Government gambles with subsidies

 

With an annual budget of $5 Billion, alternative energy sits high on Congress's list of spending allocations (How much does the Federal Government spend on energy-specific subsidies and support?). Subsidization, or special government funding, of alternative energy has been a three decade long program run by the government and paid for by the tax payers. The U.S. isn't alone in subsidy spending, as even now, our neighbor Canada is spending millions on wind energy without profit (Stock, Peter). Sadly when looking at the subsidization of alternative energy in our country, one can see repeated failure and waste. The evidence will illustrate several conclusions. First, alternative energy is neither necessary, nor marketability competitive. Second, government subsidies, as compared to the free market, will continue to fail in their efforts to develop alternative energy. And third, the best policy to adopt would be to cut alternative energy subsidies, and return that money to private energy investors.

When hearing people are searching for an “alternative” form of energy, one must assume there exists a problem with the current source of energy. In the case of the current energy source, fossil fuels, the primary argument against them is their contribution to the theory of global warming. As Ronald Bailey, a journalist for Reason Magazine, so aptly put it, “If climate change were not a concern, humanity could easily power its economic development using abundant coal and natural gas supplies for decades to come.” Yet when one looks at the facts, fewer and fewer Americans actually believe in the theory of global warming. Tara Laskowski points out that according to the George Mason University's 2010 study, only 50% of Americans are somewhat or very worried about global warming, and even less believe humans are responsible for the purported crisis. Fewer still are the people who are willing to actually put their money behind their words and pay for “green energy”. When eight independent energy utilities offered “green energy packages” to customers, costing between 0.4 and 20 cents per Kilowatt more than fossil fuel generated electricity, only 1.5% of the customers were willing to shift to green energy (Van Doren, Peter and Taylor, Jerry. 2002). If it's not global warming one would assume it had something to do with pollution. However, alternative energy sources are garnering as much environmental opposition as the currently used fossil fuels. As the Cato institute's Robert Bradley points out, “Every major renewable energy source has drawn criticism from leading environmental groups: hydro for river habitat destruction, wind for avian mortality, solar for desert over-development, biomass for air emissions, and geothermal for depletion and toxic discharges.”

If supposed environmental concerns aren't important enough to compel the public to buy into alternative energy forms, then in alternative energy would have to be competitive on the energy market. Competitiveness of an alternative product, be the product a new form of energy or a new car, is necessary to insure people will purchase the alternative, verses the established product. To illustrate this point, take for example a car. If a car running on gasoline can drive 17 miles with one gallon of gas, and only cost a customer $2.40, then that car possess a certain level of value. In comparison, if another car runs on Ethanol and is only able to drive fifteen miles with one gallon of ethanol, and costs you $4.00, the ethanol car possess less competitive value. In the energy market, the primary concern is how much energy you can obtain at the lowest possible cost. As was illustrated with the electric energy sector, fossil fuel's are still cheaper, even with $5 Billion of subsidies pouring into alternative energy to make the alternative cheaper. This principle is again established when one looks at ethanol's current subsidized prices. As Jerry Taylor points out in 2008, ethanol has been subsidized for nearly thirty years and still it's $1.40 per gallon more than gasoline, even after adjusting for the fact that ethanol is a weaker fuel. The message is clear, alternative energy is simply not competitive.

Having established that alternative energy is neither necessary nor competitive, one must then ask if government subsidies can artificially jump start alternative energy sources into being competitive. The argument offered in favor of alternative energy subsidies is that infant technologies are expensive and thus require certain amounts of infrastructure to become cheap. It is argued that just like the automobile was very expensive when it was first invented, alternative energy just needs to become more wide spread. The problem with this argument is two fold.

First, subsidization of alternative energy has been going on for over thirty years. Now, after all that time and money, ethanol companies are on the verge of collapsing even with the government subsidies. As Ronald Bailey points out, the second largest ethanol producer filed for bankruptcy in October of 2009, and behind them 40 more major ethanol producers are potentially facing bankruptcy as well..

Secondly, the government simply does not have the ability to predict which form of energy will be most successful. This is clearly illustrated by the wasteful legacy left by the government subsidy programs. Clean coal, and alternative energy process for burning coal with out pollution, was the subject of the government's subsidies for sometime. When the Government Accountability Office audited the government's two decade long subsidization program, they found that of the 13 examined programs, 8 of them had serious financial problems or delays, 6 were behind schedule by up to seven years, and 2 of the programs went bankrupt (Van Doren, Peter and Taylor, Jerry. 2008). These kind of results are seen across the board. The government simply does not have the ability to omnipotently choose a specific type of energy and force it to be successful. Robet Bradley put it best when he said, “The lesson has been learned the hard way that government invariably picks losers, the market picks winners, and "infant industries" requiring government favor have trouble growing up.”

The only alternative to government subsidies, is private producers responding to consumer's needs. This system of private producers driven by consumer's needs is referred to as a free market. A market not distorted by government subsidies and regulations is free to allow producers to produce what consumers desire to consume. The reason the free market is successful is due to competition. If Exxon oil and gas does not provide cheap quality gas to car driving consumers, then Shell oil and gas will step in and offer cheap quality gas. If Shell steps in, then Exxon either competes with Shell or Exxon goes out of business. As the continued existence of both of these companies shows, companies prefer to compete rather than go out of business. Consumers need fuel which that is cheap, meaning the fuel source has to be sustainable. Consumers need a fuel that produces enough energy per gallon, meaning the fuel has to be powerful. Consumers also need a fuel that is not going to seriously damage the environment, meaning there has to be a cleaning process, or clean type of energy. Which ever private producer offers the best energy on the criteria just mentioned, they will get the most business. In the case of government subsidies, the government eliminates competition by spending tax money making expensive low quality products artificially cheap. 

Say for example ethanol costs $4.00 a gallon, and makes your car drive 15 miles with each gallon. Then the government's subsidies pay for half the price, and makes it $2.00 a gallon to drive 15 miles. The normal gas costs $2.50 and gets your car 17 miles, so with government subsidy the ethanol is cheaper. However, the reality is all the government is doing is making an expensive low quality product cheap, and they are using tax money to do so. Currently there is a huge disparity between the amount of subsidies put into alternative energy, and their contribution to the economy (Bezdek, Roger H., Wendling, Robert M.). If the subsidies were cut, the best fuel would become popular and the fuels that don't work wouldn't become popular. As the Cato institute's Peter Van Doren and Jerry Taylor put it, “If alternative energy makes economic sense, market actors will quickly figure that out from the price signals they receive and invest accordingly.” If the alternative is competitive, it will become the popular fuel without the government's subsidies.

It is clear that alternative energy is neither necessary, nor marketability competitive. It is also evident that a free market, rather than government subsidies, will produce alternative forms of energy at the time they become necessary. The only question left pertains to what policy should be adopted for the future. Abolition of subsidies is obvious, but the question of what to do with the extra money still stands. If this money was to be given back to tax payers by cutting fuel taxes, it would mean gasoline would be cheaper, and the superior fuel type would be more clear in the market. Currently, an average of between 45 and 50 cents per gallon of gas price is due to government tax (Motor Fuel Taxes). If subsidies and taxes were cut, it would mean instead of paying $2.50 per gallon, one would pay $2.00 per gallon. The less money private producers are spending on gas, means the more money they have to spend on business and investments. Examples of the private industry's success in developing and investing in technology can be seen in the inventions throughout history. The automobile needed no government assistance to be developed, neither did the light bulb, nor the airplane. Even fossil fuels were discovered and developed by private citizens. History shows few, if any, examples of how government subsidies have been responsible for developing commercially successful technologies. To expect that the government is suddenly going to be necessary to invent an alternative form of energy is to ignore all of history.

Looking back, three points are made clear throughout the evidence. Firstly, alternative energy is neither necessary nor competitive. Secondly, subsidies, as compared to the free market, will continue to be a waste of tax money. And thirdly, returning the subsidies to the private energy sector is the best way to find and develop the best source of energy. Historical precedent shows that private investors in a free market are the people best equipped to invest, research, and develop technology. By cutting subsidies and using that surplus of money to cut fuel taxes, the energy market can be substantially more clear. The clearest road is the surest road to success. Until subsidies are eliminated clarity in the energy market is marginal at best. The best Americans can hope for with the current policy, is that the government might accidentally happen upon the best alternative. The government's track record makes a solid case against this gamble. Again, in the words of Robert Bradley, “The lesson has been learned the hard way that government invariably picks losers, the market picks winners.” If citizens expect to find a clean sustainable alternative energy source, giving government tax money to gamble with is far from the best option. The surest policy is to let producers produce, what consumers will consume.

-Work Cited-

“How much does the Federal Government spend on energy-specific subsidies and support?” U.S. Energy Information Administration. 8 September, 2008. Web. 13 Nov. 2008 .

Stock, Peter, Report / Newsmagazine (Alberta Edition); 6/24/2002, Vol. 29 Issue 13, p18, 2/3p, 1 Color Photograph

Bailey, Ronald. “It's Alive: Alternative energy subsidies make their biggest comeback since Jimmy Carter.” June, 2009. Reason.com. Web. 13 Nov. 2008.

Laskowski, Tara "American Opinion Cools on Global Warming." Jan. 27, 2010. George Mason University. Web. 21/11/2010

Taylor, Jerry and VanDoren, Peter. “Evaluating the Case for Renewable Energy: Is Government Support Warranted?” January 10, 2002, Policy Analysis No. 422. Web. 21 Nov. 2010

Bradley, Robert “Renewable Energy: Not Cheap, Not Green” August 27, 1997. Cato Policy Analysis No. 280. Web. 21 Nov. 2010

Taylor, Jerry “Oil Subsidies in the Dock” Cato Institute April 2, 2008. Web. November 21, 2010

Van Doren, Peter and Taylor, Jerry “The Case Against Government Support for Alternative Energy.” 24 October. 2008, Cato Institute. Web. 13 Nov. 2008.

Bezdek, Roger H., Wendling, Robert M., “The U.S. Energy Subsidy Scorecard” Issues in Science & Technology, 07485492, Mar2006, Vol. 22, Issue 3

“Motor Fuel Taxes” Energy American Petroleum Institute . October 2010. Summary Report. Web. 21 Nov. 2010

A Game to Remember: A Narrative Experience

Crouched in the thick tangled underbrush, I wiped away the sweat that trickled down my cheek. I contemplated shifting my weight, since sitting on my heels had all but cut off the circulation to my legs. I decided better of it, and chose to remain still. I had been squatting next to a tangled clump of yaupon bushes and thorny vines for near a half hour now, trying to locate my opponents. Grit and grime mixed with my sweat seemed to permeate my being. The foul mixture had not made the last hour and a half of stalking, shooting, and running any more pleasant.
Conducted on our 26 acres of thickly wooded back country property, the paintball game had started with 24 people in all. Both teens and adults, boys and girls, had been divided among the two teams that had then headed to opposing ends of the property. I had not been in the game at the beginning, due to a shortage of paintball guns. However, nearly ten minutes after the game began, a paintball gun, which had formerly been undergoing maintenance, became available and I entered the game. Unable to inform either team that I was their ally without getting myself shot by a trigger happy team member, I chose to go it alone. My objective would be to take out as many of the other players as possible. During the hour and a half of slow, hard, arduous game play, using the tactical advantage of knowing the wood's layout, I had shot out all but four of the 24 players. My problem now was that two players were still in the game, the others having shot each other out.
I was now crouched back on my heels next to a clump of brush. 20 feet ahead of me was a 15 foot drop off to the bottom of a naturally formed canyon. Directly behind me were nearly 20 acres of empty wooded land. I knew my two remaining opponents, both teammates who were undoubtedly together, were either in the canyon or between the canyon and our property's fenced boundary. The teammates were father and son. The son was a seven year old kid barely old enough to be playing and the father was a 30 year old paintball enthusiast.
I carefully looked about, preparing to stand up, when I saw it – a movement at the lip of the canyon. At first it appeared to be a small animal, but I quickly identified it as a masked head. I decided it was the son who was climbing out of the canyon. He had cautiously poked his head over the muddy edge to check for enemies; failing to see me, he ducked back down to get his rifle. While he was down, I raised my rifle to my shoulder and placed my finger on the cold metal trigger. His head slowly rose again. Taking a deep breath, I squeezed off a shot. The C02 powered gun barked as the paintball shot forth, the sound quickly fading into the green trees. The paintball traveled in a slight arc ending in a splatter of red paint square in the middle of the youngster's mask. He dropped, sliding below the canyon edge, leaving his rifle and calling in a panic stricken voice “Hit! I'm out! I'm hit!”

I waited again, listening for sounds that would betray the boy's father. I was confident, due to the family dynamic, that the father would be near the son. I was equally confident that the father would be looking to the well being of his son who had just been shot in the mask. Getting shot in the mask is a disturbing experience no matter how many times you've been hit. The zip and smack of the round before and as it hits you, the paint dribbling down your mask impairing your vision, and the jarring affect of having just been shot, all disorient the player. Knowing all these things would be affecting the youngster, and knowing the father was likely to be tending to him, I took advantage of the situation and moved forward towards the canyon edge. Sure enough I could hear hushed voices of the father and his son as I crept closer. Holding my rifle to my shoulder and sighting down the barrel similar to many SWAT movies I had seen, I moved forward and peered down into the little canyon. What I saw momentarily froze me, leaving me in a place of indecision. It is well known and universally accepted that a player never removes his or her mask once on the field. I had seen what a paintball could do to someone's face, and had no interest in replicating the effect on someone today.
As I peered down into the canyon I could see the back of the father's head, his face turned away from me, his brown hair slick with sweat. His head was partly blocking out his son's face, which I could see bore no protective mask. The angle was all wrong for a safe shot. From my position I was aiming at the back of the father's head, and right beyond his head was his son's unprotected face. Chancing a shot could easily result in the son's unprotected face getting hit. It took half of a second for me to realize that I could not take the shot, so I shifted my weight to back up. It was then that the father looked back over his shoulder and saw me standing there, rifle raised, finger on the trigger. Instead of covering his son's face, he lifted his rifle and turned towards me, trying to get his rifle to bear. In a failed attempt to avoid getting shot, I stumbled back from the canyon edge, getting only two steps away when the first bark came from the rifle. It was loud at such close range and for some reason, which I cannot account for, I did not turn away. The first round took me right where the head strap connected to the mask, bursting into orange paint and shattering the plastic connection. My mask fell from my sweaty face as the second round caught my cheek, bursting on impact and leaving a black and blue bruise. I barely felt the pain as I opened my mouth to call 'out'. The third round hit me. This time it caught me on my unprotected cheek bone, the round not bursting but deflecting off leaving my cheek open and bleeding. I tripped, falling to the ground, yelling 'out' as blood and paint flowed mingled down from my face. After laying there for a few moments, I rolled to my feet and saw the father had gone back to his shaken son, undoubtedly unaware of the injury he had just inflicted. I looked about slightly stunned and felt my cheek tenderly. Bleeding and bruised I knew it would take sometime to heal, possibly leaving a scar. I began walking back to the main camp, and found myself both disappointed and content at the same time. I was disappointed that at the end of the hour and a half game, I had been cheated of my victory by a bad decision from another player. However, I was content that I had made the right decision myself. With my head held high, I walked back to camp, proud of my wound, and content in my knowledge that at the end of the game, it was I who had won the day.

The Great American Holocaust

Its not her fault, she's just inconvenient...

Former president Ronald Reagan once said that the flaw in democratic thinking is that by electing the right politician, effecting the right legislation, and setting the right regulation, we think we will some how conform all of society to a form of morals and ethics. Reagan was dead right about this, society isn't shaped by the government. I submit that when facing the battle for pro life, the abortion issue specifically, we can never hope to solve the issue through politicians or legislation, rather the only way to protect the unborn is through a renewed sense of morality and ethics. First, lets look at why we have failed thus far to protect the right to life, second, how morals and ethics around the world have effectively eliminated abortion rates, and finally, lets evaluate what is the best use of our time and our resources.

It's painfully obvious to see why our approach has failed. We're trying to change a tool, when in reality, we need to change the work man. Government, and what it does is a byproduct of the society that wields it. Politicians are subject to popularity checks, and accordingly, the policies and legislation that gets passed, simply reflects what the society desires. Because of this, legislation in and of itself will never solve the issue. Pro life legislation already exists, the United States Constitution which guaranties life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However such legislation has been twisted by society to protect the right to murder an unborn child. Neither will a great politician solve our problem. Even one of the greatest American politicians, Ronald Reagan was unable to stem the flow of unborn blood during his time as president. According to the department of health and human services, abortion continued to rise during his administration, and by the end had reached it's highest point in American history, claiming the lives of 1.6 million children in 1989. We can't hold Reagan responsible for these numbers, but we can recognize that no politician or legislation has the power to reform our society.

If politics can't solve, then what can? The only thing that will effectively protect the lives of unborn children, is a strong sense of morality and ethical practice. When I refer to these two, I refer to them as they are born out of the natural order. Greek Philosopher and atheist Aristotle refers to it as Natural Moral Law. Now as a Christian I believe that this moral law was put in place by God, but you don't have to be a Christian to understand that the law exists, and consequently, to hold life as sacred. This law of morality and ethics is seen at work in three countries where there is no recorded abortion rate, because no such rate exists. These three countries include Iran, Syria, and Afghanistan. How can these countries characterized by lawlessness and chaos hold claim to stronger protections for unborn children then our country? These countries have no laws governing abortion, they have no politician lobbing for the lives of the unborn, and yet as a society without governmental assistance they hold to ethics and morality on the pro life issue that we in the United States can only dream about. The answer is in the sense of morals and ethics, adopted by their almost exclusively Islamic culture.

It's human, no matter how you slice it...

Our failure to reform the hearts and minds of our society has had horrific impacts, Many people have likened abortion in the United States to the Holocaust, saying a sustained rate one and a half million people killed per year would be a rate even Hitler could be proud of. And right they are so right to do so. We get so desensitized hearing numbers like 1.6 million deaths. We all have the numbers, so in addition to numbers, what I'm going to offer you is some perspective. The HHS reports that in Texas, there were roughly three hundred thousand births in 1992. In Texas, the same year, there were nearly one hundred thousand abortions. This year, the most of the generation of 1992 is graduating, that means, if you are attending a Texas graduation ceremony this year, add a third to the student body, and that's how many empty seats there are. 

Persons missing... one third of this group...

I was born in 1992... I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm beginning to feel a bad case of survivor's guilt, statistically I'm lucky to be alive. One fourth of my generation is not here... that is some perspective that can't be ignored, and perspective that I won't ever, ever forget.

But look to our future. The future stolen from these one hundred thousand children. Without a doubt, the approach of trying to solve the abortion issue with politicians or legislation will result in failure. Without question, a society with strong morals and uncompressed ethical practices will protect the unborn's right to life. We need only ask how do we reform our society? Reform will only happen if we reach out and touch the people around us. This is a war for people's hearts and minds, not a war for political seats or positions. A government is shaped by the society that wields it. I'll close with a quote from Former President James Garfield. He proclaimed the year he was assassinated in 1881, “Now more than ever before the people are responsible for the character of their congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities.” Ladies and gentlemen, its hard to swallow that we, collectively as a society are responsible for our governments actions, but only after we've accepted that can we move on, move on, to reform our society.

Chains not broken

Just cause you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist...

The Harvard Journal of law and Gender quoted the US Congress's declaration that “trafficking in persons is a modern form of slavery, and it is the largest manifestation of slavery today.” According to the Journal, human trafficking, with profits soaring into the billions of dollars, is one of the largest criminal industries in the world. Each year tens of thousands of humans are purchased and sold for the purpose of free labor with a focus on sexual services. The hopelessness of the human trafficking issue can be most clearly seen by analyzing how trafficking is accomplished, how big the problem is, and the solutions attempting to address trafficking.

The first step in understanding the human trafficking problem, is to analyze the process by which it is accomplished. Trafficking of humans is fairly simple when analyzed by its basic process. There are two ways trafficking is accomplished. The first is when the subjects, most commonly women, are lured into traveling from one country to another in an attempt to gain employment. The second form is when a person is simply kidnapped and smuggled into another country. In either of these cases, the subject is lured or forced into some sort of coerced labor. Nearly 80% of trafficked persons are female, and 70% of those females are trafficked for the purposes of sexual labor (Harvard Journal of Law and Gender). An example of trafficking is seen on our own U.S.-Mexico border where, according to the Journal of Trauma Practice, illegal smuggling of humans has become a lucrative business. Each year the process has become more and more involved. Lured into migration by the promise of work, the migrants are taken captive upon arriving in the United States. Once held captive, the illegal immigrants have little or no recourse to the law as even their presence in the U.S. is a crime. Although the process of luring and capturing immigrants may seem a slow business, it has in fact become a growing industry.

The second key point needed to properly analyze human trafficking is to look at how big the industry has become. The demand for low cost labor and sexual services has created a steady market for trafficked humans. Prostitution is a global business, and human trafficking will follow where ever the demand exists (Harvard Asia Pacific Review). 

The crime isn't that she's 13 yrs old, the crime is she is a human...

Where there is money to be made, there will be people there to make it. As long as the demand continues, the business to supply the demand will continue regardless of its legal status. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology clarifies this in their 2008 winter publication. It states that the demand for prostitution by the male population has fostered and indeed been impart responsible for the massive increase in trafficking. In his article David Hodge, a professor in the social work program at Arizona State University, states that the yearly trafficking rates in the United States alone are between 14,500 and 17,500 people. In their report, the Harvard Journal of Law and Gender estimates the number to be much higher, between 45,000 and 50,000 people annually. In addition, the Harvard Journal estimates that between 700,000 and 2 million people are trafficked world wide, with profits rising to between 7 and 10 billion dollars per year. With rates increasing and profits so high, there is little chance of human trafficking ending without substantial intervention through governmental bodies. The basic law of supply and demand will foster the existence, and indeed, the growth of this illegal industry.

The last key point to understanding the issue of human trafficking is the major legislative attempts at solving the problem. Each country has their own individual laws attempting to solve the specific form of human trafficking with in their own borders; the United States offers a perfect example. The primary legislative attempt at slowing or stopping human trafficking in the Untied States is the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, or TVPA. The act makes it illegal to traffic and enslave people. The act also sets a high level of consequences for those who participate in trafficking or coerced labor. However, the act's primary function is to offer support to victims of trafficking. This support ranges from monetary assistance, to housing and food stamps. In order to obtain this assistance individuals must qualify under the eligibility standards outlined in part I of the act.

This act has faced wide spread criticism on the grounds of ineffectiveness. While each year nearly 50,000 people are trafficked into the United States, only 228 received benefit from the TVPA in 2005. Beyond that, many are turned away with no apparent explanation or reason given (Harvard Journal of Law and Gender). Perhaps the reason so many people are refused help from the TVPA is in the actual text of the act. In the first part of the act, according to the Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, the eligibility requirements are too strict and exclude many of the applicants. Effectively, due to the strict nature of the statute's own provisions, it prevents itself from being effective at providing victims with support. Why the act itself was designed as it is remains a mystery, but it is clear reform is necessary to ensure success of the act.

Having analyzed the current process, growth rate, and the attempted solutions to human trafficking, the picture of the current problem is much clearer. Human trafficking is a response to the demand for free labor, sexually exploitative in nature. In response to the high demand, the rate of trafficking has sky rocketed into the hundred of thousands, if not millions. Without significant reform, critics doubt there will be any significant reduction in trafficking. In closing, the The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology summed up their view on the current approach. “The root cause of trafficking is demand for commercial sexual services, without which trafficking for purposes of sexual exploitation would dissolve.” The Journal holds that until the demand for sexual services is addressed, the problem of human trafficking will never find resolution. What ever the case is, increasing rates of human trafficking illustrates the current approach is not working. Without significant reform, improvement cannot be expected with in current system.

Works Cited:

 - “Missing the Mark: Why the Trafficking Victims Protection Act  fails to protect sex trafficking victims in the United States” - Harvard Journal of Law & Gender; Winter2007, Vol. 30 Issue 1, p231

 - Journal of Trauma Practice; 2003, Vol. 2 Issue 3/4, p143 - “Prostitution and Trafficking of Women and Children from Mexico to the United States”

 - Harvard Asia Pacific Review; Winter2005, Vol. 8 Issue 2, p10 - “Prostitution and trafficking in Asia”

- Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology; Winter2008, Vol. 98 Issue 2, p655-656, p665 - “Of Vice and Men: A new approach to eradicating sex trafficking by reducing male demand through educational programs and abolitionist legislation”

 - David Hodge, Social Work; Apr2008, Vol. 53 Issue 2, p144 - “Sexual Trafficking in the United States: A Domestic Problem with Transnational Dimensions”

Superfund: Super-waste, super-abuse, super-fail

Careful gents, the gasoline can might give you cancer... there is definitely a 0.0001% chance of it...

“Superfund was a federal overreaction to a locally manageable problem. Its rules violate canons of fairness. It has been enormously expensive, yet has produced no demonstrable protections for either human health or the environment.” This quote published in 1996 by the National Center for Policy Analysis's environmental analyst Dr. H. Sterling Burnett, perfectly sums up the federal waste cleanup agency known as Superfund. Created in 1980 by an act of Congress, Superfund is the federal government's attempt at providing an agency to clean hazardous waste sites. After looking at Superfund, the reasons for its inception, and the negative effects it has had, it will be clear that it necessitates either significant reform or complete abolition.

In order to understand the reasons behind Superfund, and the effects it has had, a person must first understand what Superfund is. Superfund is a hazardous waste cleanup agency that was authorized by CERCLA. CERCLA stands for the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act. This act authorized the creation of the agency Superfund in 1980. Superfund has been budgeted between $1 billion, and $1.5 billion each year for the past three years. To supplement these congressional appropriations, Superfund has the authority to seize money from potentially responsible polluters. The seizure is made under the assumption that the money will then be spent to clean the waste sites that the polluters were responsible for polluting.

The writers of the act quickly recognized that if Superfund was to sue each individual polluter, the agency would get bogged down in the court process. In an effort to secure money quickly and without litigation, the act was designed to authorize Superfund lawyers to seize money without a trial. Under the provisions of the act, if a potential polluter claims they are not responsible for polluting, they may petition their case. However, they may only petition their case after the money has been seized and used to clean the waste site. If at that point the potentially responsible polluter is able to prove that he or she is not responsible, then the Superfund agency is fined by the federal government. Despite the fact this fine is levied, Superfund faces no overall loss of money. Superfund simply pays the federal fine using the yearly congressional appropriations given to them by the federal government. While money goes in circles within the federal system, there exists no compensation clause in the CERCLA text. As a result, unless the potentially responsible polluters have the resources to sue the federal government, they receive no compensation.

Now it is clear what Superfund is and how it operates, the question has to be asked what was the cause or reason for creating Superfund? The answer is perfectly captured in the following quote from the former Assistant Attorney General Dave Kopel. He writes, in June of 2002, “The Superfund law, formally known as CERCLA — the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act, was enacted during the Carter administration thanks to an episode of panic and misinformation about the Love Canal incident in New York, a panic intensified by President Carter's declaration of a state of emergency.” As illustrated by Dave Kopel, the primary cause for CERCLA passing through Congress, was what has become known as the Love Canal incident. Love Canal was a small neighborhood in Niagara falls New York, where over twenty tons of toxic waste was deposited underground during the 1940's. This toxic waste then leaked out and mass hysteria, backed by media sensationalism, worked the state of New York into a panic. In response to the hazardous waste disaster, on August 7'th, 1978, former President Jimmy Carter announced a state of federal health emergency. It was during this time of hype and hysteria that CERCLA was purposed and passed.

It was only after this panic had dissipated that the facts about the state of federal health emergency actually came out. According to the Center for Disease Control's report in May of 1983, no health risks or birth defects were discovered as a result of the so called toxic pollution. Despite the reality that no health emergency really existed, Superfund was in full swing by 1983 with a long list of sites they were responsible for cleaning.

Having seen what Superfund is, and why they were created, all that remains to be seen is the effects of the program. The only merit the Superfund agency holds claim to is the waste sites they have cleaned; However, even these cleanups would be obtained without the Superfund agency. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund has cleaned a total 345 sites in their 30 year history. Critics of the Superfund agency point out that site cleanups are accomplished faster and at a lower cost by state agencies. According to senior attorney John Pendergrass of the Environmental Law Institute, states have cumulatively completed 29,000 sites in their combined 20 year history. This means to every one site Superfund has cleaned, states have accomplished almost 85 in less time, and at a lower cost.

The cost and time comparison is startling. In the Environmental Law Institute's report they illustrate that over the last fifteen years states continue to clean the same amount of sites, with ever decreasing costs. While the states cost less and less every year, the federal costs continue to spiral upward. According to New York Representative Sherwood L. Boehlert, Chairman of of the subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, he says under Superfund “Cleanups still take too long and cost too much – the average site now takes 10-11 years to be cleaned up at a cost of $24-25 million.” The effects of Superfund are clearly negative. Superfund is redundant, trying to accomplish exactly what the states are already doing; Superfund is slow, taking between 10 and 11 years to finish each individual site; finally, Superfund is also wasteful, costing up to $25 million dollars per site.

The most important effect of the Superfund agency is their abuse of citizen's right to due process through a court trial. Hearkening back to the details concerning Superfund's powers to secure funds for cleanups, it is clear they have the power to seize funds from potentially responsible polluters. The act's power is detailed by the Property and Environment Research Center's senior research analyst, Professor Richard Stroup. In his article titled “Superfund: The shortcut that failed,” he writes the following. “The EPA treats accused polluters, or potentially responsible parties, as wrongdoers. These are the parties, usually firms, that must pay cleanup costs if they can be found. Yet the EPA has no responsibility to prove that they were guilty of wrongdoing, that they polluted the site in question, or even that serious risk from pollution exists ... Accused parties can do little to challenge the EPA's decisions, except at the very end of the remediation process, typically expected to be 12 years.” In summary, citizens who are considered potentially responsible parties can have their money taken without respect to the due process of law. Potentially responsible polluters receive no right to court proceedings, no right to trial, no defense of their rights or property.

At least the Salem Witch trials used witnesses in their bogus proceedings... more than I can say for Superfund...

Superfund's disregard for the right to due process goes far beyond the flagrant disregard for a basic sense of justice. The United States Constitution in the fourteenth amendment guarantees that “Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” According to the fourteenth amendment no person should be deprived of their property without due process of law. By taking the right of potentially responsible parties to defend themselves in court, the Superfund agency is effectively taking their right to due process of law, and thus, violating citizens constitutional right to justice.
After having analyzed both the reasons behind Superfund, and the effects it has produced, it is clear Superfund necessitates either significant reform or complete abolition. Superfund has a long history. They have left a trail of waste and abuse with no unique benefits. States agencies have proven themselves capable of fulfilling the role of Superfund, while costing the American people significantly less. It is time that the current form of Superfund be either altered or abolished. Let it become part of history as a warning, a warning not to react in haste and panic to purported disasters.

An Inconvenient Truth

If it isn't a live human, the your not a pregnant human...

Abortion Defined...“The termination of a pregnancy... resulting in... the death of the embryo or fetus.” When did a human baby become a scientific term? When did a heart, mind, and soul become simply a lump of pulsating unborn flesh? It happened when society wanted to detach responsibility from action, moral impacts from decisions. In this speech lets scrutinize the pro-choice position, ask ourselves why is society willing to accept such a position, and finally see how best set we are to combat this position.

In order to understand this position, we must first understand the ideology that rationalizes it. No abortionist advocates what he or she considers murder. In fact, one of the leading abortion advocates Robert P. Tucker, who earned his Ph.D. in Theology said “In our society, "murder" is something everyone condemns, and all of us want to prevent. If abortion turns out to be "murder," the debate is over, the case is closed.” Murder simply defined is “The unlawful killing of one human by another.” The legal status of abortion is really what's in question here, so look at the second part of the definition. In order to avoid the label of murder, the abortionist must claim one of three things. Either A)- he is not a human, B)- the process of abortion isn't killing the baby, or C)- the unborn baby isn't a human one. However inhuman their vocation, abortion doctors and advocates do meet the criteria of being human, and not even a public relations reel will claim that the process of abortion isn't killing or depriving of life the unborn child. They do however dispute, the humanity of the child. Rather they contend that it is “An organism in early stages of development.” This denial of the human status goes much further. In partial birth abortion, the baby is allowed to develop entirely, it is then delivered with the exception of the head before the baby is then killed. The line drawn by the pro-choice advocate, and posted on their websites before the American people is that a baby is not human one, until it's head specifically passes through the birth canal. We have to ask the question, what mystic process does a baby go through as it's head passes through the birth canal? What endowment of humanity transpires? The simple scientific answer is no such mystic process exists. In fact, by the abortionists standard of life, my oldest brother Matthew Rodgers, delivered via C-section in 1985 walks the earth as a developing organism. You laugh at this because of its obviously not true. But it points to a sad reality, he never met the arbitrary, baseless standard that abortionists have set. The sad reality is, that standard was set to justify the killing of another human, set to ultimately to justify murder.

Having seen abortion for what it is, clear on its face, we have to ask the question, why? Why is society willing to look past the obvious truth, and accept this legalized murder? The sad simple answer is morals of convenience. Society as a whole has set out to detach consequences from decisions. Lawrence B. Finer in his article “Why Women Have Abortions” in the 2005 Edition of “Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health” found that fully 86% of women cite social stigma or discrimination as their reason for abortion. According to the Center for Disease Control the Average of 1.3 million abortions are performed each year in the United States. Take these two numbers and do the simple math. Roughly one million one hundred fifteen thousand children are murdered every year because their mothers are avoiding the consequences of their decisions. This number, ladies and gentlemen, is very simply unacceptable.

There is two steps we can all take which will cost all of you nothing, but will mean everything to many thousands of unborn babies. The first step is to debunk the rational of the process. If we accomplish this, many of those who follow the abortion process, like sheep drawn astray, will leave it simply because like Dr. Tucker said “In our society, "murder" is something everyone condemns, and all of us want to prevent.” This statement is born out in reality. Life News in March of 2006, reported that 84% of women intending on an abortion when confronted with an ultrasound of their live human baby refused to go through with an abortion. 

84% of women confronted with truth see whats right...

When confronted with the truth, most women don't have it in them to kill their baby. We as citizens have a duty to see life defined in such a way as protects these unborn babies. That responsibility will come in every time you vote, and who you vote for, every time you chose to, or not to talk about this issue with friends and family. The second step, easier, and just as important is eliminating the incentive for an abortion. Note the leading cause of abortion, 86% of the time it's social stigma or discrimination. People refusing to associate with women and girls because they got pregnant out of wedlock is one of the primary reasons many unborn babies are ending up dead. I know each and everyone of us can choose to treat such people with love, care, and acceptance while it still being apparent that the decision to get pregnant out of wedlock was the wrong one.

In conclusion, I ask that all of you be pro, about one choice. I ask you to choose, to accept, these mislead pregnant mothers, so we can protect, their defenseless unborn babies. Let us as a society not discriminate against pregnant mothers, but impose those same social pressures, which even now account for the lives of hundreds of thousands of babies, impose those same pressures against those who choose to murder the defenseless, unborn, human, babies.