Tanks Alot

As always, torn between the greater good and personal interest... Classical economics is pretty clear that I'll choose personal interest, and in practice that's usually the case. So, even though I know it's better for the planet when we drive less, I've been enjoying the lowest gas prices in over two years. I am a cheap scotsman at heart...

When gas prices skyrocketed, our excessive carbon footprint took a step back. Folks flocked to public transportation, rail companies began advertising their fuel efficiency, and traffic got a bit less horrendous.

Then demand dropped too far -- the high price of gas, as well as the generally failing weak economy -- and with the drop in demand, the price at the pump fell back. Good news for drivers, good news for the price of produce and any other goods that get transported (which is, well, everything these days). Gas has dropped so low that Massachusetts is floating a proposal for the highest gasoline tax in the country, $0.52 a gallon.

Well, you'll be delighted (or horrified) to know that cheap gas may once again be a thing of the past. Couple weeks ago, the IHT reported:

From the Indian Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico, giant supertankers brimming with oil are resting at anchor or slowly tracing racetrack patterns at sea, heading nowhere. The ships are marking time, serving as floating oil-storage tanks. The companies and countries leasing them for that purpose have made a simple calculation: The price of oil has fallen so far that it is due for a rise.

Some producing countries are trying to force that rise by using the tankers to withhold oil from the market, while traders are trying to profit by buying oil now to store and sell at a higher price later. Oil storage has become so popular that onshore tank capacity is becoming scarce.

What a vision! Giant oil tankers, filled with crude, tracing figure eights in the Indian Ocean. Behemoths of the sea, half a million metric tons, floating giants -- and floating bombs and environmental disasters waiting to happen. Bloody boring for the folks working aboard, except if they explode, run ashore, or get taken by pirates. Be even more impressive if they'd finally build those sail-powered oil tankers -- but even the ordinary tankers have fanboys:



Higher gas prices? Good for us? Terrible news for a weak economy? Great news for new, green jobs?

Stiffing the constituents

And it's back to the stimulus package. One thing that has nagged me about Susan Collins's central role in trimming the package in an effort at "compromise" is that it seems to be hurting the very people she's meant to represent. Maine, as I have mentioned, is cash-strapped, and I would have thought that this would have spurred her to support as much money going out from the federal government in state aid as possible.

Apparently, this is not the case. I've read two different things in the past ten minutes that put the lie to this assumption.

From The Plank:

Here's the difference for a couple key states, in terms of fewer jobs created under the compromise (the numbers reflect an estimated range):

[snip]

Maine: 1,831 - 2,316

From TPM:

The state budget chief says Maine is hoping for as much as $1 billion in federal aid to help close a deficit that is already forcing layoffs and fee increases. So why did Collins work so hard to trim the estimated $250 million in state stabilization aid that would have gone to her own constituents? If she knows, she's not telling.

All I can think of is that Collins wants to appease her fellow Republicans by doing some kind of "trim the fat" kabuki. Because all it would have taken for the bill to pass unchanged was her (and Snowe's) support. Sure, it would be nice if other Republicans supported it, but the Democrats plus Maine would have been sufficient to move the bill along. (Steve Benen has made similar points about Arlen Specter.) Perhaps she thinks that by cutting spending, which makes the bill less effective, she is safeguarding its passage, but her support was all it needed in the first place, and it would have been better for her state the way it was before.

I find it baffling.

Thank you, Vatican

I am so grateful to have something besides the economy to write about, I could just cry.

Apparently, indulgences are back.

In recent months, dioceses around the world have been offering Catholics a spiritual benefit that fell out of favor decades ago — the indulgence, a sort of amnesty from punishment in the afterlife — and reminding them of the church’s clout in mitigating the wages of sin.

[snip]

There are partial indulgences, which reduce purgatorial time by a certain number of days or years, and plenary indulgences, which eliminate all of it. You can get one for yourself, or for someone else, living or dead. You cannot buy one — the church outlawed the sale of indulgences in 1857 — but charitable contributions, combined with other acts, can help you earn one. There is a limit of one plenary indulgence per sinner per day.

Got that? One per day.

As an Episcopalian, I'm really on the outside looking in on this. I don't believe in Purgatory, and I certainly don't believe that the church (a human institution) has any sway over God's grace. But there are aspects of this that, heaven help me, I just find hilarious.

“Why are we bringing it back?” asked Bishop Nicholas A. DiMarzio of Brooklyn, who has embraced the move. “Because there is sin in the world.”

Which is another way of saying the "reduce the sinning" strategy hasn't panned out.

I am also not sure about the way that time spent in Purgatory is calculated. Having read Dante's Purgatorio, which features punishments nearly as unpleasant as the ones in the Inferno but with far cheerier sufferers, I can certainly understand the desire to get out of as much of it as possible. But, short of getting hit by a taxi after leaving the church and donating some alms on the way out, isn't a plenary indulgence a flawed strategy? I suppose, while being crushed or roasted for a few hundred years, the indulgence would allow one to really repent for the sins that got one there, since one could better pinpoint when one committed them. But it would probably make me resentful, since I have a hard time understanding how any sins really justify having one's eyelids sewed shut. (I think that's for pride, but I can't remember.)

Still, they seem to have a sense of humor about the whole thing.

Confessions have been down for years and the church is very worried about it,” said the Rev. Tom Reese, a Jesuit and former editor of the weekly Catholic magazine America. In a secularized culture of pop psychology and self-help, he said, “the church wants the idea of ‘personal sin’ back in the equation. Indulgences are a way of reminding people of the importance of penance.

“The good news is we’re not selling them anymore,” he added.

How can I care, when I don't understand?

Via Ambinder, McClatchy has an interesting article about the success (or lack thereof) of Obama's grassroots campaign in support of his economic stimulus package. Suffice it to say that the interest in organizing in support of a nearly trillion-dollar economics bill is not quite the same as that generated by electing Obama in the first place.

Few supporters are answering President Barack Obama's call for nationwide house-party gatherings this weekend to build grass-roots support for his economic stimulus plan.

A McClatchy survey of sign-up rosters for a score of cities across the country revealed only 34 committed attendees in Tacoma, Wash., as of midafternoon Friday; in Fort Worth, Texas, only 54, and in Sacramento, Calif., just 78.

Ambinder thinks that the article is understating the amount of interest generated, but I'm not so sure. I think it's entirely plausible that the response to the call for house parties is underwhelming, for a variety of reasons.

First of all, the election of a president is a big, exciting and motivating experience. Add in the historic nature of the recent election, and the stakes involved for the country had McCain/Palin been elected, and there was bound to be an unprecedented level of interest and participation. To be fair, I don't think the DNC is using the run-up to the election as a metric, though some of the people in the article seem to be. But there was bound to be a profound drop-off in enthusiasm.

Also, the economy is a confusing mess. I spend way too much time online reading various different perspectives on the stimulus package from a number of sources, and I have no clear idea what I think about most of it. It's baffling and, frankly, intimidating. I can hardly blame the majority of Obama's supporters for feeling put off by the issue, and unmotivated to sign up for action.

Finally, there's a big difference between talking to your friends and neighbors about why you support your candidate, and making what feels like a pointless call to your Senator. (Considering the vote on the asinine DeMint amendment, trying to convince the recalcitrant GOP to support the stimulus package is a bit like spitting into the wind.) I must guiltily admit that, as a Mainer, there's probably more of an argument for me to be involved that most, and I've been serially deleting the various e-mails that crop up in my inbox.

Should more people be involved? Probably, I suppose. (Tune in later, when I tepidly support flossing.) But the size and subject of the bill in question are terribly daunting, and (elitism alert) I would just as soon people not hold forth on a subject they don't understand than flood their Senators' offices with calls because of how high a trillion dollar bills will stack.

Admittedly, he is pretty cute

I've been flailing around this afternoon, trying to think of something else to write about. I've done said all I can about the stimulus package, and there hasn't been much to choose from.

So, in the spirit of Friday afternoon, I present to you the winner of Huffington Post's "hottest freshman of the 111th Congress," one Aaron Schock, Republican of Illinois. He took the occasion of his win to promote a piece of legislation he's introduced.

... I recently introduced H.R. 899, the Ethical and Legal Elections for Congressional Transitions (ELECT) Act. The ELECT Act requires that within 90 days of a vacancy in the United States Senate, a special election occurs.

In this year alone, we've seen five Senate vacancies appointed by Governors, including the debacle in Illinois. This has highlighted the need to ensure that the American people have a say in determining who represents them in the United States Senate.

[snip]

While some may question the constitutionality of the ELECT Act, I believe this bill satisfies the 17th Amendment by allowing the Governor or State Legislature to fill a vacancy with an appointment for the period before the special election. However, this person must run in the special election to maintain control of the seat.

Frankly, I think it's a great idea. The happy few of you that have been reading for a while (bless you) have already seen what I have had to say about the various embarrassments arising from the Senate appointments in Illinois and New York. I wasn't too thrilled about the place-holder they appointed in Delaware to keep the seat warm for Biden's son, either. The whole appointment process is rankly undemocratic, and a hold-over from the days when the Senate was a bulwark against the whim of the masses, and its members were chosen by the political elite.

I don't have an answer for whether the bill violates the Constitution. (Any legal scholars out there, feel free to weigh in.) It appears that Russ Feingold has introduced a similar bill in the Senate, but his would amend the Constitution, which is a spicier meatball. One way or another, I will hail the day when every member of Congress is there because the people elected him or her. Even if some of the winners have turned out to be turkeys.

"Not if you called it stenchblossom"

I have strong opinions about names. Because (as unlikely as it may be) there is the chance that an errant comment made in a quasi-public space such as this might work its way to an easily-offended audience, I will refrain from sharing them at length. But the following (via HuffPo) has to be shared:

In an interview with Esquire (quotes from which caused a minor media scuffle in January), Sarah Palin reveals the source of her daughter Bristol's name:

Two meanings in Bristol's name: I worked at the Bristol Inn, and Todd grew up in Bristol Bay. But also, Bristol, Connecticut, is the home of ESPN. And when I was in high school, my desire was to be a sportscaster. ESPN was just kicking off, just getting off the ground, and I thought that's what I was going to do in life, is be one of the first woman sportscasters. Until I learned that you'd have to move to Bristol, Connecticut. It was far away. So instead, I had a daughter and named her Bristol.

Now, while I don't love the name Bristol, I think it's a perfectly reasonable one. (This is particularly true when you consider some of the other choices Gov. Palin went with for her remaining progeny.) People name their kids all kinds of funky things, for all kinds of funky reasons. (You will have to take my word for it, as I would prefer not to violate HIPAA.)

However, there's a lovely little gem further on in the article.

ESPN Vice President Mike Soltys suggests it could be worse: there are a number of children named ESPN.

I will refrain from comment per se. However, I am in a position to confirm that yes, in fact, there are a number of children named ESPN (or close variations on same). Make of that what you will.

Beginning to believe it

Frequent commenter John (and thank God I have at least a couple of frequent commenters... it makes me feel slightly less ridiculous for having a blog in the first place) has, in one comment thread or another, posed a question about GOP opposition to the stimulus package. If they genuinely disagree with the stimulus, and the spending therein in particular, don't they have an obligation to vote against it? To which I reply, yes and no.

I can understand that Republicans have a suspicion of government spending, and favor tax cuts. I understand that they may be wary of massive spending, and cast a gimlet eye on funding for things that don't seem like "stimulus" per se, such as education or health care. While I disagree with this philosophy, I can understand it.

However, there is standing on principle, and there is rank obstructionism. It strains credulity to believe that zero House Republicans voted for the stimulus due to substantive concerns. It is ridiculous beyond measure to see the recent Senate vote for the DeMint amendment, which was favored by 36 of the 41 GOP Senators, and believe it was anything other than pure, unadulterated partisan hackery. Via Obsidian Wings:

The DeMint proposed amendment – which got 36 Republican votes (90% of caucus) – is a perfect illustration. (See also Brian Beutler – his regular site is here and should be on your readers and reading lists).

You might think the DeMint bill is a parody at first – the proposal of someone consciously trying to get chased out of office (think The Producers applied to politics). Indeed, in a more rational world, the DeMint proposal would be the story of the day – and an object of national ridicule.

Here are a few highlights of the very serious Jim DeMint’s proposal (borrowed from Heritage), which consists of zero spending and 100% tax cuts: (1) lower everyone’s marginal rates by 10 points; (2) lower the corporate tax rate; (3) eliminate most of the estate tax and slash the remnants; (4) make the Bush tax cuts permanent.

In other words, the vast majority of the Republican Senators voted for a measure that is composed exclusively of tax cuts. No spending at all. No money for cash-strapped states. None for infrastructure spending. Nada.

In a situation like this, there is a need to compromise, and to recognize that your party lost. It is lamentable that the GOP would put its support behind a measure that furthers only their goals, and would be so flagrant about it. I agree with Megan that they really aren't interested in compromise, and their goals are purely political.

On that note (and to explain the title of this post), I would like to give credit, once again, where it is due. I have, in the past, questioned the willingness of Senators Snowe and Collins to put partisan considerations aside when the chips were down, and to live up to their reputations as moderates. They were two of the mere four (four!) "no" votes on the DeMint amendment, and theirs were votes for sanity. While I'm not 100% delighted by the cuts being made to the stimulus package by Collins and friends right now, I am willing to believe that they are in the interest of getting the thing passed. I applaud both of them, and am genuinely pleased to revise my opinions of them.