Wednesday, January 30, 2008

The Spin Cycle: Hillary's Faux Victory

This just in...Hillary Clinton wins her second meaningless primary. And celebrates. That's right, hot on the heels of her victory in Michigan over "uncommitted," Hillary Clinton won the delegate-less Florida primary by 17 points. Hey, at least the other candidates' names were on the ballot this time. The Washington Post's Dana Milbank wrote a pretty scathing review of the whole affair here.

Nevermind the fact that all of the candidates agreed not to campaign in the state, or that no delegates were up for grabs, Clinton still deemed it necessary to give herself a victory party. The thing that really sticks in my craw is that she did not give any acknowledgment of her loss in SC, a real primary, with real delegates at stake, in which she got hammered. Just another example of the Clinton machine at work, doing whatever is necessary to look successful. What should not go unnoticed here is that she blatantly violated an agreement with the other candidates not to campaign in Florida and, now that she has won, is trying to get the Democratic party to reinstate both Florida and Michigan's delegates.

Sunday, January 27, 2008

In Case You Didn't Notice, Obama Won SC

And what's more, there was a record turnout in the SC Democratic Primary. And 49% of Obama's votes came from those under 30. Those two figures together tell me that Obama's message is reaching a segment of the population that normally does not care very much about politics. I think Obama is right, that people are tired of politics as usual.

Another interesting thing to note: approximately 530,322 people voted in the SC Democratic Primary. Of those, Obama got 55%, or 295,091. Approximately 425,000 people voted in the SC Republican Primary. (all figures used for this post can be found here)

NOTE: I previously and erroneously posted that 295,000 + people voted in the Republican Primary. Sorry for the misinformation.

"Out of many, we are one."

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Clinton/Edwards '08?

Anybody else get the feeling that John Edwards was debating to be Hillary's VP last night? I thought the tag-team action against Obama was fairly conspicuous (and onerous).

Monday, January 21, 2008

Vista Farms Disinformation Project

Take a look at the Vista Farms propaganda site here. Both Avery Wilkerson, the mayor of Cayce, and the "new team," who moderates the site, seem to be pushing the tax advantages and control advantages incurred by the citizens of Cayce in annexing the Green Diamond/Vista Farms plot. The project is being touted as a haves (Richland County) versus have-nots (residents of Cayce) campaign.

I have not personally witnessed any animosity between residents of Cayce and those "across the river." However, I find some of the other claims made on the site to be dubious at best. For example, the proponents of the Vista Farms project say that the annexation will lower taxes for residents of Cayce. Yet they site no proposals pending before the City Council to such effect. Further, they say that Cayce will not have to foot the bill for extending public services to the Vista Farms area. Even if the agreement between the developers and the City Council/mayor that the developers will foot the bill for sewer and water line extension is real, there is no mention of the costs of maintenance of those lines, the costs of extending the capacities of the sewer and water systems, or of the cost of providing other essential services to the area such as fire, police, and education. The proponents mention that the costs of services such as education, fire, and policing are a non-issue if the land is never developed and that even if the land is developed that the tax revenue from the developments will cover the costs of the services. What they fail to mention is that residential development tax revenues rarely cover the costs of such services.

Furthermore, the fact that the developers and the mayor who insist that there is no development plan, have also announced a plan to use 2/3 of the property for agricultural and environmental purposes suggests the disingenuous nature of the whole deal. So who will finance the very unprofitable "constructed wetlands" that are so highly touted by the developers? My guess is Cayce taxpayers.

Another problem with the view of the "new team" lies in their conception of the control of the land. They repeatedly mention that the zoning process is a public one and that the citizens of Cayce will have a say in how the area is zoned. Anyone who has attempted to sway the result of a zoning ordinance without bringing a big bag of money to the table can tell you how that turned out.

Finally, the biggest problem associated with the project is the levees. The existing levees were privately constructed to divert water from farmlands. It is well documented that the maintenance of levees is an expensive and time-consuming venture. So who will foot the bill for the levees? Well, the developers want you to think that private landowners will. What they don't tell you is the exorbitant cost of maintaining the levees would most likely prove prohibitively expensive for private landowners. So what will happen? Let the levees decay and endanger the whole development, or appeal the to the civic authorities for help?

Ultimately, as I have said on other occasions, the development of flood plains is a risky and expensive business. As Professor Adam Scales of the Washington and Lee School of Law put it: "maintaining a sinking metropolis that sits several feet below sea level is perhaps the ultimate faith-based initiative; these failures are surprising only in their capacity to shock.” (Adam F. Scales. A Nation of Policyholders: Governmental and Market Failure in Flood Insurance. 26 MISS. C. L. REV. 3. (2006))

Sunday, January 20, 2008

McCain-o-Mania

Well SC Repubicans, you surprised me. The conventional wisdom, that the evangelical vote would carry the day in SC, was wrong. You did not put your support firmly behind a guy who wants to amend the Constitution to bring it up to God's standards. And you were not charmed by the former imaginary D.A. from Law and Order. Good for you.

McCain's victory got me thinking: what if it came down to Hillary and McCain? Who would I support? Despite any inferences you may make from the title of this blog, I am not a partisan hack. There was a time when I felt very strongly on the side of John McCain (circa 2000). But now, after 8 years of the guy who beat him, well, I'm a bit wary of electing another Republican. Still, though, Hillary...really? I think if it came down to these two, I might well go with McCain.

Here's my thinking: McCain will not torture prisoners, which is a big issue for me. However, McCain will stay in Iraq, an equally big issue for me. But, on the Iraq issue, McCain's experience in Vietnam at least lends his thoughts on Iraq some credibility, whether or not you agree with his proposed policy.

On the other hand, Hillary probably won't torture prisoners either. And she will probably stay in Iraq. So they seem to be evenly matched on my two biggest issues. I guess I'll have to look deeper into their policy proposals.

Let's see, healthcare: McCain proposes what is essentially some sort of "market-based" solution to the healthcare woes of our country. One thing I like, McCain talks about low-cost health clinics, something I think is essential in providing healthcare to more people. One thing I don't like, any "market-based" solution for healthcare is a dubious proposition because there is an inelastic demand for healthcare (that is, healthcare demand is not the same as consumption demand, you don't go to the doctor's office to get that stylish new drug you've been shopping around for). Clinton wants to have some sort of optional socialized healthcare system- that is, if you have healthcare and you like it, you can keep it, or you can opt-in to a government healthcare system. One thing I like, it would provide healthcare to more people. One thing I don't like, most people receive healthcare as an employer-provided benefit, if they have a choice to opt-into a government healthcare plan, what incentive is there for the employer to continue providing the benefit?

Ok, on to energy issues. McCain's take on US oil-dependence is well-reasoned and he has acknowledged that human activity contributes to global warming. My problem with his proposal is that he buys into the "pollution shares trading" idea, and I simply do not see how that will reduce overall pollution. Clinton says essentially the same thing as McCain on this issue.

Alright, how about the economy? McCain will balance the budget, cut taxes on businesses and cut spending (surprise, surprise). Trickle-down economics remains a force of nature in politics...why, I am not sure. Clinton wants a "progressive commitment to shared prosperity." Sounds like socialism, but let's see where she's going with this...she wants to raise the minimum wage, fix the healthcare system, and promote education. Blah, blah, blah, freakin' blah. Sure, healthcare and education affect our economy, but she will have to work harder to prove to me the causal connections between her healtchare and education policies and economic success. I can see it, but I don't want to infer.

And finally, just for fun, gun control. McCain is all for gun rights and supports instant criminal background checks for gun owners. He doesn't believe that gun ownership is tied to higher crime rates. Clinton wants instant background checks and to extend the ban on assault rifles. I'm all for that. However, her position statement (that can be found here) indicates that she hasn't given much thought to the issue. That could be a good thing.

So, where are we? Well, I am exactly where I started. I don't really like either of them much. I think if I had to vote today, though, Hillary's healthcare proposal, which I'm sure she will pursue vigilantly, eliminates her from consideration. I just don't think socialized healthcare will work without either drastically reducing the quality of healthcare or drastically increasing government spending and taxes. I guess I would go with McCain. Consequently, McCain's issue statements can be found here.

I sure hope Obama wins the nomination.

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Ron Paul is Why I Like Obama

In Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan Ron Paul has garnered 10%, 8%, and 6% of the GOP primary votes respectively. He's polling right around 5% in SC and 7% in Nevada. Its probably a safe bet that Ron Paul is not going to be the next president of the US. But, what is interesting about Ron Paul's results is that he seems to have garnered the support of anywhere from 5-8% of the voting public in most states.

So what is it about Ron Paul, an obvious fringe candidate, that strikes such a chord with such a significant chunk of voters? I think it is his emphasis on individual liberties. The past 7 years have been characterized by diminishing civil liberties. I need not go down the entire list, but a few examples would be warrantless wiretapping, suspension of habeas corpus rights for some US citizens, etc. We all know the overt source of this trend, Rudy Giuliani has even built a presidential campaign around it. But 9/11's impact on US domestic policy is epiphenomenal. The root of the problem is fear, or more particularly, fear-mongering by members of our federal government used to justify further encroachment on our basic civil liberties.

So what does any of this have to do with Obama? Well, I'll tell you.

Most of what Obama has to say about policy is in line with what you would expect someone just slightly left of center to say. But that is not why people like Obama. The common, and I think faulty, consensus on Obama's appeal is charisma and great speeches. It is true that Obama delivers very rousing speeches that pull at the heartstrings of many people. But there is a subtle difference between Obama's message and that of the other Democrats that I think is the real reason people support him. See, Obama's message is not about what he can do as President, it is about what the American people can do to change the course of the country. Obama's message is not one of entitlement, but of empowerment, and that is the most democratic message that I have heard from any candidate.

I think he's on to something. I think that there is a large segment of the American public that is tired of seeing what the government can do and wants the power back in their own hands. Just as Ron Paul appeals to the libertarian right, Obama appeals to the libertarian left. The difference between the two in terms of election results is that there are simply more Americans who find themselves leaning left this time around.

Friday, January 18, 2008

Green Diamond and the Moral Hazard


In 2005 Columbia Ventures, LLC, the Myrtle Beach-based developers pushing the Green Diamond (now called Vista Farms) development won a suit in federal district court to throw out the current FEMA flood map that placed the Green Diamond area within the 100-year flood plain. Columbia Ventures' beef with the map was that FEMA did not factor in the existence of levees in the area in making its determinations for the flood map. The Southern Environmental Law Center, on behalf of FEMA and a Cayce neighborhood association that opposes the project, argued that the existence of the levees were not, and should not have been taken into account by FEMA because they failed to meet the regulatory specifications that levees must meet in order to be effective enough to alter flood plains in such a way as to justify alteration of the map. Their argument can be found here Columbia Ventures won the case, but it has been appealed and is awaiting a hearing.

It is notable that the levees in controversy existed in 1976, the last time a major flood event inundated the area and failures in both their structure, construction, and placement were cited as root causes of over $4 million dollars worth of damage (and the property was not even developed at the time). At that time, and in every flood map since, the Green Diamond tract has been included in the Congaree River's 100-year flood plain. Many people interpret the "100-year" flood plain to mean that a flood can be expected in the area about once every 100 years. That is wrong. Actually the 100-year flood plain experiences about a 1% chance of flooding each year. Thus it is possible to have a 100-year flood each year for any number of years until we give up on developing the place and just call it a lake.

This brings me to the point of this post. That the NFIP exists, and that courts are willing to toss out flood maps and essentially green light the development of proven flood plains leads companies such as Columbia Ventures into what the risk-assessment industry refers to as "moral hazard"- the phenomenon that occurs when people are insured from a risk and because of that fact fail to take measures to mitigate any damage that might arise from the risk. Thus, as the moral hazard occurs in the pool of insureds, the overall cost of insurance goes up. So then, when someone like Columbia Ventures decides to develop such a risky property, the cost of insurance for all who need flood insurance rises. The problem is that flood insurance is subsidized by the federal government and any losses that are incurred by the NFIP are passed on to taxpayers. Furthermore, the problem is exacerbated by the fact that subsidized rates, by definition, are not actuarially sound- that is, they do not reflect the actual risk they insure, thus compounding the moral hazard for developers of flood-prone lands.

Thursday, January 17, 2008

The Green Diamond Should Stay in the Rough


Recently, the City of Cayce decided to annex the Green Diamond flood plain, located in lower Richland County for development. The timing, and hurried nature, of the decision is related to a window of time in which the area will be legally amenable to development. As part of an effort to modernize and make sustainable the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), FEMA, who is in charge of administering the NFIP, has been updating flood maps. The most recent map of the Green Diamond area has been thrown out by a federal court, not due to inaccuracy, but rather to administrative miscues in creating the map (imagine that, administrative miscues from FEMA).

The result of the court's decision to throw out the recent flood map is a window of opportunity for developers who have been salivating over the Green Diamond tract for some time now. They now have a limbo period in which development of the Green Diamond flood plain is not restricted by its flood map status. As FEMA works to put out a new flood map of the area, which will undoubtedly render the Green Diamond flood plain uninsurable, the developers, apparently in conjunction with Cayce's mayor and city council, are working to build on the flood plain.

One major facet of the project will be flood "protection" afforded the area by a levee system. One might think that only 2 years after the devastation caused by the breech of New Orleans' levees, that our collective memory might dissuade the development of flood-prone areas. But no, the technological hubris that has characterized our great nation for so long still prevails. Development of the flood plain moves forward.

The aforementioned "window of opportunity" for the development has little to do with federal property controls (at least overtly) and everything to do with insurance. Long ago the NFIP was created by the federal government because private insurers would not insure properties in flood prone areas. The private insurers cited essentially market-based concerns as to why they would not insure the properties. In order for the insurance companies to retain the ability to deal financially with a catastrophic flood event, the actuarially sound rate that would be passed to the homeowner would be unaffordable.

Enter the NFIP, the insurer of the uninsurable. The effect of providing flood insurance to low-lying, flood prone areas has been marked. Development of coastal areas and river flood plains has increased exponentially. In the process populations in those areas have grown rapidly. The result is an unsustainable insurance time bomb on nearly every beach that is susceptible to hurricane events and riverbanks around the country. Because of the federal policy of encouraging development of flood prone areas the NFIP has become a money pit. Congress has expressly admitted (see H.R. 3121, pending legislation entitled "The National Flood Insurance Program Reform and Modernization Act") that the NFIP, in its current form, is completely unsustainable and unable to deal with catastrophic events such as the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons. The pending legislation proposes to phase-in actuarially sound rates for some (mostly commercial properties and second homes) properties in flood plains and to add wind damage to the federally subsidized insurance coverage. The list of criticisms of the NFIP and the proposed reform is too long and complicated to post here, but I have an extensively researched academic paper for any who are interested.

The point of this post is to expose the true nature of Cayce's hurried annexation of the Green Diamond flood plain. If the development occurs between flood maps, then all of those properties will be insurable at the discount NFIP rates. The problem for those of us who will not benefit from the Green Diamond development is that when the area eventually floods, an event that would be severely exacerbated by a levee system and subsequent breech thereof, the cost of insuring the losses incurred will be passed directly to the taxpayer. In the meantime, the cost of bearing the risk of flood for the Green Diamond area will be borne by the insured (those people with property interests in the development) and the insurer (the federal government and, by extension, the taxpayer).

There are more criticisms of the Green Diamond development, which I plan to post when I have the time, but the biggest issue by far, as evinced by the rush to annex and develop the area, is insurance.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

"Lindsey Graham is Too Liberal" (Seriously, It's a Quote)

So I'm driving through West Columbia yesterday and, prominently placed among the plethora of political signs is one that reads "Buddy Witherspoon for Senate. Because Lindsey Graham is too liberal!" Seriously, I'm not making this up. Apparently Lindsey Graham is too liberal and this new guy, Buddy Witherspoon (a dentist by trade) is working to replace Graham in the US Senate on an anti-abortion, anti-illegal immigration, anti-"death" tax, pro- Iraq war, pro-individual liberty platform. He can be found online here. So, if you are one of the five or six insane South Carolinians who agrees with Mr. Witherspoon that Lindsey Graham is, indeed, too liberal, then here's your man.

Saturday, January 12, 2008

Backpackgeartest.org


I am growing a bit weary of politics, so I thought I'd blog on something I actually like for a change. I have recently found a website, backpackgeartest.org, that allows ordinary people to submit reviews of backpacking gear that they own and to become testers of gear that is sent to them to review. The site also has an archive of all of the gear reviews that can be extremely helpful to people looking for an honest opinion about a piece of gear they're considering buying.

I have been going through the process of becoming a gear tester and I have to say that the group has really structured the experience so that it is easy and relatively painless, yet it is tough enough to weed out those who are not serious about it. I'm impressed with the site, its standards, and its member reviews which are almost always informative. If you're into backpacking, I would highly recommend the site.

This post gives me another opportunity to show off a camping picture too. The picture for this post was taken on my recent trip to Cold Mountain. We are camped just off the Art Loeb trail about a mile and a half from Deep Gap.