Two state of the union messages

Listening to President Bush's State of the Union message last night, I actually heard two very different -- and contradictory -- messages.

President Bush said we need to make the tax cuts permanent. But he also said we need to fully fund the war. The president said that our country is "engaged in the defining ideological struggle of the 21st century." Yet he has not called upon citizens -- other than men and women in the military -- to sacrifice for this war. Instead, the president has in the past urged Americans to do "more shopping."President Bush said that we need to defend our "vital interests" in the Persian Gulf, but he failed to mention the words "oil" or"petroleum."

These contradictions are the opposite of leadership. It's a sad state of affairs when our president can't directly say what we all know is true: our economy depends critically on petroleum, and access to petroleum is a vital national security interest of the United States. According to the Iraq Study Group report, Iraq has the world's second largest known oil reserves. The bottom line is that currently we depend on oil to run our economy, and, if we don't take action, we will need to import ever-increasing amounts.

I've put forward a plan for ending our dependence on oil -- and funding a New Energy Economy. The National Security Levy on oil (see http://www.buckey08.com/) would be a fee on every barrel of oil consumed in the US -- combined with a price floor guaranteeing that oil would not sink below a certain price. The National Security Levy would be phased in slowly so that consumers wouldn't face a sudden price shock. Part of the revenues from the levy would be rebated to working families to help compensate for increased energy costs. The rest would help finance an Apollo-style program for energy to make the US a world leader in alternative energy development and production.

We need to get away from the contradictions of the Bush era -- and acknowledge that securing our future will have a price. Getting off of petroleum will be hard and will take money. But imagine if we spent the billions of dollars we would have spent overseas on oil here in the US. In the long term, getting off of petroleum is the wisest investment we can make. This plan provides the resources to get going. We can either pay some now and do this on our own terms or pay a tremendous amount later and do it on someone else's terms.

Our national security requires that we act now.

“Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability"

I'd like to share with everyone an email sent out by Dr. Buckey to our supporters today. -Gavin

Dear Friends,
Today is Martin Luther King Jr. Day. It is also a call to action for all of us to continue Dr. King’s fight for civil rights and equal opportunity for all.

As Dr. King once said, “Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle.” As we remember Dr. King, we must commit ourselves to continuing his struggle for justice in our society.

We must commit ourselves to working for equal opportunity. While some individuals in America have unprecedented liberty, an increasing number are facing poor schools, poor health and limited opportunity. Over the last seven years of the Bush administration, our tax system has been skewed toward the rich, while working families have seen the costs of education and health care rise much faster than wages. To make sure that America remains a land of opportunity, we must work toward a fairer tax structure, universal health care, solid public education, and a better system of grants and loans so that students can afford to get the advanced education they need to succeed.

We must commit ourselves to civil rights. Part of the American dream has been the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. For many, this comes from a lifelong committed relationship. Gays and lesbians are an important part of our community – they are our brothers and sisters, our co-workers, friends, and neighbors. Gay and lesbian couples should have the same legally recognized rights and responsibilities of civil marriage that heterosexual couples currently have.

Obviously, we have a lot of work to do. But as Dr. King said in his famous speech the day before he died, “Let us rise up tonight with a greater readiness. Let us stand with a greater determination. And let us move on in these powerful days, these days of challenge to make America what it ought to be. We have an opportunity to make America a better nation.”

Dr. King’s life shows that if we work together, we can make change a reality – and I look forward to working with you in the months ahead.

Sincerely,
Jay

Broadband Access and Net Neutrality

Technology is defined unambiguously as “the adaptation of scientific knowledge for practical purposes.” Certainly thought, and by extension technology, are the primary defining characteristics of humanity. Biologically speaking we are rather unremarkable. We lack the natural defenses and adaptations that grant so many other species a competitive edge, and our rate of reproduction is so many orders of magnitude slower than that of, say, a bacterium, that we are wholly unable to adapt. However, biology has had little to do with our success as a species on earth. It is instead our technology that has granted us such powers and abilities beyond what nature has supplied, and its evolution is exponential.

As an example, consider communications. From the emergence of Homo erectus and on through the emergence of Homo sapiens, the speed of long-distance communication was essentially that of a walking man – roughly 5mph. About two million years later, after the agricultural revolution, the breadth of communication was greatly increased with the advent of sailing ships. Likewise, the speed of communication was increased by a factor of about six with the domestication of the horse. Then, about six thousand years later, the speed of communication was rapidly increased to that of the locomotive, then that of electricity, and finally that of light – an increase by a factor of close to 25 million.

Of course in this case our story of exponential growth comes to an abrupt end, as we cannot exceed the speed of light. Still, the trend is quite clear. Communication has evolved from precarious, many-day or many-week voyages on foot to signal relays via satellites suspended in geosynchronous orbit above the earth. Now, however, our struggle is not upward growth but outward growth.

The most mind-boggling, prodigious scientific innovation ever witnessed does us little good if we fail to address the practicality inherent to the definition of “technology.” Certainly the question of broadband availability and access is hard to quantify. According to a June, 2007 report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the U.S. ranks fifteenth in broadband subscribers per 100 people, with 22.1 subscribers for every 100 citizens. This doesn't look good next to the number one Denmark, with 34.3 subscribers per 100 citizens, or the former number one South Korea, with 29.9 subscribers. Here in New Hampshire, as in other states with a highly rural demographic, the discrepancy is even more apparent.

However, there are a few problems with such international broadband statistics, primarily in that they tend to make broadband “penetration” sound like an arms race between nations acting as entities. Such numbers often fail to take into account the economic and demographic factors motivating broadband adoption in the first place. In a recent paper published by The Phoenix Center, authors George S. Ford, Thomas M. Koutsky and Lawrence J. Spiwak propose a “Broadband Performance Index” designed to take such considerations into account. A particularly telling thought experiment contained within the paper is that of the “Broadband Nirvana,” in which every single household and business within the OECD countries is a broadband subscriber. Ostensibly, each country is thereby on equal footing in the information technology arena. However, due to current demographic differences such as average family and business size, the U.S. would have 38 broadband subscriptions per 100 people, while Sweden would have 54.1 and South Korea would have 25.4.

Such numbers tell us a few things. First, Korea has already attained Broadband Nirvana, but more importantly, they tell us that raw numbers without backing credentials are of little value. According to the Phoenix Center Report's Broadband Performance Index, “the broadband subscription rate in the United States is commensurate with its demographic and economic endowments, no better but no worse.”

We may be tempted to rest on our haunches upon hearing such reassuring words of information competency, but I argue this would be a mistake. JFK didn't usher the U.S. into the Space Race with a promise of mediocrity. Such arguments to excel may sound overly nationalistic, like a new Manifest Destiny, but the Internet has the ability to cross national boundaries like no other media ever devised. Innovations within any one nation now have the opportunity to spread like never before.

Time and time again the Internet has proven itself as an adaptive, resilient organism, composed of users who quickly react to efforts at manipulation and commercialization. It is also one of the most inherently democratic constructs in human history. While we have watched a war effort ostensibly engineered to bring democracy to a far corner of the globe falter and then ultimately collapse, information technology has continued its evolution towards increasingly uniting people across the globe.

Here in the U.S., we need to guarantee net neutrality to keep communication open for all citizens and to ensure an even playing field for innovation. Up until now, the history of computing and the Internet has largely been written by startups – the Googles and Apples of the world. It would be a great hindrance to subsequent growth if we were to favor pre-established companies that could effectively act as highest broadband bidders. However, the broadband market is still a very young one, and so we should not be overly anxious to force regulations before we are fully aware of their effects on the market dynamics at work. Net neutrality legislature has been a highly controversial issue, but should continue to be considered should Internet carriers begin to exhibit high levels of favoritism and/or discrimination.

In many ways, grassroots campaign efforts such as Jay's benefit from a level playing field, and so it should come as no surprise that Jay strongly supports net neutrality, both for us here in New Hampshire and for citizens across the country. Jay also supports efforts to step up the development of affordable, ubiquitous broadband access, because the Internet does little good if it remains out of reach for those who could most stand to benefit from it.

All in all, while we should be glad of any reports of competency in the broadband arena, we should also stay committed to continuous information era innovation. All of this is new territory, and as such any attempts at industry regulation will require caution. Net neutrality is not a direct issue as of yet, but is something that should nonetheless be monitored and regulated by the FCC for the time being. No matter what regulations should or should not be adopted, the intended end result is the greatest broadband availability and quality of service for both individual consumers and businesses of all types and sizes. As such, we must take a pragmatic approach to broadband market regulation, with the emphasis being on results and technological innovation.

Taking Back Our Future and Our Freedom

If we needed confirmation that we have lost control of our energy future, we got it yesterday. President Bush was in Saudia Arabia trying to convince King Abdullah to help out our economy by increasing oil production. According the report I read, the response was "lukewarm." Clearly, we need to take back control of our future by ending our dependence on foreign oil. Today, I presented a plan to do just that-- and it appears below. I would be interested in your comments.

As you all know, our country is facing tremendous challenges.

Today, men and women from New Hampshire are risking their lives for us in Iraq. They are fighting to protect America’s interests in the Mideast, and to protect our access to foreign oil.

Today, our nation’s economy is being hard hit by oil prices, which have more than doubled since 2003, but our fight for energy independence is woefully under-funded.

Today, we are all living in a world where the polar ice caps are melting.

We need leadership in Washington that will address these challenges. I am running for the Senate because I believe we must protect America by going on the offensive and taking positive action to protect our nation’s security -- and our future.

I writing today because I am proposing that one of our first actions be to start a National Security Levy on oil. The National Security Levy will be phased in slowly and will include a price floor to keep oil prices stable.

First and foremost, the National Security Levy is designed to make America stronger and the economy less vulnerable to disruptions in foreign energy supplies.

Right now, every time we fill up our cars, we’re sending money to foreign countries -- where roughly 60 percent of the more than 20 million barrels of oil we use everyday is produced. It’s like they’re taxing us, for their benefit.

Some of those countries, like Canada, are close allies, but others aren’t. And whenever we put a gallon of gas in our cars, we’re using our hard-earned dollars to help fund foreign oil producers in the Mideast, in Russia, and elsewhere.

Moreover, OPEC and other oil-producing countries have been able to lower and raise oil prices like puppeteers pulling the strings. Alternative energy companies have often failed when oil prices were low; American consumers – especially lower-income citizens – have been stretched almost to the breaking point when prices spike.

It’s time to put a stop to this.

The National Security Levy will move us toward energy independence and secure the future of our country for our children.

Here’s how it will work: the National Security Levy will be a fee on all oil consumption in the United States – combined with a price floor that guarantees oil will not sink below a certain price.

The National Security Levy will be phased in slowly so that consumers will not face a sudden price shock.

The National Security Levy will be variable and it will depend upon the world price of oil.

If the world price of oil falls, the National Security Levy will be increased, so that the price in the US remains above a certain established floor. This means that alternative energy producers won’t be wiped out by temporary declines in world oil prices, as happened in the 1980s; they’ll know that the price of oil in the US would not be allowed to fall below the floor price.

If, however, the price of world oil spikes dramatically, then the National Security Levy would be suspended during the spike.

As this National Security Levy takes effect, it will generate revenue. I propose that this money be used in two ways.

· Part should be given as a rebate to working families to compensate for the increased energy costs.
· The rest should be used to help finance an Apollo Program for Energy that will move the United States rapidly into the lead in alternative energy technology and stimulate the economy.

The National Security Levy will allow us to make essential investments in energy technology. We’ll be able to invest larger amounts when the U.S. economy is benefiting from low oil prices; and smaller amounts when oil prices are high. With this vitally important funding, we’ll be able to develop the technology we need to get off of foreign oil – and on to renewable alternatives.

We know we need to end our addiction to oil. It’s a national security issue, an economic issue, and an environmental issue.

It’s a national security issue because -- for more than twenty years-- our policy has been that access to Persian Gulf oil is a vital national security interest of the United States and must be defended. This is the biggest subsidy we provide for oil and gas use, and this cost is not just in dollars. We can’t truly disengage from the Persian Gulf until we change this policy. We should be saying that: moving to renewable alternatives is a vital security interest of the United States.

It’s an economic issue because in the future do we want to be importing solar power systems and wind machines and other technology from overseas or making them here? The solar cell was invented here in the United States, but now Japan and Germany lead in using this technology. We can’t continue this trend of outsourcing technological development. We have a great tradition of Yankee ingenuity here – let’s use it.

Lastly, it’s an environmental issue because we are experimenting with the Earth’s climate and --- as research about our shrinking icecaps tells us -- the outcome of this experiment could be tragic. We need to change what we are doing.

But you might ask, if a National Security Levy on oil is such a great idea, why isn’t it already in place? Well, the basic idea isn’t new, but according to conventional wisdom a serious proposal like this is politically unacceptable.

I believe that for too long the politicians in Washington have underestimated the will and determination of the American people. I believe that Americans are ready to change, ready to make a commitment to our future, and ready to work to make that future a reality.

And I believe that what is truly unacceptable is to have American servicemen and women risking their lives overseas -- in part to protect our access to oil -- and yet not do everything we can here in New Hampshire and across the country to end our dependence on foreign oil. We need to take positive action to protect our nation’s security and our future.

Over the coming months, I will travel throughout the state asking NH citizens to join me in making the National Security Levy a priority for America--because today we have a clear choice to make. We can either devote ever-increasing resources to defending our access to oil overseas as our dependency on foreign sources increases -- and deal with the effects of global warming as we burn this oil.

Or we can use our technical and scientific skills to make the transition to renewable alternatives – and fund this vital transition with a new National Security Levy.

Rather than sending billions of dollars overseas to buy energy, we could buy that energy here in the United States in our new Energy Economy.

But we can’t go slowly. Every delay just increases our vulnerability and the price we will have to pay in the future.

It is time for us to move on: the days of easy oil are over, but the days of American leadership in alternative energy are just beginning.

Mr. Potter is Back

During the holidays, no doubt many of us had the chance to see “It’s a Wonderful Life.” In the movie, Jimmy Stewart’s character, George Bailey, runs a small bank, and has to contend with the hard-hearted Mr. Potter, who owns just about everything else in the small town of Bedford Falls. Fortunately, with the help of the community, George Bailey wins. By the end of the movie it’s clear that America wins, too, since the Mr. Potters of the world aren’t allowed to run the show.

But now Mr. Potter is back, with a vengeance.

Five days before Christmas, the employees at Customized Structures in Claremont were informed that the plant was closing the next day. No severance pay was offered (although that was changed once New Hampshire Governor John Lynch intervened).

It turns out that the Customized Structures is owned by a private equity firm called Watermill Ventures. Watermill buys distressed companies, fixes them, and then sells them to make a profit for their investors. The upside of this kind of arrangement is obvious. A company in trouble can get a new lease on life and the investors can make money. The employees are expected to do their part to make it all work out. But it’s the downside that doesn’t get enough attention. If things go wrong, who loses big? Watermill? The investors? Or the employees and the town of Claremont?

This same dynamic is working on a global scale. Capital can move easily around the world. Multinational companies have the flexibility and resources to transfer operations to whatever locations seem most profitable. But towns and families can’t turn on a dime. When companies close or move out overnight, community members are often left to deal with lost jobs, lost pensions, lost health care, and lost opportunities. Workers face the risks a global economy creates; multinational corporations have the strength and flexibility to minimize their risks while reaping greater profits.

The ethic in “It's a Wonderful Life” was one of shared risk and shared opportunities. George Bailey took a chance making his loans, and his depositors took a chance on his ability to run the bank. But if they both worked hard and succeeded, they would both profit.

By contrast, Mr. Potter tried to minimize his personal risk. He wanted to control the all the businesses in Bedford Falls, make all the decisions, and reap all the profits. Mr. Potter didn’t like George Bailey because George refused to go along with his plans.

We have a lot of potential Mr. Potters on the world stage right now. Most of our media enterprises are owned by a handful of large companies (Disney, Viacom, TimeWarner, News Corp, Bertelsmann AG, and General Electric together own more than 90% of the media holdings in the United States). A few major players (ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, BP and Shell) dominate the US petroleum industry. By itself, Wal-Mart is a major force in the retail market. This means that these major corporations have tremendous power and can, if they want, make life difficult for individuals or groups who disagree with their plans.

The counterweight to this power is our democracy. Our democratic, representative government is the only organization with the power and resources to challenge powerful global economic interests. Whether through anti-trust laws, environmental regulations, or trade policy, the government can level the playing field for those without the resources of a Mr. Potter. America didn’t become great by nurturing old established corporations, but by encouraging the new vibrant ones. It should be the place where George Bailey can make things happen. It should be the place where employees could be given a shot at buying a company that might otherwise close. That’s why the power of money and special interests in our political system is so important. If Mr. Potter owns the town and runs the government too, then George Bailey doesn’t have a chance.

So when I hear that someone is promising to get the government off of our backs, I wonder, are they working to get the government off of my back or Mr. Potter’s?

Happy New Year & Congratulations!

Ringing in the New Year is always a special time. For many couples in New Hampshire, this year was extra special due to the law that went into effect on January 1 legalizing civil unions.

It is great to live in a state that recognizes the importance of civil rights for all people. Thank you, Governor Lynch and the New Hampshire legislature, for leading on this issue. There is still a lot of work to be done, but this important step in the right direction is cause for celebration.

And most importantly, congratulations to everyone who "tied the knot!"

Jedi Knights of Climate Change - A Letter to the Editor

To the Editor:
Discussing global warming with my 9-year-old son Daniel, we made analogies to Star Wars. "All living creatures on our planet are at risk," I said, "but there are lots of Jedi knights working to save them." My son's matter-of-fact response hit hard: "In Star Wars, there's a happy ending. With global warming, we don't know how the story ends."
...
Any compromises to greedy, shortsighted interests, and we're toast. The race to save the world is on.
...
In this time of climate crisis, who are Jedi candidates? Among candidates for the U.S. Senate, Jay Buckey is a climate Jedi.
...

(excerpted from the Valley News, Dec 14 2008)