What does homeownership really mean when mineral rights are severed?

FWWeekly: Feature: Wednesday, October 31, 2007: "In neighborhoods all over Fort Worth and in rural and suburban Tarrant County, the story is being repeated. People watch their quality of life being eroded by the same Barnett Shale gas boom that is filling city coffers and putting money in the pockets of developers, gas well drillers, the mayor, and plenty of regular citizens. "

Yesterday, I read about people in Pennsylvania who bought rural property without acquiring the mineral rights. They thought "hey, there's only coal out here, and any coal that's worth mining has already been mined." And then, as fuel prices shot up, it became economically viable to extract fuels from previously worthless mineral estates. In the Pennsylvania case, coal seam gas - a methane that can be used as natural gas - became valuable enough to mine. In Texas, oil shale is becoming viable to mine. People who never had cause to think about mineral rights before, are suddenly "gettin' schooled."

"Generally, Fambrough and others said, if sale documents don’t otherwise
specify, the rule is that a sale of property includes the mineral rights — so
you might own them even though your deed says nothing about them. But did the
guy who sold you the property own them in the first place, so he could pass them
on to you? In many cases, answering that question requires hiring a “landman” to
go down to the courthouse and research the records."

Based on my own experiences in the home-buying process, I would guess that the majority of homebuyers who ask about mineral rights get a standard answer that "if it's not in the contract, it's included." And the reality is, if it's not in the contract, you can't count on it. (This will certainly differ in different jurisdictions.)

Why do people buy homes? In a minority of cases, people buy homes because it's cheaper than renting. In most real estate markets, though, owning carries a price premium over the cost of renting, even after tax benefits are factored in. In those markets, people buy to build equity, and to control their residence. It's worth something to be able to paint your walls purple if you want to, to know what your housing cost will be in 10 years, to be able to plant a garden right there and put a shed right here. When someone else owns the mineral rights, though, you can lose a degree of control over your home.

My husband will not, under any condition, consider a condo. He cannot stand the idea of someone else being able to noise-pollute our home. To him, it's akin to living in an aparment, where the only control you have is the ability to pester the landlord to evict a difficult wall-sharing neighbor. I don't think my husband would take too kindly to having a noisy well 600 feet outside our bedroom.

Yet sellers often fail to mention mineral rights in home-for-sale ads, and many Texas sellers want to keep all or a portion of mineral rights (and I'm sure that's true in other areas, but I've personally observed it in Texas real estate ads). As a homebuyer, I would not even consider a home that had mineral rights completely severed from the surface estate, and I would only consider a home with a mineral lease after reading the mineral lease contract myself. If I don't control my home and property, why should I take on the legal and financial risk of owning it?

We have become a migrant nation, with people moving to wherever their employer or career needs dictate. One consequence of that mobility is exposure to real estate markets that are vastly different from where we grow up. In Hawaii, for instance, real estate is sold as fee simple or leasehold. Fee simple real estate includes ownership of the house and land; leasehold real estate provides ownership of the structures, and rights to the long-term land lease. I left Hawaii over a decade ago, but some of the land leases were approaching maturity then. Why anyone would take out a 30-year mortgage on a property whose lease would be renegotiated in 10, I cannot imagine. Severing mineral rights from the surface rights is another real estate oddity that people from other states may not even know to ask about. It certainly changes the meaning of homeownership for folks who only own the surface estate.

Driver ticketed for using biofuel

newsobserver.com Driver ticketed for using biofuel: "So last fall the Charlotte musician and guitar instructor spent $1,200 to convert his 1981 diesel Mercedes to run on vegetable oil. He bought soybean oil in 5-gallon jugs at Costco, spending about 30 percent more than diesel would cost. His reward, from a state that heavily promotes alternative fuels: a $1,000 fine last month for not paying motor fuel taxes. He has been told to expect another $1,000 fine from the federal government."

Like computer technology a decade ago, energy independence technology is changing faster than the laws that aim to regulate it.

I am surprised to say the least. If you threw the words "illegal fuel" at me, I'd think you were talking about automotive racing. In fact, the story has a racing link:

"Teixeira's story began near Lowe's Motor Speedway on May 14. As recreational vehicles streamed in for race week, revenue investigators were checking fuel tanks of diesel RVs for illegal fuel."

And in February, Michael Waltrip was caught using illegal fuel in a NASCAR race. But that was a different kind of illegal fuel.

Vegetable Oil Fuel is Illegal: "According the Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA) operating a vehicle with a non-approved fuel delivery system is a violation of Federal regulations. Although the EPA has never prosecuted anyone for operating a vehicle powered by vegetable oil, the regulations in 40CFR state that alternative fuel systems must be approved by the EPA in passenger cars and light trucks before they can be used on-road."

The NAFTA SuperHighway - who pays for insurance?

GovTrack: H. Con. Res. 40: Text of Legislation:
"...Whereas the economic and physical security of the United States is impaired by the potential loss of control of its borders attendant to the full operation of NAFTA and the SPP;

Whereas the regulatory and border security changes implemented and proposed by the SPP violate and threaten United States sovereignty;

Whereas a NAFTA Superhighway System from the west coast of Mexico through the United States and into Canada has been suggested as part of a North American Union to facilitate trade between the SPP countries;

Whereas the State of Texas has already begun planning of the Trans-Texas Corridor, a major multi-modal transportation project beginning at the United States-Mexico border, which would serve as an initial section of a NAFTA Superhighway System;

Whereas it could be particularly difficult for Americans to collect insurance from Mexican companies which employ Mexican drivers involved in accidents in the United States, which would likely increase the insurance rates for American drivers;

Whereas future unrestricted foreign trucking into the United States can pose a safety hazard due to inadequate maintenance and inspection, and can act collaterally as a conduit for the entry into the United States of illegal drugs, illegal human smuggling, and terrorist activities; and

Whereas a NAFTA Superhighway System would likely include funds from foreign consortiums and be controlled by foreign management, which threatens the sovereignty of the United States..."

Status: Introduced

These are all highly relevant risks associated with the NAFTA Superhighway, also known as Interstate 69. Prior to visiting Texas, I had no idea SPP, the NAFTA Superhighway, or the Trans-Texas Corridor even existed. Now we know.

Larry King Transcript - Vicente Fox and the North American Union

CNN.com - Transcripts of Vicente Fox's appearance on Larry King Live:

"KING: E-mail from Mrs. Gonzalez in Elizabeth, New Jersey. 'Mr. Fox, I would like to know how you feel about the possibility of having a Latin America united with one currency?'

FOX: Long term, very long term. What we propose together, President Bush and myself, it's ALCA*, which is a trade union for all of the Americas. And everything was running fluently until Hugo Chavez came. He decided to isolate himself. He decided to combat the idea and destroy the idea...

KING: It's going to be like the euro dollar, you mean?

FOX: Well, that would be long, long term. I think the processes to go, first step into is trading agreement. And then further on, a new vision, like we are trying to do with NAFTA. "

* ALCA is the Área de Libre Comercio de las Américas - Free Trade Area of the Americas - FTAA.

Presidente Fox seems to be a bit confused, as per the White House:

"The White House this morning categorically denied that President Bush is considering or has ever considered agreeing to a common currency for the U.S., Mexico and Canada to rival the Euro.

'I can assure you that President Bush is not, and has not, given consideration to any other currency for the United States. Period,' said White House spokesman Tony Fratto in an e-mail.

The Washington Times first questioned White House press secretary Dana Perino about this yesterday, after watching a YouTube clip of former Mexico President Vicente Fox's comments on the Larry King Show Monday night.

Mrs. Perino said she had not heard anything about a common currency, but did not eliminate the possibility that Mr. Bush and Mr. Fox might have discussed such an idea in the past.

'I don't think that that's something we're actively considering,' she said"

Why would Vicente Fox be putting words in our President's mouth?

Understanding illegal immigration

Referring to "flows" of illegal Mexicans into the US, the Pew Hispanic Center said in Unauthorized Migrants: Numbers and Characteristics "The flows respond to economic conditions in the U.S. and abroad. For Mexico and many other countries, conditions in the U.S. are almost always better than abroad so that worsening conditions in Mexico and elsewhere lead to increased migration to the United States."

The report is a fairly easy read because it's mostly charts and bullet points. Highly recommended. An interesting tidbit is the fact that 10% of people born in Mexico live in the United States. Wow.

Impacts of Illegal Immigration: Obeying the law

Impacts of Illegal Immigration: Traffic Accidents: "A review of State Police auto accident reports for 2002 through 2004 for that area of the Eastern Shore also revealed that of the 179 accidents involving Hispanic laborers: 75% of the drivers had no auto insurance. Nearly all of the vehicles driven by migrants were registered to other drivers. 93% of the vehicles had false out-of-state tags. "

The United States has rules and policies that govern how a citizen of another country may enter this country, how and how long they can stay, whether they can work, and whether and how they can become citizens. Those are the rules of the land, and they are as essential to our security and the peaceful enjoyment of our national home, as locks are to our individual houses.

Tell me something. If you came home or awoke in the night to find an unexpected, uninvited, unkown person in your home, would you make him a sandwich or fill him with buckshot? We know instinctively that a person who violates the sanctity of your home, unbidden, is up to no good. Why do we think that people who break into our country ("but the door wasn't locked!") came here, without exception, to be model citizens?

Does it come as any surprise that many (though not most) people who violate and disrespect immigration rules, also violate and disrespect other laws and social conventions? The truth is, there is less incentive for an illegal alien to obey our laws. They are more likely to be deported than jailed. They already live in the shadows. They already have a hard time finding good jobs. They are already pariahs in our society. A black mark on their record means little when their records only exist in the shadows.

Their identities are fungible, since they have not been through any official procedure to validate identity. If an employer knowingly hires illegals, how likely is it for the employer to check references or in any way determine that today's identity is not the same as yesterday's identity? If an illegal is "just a fruit picker", does it matter to the employer that he is Juan Carlos today, Carlos Juan yesterday? The article I linked to yesterday quoted the police chief as saying ""We get calls from all over the country from people saying: 'I've never worked at a chicken plant and I've never been to Delaware, and the IRS tells me I owe taxes for working there.'" If an illegal immigrant puts a black mark on one stolen identity, how much harder is it to steal a new identity? The immigrant simply moves on, changes his name, gets a new apartment, and blends back into the shadows.

It is tremendously unfair to American citizens to have illegal aliens able to circumvent laws and procedures that we have to obey. Allowing illegal aliens to violate numerous laws - immigration laws, driver licensing, insurance, taxes, etc. - is the ultimate insult to legal citizens. Amnesty could help prevent the identity shifting, provided that strong controls are used to validate a single identity, but it won't change the mindset of ignoring and disrespecting our laws that brought a person into a country illegally in the first place. Yes, most illegal immigrants are honest, upstanding citizens, but the moment they decided to stay in this country illegally, they drew their line in the sand just a little bit past the "I always obey the law" mark. And the criminals who moved here illegally - and send back home for their family and friends - do you imagine they've come to "the richest country in the world" to retire from crime, or to enjoy a richer harvest?

Illegal immigration and crime: Jobs Americans Don't Want to Do

A Line in the Sand: Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border
"While many illegal aliens cross the border searching for employment, not all illegal aliens are crossing into the United States to find work. Law enforcement has stated that some individuals come across the border because they have been forced to leave their home countries due to their criminal activity. These dangerous criminals are fleeing the law in other countries and seeking refuge in the United States."

HOLA Delaware: How Latinos came to dominate chicken processing in Delaware

HOLA Delaware Latino population article about Georgetown and Sussex County Delaware Jody Hudson; Cutting Edge Realtor in Rehoboth Beach.: "The problem for poultry processors has been retention. Today, the companies have 3 percent monthly turnover in their workforce. This is a sea change. Two decades ago, a plant would lose 10 to 15 percent of its workers per month--that is, at any given moment, most of the workers in a plant would have been hired in the past four or five months. This is how immigrants wound up dominating the poultry industry. It is not that corporations sought to unload their local workers wholesale and replace them with cheaper and harder-working ones. It is that every time a local worker quit, he was replaced by a Guatemalan who didn't, and the job changed from a stopgap into the lifeline for a family."

I haven't been in America all that long - I was born here, but only a few decades ago. So my grasp on history may not be 100%, and I'll welcome correction from you old-timers who know better....

A long, long time ago, entire families performed the bulk of labor necessary to keep a family in food, shelter, and tools. A limited amount of barter provided the balance. Then job specialization came along and eventually morphed into an industrial revolution. Poor women, children, and the elderly worked in jobs that were considered "easy enough" for their limited strength and skills, and men worked the jobs that required "a real man". Wealthy men worked in jobs requiring education (which only the wealthy had) and capital to invest (which only the wealthy had). Wealthy women lived lives of comparable leisure, supervising servants, rearing children, and running the social scene. Eventually, a middle class developed in which non-wealthy men acquired sufficient education to perform "professional" work, and non-wealthy women could specialize in running a home (albeit without servants). During the World Wars, middle class women were encouraged to enter the workforce out of patriotism, to replace men. Poor women were always in the workforce, out of necessity.

Immigrants came to America and were resented as competitors for the "good" jobs that were available to the poor. They congregated in ghettos, and learned the language as quickly as possible. The critical skill for an immigrant was to assimilate. But that was easy - they came to America because of the greater freedom and opportunity it offered. No one immigrated to America to stay English or German or Argentinan; they came here to be Americans. Then we eased restrictions on Asian immigration, and we freed the slaves, and no one quite noticed that, say, a German who spoke excellent English and wore American-style clothing was soon an American, but a dark-skinned immigrant with the same traits was still an "Oriental" or "black."

Wherever they were born, America's poor, lacking capital to invest, professional contacts to obtain "plum" jobs, "education" in the sense of both book learning and social/linguistic skills, and high-paying professional skills, worked in crappy jobs. America, however, is the land of opportunity. Our middle class could obtain education to qualify them for desk jobs, and our poor could work their way up to foreman or other better-paying job. Eventually, the guy who started by picking up debris on the construction site could work his way up to s

winging a hammer, then supervising the crew, and the really talented folks - whose talent had been hidden and diminished by their poverty and lack of born-into opportunity - could work his way up to running a company. We had genuine upward mobility, but upward mobility always requires a starting point. For the poorest and least advantaged Americans, that starting point was the bottom, the worst jobs.

Now, we have welfare and jails for the poorest of the poor, and gentle justifications for their poverty. Middle class and above expect to finish college and take a "professional" job (not to be confused with professional trades). Since middle class and above are the primary consumers, our media focuses on their needs and expectations, and the poor see a lot more of the chasm between the haves and have nots, and a lot less of the ladder that can lift them into the "have somes". And immigrants take those entry-level jobs that really suck but get the employee a paycheck and a job reference and an opportunity to move on and move up. Where even a poor American used to be able to come home and tell the kids "I did something meaningful today, and I was paid poorly but it is better than I used to have, and you're going to stay in school so you do even better," now it is the immigrants that are taking those jobs, and setting that example for their children. The poorest of our poor no longer even see that ladder to upward mobility, and they give up without even climbing the first rung.

Employers benefit from a stable workforce, and reduced turnover generates a direct cost savings. Turnover costs the employer for advertising, recruiting, evaluating job applicants, paperwork, and training employees. If a Guatemalan is willing to do what Americans consider a crummy job, and stay with it for many years, the employer willingly shrugs and says "I guess this is one of those jobs Americans just won't do." Yet, when a poor young American comes of age and looks for a job, those first-rung jobs aren't in the want ads because they've been filled. The employee thinks there are no jobs for unskilled workers with poor English and math skills, the employer thinks that Americans won't do the jobs, and the immigrants think they are doing very well, indeed.

Breaking Point in Immigration Debate - The Lede - Breaking News - New York Times Blog

Breaking Point in Immigration Debate - The Lede - Breaking News - New York Times
Blog:

"Around this time last year, pear growers mourned major crop losses,
and one told The New York Times that “there weren’t any people to pay” higher
wages to. Here are two sides of the debate from Julia Preston’s most recent
article on immigration in The New York Times:

Some academics say warnings of a farm-labor debacle are exaggerated. “By
and large the most dire predictions don’t come true,” said Philip Martin, an
agricultural economist at the University of California, Davis. “There is no
doubt that some people can’t count on workers showing up as much as they used
to,” Professor Martin said. “But most of the places that are crying the loudest
are exceptional cases.”"

One report I read last week (and can't remember where) said that paying Americans $50 an hour wouldn't induce them to pick crops. I find that difficult to believe. If nothing else, some Americans who have been marginalized from the work force, like mothers who cannot afford day care or who choose to work only part-time, are out there, ready to work for the business with the ingenuity to meet employees' needs.

However, it seems virtually accepted as fact -without, so far as I know, any attempt to disprove it - that ONLY Mexican immigrants can, and will, pick food crops. So I propose a solution: food banks. Let the poor work in the fields in exchange for free fruits and vegetables. Let volunteers work in the fields in exchange for free fruits and vegetables for the elderly and sick. Contact churches and food banks, and tell them to send volunteers to your farm, and you'll send the volunteers back with food.

If that doesn't get farmers enough workers, then it's time for reform welfare - able-bodied folks who need assistance can be sent out on work crews to help farmers. For many crops, no day care is needed - very young children can be carried in a pack, while older children can play quietly or even help. That's the way it's been done for thousands of years, right?

If that still doesn't get the crops picked, then farmers need to improve their recruiting methods. Hire college and high school students during vacation. Heck, innovative farmers' coops could offer scholarships to students who spend an entire summer working the farms. Senior citizens have more time than money - and many of them want to do something productive. Have farmers tried recruiting seniors? For younger workers, advertise the advantages of doing temporary farm labor (get exercise, be out in nature, feel the sun on your back, etc.) and, most importantly, get out the word that stereotypes about farmers underpaying their workers are false stereotypes. If Americans thought they'd earn a fair wage, I bet they'd be lined up to work the farms. It's not a stable job, it's not a secure job, but it's a source of income for which almost anyone is qualified.

Do you know there are Americans who pay dude-ranches and dude-farms for the privilege of working on a farm/ranch? Yet farmers can't find enough paid laborers to harvest their crops. There's a massive disconnect here. Let's get it fixed before food prices go crazy.

About California's health care debate

The following is an excerpt from my California Senator's constituent newsletter, and I thought it was well stated and worth sharing with folks from other districts.

"Dave Cox Senate Report: October 2007

Health Care Next

The Governor has also called a special session on health care. Proposals being considered by Democrats and the Governor call for a largely tax-funded program which ensures that every resident be provided with health insurance.

Other nations that have implemented universal health care programs have unfortunately discovered that government-run programs increase demand and costs, reduce access and personalized care, and achieve cost containment by rationing care. It is not my desire to see California move in that direction. Should the Legislature and/or the voters proceed toward the implementation of a government-run healthcare system, significant tax increases will be required to fund it. Some proposals put forward so far specifically target businesses and hospitals for new taxes– a counterproductive option. Throughout the twelve-county First Senate District, rural hospitals struggle to keep their doors open – and some have simply closed. Taxing businesses and medical facilities will make it even more difficult to provide jobs and keep hospitals open in these rural communities.

Some proposals would expand eligibility for government healthcare to everyone, including illegal immigrants. Such provisions have been known to create an incentive for employers to eliminate job-based healthcare plans and allow the taxpayers to pick up the tab. The coverage of illegal immigrants will be solely at the state taxpayers’ expense, since federal law prohibits the use of any federal funds for that purpose. Additionally, no minimum residency requirements have been proposed, which would make California a magnet state – not only for illegal immigrants, but anyone seeking health care. The costs the state could incur are incalculable. Without appropriate residency requirements, California taxpayers will be essentially signing a blank check.

After researching the options, I am convinced that there are more appropriate means of achieving the desired end without the creation of a massive, impersonal bureaucracy funded through tax increases. Approximately 85% of the population currently has some form of health insurance. It does not make sense to dismantle 100% of the health care system to provide insurance to the 15% of the population who lack coverage.

Research shows that, in many ways, government has been a part of the problem – adding to the cost of insurance. Through laws and regulation, California has imposed approximately 48 health care mandates that can add as much as 30% to the cost of health insurance premiums.

From my perspective, the free market has the greatest success in providing health care coverage options in the most cost-effective manner. To remove the barriers to access, the Legislature should support efforts to equalize the market by shoring up provider rates under state programs to reduce cost-shifting to the insured, and increase insurer competition by reducing regulation.

A market where insurers may more freely customize their policies, co-payments, premiums and coverage allows consumers to choose the best product based upon their means and medical needs. Enabling insurers to compete through innovation and efficiency improves both affordability and accessibility. The Legislature should also make it easier to refer the uninsured to community clinics for non-emergency care, and provide tax credits for employers and individuals who purchase coverage.

Senate Republicans have introduced our own health care proposals as alternatives to government-run programs. You can look at them at this website:http://republican.sen.ca.gov/calcare

To subscribe a friend or to unsubscribe, please visit this page."

Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved to original author, Senator Dave Cox.

Continent-size toxic stew of plastic trash fouling swath of Pacific Ocean

Continent-size toxic stew of plastic trash fouling swath of Pacific Ocean: "The enormous stew of trash - which consists of 80 percent plastics and weighs some 3.5 million tons, say oceanographers - floats where few people ever travel, in a no-man's land between San Francisco and Hawaii."

Alka Zadgaonkar-- Catalyic conversion of plastic to fuel: "New Delhi Jan 31: The Zadgaonkars' Unique Waste Plastic Management & Research Company plant devours a whole range of plastic waste -- from discarded carry bags to mineral water bottles and broken buckets to PVC pipes, polyethylene eriophthalate (PET) bottles, even ABS (acrylonitrile butadine sterine) plastic material used in the making of computer monitors and TV sets, keyboards et al -- and converts it 100 percent into liquid hydrocarbon fuels (85 percent) and gases (15 percent)."

There is a single location in the ocean containing 3.5 million tons of plastic. There is a process being developed to convert waste plastic into gasoline. Oil hit $90 a barrel today.

Paulson Urges Action on Housing Crisis

October 15, 2007: Bloomberg.com: News: "Under pressure from European governments to abandon his hands-off approach to financial regulation and the depreciating dollar, the U.S. Treasury secretary and former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. chief executive officer may be forced to accede to the first while resisting the second. "

October 16, 2007: Paulson Urges Action on Housing Crisis: "'Let me be clear, despite strong economic fundamentals, the housing decline is still unfolding and I view it as the most significant current risk to our economy,' Paulson said in a speech delivered at Georgetown University's law school. 'The longer housing prices remain stagnant or fall, the greater the penalty to our future economic growth.' In his most somber assessment of the crisis to date, Paulson said that the housing correction is 'not ending as quickly' as it had appeared it would and that 'it now looks like it will continue to adversely impact our economy, our capital markets and many homeowners for some time yet.'"

Paulson Urges Action on Housing Crisis

October 15, 2007: Bloomberg.com: News: "Under pressure from European governments to abandon his hands-off approach to financial regulation and the depreciating dollar, the U.S. Treasury secretary and former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. chief executive officer may be forced to accede to the first while resisting the second. "

October 16, 2007: Paulson Urges Action on Housing Crisis: "'Let me be clear, despite strong economic fundamentals, the housing decline is still unfolding and I view it as the most significant current risk to our economy,' Paulson said in a speech delivered at Georgetown University's law school. 'The longer housing prices remain stagnant or fall, the greater the penalty to our future economic growth.' In his most somber assessment of the crisis to date, Paulson said that the housing correction is 'not ending as quickly' as it had appeared it would and that 'it now looks like it will continue to adversely impact our economy, our capital markets and many homeowners for some time yet.'"

Gold Pirates Plunder South African Mines: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance

Gold Pirates Plunder South African Mines: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance: "The gold poaching does not only endanger the pirates -- known here as 'zama-zamas.' Haphazard digging -- the miners often lack technical skills -- can destabilize the shafts, putting thousands of legal miners' lives at risk."

Gold at $748 an ounce (today). South Africa's per capita income (PPP, GDP per capita) is $13,300. If you can just recover 18 ounces of gold - I have a necklace that weighs nearly an ounce of pure gold, over an ounce gross weight, if it helps you visualize it - just 18 little tiny ounces of gold, about as much as a decent gold coin, will catch one up to the national GDP in South Africa. Wealth and poverty are relative - most studies say that one simply wants to do better than one's reference mates. How hard can it be to gather 18 ounces - just over a pound - of gold from a proven mine? Plenty hard, the mine-owner says, but the poor, starving man trying to convince himself that he's a good provider, maybe he thinks differently.

I am not a humanist. I am an Americanist, if such a thing can exist. I understand that every human has a right to a good life, but I want to support the American right to a good life first and foremost. It is to my own benefit, it supports my ideological beliefs that the Constitution is a superior document that created a superior nation, it is a goal that drives me. Let Bill Gates rape America for every penny he can, only to donate it to the very worthy cause of providing education and health care to the very poor non-Americans of this world. I say, take care of Americans first. Let non-Americans take care of non-Americans first.

Yet, to support American success, I think one must understand - as best one can, in a nation where our garbage is often of better quality than the food and goods offered at many non-American public markets - how the competition lives. Would you sacrifice your life for $750? Heck, I pay to insure my life, and I don't even do anything more dangerous than drive on California freeways. I am absolutely positive that some of America's criminals are foreign invaders - illegal immigrants - national burglars - whatever you want to call them - for whom a stolen stereo is quite the coup. I worked with a woman whose car was broken into in San Francisco - the window damage cost a couple hundred dollars, the thief took a few dollars in coins out of the ashtray. The risk of arrest was worthwhile for the thief, presumably, while the cost of the theft was excessive for the victim. She stopped locking her car after that, and I stopped keeping coins visible in my own car. Not to say that all car break-ins are perpetrated by people of foreign birth, in this nation illegally (is there a shorter, more precise term for such people??). Just that there is an American culture, largely derived from a perspective of such wealth that our trash can support people - and there is a separate culture, most specifically attributable to foreign-born illegals, but also recognized and ascribed to by our homeless and other economically displaced citizens. And there is another culture, where life is worth far, far less (in their home countries) than it is here in America.

Oh, sure, our gang-bangers have no compulsion about shooting each other, but I think they place a high enough value on life to secure their own lives in some ways. It takes a tremendous pessimism and disregard for life for a person to say "what, go down in those dangerous mines way underground and steal gold? Okay, sure! Hey, if I die, give my wife a couple bucks, okay?" And those people are taking jobs that we Americans largely don't believe or realize exist (Chinese counterfeiter, anyone?) and jobs that directly benefit our national competitors to our own detriment.

It is very 30-ish of me to say that I don't think that Americans are willing to die over a few bucks. Americans have always been the same combination of thrifty, smart, foolish, spendy, calm, aggressive, pugilistic, peace-loving, etc., as any other large population (though we do have the relative disadvantage of being highly diverse, which gives us less of a cohesive national culture to draw upon). But I can tell you, as a 30-something American who has lived in many states, I have not met many people who have told me - despite friendships and deeply meaningful conversations - that they understand how very, very poor many foreigners are compared to us, who have told me that they appreciate our relative wealth, even among poor Americans.

Americans cannot truly understand International trade - nor International terrorism or International security - without understanding how freakin' rich we are. Let me throw in the fact here, that I graduated from a foster home into "holy crap, how do I support myself? What do you mean, I have to have kid to get welfare? What if I screw up, like most 18-year-olds do? Holy crap" at 18. I haven't experienced the abject poverty of the inner city, of not knowing when one will eat again, but I have experienced the absolute responsibility to provide my own meal every day, without a viable fallback position.

Still, that cannot compare with the total hopelessness that motivates a child to blow himself up for the fuzzy hope of 72 virgins in heaven, and, I propose, the far more important notion that his family will be well-provided-for after his death by the remaining terrorist organization. Our economic competitors are equally scrappy. Nigerian fraudsters have become a particular thorn in our sides, but how could they not?

We feed our pigs on better slop than many humans hope to eat for dinner tonight. Our dogs can reasonably expect good medical care in most American homes - indeed, many of us put our dogs through dialysis, chemotherapy, and the like - while the majority of humans in the world face less hopeful medical outcomes.

Superbug kills 90 in UK hospitals - CNN.com

Superbug kills 90 in UK hospitals - CNN.com: "nurses at three hospitals run by the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS trust were often too busy to wash their hands and left patients in their own excrement."

My SIL died last year. She spent some time in a government-subsidized nursing home. She was returned to the hospital after she suffered a serious infection at the nursing home. The nursing home staff ignored her concerns, failed to clean up her projectile vomit, and, very probably, directly caused her infection.

Government-run health care is not the panacea that Californians think it is.

"Many medical tourists from the United States are seeking treatment at a quarter or sometimes even a 10th of the cost at home. From Canada, it is often people who are frustrated by long waiting times. From Great Britain, the patient can't wait for treatment by the National Health Service but also can't afford to see a physician in private practice. "

Why, when foreign nations have already proven that nationalized health care works no better than our own private health care, do Americans want to hand their health over to the same people who brought us $200 hammers? Penny-wise, pound foolish?

Yes, American health care is out of whack. No, costs should not be growing faster than true inflation (as opposed to the government's monkey'ed inflation figures). Yes, Americans are asking insurance companies to reimburse ever more care (I remember, just 10 years ago, when health insurance was truly insurance, and did not cover general maintenance costs - we actually had to pay out-of-pocket for preventive maintenance, just like we do on our cars). Yes, doctors pay ridiculous rates for malpractice insurance. Yes, patients are getting hosed.

Outsourcing creates hazards to U.S. consumers, economy

Outsourcing creates hazards to U.S. consumers, economy: "Currently, Americans are paying for inferior products that pose hazards to their children, their pets, and to themselves. A lesser, but still important, result of our willingness to give away a manufacturing base is the long-term effect on our own economy. Good jobs disappear, along with the buying power and tax base that goes with those jobs.

Just drive through what we used to call a mill town back in the Southeast and see what closing cotton mills has done to downtown businesses. ....An even better option is to find ways to maintain our own manufacturing base, keep plants operating in this country, and keep people employed."

Well said.

TaxProf Blog: "Generosity Index" Mirrors Red State-Blue State Divide

TaxProf Blog: "Generosity Index" Mirrors Red State-Blue State Divide: "The 50-state ranking has a decided Red State-Blue State flavor: 28 of the 29 'most generous' states are Red States that voted for President Bush (including all 25 of the 'most generous' states), while 17 of the 21 'least generous' states are Blue States that voted for Senator Kerry (including all 7 of the 'least generous' states):"

In Red states, people are generous with their money. In blue states, people are generous with other people's money.

Vacation

I won't be posting much for the next two weeks, as we're on vacation.

We drove from California to Texas. On the drive down, we were talking about the quality of newspapers in California. The Sacramento Bee and the San Francisco Chronicle both operate the same way - choose a perspective, tell the story from that perspective, and leave out any point-of-view or fact that contradicts that perspective. Neither paper provides "just the facts." Living in California for as long as we have, we've come to accept that as the way things are. Today, we picked up the local Austin newspaper - Austin is a pretty liberal city, too - and were pleasantly surprised to find reporting that includes nearly enough facts to form an informed perspective. The front page features an article about a bond measure, with bullet points alongside summarizing the case for and against the measure.

Back in California, sfgate.com today featured an article about Chauncey Bailey, a Bay Area journalist killed for writing about Your Black Muslim Bakery. He was prepared to write a story about allegations of murder and financial malfeasance. Bailey was praised as an activist journalist, using the power of the pen to advocate for blacks. While advocating for human beings is a noble cause, it is not the traditional role of the media. The media's traditional role has been to inform, letting its informed readership advocate as they see fit. But advocating through the press is praised in the Bay Area, while failure to fully inform is forgiven and accepted.

Austin is the Capital of Texas, a liberal city in the middle of a conservative state. I wonder if conservatism, with its emphasis on individual responsibility, creates an incentive towards an informed citizenry?

China's desperate quest for oil - Can America Compete? - MSNBC.com

China's desperate quest for oil - Can America Compete? - MSNBC.com: "In a nod to the building frictions, Washington and Beijing set up extensive bilateral energy talks between the Department of Energy and its Chinese counterparts in 2004, with discussion on ways of increasing energy efficiency in China, cleaner coal technology and reforming the power sector. In this and other forums, China has been pursuaded to set up a strategic petroleum reserve to hedge against supply disruptions and emergencies. Although cooperation will be key to averting conflict, the underlying distrust is likely to persist, says University of Miami's Teufel Dreyer in a new paper on China's energy sector: 'Just as many Chinese are concerned that Washington uses a desire to establish democracy to disguise its desire for hegemony and many Americans believe that Beijing talks about a China that is peacefully rising while providing its military with unjustifiably large annual budget increases, each side worries that gestures of cooperation may disguise an intent to block oil supplies to the other.'" May 4, 2006

Fueling the dragon: China's race into the oil market, by Gal Luft

Fueling the dragon: China's race into the oil market, by Gal Luft: "This may indicate not only that China is interested in a militarily strong, even nuclear Iran that dominates the Gulf but also that for China, energy security considerations trump international cooperation on critical global security issues. In addition to its special relations with Iran, China is also known to be a provider of WMD technologies to rouge states including North Korea, Syria, Libya and Sudan. " from the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security

Reducing our dependence on foreign oil: A plan

Alternative energy technologies do not make a compelling cost-benefit case right now. Tax incentives designed to improve the economics don't work. We should do something about this.

In my home, the average electric bill is $73 a month. For most Americans, that surely seems cheap. We have upgraded our windows, air conditioner, dishwasher, washer, and dryer. We use natural gas for cooking, heating, and water heating, and we use electricity for everything else (including our clothes dryer). We are reasonably careful with energy consumption, but not excessively so. We do not spend winters buried under blankets, and we live in a reasonably mild climate (although summer temps climb to 100+ degrees, so summer is when our costs peak).

A solar electric system sufficient to reduce our electric usage to "baseline" levels would cost about $12,000, plus installation. It would save us a little shy of $50 a month. $12,000 amortized over 20 years (the warranted lifespan of the system) at 5% - i.e., if we took out a 20-year mortgage to pay for it - would cost us $80 a month. California has rebate incentives that would probably cover the installation costs. The federal tax credits are not available to us because all tax credits are eliminated under the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). However, in 20 years, it is highly likely that our savings will be greater than $80 a month, because electric rates rise consistently over time. However, it is impossible to predict how much rates will rise. Installing solar today would require paying a 60% price premium over today's KNOWN costs to reap an assumed, but unknown, savings later.

I do believe that the nation needs a better energy policy. Every dollar spent on foreign oil is a dollar that is not flowing through our own economy. $1 worth of domestic grain represents money flowing to a local farmer, who then flows the money to the local taxing authority, local workers, domestic seed companies, etc. $1 worth of foreign oil represents a small portion of domestic refining and transporting, and a big chunk of the dollar flows to foreign oil producers. Worse yet, that dollar is likely to come back as foreign investment. Americans borrow, spending tomorrow's dollars today, and foreigners invest here, staking a claim on our future income using the dollars we spend today to fill our gas tanks.

I propose two fixes to the energy incentive program. One, allow energy efficiency credits to take precedence over the AMT, so that people paying AMT can still reduce their federal tax burden by investing in alternative energy. This makes a lot of sense. Americans who can afford alternative energy systems are usually also subject to AMT. So the tax credits target an incredibly narrow band of potential users.

Two, create an FHA loan program for energy efficiency improvements. This program has 4 key points.

1) The loan can be transferred to the new home owner with payment of a small processing cost. Home buyers stretch to afford the most house, and rarely reimburse the home seller for the cost of an alternative energy system. They are more interested in getting more square footage or a better location than lower energy bills, and they assume they can add an alternative energy system later, if they want one. If the buyer assumes a loan, however, they can save their mortgage dollars for the house, and pay the alternative energy loan from their utility budget. For homeowners who want alternative energy, but might be moving, this would be a substantial incentive to go ahead and install it now.

2) The loan payment can be re-amortized if the loan is paid down in advance of the scheduled payment. In my example, the loan payment would be $30/month higher than the electric bill. If a buyer was unwilling to pay that extra $30 a month, I could pay the loan down by $4,000, and recover the remaining $8,000 up-front cost that "cash-flows". The buyer would have the best of both worlds - the security of a fixed energy cost, without the higher costs in today's dollars. This allows a buyer who *really* doesn't want to invest in alternative energy to negotiate how much loan they assume from the seller, without the seller eating 100% of the up-front costs. The U.S. Energy system wins, because there is one more solar array providing day-time oil-free power to the grid, even if the buyer of the home would not have installed one. Chances are, I'd go buy another house, and install another solar system. More energy dollars stay in America, and the only cost to the taxpayer is the cost of guaranteeing the loan.

3) Require local energy utilities to pay the homeowner for unused energy credits, at the prevailing wholesale rate. If the loan is not paid, or if the home goes into foreclosure, the FHA can recoup some of the missed payments through payments from the electric utility, until a new homeowner assumes payments. Make the FHA "first-in-line" for the payments, in case the loan is not paid. This also provides an incentive for homeowners to scale the system up to provide a larger portion of their energy needs.

4) The alternative energy mortgage should be calculated outside the standard debt-to-income ratios used in mortgage approvals. It should be considered a utility cost rather than a mortgage debt (for the purpose of calculating the mortgage ratio).

Here's a frightening read about the economic security implications of our dependence on foreign oil:
http://www.energycommission.org/files/contentFiles/oil_shockwave_report_440cc39a643cd.pdf