I Approve My Tax Dollars to do That: Provide Natural Disaster Relief

I know most of my recent posts have related to things I approve or need my tax dollars to do. Although I originally planned to write this post about an expenditure I do not approve of, I was so appalled by what I read in this NY Times editorial that I needed to share it.

When a natural disaster like Hurricane Sandy strikes the United States, a federal body called the National Response Coordination Center heads recovery efforts. The umbrella organization of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Coordination Center decides how to allocate and distribute various forms of aid. It also assists with any evacuations. As a federal body, it has vast resources and authority at its disposal. Furthermore if states are already distressed or without means of communication during or after a storm, it is one fewer things the state has to deal with. The state is already in enough trouble; it should not have to orchestrate aid efforts as well.

Flooding of the subway system has brought New York City to a standstill: schools are closed, Wall Street vacant, hospitals evacuated and people trapped in upper-story apartments without power. Under Romney's plan, how is a state capital under water supposed to coordinate an effective emergency response without power and transportation? 

Photo credit: http://inhabitat.com/nyc-public-transit-system-crippled-after-hurricane-sandy-causes-widespread-flooding/ 

Romney, however, wants to eradicate the National Response Coordination Center and shift emergency management not even to the states but to the private sector. Consequently “profit-making companies,” rather than the federal government, would control the emergency response. Because it makes a lot of sense to have people’s safety, evacuation and aid be in the hands of businesses out to make a buck. Who’ll get the bottles of water, blankets and protein bars? Those who can pay for it.

Yes, because Massachusetts expect to experience hurricane-strength storm surges and thus it's our fault the coastline got slammed. (Winthrop, MA)

Photo credit: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/hurricane-sandy-strikes-east-coast-gallery-1.1194577 

The author, whose name was nowhere to be found on the editorial itself, explained why Republicans despite nationally-overseen emergency management: “Many don’t like the idea of free aid for poor people or they think people should pay for their bad decisions, which this week includes living on the East Coast.”

Excuse me!?  

Hurricane Katrina crippled Louisiana. The West confronted massive wild fires all last summer and into the fall. Tornadoes rip through the Midwest. Earthquakes vex the West Coast. Blizzards shut down much of the North. Every part of the country experiences some form of natural disaster; there is no “safe” state. A natural disaster is no one particular person’s fault. Yet when their states get affected, they come crying for federal aid and financial assistance. How totally hypocritical. You don’t want federal aid? Fine, then don’t take it. See how effective the response is. Like health care, emergency management is not something that belongs in the private sector. It belongs to the federal government.

Even the city that never sleeps is no match for a hurricane. 

Photo credit: http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2012/10/hurricane-sandy-after-landfall/100396/

I approve my tax dollars to do that: fund FEMA and the National Response Coordination Center.

Do I Politicize my Dollars?

Momentary deviation from the appropriation of my tax dollars to an issue concerning November's election. 

Watching the news Saturday morning, I overheard the opening lines to a story about an Ohio resident heavily campaigning for the legalization of marijuana in Massachusetts. Such out of state lobbying, especially in the form of lavish donations, is not uncommon. Yet having recently sent in my absentee ballot, this man’s unsolicited interference in my state’s election felt oddly unsettling.

Such uneasiness got me thinking: should such intervention in state elections be allowed? What’s its advantage? What is the disadvantage? Would I do it?

In doing research for this blog, I learned that while there are caps on how much a person or organization can contribute to state and federal elections, no such restrictions exist for ballot measure campaigns. That made me feel slightly better. Critics argue that such sky’s-the-limit policies favor special interest groups with deep pockets.  For example, opponents of the second question on the Massachusetts ballot regarding physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients have generated over $900,000. Less than $25,000, approximately 2%, of that sum has originated in Massachusetts (http://www.wcvb.com/news/investigative/Out-of-state-cash-shaping-Massachusetts-ballot-measure-prospects/-/12520878/17158100/-/item/2/-/b1kpmjz/-/index.html).

A summary of question 2 on the Massachusetts ballot. Various special interest groups have intervened on behalf of both sides of the controversial legislation but a lot of money has filtered in from groups opposing it. 

Photo credit: http://www.bostonglobe.com/2012/10/15/bgcom-ballot-graphic/7dHMyt8p1HzsTcm5ME1QkO/story.html 

The obvious disadvantage is that the deeper the pockets, the deeper the influence. Political superiority goes to the group who supplies the most funds, not the group who should have the most power: the voters.  

I assume one of the advantages to forceful lobbying in one state is to encourage the passage of the same or similar legislation in another state. One sets an example, the nation watches the outcome, and ideally the other states respond supportively. The practice of “peer pressure” goes all the way to the signing of the Constitution. But in my opinion, the only body allowed to tie the hands of other states is the Federal Government. If the Federal Government decides to apply legislation to the entire country, fine. But if a special interest group not even from my state makes a point to ensure the passing of legislation that does not even affect them, then that is not fine.

To answer my last question, I eventually resolved that I would not interfere with another state’s election, even if my financial situation allowed me to do so. Although I disagree with a lot of the policies of other states (someone explain to me why it’s legal in some states to marry an animal but not to marry someone of the same gender), their legislation is not my call. If I become a legal resident of that state then it becomes my call. In that situation I also relinquish my claim to impact anything Massachusetts decides. But as a current Massachusetts resident, what happens in Massachusetts should be up to the voters OF Massachusetts. 

I Approve My Tax Dollars to do that: Bring Back Tetracycline

Attending a conference on small animal dermatology yesterday, one of the veterinarians asked the speaker about what drug to use as a substitute for one that is currently unavailable. To my surprise, the unavailable drug was not some obscure, esoteric medication. It was tetracycline, one of the most common broad-spectrum antibiotics used in human and animal medicine. I was shocked. How can such a drug be unavailable?

The current drug shortage is not a new problem. Since 2007, the number of unavailable drugs has been on the rise, peaking at over 280 as of October 2012. It is unclear as to when the shortage will be resolved. 

Photo credit: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704680604576110613604195324.html

Tetracycline joins the list of over two hundred drugs currently unavailable; a crisis over two years in the making. The entire list of unavailable medications can be accessed here. For the most part, the drugs on the list aren’t your unusual, random, rarely prescribed medications: they are your cancer treatment drugs, nutritional aids, anesthesia drugs, and antibiotics (http://onpoint.wbur.org/2011/10/04/prescription-drugs). The FDA cites manufacturing and quality issues as the main cause of the shortage. These include regulatory violations such as incorrectly printed expiration dates on bottles and sterility issues during production, and shortage of raw materials required to make the drugs. Though companies are required to inform the FDA of an imminent shortage and the estimated duration of the shortage as part of the Food and Drug Safety and Innovation Act passed in July, the FDA cannot force them or other companies to manufacture the drug. (http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/DrugShortages/ucm050796.htm). The shortage affects a large number of suppliers but the majority of the drugs on the list only have one or two sources of supply (http://www.imshealth.com/portal/site/ims/menuitem.edb2b81823f67dab41d84b903208c22a/?vgnextoid=a6fbcc0f68f73310VgnVCM100000ed152ca2RCRD&vgnextfmt=default&vgnextrefresh=1)

How drug shortages affect patient care. While some drugs can be replaced with near equally-effective substitutes, such as doxycycline for tetracycline, others cannot. Even in the case of replacing tetracycline with doxycycline, increased use of one antibiotic risks creating increased resistance to that particular antibiotic. The last thing we need to do is to create more antibiotic-resistance super bugs such as Merca. 

Photo credit: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304584404576442211187884744.html 

Despite what the FDA claims, the shortage stems from more than manufacturing and quality assurance problems. Like most other shortages, the current drug shortage has as much to do with business as production. As more drugs became available in cheaper generic versions, companies quit producing brand-name versions because they could not earn a profit turning out more expensive drugs that neither hospitals nor insurance companies would pay for. They then switched to the less readily prescribed drugs. The switch ensured protection of their business venture, as financially it made no sense for generic companies to take up production for smaller quantities. Shortages arise when the generic companies producing the drugs experience material shortages or are shut down by the FDA for production violations. No factories, no drugs  (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)60414-0/fulltext).

Health care should not follow free-market policies, especially not when people’s lives are at stake (I refer specifically to the availability of cancer drugs). What my body needs should not be at the mercy of companies more interested in making a dollar than my health. It’s absolutely ridiculous to me that such basic drugs are inaccessible to the public. Congress should exercise increased authority over drug manufacturers, holding them to tougher, and more stringent and ethical standards. At least fifteen deaths have been reported as a direct result of the shortage (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)60414-0/fulltext). Congress needs to do something. Medicine is not about money: it’s about getting better.

I approve my tax dollars to do that: bring back my tetracycline. 

Some of the more popular drugs currently unavailable and their uses. Uses range from nutritional supplements, such as electrolytes, to cancer treatments. How would you feel if you went to the hospital and were told you couldn't be treated because the drug was not available? This is why we need to improve and increase federal overnight of drug manufacturing. 

Photo credit: http://sfmedicalsociety.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/prescription-drug-shortages-forcing-physicians-and-pharmacists-to-scramble/

I Need My Tax Dollars to do That: Fight Rape on College Campuses

Last week, a former Amherst College student published an account of her personal struggle in dealing with the after affects of rape. Most upsetting, however, was the school’s response to her allegations against a graduating honor-roll senior. In other words, they blamed her, the victim, and tried to sweep the rape under the rug. Following her story’s publication in The Amherst Student, the school’s independently run newspaper, the article popped up all over the Facebook pages of Five College students furious at Amherst’s mishandling of an obvious crime.  With the administration facing such sharp criticism, the Amherst College president released a statement, vowing to fix the current system and provide better support for rape victims.

Yeah, because we all know how well schools uphold those promises when the issue at hand has the potential to tarnish a college’s precious statistics. They don’t.

Often a rape will get disguised and manipulated to show that the victim wanted it or consented to having sex. Last time I checked, no one asks to get raped. 

Photo credit: http://collegecandy.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/rape-2.jpg 

Rape on college campuses is a problem that extends way beyond the schools in the Pioneer Valley.  One in four women will be sexually assaulted on a college campus while one in eight women will be raped (http://abacus.bates.edu/admin/offices/scs/salt7.html). Yet 95% of attacks go unreported. A 2009 investigation by the Center for Public Integrity found that campus barriers including administration resistance, complicated and often incomplete judicial proceedings and social pressure were the main reasons so many rapes went unreported. (http://www.aauw.org/act/laf/library/assault_stats.cfm).

Based on the experiences of the Amherst student, it’s obvious that college administrations apply layer upon layer of red tape to prevent rape victims from seeking and achieving justice for their rapes. Rape is not a feature of the college experience any school wants to promote as part of its curriculum. No school wants to brag about the annual number of students raped and/or the number of students punished for having committed rape. But such statistics are not something schools should be allowed to dismiss.

One way to improve the system is change who oversees the investigation of rape accusations. Campus police should not be allowed to investigate rape cases based on conflict of interest. They represent and report to the school rather than acting as an advocate for the victim. Town police or a specific task force should be appointed to handle rape cases so that they can supersede any hang-ups attempted by an administration. That’s where my tax dollars come in. Such a change though only affects the handling of a rape after it has already occurred rather than trying to prevent its occurrence in the first place. That is something students must decide to change. But then again, maybe if college rapists were properly prosecuted, there would be fewer rapes to begin with.

I need my tax dollars to do that: Fight Rape on College Campuses

I Approve My Tax Dollars to do that: Prevent Another Holocaust

“Get the stench out of Greece”

When learning about Nazi Germany in middle and high school, I found the world’s initial refusal to get involved one of the most repulsive aspects of the Holocaust. Nations closed their eyes to the isolating, confining and eventual exterminating of Jews and other minorities in concentration camps. Looking back, one may ask how we let such an atrocity occur. How did we not see what the Third Reich was doing? Why didn’t anyone intervene sooner?

They say history repeats itself. So if we had the opportunity to prevent another Holocaust, should we? I think we should.

Concentration camp detainees. 

Photo credit: http://moot.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/holocaust.jpg 

Jews were rounded up like cattle and packed onto trains that shipped them to what began as concentration camps and later became extermination camps. 

Photo credit: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/red/blue_pics/2008/09/03/Holocaust276.jpg 

Corpses that better resemble Halloween decorations than people after having been confined to a concentration camp. 

Photo credit: http://isurvived.org/Pictures_iSurvived-4/HOLOCAUST-2corpses.GIF 

Sixty-seven years after the end of World War II and the fall of the Nazi Regime, the nationalist group Golden Dawn is setting a similar stage in Greece. The group won its first-ever seats in Greek Parliament this past spring and has become increasingly popular in a country crippled by financial crisis ever since. 22 percent of Greeks view the party favorably (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/anti-immigrant-golden-dawn-rises-in-greece/2012/10/20/e7128296-17a6-11e2-a346-f24efc680b8d_story.html). The group orchestrates violent attacks on immigrants, which are often condoned by sympathetic police. (http://www.businessinsider.com/bbc-newsnight-report-on-golden-dawn-violence-2012-10) They vandalize immigrant-owned shops. They provide legal counsel to tenants wanting to evict their immigrant tenants. They also provide much-needed aid exclusively to those of Greek ancestry in a time of spiking poverty and unemployment (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/anti-immigrant-golden-dawn-rises-in-greece/2012/10/20/e7128296-17a6-11e2-a346-f24efc680b8d_story.html ). Sound familiar?

Supporters rallying for Golden Dawn. Similar economic conditions in the early part of the 20th century precipitated Hitler's rise to power in Germany so there is reason to think that another violent, nationalist extremist group will once again assume authority. 

Photo credit: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/5/6/1336336568882/Golden-Dawn-supporters-008.jpg

With 50-60% of the police force said to be in support of the group, immigrants have little recourse (http://www.businessinsider.com/bbc-newsnight-report-on-golden-dawn-violence-2012-10). Broke and essentially powerless, the Greek government has little motivation to pursue the group and its alleged attacks (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/anti-immigrant-golden-dawn-rises-in-greece/2012/10/20/e7128296-17a6-11e2-a346-f24efc680b8d_story.html). If Greece either refuses to take action or buckles under financial pressure, the UN needs to get involved against Golden Dawn. Its symbol, a modified swastika, is a flagrant insult to victims of the Holocaust and shows its willingness to associate itself with the Third Reich. Based on such obvious desire to equate themselves with that regime, there is no telling to what extent the group will go to purge Greek of immigrants. The world appeased Hitler, thinking the situation would resolve. It didn’t. Millions had to die before the world finally intervened. Now in 2012, we cannot allow ourselves to appease Golden Dawn.   

Golden Dawn's party symbol. Notice its blatant resemblance to the swastika.

Photo Credit: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b7/Chrisi_Avgi_Logo.svg/150px-Chrisi_Avgi_Logo.svg.png

I approve my tax dollars to do that: prevent another Holocaust.

I Approve My Tax Dollars to do That: Refinance College Education

Back in high school, I did a project on the most recent boom and bust of the housing market. The collapse of so many risky mortgages precipitated the 2008 financial crisis that crippled the US economy. In doing research for that project, I came across whisperings about the source of the next crisis. The consensus? Student loans.

Yesterday the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released a new report, citing similarities between the management of student loans and the oversight of mortgages by the private sector. Complaints included conflicting information, lack of transparency in fees, unwillingness to create payment plans for borrowers and failure to accurately process payments. (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-10-16/the-echoes-between-student-loans-and-mortgages#r=nav-r-story)

The cost of a secondary education is a major concern, from parents with young children trying to save up or students currently enrolled exhausting scholarship, work-study and financial aid opportunities. Many resort to taking out loans to cover the remaining cost. Very few can actually afford to pay for college and/or graduate school out of pocket. 2010 marked the first time that student debt exceeded credit card debt. The following year it surpassed auto loans. As of March, student debt was recorded at over $1 trillion dollars. That’s before you account for interest. (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-09-06/student-loans-debt-for-life#r=lr-fst)

 How did we arrive at $1 trillion in student debt? According to Bloomberg, some of it stems from an increase in college attendees. Much of it, however, comes from increases in tuition that are very disproportionate to increases in income. One thing this illustration does not show however is savings lost in the stock market crash in 2008. 

Photo credit: http://images.businessweek.com/cms/2012-09-05/feature_collegeloans37__01b__630x420.jpg 

On one hand, a college education pays off – literally. As Bloomberg Business Week writer Peter Coy observes, “You can lose your house to foreclosure, but never your education.” (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-09-06/student-loans-debt-for-life#r=lr-fst) Even if you default on your loan, the bank cannot come and take away your knowledge and experience. It is no secret that college graduates earn more than their high school counterparts. But that in itself has a catch: you have to get the education first.

How states compare to one another. Having grown up in New England, it is no surprise to me that the top ten most expensive schools all reside in the Northeast and coincidentally, that same area has the largest percentage of students attending private institutions. Surrounded by so many top-notch private schools, the state schools cannot hope to compete. I do wish this map showed the proportion of high school graduates in each state go on to attend a four-year institution. 

Photo credit: http://thumbnails.visually.netdna-cdn.com/average-student-loan-debt-by-state_50290b4526609.jpg

In my home there was never a question about whether I would attend college. That being said, I grew up in a fairly wealth Eastern Massachusetts town where over 95% of my graduating high school class went onto college and both of my parents have professional degrees. While I do receive a substantial scholarship and financial aid, I recognize I’m fortunate. Students from lower-income families aren’t so lucky. As strapped-for-cash colleges seek out potential full-tuition attendees or bribe high-scoring test takers to boost their own statistics, low-income students are stuck. Loan payments are not calculated based on income; they’re based on dollar amount, often preventing students from being able to pay them back. Why make the effort to go to college if it shackles you with thousands in debt you cannot pay off? It’s simple: you don’t even try. As a result, the accessibility of a college education is increasingly restricted to the upper class.

How can we reverse the growing income inequality if the tools are not available to those who could benefit from them the most?

My tax dollars need to do something about this. If I ultimately pay for my parents’ wars, then my parents should finance my education. You cannot expect an entire generation of people to succeed if they are already laden with debt by the age of 25. Educational value aside, it is bad for the economy as well. An economy will not grow if consumers are unable to spend money. Just like how the big banks cannot be allowed to fail, the up and coming generation cannot be allowed to financially collapse.

I approve my tax dollars to do that: refinance a college education

I Approve My Tax Dollars to do That: Tax Plastic Bags

In my previous post, I proposed that the United States tax plastic bags.

Such a tax has been extremely successful in Ireland. Currently, the tax is set at thirty-cents (in US dollars) per bag.  All of the money procured from the tax goes directly to the environmental ministry for enforcement and clean-up projects. Shopkeepers initially thought consumers would not accept it, fearing for the well being of their businesses.

At this point however, ten years after the tax was introduced, the tax is no longer really about the money. It has become “socially unacceptable” to carry plastic bags, addressing a “very bad habit” that people can easily change by investing in reusable bags. People are actually enthusiastic about it and proud of what Ireland has done to eradicate plastic bags. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/world/europe/31iht-bags.4.9650382.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

Since it was introduced ten years ago, the tax has generated 166 million euro for Ireland. (http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/plastic-bag-levy-nets-166m-in-10-years-185605.html)

 As the map illustrates, very few parts of the world have enacted taxes or bans on plastic bags. In the US, each person uses 1267 plastic bags per year. Compare that number to Germany, which has one of the longest standing taxes on plastic bags, clocks in at less than a single plastic bag per person per YEAR. Time for the United States to step up its game. 

Photo credit: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/maps_and_graphs/2009/07/15/Plastic_bags940.gif

Individual US cities have taken similar measures to ban plastic bags. Washington DC now charges five cents for every disposable grocery bag. (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/10/us-cities-ban-plastic-bags/1#.UH4AhI4ZdSo) During its first year in effect, DC collected an additional $2 million in tax revenue. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/01/plastic-bag-bans-fees_n_1123439.html) Imagine having such an effect on a national level. If one of America’s cities generated that much additional revenue, how much would expanding the tax to ten other big cities generate?

Seattle made the switch, banning plastic shopping bags entirely rather than taxing them. Paper bags, however, are taxed, addressing another environmental concern. Paper bags are often viewed as a more eco-friendly alternative to plastic when in reality, they are just as bad for the environment with the amount of water and the number of trees used to produce them.

Photo credit: http://westseattleblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/bagbanflyer.jpg

One alternative proposed by plastic manufacturer retailers is to promote recycling of the bags by installing recycling centers in stores. (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/10/us-cities-ban-plastic-bags/1#.UH4AhI4ZdSo)

In all seriousness, how many of us actually recycle our plastic bags?

My hometown transfer station recycles every type of plastic…except bags.

The switch is not a hard one. But most will only do it if forced to with a tax. Hey, in my opinion, it’s not money out my pocket. I already made the switch. 

I approve my tax dollars to do that: tax plastic bags. 

I Approve My Tax Dollars to do That: Discourage the Use of Plastic Bags

We all know money does not grow on trees. But what if it did “grow” in nearly every town and city yet no one bothered to “harvest” it? Once having realized the existence of a vast pool of wasted potential dollars, would you not want to put them to work?

I would.

Nearly every store, from Walmart to Stop n Shop to Walgreens, provides its customers with disposable plastic bags. Very few of these bags do more than shuttle a buyer’s goods from the store to his or her home. For the average American family, this equates to nearly 1500 bags (www.nrdc.org/media/2008/080109.asp). Less than 5 percent of these bags are recycled (Evironmental Protection Agency), while the remaining 95 percent, or 100 billion bags, get thrown away (www.worldwatch.org/node/5565).

This is why I propose a tax on plastic bags.

Since 1977, everyone who has ever stood in a checkout line has heard the phrase, "paper or plastic?" Now there's a popular third alternative: your own. You can use canvas totes, nylon bags, bags that come as free "thank you for sponsoring us!" presents, or really anything that has sides, a bottom, and two handles. It is one of the quickest easies ways to go green. 

Photo credit: http://notstepfordwives.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/canvas-grocery-bag.jpg

The concept of “paying for plastic” first revealed itself when I was 10. My parents and I were on vacation in Ireland and were charged extra at a store for packing our groceries in plastic instead of supplying our own bags. This was 2002. Several years later I bought and began to bring my own reusable bags to my grocery store at home. The practice became increasingly popular at my local Shaw’s. I soon realized I could use my reusable totes for more than my milk, bread and cheese. Several bags live in the back seat of my car so that when I make an impromptu CVS run, for example, I do not have an excuse not to use one of my eco-friendly bags. Yet when I made my annual back to school Walmart trip this fall (I tend to avoid shopping at Walmart when possible), the cashier seemed shocked that I was asking her to please pack my items in my cloth bags. Glancing at the other checkout lanes, I was the only customer who had brought her own reusable totes. That shocked me.

Ireland is not the only area to institute sanctions on plastic bags. However, Ikea's additional charges for both types of bags somewhat defeat the purpose. If people forget their bags (or do not use them), they will pay $.05 a bag for a plastic bag compared to $0.59. Furthermore, considering Ikea sells primarily furniture, I cannot imagine that they use nearly as many bags as Walmart, CVS, Walgreens, Target, etc.

Photo credit: http://www.watershedmedia.org/images/actionStatistics.gif 

One cloth bag will replace 1000 plastic bags (http://www.green-kits.com/paperorplastic.html). Grocery and big chain stores near me sell them for between $0.99 and $1.29 each. Some may argue that why pay for cloth when you get plastic for free. Plastic is actually relatively expensive, both in its production and disposal costs. At least 12 million barrels of oil per year are devoted to the production of plastic grocery bags (The Wall Street Journal). With so much oil used in their production, fourteen plastic bags could fuel a passenger car for one mile (www.sprep.org/factsheets/pdfs/plasticbags.pdf). Plastic bags are expensive on the environment too, taking up to 1000 years to break down (www.worldwatch.org/node/5565) and acting as a serious threat to oceanic wildlife.

Basic summary of how reusable bags are more eco-friendly than their plastic and paper counterparts. 
Photo credit: http://www.citymb.info/modules/ShowImage.aspx?imageid=2549

I understand that reusable totes are not feasible for all things. I still have my raw meats packed in plastic and will not reuse sandwich bags. But I know those weekly three or four plastic grocery bags I have since replaced with my cloth ones make a difference, even if only a small one.

In my next post, I’ll delve more into the financial implications of tax on plastic bags.

However I will leave you with a challenge. If you do not do so already, start to bring your own bags when you go shopping. You do not even have to buy bags. Go into your “junk” closet and look for a few totes. You most likely be surprised to find that you already have several lying around and are thus  ready to make a dent in your own plastic bag consumption.

I approve my tax dollars to do that: discourage the use of plastic bags. 

I Don't Approve My Tax Dollars to do That: Go to War (again)

Anyone who pays marginal attention to the news knows China and Japan are teetering on the precipice of major conflict. They are disputing the ownership of a little set of islands in the East China Sea, known as the Daiyuo Islands in China and Senkaku Islands in Japan.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta implores the United States to remain neutral. However since my fellow Millenials and I already face over $3 trillion dollars in wars that we had had no say in waging, now that I can vote I want to make my opinion loud and clear: no war (Ferraro 2012, Mount Holyoke College).  

Political jargon aside, this is a lot of money. 

Photo credit: http://www.peaceway.net/images/signs/PeaceWaysigns5.gif

Growing up watching ABC World News Tonight with Peter Jennings, I heard the saying, “children pay for their parents’ wars.” It was most likely 2002, following the September 11^th attacks and President Bush was advocating invasion of Iraq. When I complained about the cost that would inevitably be dumped upon my generation long after the war ended, my parents, both born in the early 50’s countered that they experienced a similar situation. They had not voted for or against Vietnam yet they paid for it. In fact, they even protested against it and still paid for it. It is an inextricable cycle.

This graph shows the steady increase in DOO budget compared to the 2000, pre-9/11 budget. The amount spent on oversea contingency wars does not steadily increase but rather drops down around 2009 when Obama took office. Since then it has once again steadily risen though not to the degree at which it rose during President Bush's presidency. 
Photo Credit: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVMxM0w78aI64W-0T82xqBxRIjgEVM5eJEZJLF_xdhTEs0tpsjjrrjfbuFLWZkhywuy_BhXZs9nS5klvpVzfWGQgAbxHiKymElmyiErduiPXUo7pkb5NVdmYCvPGsR9Lt4W1Ofpohyphenhyphen5A_T/

I do not agree with this cycle. How is it fair that a group of people has to pay for something it had no say in? Yes, I realize the simple answer is “Life is not fair.” But there has to be a way to finance a current generation’s experience without drowning the next generation in debt. My immediate thought is to insist that the Federal Government not spend money it does not have. This prevents excessive interest costs as well as excessive expenditures. But realistically, can a nation afford to be stingy in a time of war? Not if it expects to win.

Another alternative is to lower the voting age. Some may argue that since an American is not considered an adult in the legal sense until he or she is eighteen, he or she should not be eligible to vote. Can you really quantify an age at which a person is competent to vote? Part of me believes age is irrelevant: you should be allowed to vote when you make an effort to get educated about the issues and can make an informed decision. One could argue that based on that standard, many Americans do not deserve their vote. So why not allow a fourteen year old to vote? The future is theirs too.

Significantly fewer members of the rising or incoming generation vote compared to members of the generation currently in power and the one that just relinquished it. In my opinion, their votes are significantly less imperative than those of the rising generation because it is the rising generation who will primarily be affected by whatever policies passed. 
Photo credit: http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Politics/PrcntByAge.gif

I don’t presently have a satisfactory solution to prevent children from financing their parents’ wars. But what I can and will do is be cognizant of my decisions as a voter will affect both my and my children’s financial future. They should not have to pay for my mistakes – literally.

Thus far it seems as though the conflict between Japan and China will diffuse. Regardless, I do not approve my tax dollars to get involved in a war between Japan and China. Moreover, I do not approve my tax dollars to fund another war until the soldiers in Afghanistan come home.

I Approve My Tax Dollars to Do That: Build Whiskey-Powered Cars

I had heard about electric cars and hybrids, the occasional solar power van and even cars fueled by biodiesel. But a car that runs on whiskey? That was a new one.

To those appalled at the thought of precious Scottish whiskey being expelled through an exhaust pipe instead of consumed, breath easy: whiskey itself will not be used as the biofuel. Founder of Celtic Renewables Ltd Martin Tangney has uncovered a way to produce biobutanol, the main component of biodiesel, from by the by-products of whisky. Draff, the remnants of grain after fermentation, and pot ale, the residue from the still, are the two main sources of waste from whiskey production. Currently the draff and still are dumped into the sea, recycled into animal feed or used as a form of fertilizer on agricultural fields.

Commenting to Bloomberg, Tangney remarked, “If we can get this right in Scotland, we can adapt it anywhere. India makes whisky, Japan makes whisky, Ireland.  And Cognac uses a similar process. A lot of waste ends up in the sea.”

"Biodiesel is biodegradable as sugar and less toxic than table salt" 

Biofuel cars release significantly fewer carbon dioxide emissions per mile than gasoline-powered, diesel-fueled and even electric cars. Fewer emissions means cleaner air in cities and less environmental repercussions. "Biodiesel is biodegradable as sugar and less toxic than table salt" 

Photo/Quotation credit: http://www.incadventures.com/about/biodieselinfo.htm 

Scotland itself deserves some of the accolade for the motivation behind biofuel innovation and production in the country. Aiming to turn itself into a “renewable energy hub,” it hopes to supply 100 percent of its electricity need by renewable resources including wind, water and marine sources by 2020. In eight years, Scotland plans to jump from 35 percent to 100 percent (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2012-10-04/whisky-to-fuel-cars-as-professor-drives-recycling-plan.html ).

That is quite an ambitious goal.

 Coffee is another commonly consumed beverage that has waste products suitable for biodiesel production with relatively ease. An extraction with hexane/ether is something I did in an undergraduate organic chemistry laboratory. If we already make large volumes of a substance, why not recycle the by-products to do something else? 

Photo credit: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/12/16/coffee-as-a-source-of-biodiese/

With such a stake and dependence on big oil companies, the United States would never dare make such a bold proposition. In 2011, about 9.3 percent of the total United States energy consumption and 12.7 percent of electricity generation came from renewable energy sources. The EIA, the US Energy Information Agency, bragged that the former percentage was the “largest share of energy consumption since 1950” and the latter “the largest share of electricity generation since 1984” (http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=92&t=4). It is extremely discouraging that the 2011 figures can only be shone in positively light by comparing them to sixty and twenty-five year old statistics. If so much can be done, why are my tax dollars going toward an extraneous war in the Middle East when they could be trying to rival Scotland’s 100% renewable energy goal? Scotland is not addicted to fossil fuels the way the US is. Until we decide to break that addiction, our renewable energy technology will continue to lag behind other countries.

In the United States, it would cost between $0.51 - $0.70 to produce a liter of biodiesel. Though the costs of labor, transportation, electricity for the plant, and other equipment have yet to be factored in, the availability (and cost) of biodiesel does not depend on conditions halfway across the globe. I was unable to track down a figure on the cost to product 1 liter of unleaded regular to compare the two. 

Photo credit: http://origin.arstechnica.com/news.media/BiodieselMap.jpg 

I approve my tax dollars to do that: fund the development of biofuel-powered cars.

I Don't Approve My Tax Dollars to do That: Mix Guns and Education

Guns have a place. They belong in gun clubs, shooting ranges, private homes for self-defense and in the hands of law enforcement. But according to the Colorado Supreme Court, guns now have another locale: the college classroom.

In March, the Colorado Supreme Court overturned a college-wide ban prohibiting firearms, claiming that  such a ban violated students' Second Amendment rights. The decision enabled students to bring their guns practically anywhere on campus. From class to the library to the dining hall, students with concealed weapon permits are now permitted to haul their guns around alongside textbooks and gym bags. CU did implement several restrictions on where guns can and cannot go. They are forbidden at sporting events and in regular dorms. Students with permits who wish to bring their guns to campus, something the school strongly discourages, are housed with graduate students (http://www.npr.org/2012/08/23/159921428/u-of-colorado-to-students-no-guns-in-dorms-please) Bans on visible guns, knifes and explosive remain unchanged. (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-08-17/news/sns-rt-us-usa-firearms-coloradobre87h00h-20120817_1_boulder-campus-graduate-student-guns). In addition to the school's sanctions, Colorado law mandates anyone seeking a concealed weapons permit must be 21 or older. (http://www.npr.org/2012/08/23/159921428/u-of-colorado-to-students-no-guns-in-dorms-please) 

The changes came into effect as students returned to campus this past August. The Supreme Court's decision has sparked a rift between the University and the professors, many of whom shudder at the thought of students bringing concealed weapons to their classes. Some have threatened to cancel class in protest. The University however, has forcefully retaliated, admonishing professors who have expressed their resentment and made such threats. The administration claims that such decisions are not the professors call. Furthermore, it states that refusal to comply will be in violation of Colorado state law. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/cu-boulder-chancellor-peterson-guns-on-campus_n_1822550.html 

Map of demonstrating which states ban guns from campuses, which permit their schools to decide, and which always allow guns. I was surprised to see that the "banned" states and "decide" states did not necessarily correlate to the conservative red versus liberal blue state map. I was especially surprised to see that Texas, Georgia and most other Deep South states had banned guns from college campuses.
photo credit: http://downloads.thedaily.com/ui-images/2012/08/18/081812-news-concealed-carry-map-r-662w-at-1x.png

If I were a student at Colorado University and I were financially able, I would hands-down transfer to another school. I am repulsed at the thought of my peers bringing guns to class. I would be afraid that someone might come after me if I made a provocative comment (said in a tactful, intellectually-stimulating way of course). Class would become more stressful than it already is, as I would replay the Aurora shootings in my head. This time, however, the setting being a lecture hall as opposed to a movie theater. 

It saddens me to think that students feel the need to protect themselves with a concealed weapon on a college campus. College is supposed to be a safe haven for learning and provide us with holy grail of education  resources and stimulation. College students are already stressed. We do not need to add the fear of getting shot by our classmates in a lecture hall, dorm, gym, or dining hall to the omnipresent  academic pressures.We do not need to worry about getting hurt for a controversial comment made in class. In my opinion, no guns on campus - period. 

Some will argue that since shootings occur on college campus (VTech), students should be able to defend themselves. This argument can be applied to any of the shootings in the thought that, "If I have a gun, I can protect myself." Is one person's right to protect himself or herself worth more than another individual or group's right to feel secure in a supposedly safe setting? Can guns have a "safe" place in the classroom and not interfere with student learning environment? Should we all carry concealed weapons? 

Romney and My Tax Dollars

Opening Safari this morning, I noticed that my homepage, nytimes.com, displayed an intriguing headline: "The Mitt Romney Who Might Have Been"

Huh?

He’s the Republican presidential candidate and a former governor. He is already a very well known and publicized figure. As such, most if not all Americans around or above voting age know his name. What else could he have been? Curious, I shoved my current homework aside, clicked on the link and began to read.

In a two-second summary of the article, author Robert Draper evaluated Romney’s role as an informal McCain advisor during the 2008 race and his performance as Massachusetts governor. The point? Romney aimed to please.

I highly recommend reading it if you wish to see a preview of President Romney. 

Rather than remain steadfast to his promises or convictions, Romney preferred to go along and do what would win him support and favor. A perfect example of this is his revelation about Roe vs. Wade. Once the potential of a presidential campaign emerged mid-way through his term as governor, his position on a woman’s right to choose reversed from support to opposition. His loyalty never lay with Massachusetts. One of his environmental officials told the Times, “Clearly, in retrospect, he was weighing what was right for Massachusetts with how it would play nationally." (nytimes.com) 

Melanie's Law, a law targeted at getting more drunk drivers caught repeatedly off the road, is seen as one of the big success stories of Romney's term as Massachusetts governor. While it has been successful at getting repeat offenders off the road, seeing as it was introduced as a result of the tragic death of a young girl by a repeat offender drunk driver, there was little political resistance to its enactment. IID stands for ignition interlock device: you must blow into it and pass or else the car will not start. 

photo credit: http://www.mass.gov/rmv/rmvnews/2008/iid_removals.gif

Now imagine a president weighting what was right for the United States with how it would play on the international stage. Not good. 

I do acknowledge that the Times tends to lean toward the left and therefore this evaluation of Romney is somewhat biased. However, as a Massachusetts resident, much of its criticisms about his performance ring true. Who wants a governor who spends the last two years of his term away forwarding his own presidential campaign? Should he get elected, will he spend the latter years of his term focused on his re-election campaign instead of our nation’s current crises? I want my president here and actively engaged in the needs of the United States. I want him to take a decisive stand on issues and not allow his hopes for re-election to taint his decisions. He must preside in the present: not in the prospects of the 2016 race.

Funny how he approved a similar health care system in Massachusetts that took effect while he was governor that is viewed as one of his other big successes and he now rejects such a system on a nation-wide scale. You no longer hear Bostonians complaining about the state-wide health insurance requirement. Massachusetts also has some of the best health statistics in the nation. 

Photo credit: http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-TO311_0628sc_G_20120628120827.jpg

Obviously the 2012 presidential election is a huge determinant in the future of my tax dollars over the course of the next four years. I make no secret about the fact that I am a liberal: I favor big government, I support a woman’s right to choose and I applaud universal health care. But in some ways, I view myself as a fiscal conservative. I dislike when my hard-earned tax dollars are wastefully and ineffectively spent. I especially grapple with the concept of welfare systems. My philosophy is simple: live within your means. If you fail to do so, then that is your financial problem, not mine and certainly not my tax dollars’.

That being said, obviously I will not vote for Romney.  But in addition to our ideological differences, I do not trust him to be responsible with my tax dollars because he flip-flopped so many times on issues and policies as governor. If elected president, which Romney are we actually going to get?