We have options to relieve congestion

By Kevin Schmidt

            Forbes magazine ranked Atlanta its number one worst city for commuters this year. It cited the fact that “commuters spend 60 hours a year stuck in traffic, second only to those in Los Angeles. If that weren't bad enough, Atlanta is so spread out that only 29% of drivers get to and from work in less than 20 minutes, the third worst rate in the country, and 13% spend more than an hour getting to work, the fourth worst rate in the country.” During peak hours, it takes 46% longer to get somewhere than during non-peak hours. By 2030, it is estimated to take 67% longer.

That such traffic is a positive sign of a thriving economy is overlooked amid the hair-pulling congestion and rising cost of fuel. Metro Atlantans are coping by switching to alternatives such as telecommuting, flex schedules, carpooling, express buses and MARTA in record numbers. The anxiety was compounded by the failed 1% regional sales tax initiative this past legislative session, and ensured transportation will remain a key issue in 2009.

Taxpayers should be prudent in supporting a transportation plan that will fit the unique situation of metro Atlanta. While many of us wish Atlanta were dense enough for commuter or light rail to be viable, they just can’t compete with the car. According to the 2000 Census data, the mean travel time for driving alone was 26.8 minutes; transit took 47.4 minutes. Atlanta only has six people per hectacre, compared to 19 in San Francisco, 40 in New York City, and 367 in Hong Kong. Also, most work trip flows go from suburb to suburb, instead of to the central city. For rail to become viable, Atlanta would have to increase density while increasing the flow of work trips into a central part of the city. To accomplish this, land use would have to be intensely regulated to increase density and limit sprawl.

A better incentive is to eliminate the subsidies that encourage sprawl. Developers, instead of taxpayers, should have to bear the cost of connecting water and sewer along with the necessary changes to roads and traffic lights. Also, regulations need to be reduced so that low-density mandates don’t limit innovative developments.

            The Georgia Association of Railroad Passengers, a commuter rail advocate, answers the density problem by noting: “A check of the 44 metro areas with more density than Atlanta shows that 29 currently have commuter rail service* and six more are building or considering commuter rail lines. Of the 14 top metro areas with LESS density than Atlanta, six have commuter rail service*, and four more are considering commuter rail service.” In their eyes, since other cities have commuter rail, we need more commuter rail. Regardless of whether or not they worked for those cities they cite, their one-track mind is that “if you build it they will come” and therefore it will work for metro Atlanta.

            There are many improvements possible (and some are in the process) right now to lessen congestion. During the next year, GDOT is installing about 100 more ramp meters at selected interstate interchanges throughout Metro Atlanta. Mark Demidovich, Assistant State Traffic Operations Engineer for Georgia DOT is enthused by the early progress of the recent ramp meters. "Preliminarily the results have been real promising, and I don’t anticipate them changing for the worse," he says. Estimates differ, but most studies show that ramp metering reduces congestion and vehicle crashes.

            The expansion of Highway Emergency Response Operators (HERO) coverage called for by Governor Sonny Perdue’s Fast Forward Congestion Relief program is critical to reducing congestion. Approximately 52% of total delay is caused by non-recurring incidents such as crashes, disabled vehicles or debris. A Reason Foundation study estimated that a $211 million expansion of HERO could reduce peak hour delays by 30%.

            Replacing HOV with High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes would be a welcome addition to the long-term transportation plan. HOV lanes have lost their benefit as a managed lane from heavy congestion; only value pricing lanes can ensure reliable trip times. If priced correctly, HOT lanes can provide relatively congestion free travel for those individuals willing to pay, but the lanes would remain free for carpools of at least three. It would also help in allowing Xpress buses and vanpools to move faster than general traffic, thus making them competitive with driving alone.

            Another type of managed lanes, truck only toll (TOT) lanes are currently being studied. A 2005 State Road and Tollway Authority study found that TOT lanes could improve traveling time for trucks, lessen congestion in general purpose lanes, and raise a “respectable amount of revenue.”

            There are many relatively cheap options that can help improve transportation in metro Atlanta. Synchronizing lights, building more roundabouts, and encouraging telecommuting would have a positive impact on congestion. From 1980-2000, telecommuting in Atlanta grew 192%. As we continue in the internet age, expect telecommuting growth to continue, and commuters to benefit from fewer cars on the road.

            GDOT commissioner Gena Abraham is on track with prioritizing and reforming the DOT, but more funding will be needed for future projects. Currently only 3 % of the 4% pre paid sales tax on gas goes to GDOT. That remaining 1% should go to GDOT before tax increases are considered.

            Non-traditional funding sources such as public-private partnerships can be effective for paying for projects without a tax hike. Any proposal for a tax increase should tell taxpayers were the money will go. The funds should go towards a specific priority, rather than into a group of funds were its destination will be forgotten.

            An alternative route around metro Atlanta should be studied. Traffic that only needs to go through Atlanta, rather than having Atlanta as its destination, should be given a viable option to bypass Atlanta without entering the city or packing the perimeter. A big picture idea would be to develop a highway outside of Atlanta that goes in the same direction as I-75, and use tolls to pay for the bypass. Investing in highway where it is cheaper and still deliver congestion relief would be smarter than paying for the expensive land use rights in Atlanta.

            The plentiful options to relieve congestion should have citizens optimistic about the future of metro Atlanta, but taxpayers need to remain vigilant to ensure that their money is being spent on projects that fit the metro area.

When Governor Sonny Perdue signed Georgia’s $21.1 billion budget for fiscal 2009, it contained $6 million for Local Assistance Grants (LAG), funds appropriated and allocated to a specific recipient or local government for a specific purpose. Lawmakers try to use the fact that these handouts are a relatively small part of the state budget – about 0.03 percent the ’09 budget – to defend the spending. 

The size notwithstanding, taxpayers need to question these appropriations. Does the specified program constitute a legitimate function of government? Is this program a local, rather than state, responsibility? Does it pose an undue burden on the local government’s budget? 

The evidence shows that a vast majority of these special projects to which the funds are allocated pose no undue burden on the local government’s budget. Of the 224 cities allotted grants, only 16 of the grants were larger than 5 percent of their fiscal 2006 budget. None of the grants for county government projects would have cost more than 1.75 percent of their budget. If the projects are of such minimal cost to the local government and the projects are so important, why wouldn’t the local government pay for it? 

This year, DeKalb County received a $5,000 grant for materials and supplies to help Park Pride-Druid Hills Civic Association construct a low activity neighborhood pocket park. One could reasonably assume it to be a legitimate function of government. The questions, however, are whether it should have been a local responsibility and whether it put an undue burden on DeKalb’s budget.

This project could have been paid in full, without assistance by the state, without even blinking. At $5,000, it was just 0.0008 percent of the county’s fiscal 2006 budget. The conclusion? The grant was not based on any financial need by DeKalb government. And it’s only one of many examples of money wasted on Local Assistance Grants. 

Among some of the projects grant money went to: $15,000 for replacing water heaters and retrofit for water conservation for the QLS Apartments in Fulton County; $20,000 for renovating the Baxley Livestock Barn and Arena in Appling County, and $10,000 on new football uniforms for Pebblebrook High School in Cobb County.  

These projects can be correctly called “pork.” The fact that these projects could be paid for easily at the local level shows how state lawmakers are using the grants as gifts to constituents.  

Despite the wasted money, there are some Local Assistance Grants being used for legitimate functions of state government. For example, the City of Fargo is getting $10,000 to purchase a used fire truck. This would have been 10 percent of Fargo’s $97,163 budget. The City of Payne received $7,500 to help buy fire hydrants and leak detection and prevention equipment.  The cost would have been 30 percent of Payne’s budget. These grants were allocated to important health and safety projects whose funding would have put an undue burden on the local governments.  

The larger problem with Local Assistance Grants isn’t the cost (though it is a problem), but rather the corruption that goes along with them Want a LAG for your district? Keep the powers that be happy and vote for their bills. If you don’t you could lose your grants. Want to get someone to vote for your bills? Persuade them with the offer of some hefty grants. It happens time and again. At the federal level, the Medicare prescription drug bill in 2003 was short of votes in the House, but it passed after those who wanted votes threatened to take away the pork of naysayers.  

Georgia lawmakers insist the grants go through an evaluation process and the money goes to the places it’s needed. Given the grants’ diversity, it’s impossible to decipher any sort of evaluation process or find out how grants are being prioritized. Relatively rich counties could afford all the projects they are getting grants to pay for. A close look at the 470 Local Assistance Grants clarifies that most of the allocation is based on politics, not good public policy.  

Pork spending has become so engrained in politics that a longtime senator suggested that taking away his highway money was like slapping his wife. Based on all the wasted money, a slapping might be necessary.

Let’s Meet at Starbucks and Discuss Killing Capitalism

By Kevin Schmidt

            “Kill capitalism before It kills you”. That was the headline of many fliers posted around campus, and around the Social Science building. It was followed by facts on income inequality and certain readings that should be read like Marx and Engels (although I applaud whoever wrote in John Locke).

            Socialism means government ownership (instead of private) of the means of production. It has been implemented in many different ways. The Soviet Union used central planning (instead of market forces: supply and demand) to “plan” their economy, and Great Britain and much of Europe nationalized many of their large industries after World War II. The latter being dubbed the “mixed” economy.

            With the collapse of the Berlin Wall, many figured that communism/socialism would die out. From walking around campus this is not the case. Before the wall fell, many prominent economists and intellectuals also believed the Soviet system to be a success. In 1981, Nobel Laureate and MIT professor of economics Paul Samuelson said: “It is a vulgar mistake to think that most people in Eastern Europe are miserable”. Apparently abandoning their comfort, the East Germans rushed to West Germany when the wall fell, and Solidarity risked their lives in Poland to get rid of the Soviet-supported Communists.

            If Al Gore was talking about whether or not market economies are better than planned economies he would say: “the debate is over”. The 20^th century has seen countries that have adopted a capitalist approach achieve political and economic freedom. Why hasn’t opening up to be more capitalist oriented (especially trade) killed China, Japan, South Korea, and Thailand as socialists would like you to believe? The fact of the matter is that free markets and trade have brought prosperity in terms of economic growth, employment, and a higher standard of living than those living under socialism.

            During the 1980s in Britain, Margaret Thatcher took Britain down the path of privatization of previously government owned sections of the economy. The coal industry was losing vast amounts of money and was barely surviving with 1.3 billion dollars of subsidies a year. Without privatization, the whole industry would have gone under, and possibly taken the economy with it. As with many government-run industries, it was costly, inefficient, and not observant of supply and demand.

Millions have difficulty getting a dentist in Britain. In fact, the BBC reported a story of a man pulling out his own teeth because lines went for blocks. He used vodka and pliers. Perhaps Britain is tougher because of these lines.

In India in 1991, The Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation had been open for twelve years. The only problem was the machinery that was bought for it when it opened never fit together. The workers had just been clocking in and not producing anything for twelve years.

In 2006 17% of Canadians didn’t have a primary care physician. Many have to wait for months for certain procedures, and end up the U.S. to get them.

In the mid 20^th century, the Soviet Union allowed a tiny portion of arable land for private farming plots. Although tiny in comparison to the state run and collective farms, they produced 25 percent of the meat and 50 percent of the potatoes. The Soviet economy worked well for the military-industrial complex and the government, but did nothing for the standard of living for the average person.

If one is to look around the world now and find the poorest economies and places to live, many of them will or have been socialist countries. North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela are all economically struggling with a large block of their populations living in poverty. Venezuela is the best out of the three because of oil prices, but the economy is beginning to crack.

When Deng Xiaoping proposed market based reforms to communist China he broke with Mao’s tradition by saying: “I have two choices," said Deng. "I can distribute poverty or I can distribute wealth."

Ronald Reagan described communism best in 1981 by saying: “we’ll dismiss it as a sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages are now being written.” Only problem is that the socialists are stuck on the afterword of the book, refusing to close it for good. They cling to failed, “voodoo economics” because of perceived injustice. Their once highly regarded and followed theories have sunk; it’s only a matter of time before they go with them.

            Until then, they can sit in Starbucks talking about Marxism and materialism. There’s nothing like planning how to make the “workers of the world unite!” with a four dollar cup of coffee.

Running Out of Oil? Hardly

By Kevin Schmidt

                The conventional wisdom peddled by the media and the latest sociology conference on suburbia is that we are running out of oil, and a crisis is on the way. They point to the over $100 a barrel oil costs with a gallon of gas now costing consumers over $3. Many scream foul at the “record profits” of the big oil companies and some even want to “take away those profits” by force.

                This is nothing new. Since the 1960s, books and movies have been foretelling running out of oil in the near future.  So far, none have come close to the reality. A famous prediction was in a bet between economist Julian Simon and environmentalist Paul Ehrlich in 1980. Simon bet Ehrlich that none of the five resources Ehrlich picked over ten years would rise in real cost. Not only did the real cost not rise, all had declined along with the other resources Ehrlich thought would increase but didn’t bet on.

                But with the rise of economic powerhouses like China and India, how can I say we aren’t running out oil? Well first off, the oil recovery rate from reservoirs is typically 35%. A few decades ago it was only 20%. It’s amazing for people to tell us that we are running out of oil, when we only get 1/3 of the oil out of each reservoir. At current market prices, it is becoming profitable to research new ways to get more oil out of each reservoir.  Companies such as Chevron and Exxon are researching methods to allow them to extract as much as 80% of the oil.

                The Athabasca region in Alberta, Canada was not profitable to tap its 1.7 trillion to 2.5 trillion barrels of oil, because getting oil out of the sand is expensive and complicated. With the rise of oil prices, production has started.

                It’s true that some oil producers have been producing less oil than in past years, but it’s not because the oil is running dry. According to the Economist, “Mining and oil firms are struggling to increase output, partly because it takes years to develop new mines or oilfields, partly because shortages of equipment and labour are hampering expansion, and partly because governments in resource-rich countries are becoming ever more prone to jacking up royalties or expropriating resources. “ Some companies fear that oil producing countries will raise royalties or do what Hugo Chavez did to Exxon and ConocoPhillips and kick them out entirely by nationalizing the industry.

                Some theorists believe that we are nearing peak oil again. The only problem is every time we get close to peak oil, it’s realized that peak oil is a moving target. The New York Times describes it by noting: “As the industry improves its ability to draw new life from old wells and expands its forays into ever-deeper corners of the globe, it is providing a strong rebuttal in the long-running debate over when the world might run out of oil”.

                All of the talk about the billions in profits for these oil companies is bunk. It is only profit margins that matter. The profit margins of oil companies are less than those in banking, computers, and some household goods. There is no empirical evidence of price fixing or “gouging”. The U.S. oil companies have especially less influence on the price of gas considering state-run oil companies own most of the world’s oil.

                Does this mean we shouldn’t try to find alternative energy sources and do more to conserve energy? Of course not. But first we should take advantage of all of the opportunities to drill our own oil. Places like Anwar in Alaska and off the coasts of Florida and California hold so much potential oil, but environmentalists and people don’t want it in their backyard (NIMBY) block our energy independence. We can’t drill in Anwar just in case some environmentalists want go there and see it someday. Instead we should buy oil from countries who don’t care about the environment like Russia and Nigeria. So while Anwar remains pristine, the world environment suffers when more oil is demanded of countries that don’t take care of the environment. U.S. oil drilling would be far more environmentally friendly and the companies would be monitored and held accountable.

                Theorists are wrong about oil. Have been for years and will be for the foreseeable future. Oil is as abundant as their hot air. 

Iraq and Terrorism: The Ties that Bind

By Kevin Schmidt

            On March 13, the Pentagon released a study of Iraq and its ties to terrorism before the 2003 invasion called “Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents.” ABC News quickly took a part of the executive summary which reads: “This study found no "smoking gun" (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda.” Seemingly without reading the whole report, they released a story titled: “Report Shows No Link Between Saddam and al Qaeda.” Upon reading the whole report, the evidence points in a much different direction.

            The report “uncovered strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism.” The Iraqi regime supported or had connections to Fatah, Palestine Liberation Front, Renewal and Jihad Organization, Force 17, Islamic Ulama Group, the Afghani Islamic Party, and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad.

            The last group is the smoking gun. The Egyptian Islamic Jihad has been lead by Ayman al-Zawahiri since 1991. You might recognize his name as the current number two in Al Qaeda to Bin Laden. The two groups merged in June of 2001, and the Islamic Jihad is now considered synonymous with Al Qaeda.

            Two quotes from the report show Saddam’s link to al Qaeda affiliated terrorists: “Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda-as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long term vision.”

 “Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives.”

Considering this evidence, how irresponsible is it for these media outlets to claim there was no connection? It’s obvious that they either didn’t read the report, don’t know about the complexity of terrorist groups, or both. One can imagine that as soon as they read that line in the summary, they didn’t need to read any more and ran their stories.

The report also mapped out how Saddam supported terrorist groups that were “willing to target not only Western interests but also to directly attack Americans.” Groups such as Hamas and National Sri Lankan Socialist Student Union gave their full fledged support to Saddam and offered to attack American interests around the world. The report cited “Two other documents present evidence of logistical preparation for terrorist operations in other nations, including those in the West.”

The intentions of both Saddam and Bin Laden are shown to both have grand visions for the Arab world. Saddam wanted to create a “Ba'athist pan-Arab socialist super-state with Iraq at its center.”, meanwhile Bin Laden craved a “jihad that would one day topple all apostate governments, unite all Muslims, and finally restore the caliphate.” The caliphate is one of the most forgotten goals for much of radical Islam, because of being drowned out by the “they attack us because we are over there”. Although it is true that our presence in the Middle East was an irritant to Bin Laden and others, the big picture is much more complicated and the caliphate is a major part of that.

            These different visions were incredibly “parallel”, and eventually the two found a common enemy in the United States. Both movements (Arab nationalist and Islamic) recruited from the same demographic and espoused rhetoric of the glorious past of the Middle East, Arabs, and Islam. These groups did not find themselves in the same “group”, but did find that their common interests made connecting and collaborating beneficial. The report amplified that by noting: “Common interests, even without common cause, increased the aggregate terror threat.”

The overwhelming evidence of the Pentagon reports shows Saddam not only as a ruthless, authoritarian, and genocidal dictator, but as a state sponsor of terror that used groups that would help its strategic interests and attack common enemies. These groups eventually included the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which was combined with Al Qaeda in 2001. This doesn’t show that Iraq had anything to do with September 11 (although it can be sure they welcomed it), but it does show that Iraq did have a connection Al Qaeda. Saddam was a threat in many more ways than one. Middle East stability and the end of terrorism could never be achieved without his disposition. Whether or not our strategy was the way to do it will be up to debate for years to come, but this report shows how much more dangerous Saddam’s connections to terrorism actually were.

The Eloquence of Dishonesty

By Kevin Schmidt

            Barack Obama made a speech on race last week that has been called “brilliant”, “a landmark speech”, and “momentous and edifying”. I thought it was a well written, beautifully delivered, but completely intellectually dishonest. For the matter of race relations, the speech was perfect, except it attempted to distance himself from his pastor, while still remaining close to his pastor. It tried to apologize, without really apologizing. It proved that much of his past remarks, where just outright lies.

                According to ABC News, Obama said the only controversial things about Rev. Wright “was his stand on issues relating to Africa, abortion and gay marriage.” He added, "I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial." When responding to the ABC News broadcast of Rev. Wright’s controversial sermons, he claimed that “he had never heard his pastor of 20 years make any comments that were anti-U.S. until the tape was played on air.” His speech tells a much different story. He said, “Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes.”

                When talking about disowning Rev. Wright, he responded by saying “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me” adding that his grandmother had “has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.” There is a massive distinction between his grandmother and his pastor. You can’t choose your grandmother. You can choose your church and your pastor. You aren’t forced to go to a church that believes the government created HIV, calls the U.S. that US of KKKA, or called 9/11 “the chickens coming home to roost”. You don’t have to have that same pastor preside over your marriage or baptize both of your children.

                Obama said he strongly disagreed with those statements, and those he heard while in the pews. But what did he tell his two young daughters about those statements, and why everyone in the church was standing and applauding those vicious statements. Did he sit in his seat and just stay silent while everyone clapped and yelled in agreement? How can you be for healing racial divisions, when you go to a blatantly racist (not to mention anti-American) church? It shows deeply on Obama’s character that he just now denounced these remarks, because he knew his pastor had said before. It was only when his campaign and political aspirations where in trouble did he decide it was necessary.

                Obama has known about his pastor’s radical and racist sermons since before his campaign began. He disinvited Wright from his presidential announcement, telling him “You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we’ve decided is that it’s best for you not to be out there in public.”

                To further his hypocrisy, Obama called for Don Imus’ firing in 2007 over racially charged remarks. "I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus," Obama told ABC News, "but I would also say that there's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude." Apparently, that doesn’t include your so called “moral compass” and according to the Chicago Tribune in 2007, the senator does check with his pastor before making any bold political moves.

                It’s amazing how just making an eloquent speech will get you off the hook in much of the media. Obama avoided the real issue he was supposed to put to rest. He did a good job on certain parts of race-relations, but it’s all for nothing when he still goes to a racist church and doesn’t completely disown his radical pastor. He used his grandmother (who is still alive) to compare to his pastor. He lied and spun his way through this controversy up until this speech, but his eloquent delivery can’t save him from past dishonesty.