Fork in the Road

"When you come to a fork in the road, take it."
-Attributed to Yogi Berra

We at the height are ready to decline.
There is a tide in the affairs of men
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.
-Brutus speaking in Shakespeare, Julius Caesar (IV.ii.269–276)

Today's New York Times reports that the Obama administration had an internal struggle over how to respond to events in Egypt. Should they emphasize the need for an orderly transition (thus appearing to prop up an increasingly reviled dictator), openly push Mubarak out the door, or support the demonstrators by emphasizing the need for democratic reforms and for Egyptians to find their own solutions.

As always, the cautious old foreign policy hands emphasize stability. Don't rock the boat. Give him time. Orderly transition. Democracy is hard.

The problem is, the tide was already running. We were at the fork in the road. We had to "take the current when it serves" the cause of democracy.

There are always risks in international affairs. But when the tide is running, we have to navigate between Scylla and Charybdis. Jumping overboard is not an option. Even if the rudder is smaller than we wish and the wind is fickle.

Twenty-one years ago, a series of events similar to the past three weeks led to the dismantling of the Berlin Wall. Old hands (I was one) worried that German reunification might be bad for the rest of Europe and NATO. It could destabilize Europe. Despite decades of lip service to German reunification, the dirty secret is that none of NATO's member states wanted it to actually happen. But it soon became apparent it was impossible to prevent. Best get on with it.

In a similar vein, in the long run we're better off with Mubarak gone.

Do we believe in democracy or not? If we do, then let's support it wholeheartedly.

Be not afraid.

Egyptians: Not Subjects, but Sovereign

Today Egyptians took control of their own country.

This is as big as the day the Berlin Wall fell. A day to celebrate!

Tomorrow the work begins.

The Price of Civilization

An anonymous reader commented on my report on Pamlico County Economic Development as follows: "Just remember that government grants are other peoples taxes and they represent the forced redistribution of wealth."

I do.

I also remember Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s comment that "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization."

Contrary to popular opinion, wealth is not just an individual creation. It is also a creation of society. Those who would create wealth need social goods such as: roads, harbors, monetary system, collective defense, police, educated employees, banking, transportation, communications, protection for intellectual property, standard measurements, a level playing field (law and regulation), assistance in navigating through legal and regulatory requirements, and on and on. In short, they need the activities of government. These activities are funded through taxes. Tax collection is always coercive.

Our Revolutionary War forebears decried taxation without representation, not taxes in general. In fact, they had been governing themselves and collecting taxes for their own government activities for a century and a half before the Revolution.

There are those who believe the only proper functions of government are defense and public safety. The rest can be handled by the magic of the marketplace. Alexander Hamilton and George Washington (among others) knew better.

In the present case, the issue facing Pamlico County is whether modest support for a project to meet an important national military requirement, expand economic activity in the county and employ up to 1,000 of our citizens is a proper public purpose.

It is.

Egypt - the Abyss?

This afternoon we saw and listened to President Mubarak of Egypt talking down to the demonstrators as though they were children.

This is clearly not the case. Whatever happens in Egypt in the short run, Mubarak has the look of being on his last legs.

The times aren't favorable to dictators. The crowds gathering in the square in Cairo were reminiscent of the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the Velvet Revolution in Prague, the Rose Revolution in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia, the Solidarity uprisings in Poland, the Serbian ouster of Milosevich, the Green Revolution in Iran and countless other democratic movements of recent years, both successful and unsuccessful.

Winston Churchill once observed, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947) Mubarak has demonstrated to all and sundry the inherent weakness of authoritarian governments: there is no mechanism for making orderly adjustments to changed circumstances.

Egypt has changed greatly in the past thirty years. The government hasn't.

Whether they win this time or not, the demonstrators are right.

Pamlico County Economic Development

Last night the Pamlico County Board of Commissioners approved by a narrow 4-3 vote a request by the county's Economic Developer, Jayne Robb, to apply for a flex grant in the amount of $13,900. The grant would not cost the County a dime. The purpose is to fund a feasibility study to determine the suitability of certain land in the county for an algae-based biofuels production facility. The land in question is not suitable for other uses. The proposed project is envisioned to produce up to 80,000 gallons per day of diesel and jet fuel, and to provide employment for up to 1,000 persons.

The first public hint of the project was provided last month in the report to the commissioners of current activities of the Military Growth Task Force. Not explained in detail at either session was why the Military Growth Task Force would be interested.

In October of 2009, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus committed the Department of the Navy (which includes the Marine Corps) to energy reform. A major goal is to aggressively reduce the Navy Department's reliance on fossil fuels. Marines deployed to Afghanistan are already using alternate energy sources, including solar. Here is the Secretary's strategic approach to energy:
http://www.onr.navy.mil/naval-energy-forum/~/media /5EFD428CFEB0412391CC321DCAF67138.ashx

One of the first measures the Secretary of the Navy took to put the policy in effect was to conclude a memorandum of understanding with the Secretary of Agriculture:
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=50710

The use of algae to produce fuel has the following advantages:
a. It can use land not suitable for agriculture;
b. Does not affect fresh water resources;
c. Can be produced using ocean or brackish water or wastewater (BRMSD take note);
d. Algae are biodegradable and relatively harmless if spilled;
e. Can yield 10 to 100 times more energy per unit area than other biofuels;
f. USDOE estimates enough algal fuel to replace all petroleum fuel can be generated using less than 1/7 of the area currently planted in corn;
g. No net generation of carbon dioxide.

Here is a Scientific American article explaining some of the issues and possibilities:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=algae-biofuel-of-future

Why Pamlico County? One measure the Navy and Marine Corps are taking is to identify as many local sources as possible for everything they need, including fuel. This not only reduces transportation cost in general, it reduces the use of fossil fuels. Using a local source of algal fuel for jets would therefore kill two birds with one stone.

The projected output is modest compared to petroleum refineries. It would take about 25 similar algal oil production facilities to equal the fuel output of a small refinery. Even so, the facility would provide enough fuel every day to support 80 sorties of fully-loaded combat fighters. That would make a big dent in Cherry Point's fossil fuel usage.

This is a project that deserves our support.

Remember the Soviet Union?

In the past few days there have been a number of comments criticizing our intelligence community for not predicting the events in Tunisia and Egypt.

The criticism is unfair. As Yogi Berra once said, "it's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future."

More to the point, we have excellent technical means to collect some kinds of intelligence, but we lack a mind reading capability. Even if we had a machine to read minds, it would be of doubtful use against people who have not yet decided what to do.

There is also a fundamental, unresolved conflict between the intelligence community and decision makers. The conflict: who gets to evaluate the intelligence?

The arrangement: policymakers get to evaluate intelligence. They are the consumers. They get to tell intelligence professionals what to look for (collection requirements). The professionals are producers. Because there is so much raw information, professionals have a role in selecting and editing what they present to decision-makers, but evaluation is in the final analysis done by those responsible for plans and policy.

This became a problem in December, 1941, when the Navy's Director of Plans and Policy, RADM Richmond Kelly Turner, overruled the Director of Naval Intelligence over what information to provide to the Fleet Commander at Pearl Harbor, RADM Husband E. Kimmel.

After the attack, Kimmel was fired and Turner was promoted.

The world isn't always fair.

Since then, the list of "intelligence failures" is a long one. One of the largest was the failure to anticipate the demise of the Soviet Union.

No heads rolled.

On Bearing Arms

Yesterday's New York Times entry in its "Disunion" series looking at events 150 years ago leading to the Civil War is based on diary entries by a Virginia slave owning farmer, Daniel W. Cobb.

Cobb, a barely literate secessionist, seems to have had misgivings about what was to come. Though he supported secession, one of his main concerns was personal: “I am with in a fiew months of 50 Years of age, they cant make me Bare [sic] armes.”

In 1861, this barely literate Virginia farmer clearly understood what present day elected officials and Supreme Court justices have forgotten: soldiers bear arms, not civilians.

Voter ID

The new Republican legislature in Raleigh seems anxious to implement photo ID for voters. Since Pamlico County has had only one case in the past five years of attempted fraudulent voting (an unsuccessful attempt by a journalist seeking a story), I put this in the category of a solution in search of a problem.

We may have a few challenges with voting procedures, but fraudulent voting isn't one of them.

This proposed solution to a nonexistent problem will also be costly to implement. And with the best intentions, such a system will inevitably discourage some eligible voters to participate.

I want to share the below article by Kris Kromm of the Institute for Southern Studies:

SPECIAL REPORT - Voter ID laws carry hefty price tag for cash-strapped states

By Chris Kromm

In 2010, Republicans campaigned on the issues of jobs, taxes and the economy -- and with states still reeling from scarce jobs and tight budgets, GOP leaders have pledged to keep that focus.

In North Carolina, incoming House Speaker Rep. Thom Tillis (R) opened the 2011 session this week by putting wrist-bands on the desks of every house member that said "Think Jobs" -- the same ones he gave to GOP candidates last fall, with instructions to snap them if they ever wandered off-message.

But as state legislatures have opened for business over the last week, GOP lawmakers have begun not by pushing bills focused on jobs, but for measures that would require citizens to show photo identification while voting -- laws which, among other controversial features, will end up costing states tens of millions of dollars to implement.

GOP leaders have introduced voter ID bills or plan to in Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Wisconsin. In Texas -- which faces a budget shortfall of over $10 billion -- Gov. Rick Perry (R) went so far as to declare voter ID a legislative "emergency" to fast-track the bill.

All the bills have sparked controversy. For one, there's scant evidence that voter impersonation at the polls -- the one kind of fraud that ID laws address -- is a big problem. The bills are also viewed by Democrats and voting rights advocates as deeply partisan, given studies that show the elderly, African-Americans, Hispanics/Latinos and other constituencies are most likely to not have the needed ID cards.

But at a time when states face staggering budget shortfalls, the biggest problem facing voter ID bills may be that states simply can't afford them.

An effective, full-scale voter ID program can easily end up costing state taxpayers $20 million or more -- the three-year price tag officials estimated in 2010 for a program in Missouri. For most states, such a costly program would be a suspect luxury in ordinary times; it's nearly impossible to justify in in today's economic crisis.

Among the costs that cash-strapped states face from voter ID laws:

* VOTER EDUCATION: State officials agree that voter ID laws require major publicity and education efforts to avoid voter confusion and make sure legitimate voters aren't turned away at the polls. In 2010, Missouri estimated it would cost $16.9 million [pdf] for TV, radio and newspaper announcements and other outreach to the state's 4 million voters.

* WHO PAYS FOR I.D.? Studies show that up to 11% of citizens don't have a photo ID. Forcing voters to buy cards has made states the target of lawsuits claiming such costs amount to a modern-day poll tax. To solve the problem, many states now issue free ID cards, but it's expensive: In 2009, Wisconsin (3.5 million voters) projected a total $2.4 million cost [pdf]; Missouri estimated $3.4 million [pdf].

* IMPLEMENTING VOTER ID: Voter ID laws generate dozens of new costs for state and local officials: accommodating longer lines at DMV offices, updating forms and websites, hiring and training staff to handle provisional ballots for those who don't have ID on Election Day. In 2009, Maryland estimated it would cost one county over $95,000 a year [pdf] just to hire and train precinct judges to examine IDs of voters. With local governments already cutting programs and staff to the bone, states will likely need to appropriate millions of dollars each year to help cover these new expenses.

While high, these figures may not even fully capture the full costs of a voter ID program. For years, state leaders have been hiding or low-balling the budget impacts of voter ID measures, presumably to help get them passed amidst bitter partisan controversy.

A Facing South analysis of the fiscal notes, or cost estimates lawmakers are required to submit with proposed bills, in five states* finds that lawmakers routinely failed to budget for essential elements of carrying out a voter ID law, including informing voters, administrative costs, hiring and training staff and other necessary expenses.

In other cases, state budget estimates have noted the expenses, but blithely said they would be "absorbed" by existing state and local agencies. When Georgia signed its amended ID bill into law in 2006, lawmakers infamously didn't even include a fiscal note [pdf] with the bill, even though the state admitted counties would need at least $1 million for equipment alone. In 2009, Texas officials similarly tried to side-step the costs, making the astonishing claim that their program would have "no significant fiscal implication to the State."

Such budgetary sleights-of-hand may have worked in the past, but they're unlikely to be accepted by officials today as they are asked to slash budgets and lay off core staff at every level of government.

In short, the more honest state officials are about what's needed to implement a voter ID program -- and the less they try to push those costs off onto already-struggling agencies -- the higher the price tag.

Given the much bigger problems facing states today, is the GOP's voter ID crusade really something they can afford?

* Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Texas and Wisconsin