pet projects, as well as an extra $50 billion in “one-time, extra spending.” I have no idea what that means, but knowing Obama, I imagine it would be grant money for local governments providing the best proposals to the Department of Transportation. Not a bad idea in theory, unless they have pet projects of their own.

The total amount for Obama’s proposed transportation budget is $556 billion. For those keeping score at home, that’s 232% of the Republican amount. If he would like to portray himself as serious about cutting the budget down for the sake of the national deficit, this isn’t a good way to do it, even less so when you factor in the most recent poll I could find, stating that more Americans oppose this funding than support it. No real surprises there.

The last time I wrote about high-speed rail was April 2009, just over a month into the existence of this column. At the time I wrote that although it had merit based on its intended results, the idea lacked “urgency” and should be saved for another time. Almost two years later, neither the situation nor my opinion of it has changed a good deal. The country’s still in a deficit; demand for high-speed rail is still coming almost exclusively from mayors and the occasional governor. From the people? Not as much.

In the meantime, Republicans would prefer to patch up infrastructure that has already been built and has gone without maintenance for some time. If that’s not urgency, considering the potential risks of leaving these things unchecked, I don’t know what is. Both this plan and the one for high-speed rail would only create temporary jobs, but even that is better than nothing. Higher amounts of jobs can come from other sectors of the economy that can afford to languish a while longer than torn-up roads.

Of course, politically speaking, this plan might require Republicans to tone down their attempts to cut state aid. But at least they’d know what it’s being used for this way.

Bike-sharing = NO FREEDOM!!!

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes (R-CO), who is insane. Seriously, there is no other explanation for his absolutely verkachte opinion Denver’s bike-sharing program, which I personally consider a fabulous idea. For those who are unfamiliar with bike-sharing, it basically involves a city providing bikes to residents that they can rent for the day for a small fee. Denver’s program, championed by Mayor John Hickenlooper, is called B-Cycle and more information about it can be found here.

You ask, what possible objection could someone have to this sort of thing, unless they were deeply in the pockets of the oil and auto industries? According to the Denver Post, Maes once thought, rightfully, that such an initiative was “harmless and well-meaning.” But now? Because bike-sharing is endorsed by a body known as the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, he is now convinced that they are controlling the mayor and that they have aspirations to “threaten our personal freedoms.”

You hear that? THE MAYOR AGREED WITH PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF THE U.S.! MAN THE LIFEBOATS!!! 

Listen to the language he used to describe his take: “This is all very well-disguised, but it will be exposed.” “That’s exactly the attitude they want you to have.” “These are very specific strategies that are dictated to us by this United Nations program that mayors have signed on to.” The ICLEI is “a group that puts the environment above citizens’ rights.” That goddamn environment! “Some would argue this document that mayors have signed is contradictory to our own Constitution.” You know what those “some” are? Insane. And also stupid.

My general theory on life is if something sounds so ridiculous that all you can do is laugh at the idea of it, it probably is that ridiculous. I can’t say this ranks up there with “Obama wasn’t really born on U.S. soil” or “Bush never cared about terrorism, he just wanted the oil.” It’s not nearly that malicious. But it does tell me that Maes favors isolationism on the part of the U.S., with input from any multinational body (presumably, not counting profit-making corporations) being rejected outright. This may not matter for a governor of Colorado, but what other mentalities does he have of which their voters ought to be wary?

Attack of the drones

It was only a matter of time before somebody said, “Well, those drones work great in war zones – when they’re not shooting at innocent bystanders – so why aren’t we using them to do stuff here?” That’s what the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was asked this week, mostly by civilian scientists who think they would make their experiments really wicked cool. Of course, if that was used as a justification for transportation policy every time, we’d probably have dedicated skateboarding lanes.

The drones and remote-controlled unmanned aircraft (which we will shorthand to D&RA) have their advantages. They’re cheap, they’re mostly effective, and they can’t talk back and refuse to do dirty and/or dangerous jobs. Among their suggested uses:

Tornado researchers want to send them into storms to gather data. Energy companies want to use them to monitor pipelines. State police hope to send them up to capture images of speeding cars’ license plates. Local police envision using them to track fleeing suspects. 

Meanwhile, in Winnipeg, people are slamming City Hall for approving the funding to get the police a helicopter. One helicopter. We’re so advanced.

Assuming the remote-controlled kind outnumbered the pre-programmed kind, the use of D&RA could create a few extra computer science jobs here and there, although you’d likely have to be damn smart to get them. It might provide a boost to manufacturing as well. It might even sway the best college math grads away from finance – always a plus for an economy that prides itself on innovation.

But before we get into a bright rosy future of planes of varying sizes that nobody can hijack, here are a few very important considerations that are likely to impede the progress of D&RA:

• use (how widespread are the benefits?)
• space (same level as regular aircraft?)
• environment (record on emissions?)
• privacy (how much can they see?)
• cost-effectiveness (do they have it?)
• noise (better or worse than vuvuzelas?)

A high-school classmate – who, coincidentally, now studies aerospace engineering – once said he hates politicians because they don’t know science. Kind of a blanket statement, although I can’t think of a contrasting example right now. But for them not to do this with D&RA would be shameful; it at least merits the research. Hopefully they’ll find it in them to approve the funding for that. (Compared to a helicopter. A fucking helicopter.)

The long, crumbling road to transport investment

After dealing with health care and the economy and moving on to the environment, immigration and more of the economy, did anyone expect to hear a word about transportation? The topic’s spearhead in the House thinks they should have and is becoming increasingly frustrated that they’re not. But that’s not for his own sake.

At the age of 75, Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-MN) is beyond wanting to become a star in Congress. According to this article, it seems more like he genuinely believes in investing in the long-term health of the transportation industry. Or at least that he wants to do something more interesting as chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee than “send billions in highway pork” of the variety found in typical budgets. $500 billion over six years for roads and rail is certainly an interesting number, even in the bailout era.

What could be the problem with this? The U.S. could use newer and better roads, after all, and fixing them up would create a few jobs, however temporary. I have observed that, even amid all the anti-tax rhetoric being spewed this year, people will go for a tax hike – however grudgingly – if they can be convinced it’s in their own interests. But tell that to Congress, who is unwilling to use a gas tax hike to pay for Oberstar’s plan in an election year.

The article does not specify exactly what Oberstar’s “sweeping vision” for transportation would entail, but this one does. His ideas sound functional and definitely far from the same old crap, although they also expand the federal government’s powers in the transportation realm. But this website seems to like this better, at least up until we stop referring to American infrastructure as “aging and crumbling.” It would certainly be easier to keep track of than just doling out money to the states and hoping for the best.

Oberstar needs $200 billion to fully fund his bill, much of which has already been spent on infrastructure-related stimulus projects without creating an uptick in the construction employment rate. (Why didn’t they get him to oversee that?) His spokesman made a crack about looking into bake sales. What his spokesman didn’t say, at least not here, is that they’re planning to organize a town hall session to explain the benefits of a gas tax hike, which would raise more money much faster.

Granted, Oberstar’s problem isn’t entirely due to communications. But he’s the nuts-and-bolts of this operation, as always; he needs an equally comprehensive way to sell it.

Air technology’s flight delayed

From the “We Needed a Bill For This?” desk: A bill that recently passed 93-0 in the Senate (wait, where were the other seven people?) secures $34.5 billion worth of funding for the Federal Aviation Administration, which is expected to last until September 30, 2011. The bread and butter of this bill is a requirement to have elements of the FAA’s “NextGen” program in place on commercial aircraft within four years, and the same for non-commercial aircraft in ten.

Is it just me, or isn’t the first place we should see technological progress in our modes of transportation? Especially the ones that go up in the sky? MP3 players and smartphones are all well and good, but they should not be farther ahead of the curve than airplanes. Of course, manufacturers of those things have fewer regulatory issues to worry about, but we can’t blame bureaucracy.

So let’s talk about some things we like. First, the technological aspects. Real-time information on the location of other planes: Good, but again, what took them so long? Grants to help airlines pay for new equipment: I would consider this a worthwhile expenditure. What private entity in the country would give money to this, anyway? Airline programs responsible for analyzing electronic data to look for trends in safety issues: Good. It never is as simple as pilot make plane go boom.

Now for the labour aspects of the bill. Limits on working and resting hours for pilots: Good. This comes up often when it comes to truckers, but not as often for pilots. Remedial training when pilots fail their skills tests: Duh. That isn’t even technologically advanced, it’s the same thing other industries have been doing for centuries. Ban on the use of personal electronic devices in the cockpit: Hey, we do that for cars.

Finally, stuff for passengers. A requirement to feed passengers who are stranded on the tarmac for more than three hours: Not bad, but can’t they just order some chicken? A $2.50 hike in the passenger facility charge, according to the House bill: Probably necessary, but they’ll hate that. 150,000 jobs created by airport improvement projects: Maybe that’ll allow more people to afford these technologically superior plane trips!

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) is absolutely right when he calls the U.S.’s slow movement in this direction “embarrassing.” Compared to other developed nations, especially Canada, innovation has been essential to the American economy. But with the growth of the Web 2.0 industry, everyone seems to have forgotten about this kind of innovation.

The True North strong and freeway-less

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by Kaj Hasselriis, an unsuccessful candidate for mayor of Winnipeg in 2006. In the grand scheme of things, this guy would be more effective and concerned for normal citizens than our current major, whose only prior qualification was his ownnership of the baseball team. But if this article (from The Uniter, a truly fantastic resource of local political idiocy) is any indication, his concern, however strong, is somewhat misplaced.

How bad is Manitoba’s road system? On a vacation to Toronto when I was younger, we drove through Minneapolis, Detroit, and Chicago with only four stops along the highway (not counting meals, bathroom breaks, and hotels), three of them in Chicago. On the way back, between Winnipeg’s Perimeter Highway and Osborne Street Bridge (a total distance of 7.58 miles), how many intersections got in our way? TWENTY-SEVEN!!!

Hasselriis comes in when Wendell Cox of the conservative Frontier Centre for Public Policy suggests that maybe it would be better for our drives and our economy if Canada’s highways were wider and freeways were more existent. He says “No one except fringe, right-wing think tanks are advocating for this” and that “Cox has a self-serving agenda . . . the public ought to consider the source of the research.” (That last quote is from the article itself and not from his own mouth, just so you know.)

HAR. I’m certainly not a fringe right-wing anything, and I’m advocating for this. It might not be fiscally viable for the moment, but it really should have been the idea all along. Sure, overhead freeways have a lot of things wrong with them, but they make cities run better. But Hasselriis insists that rapid transit should be the order of the day; he doesn’t appear to have considered the possibility that freeways might make driving buses more efficient as well.

However, Hasselriis doesn’t actually talk about rapid transit himself in the article. His quotes are all attacks on Cox’s credibility, with one weak “It’s not that bad”-type response to the actual argument. If he said something more substantive in the interview, I’ll give the fail to the person who wrote it up. But for now, it’s all his.

Is she in it for the long haul?

When this story hits the prime-time news shows tonight, I expect to see a lot of commentators accusing President Obama breaking his own rule, and the word “hypocrite” being bandied about with the frequency that the word “bitch” is associated with Sidney Crosby (and rightfully so). But let’s address that issue first: The executive order in question stipulates that federally registered lobbyists cannot join the Obama administration in a capacity related to their previous work. This woman was registered with her state. So, based on a little technicality, he circumvented the order.

The story: Anne Ferro has been appointed by Obama to head the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. She was previously the president and CEO of the Maryland Motor Truck Association, six years running. Reflexively, a number of lawmakers have already voiced opposition to this appointment; Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) told her he was “concerned about [her] ability to take the bold action we need to keep Americans safe.”

According to the article, Ferro’s record includes:

• lobbying for “phased-in driving privileges for teens”
• lobbying for “interlock devices to prevent drunk drivers from operating vehicles”
• defending an increase in “the number of consecutive hours truck drivers can work and the number of hours per week a driver can be on the road”

The first two bullets are indisputably pro-safety; the third less so, when you consider the risks of trucker fatigue. Read this letter sent to Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-NY) and Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX), leading members of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, from a group of safety advocacy groups. They ask for Ferro to be subject to a confirmation hearing before she starts work. I doubt that this is typically a Senate confirmable post, but an exception can be made in this case, just to ensure that she’ll do what’s best for truckers themselves and not the industry.

In any event, it doesn’t make a good deal of sense for any trucking lobby to push for expanded hours. I’ve never driven a long-haul truck (although I have entertained the idea; it sounds like an interesting lifestyle), but I can’t imagine that a tired trucker is a particularly effective one. Sure, they stand to earn more money if they complete their trips sooner. But if they fall asleep at the wheel, wouldn’t that be finishing the trip too soon?