ThinkProgress Logo

Yglesias

The New Urbanity

This is a point I’ve made casually before, but it seems Professor Arthur Nelson has a new paper spelling out in detail the implications of demographic change for the built environment. In particular, even if you assume no shift in underlying preferences regarding cities versus suburbs, and no pro-urbanism policy shifts, then the declining proportion of the population made up of families with children still implies a large shift back in the direction of urban infill.

Judged realistically, this should also open up possibilities for virtuous circles. Some people prefer to be surrounded by a lot of space, and others prefer the amenities associated with a denser urban environment, but nobody likes to live in a block with a vacant lot or around the corner from a broken-down shell of a former building. More people shifting into walkable urban neighborhoods allows those neighborhoods to capture more of what’s appealing about walkable urbanism.

Security

Why Counting Undocumented Immigrants In The 2010 Census Counts For A Lot

censusbag2-loJohn S. Baker, professor of constitutional law at Louisiana State University, has an op-ed featured in today’s Wall Street Journal in which he frets that including undocumented immigrants in Census Bureau data will result in a “malapportionment of Congress.” What Baker doesn’t tell you is that not counting undocumented immigrants could slow recovery from the economic recession and lead to bad public policies based on incomplete and inaccurate census information.

Baker argues that the census should only count citizens and legal permanent residents. Baker complains that, by his math, “illegal aliens” could result in California getting nine House seats “it doesn’t deserve.” According to Baker:

The U.S. Census Bureau is set to count all persons physically present in the country—including large numbers who are here illegally. The result will unconstitutionally increase the number of representatives in some states and deprive some other states of their rightful political representation. Citizens of ‘loser’ states should be outraged…The Census Bureau can of course collect whatever data Congress authorizes. But Congress must not permit the bureau to unconstitutionally redefine who are “We the People of the United States.”

However, Baker forgets that the census serves many other purposes, namely the allocation of scarce federal resources for states and localities. Census data is used to distribute federal funding and Community Development Block Grants that benefit all residents. In a recently released report, the Drum Major Institute (DMI) shows that not counting undocumented immigrants would lead to inaccurate demographic information and result in costly mistakes in infrastructure, education, and healthcare planning. DMI points out that businesses also rely on accurate social, economic and demographic census information so they can make smart investment decisions. DMI cites a PricewaterhouseCoopers study of the 2000 Census which projected a loss of $4 billion from 2002 to 2012 for the District of Columbia and 31 affected states due to undercounting of the total population.

Finally, DMI argues that “leaving out undocumented immigrants deprives citizens of political power and political voice.” While Baker worries about the fate of “loser” states, DMI points out that concerns about “vote dilution are misplaced.” Children, ex-felons, legal residents, and several other nonvoters are also included in the census apportionment data in order to paint an accurate portrait of a state’s demographic makeup and population density that’s key to effective and adequate representation. Michelle Chen at the Colorlines Blog points out that excluding undocumented immigrants from the census is usually proposed by nativists who care more about making “a politically invisible population disappear,” than rational policy-making.

Anti-immigrant zealot Mark Krikorian himself criticized Baker for conflating “illegal aliens” with legal residents, describing his faulty logic as being “sloppy and poorly thought-out.” Krikorian isn’t much more enlightening. He suggests either asking census participants about their immigration status (which would increase distrust and dissuade most foreign residents from cooperating) or stepping-up hardline immigration enforcement measures to “scare off illegals” altogether.

Meanwhile, the Public Policy Institute of California reports that many immigrants are leaving California, which could cost the state a House seat after the 2010 census is completed. In the case of Baker’s homestate, immigrants have given Louisiana a much-needed population boost and helped rebuild its infrastructure following the devastating aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Climate Progress

Energy efficiency, the low hanging fruit that grows back

Just like some print columnist run classic columns when they are on vacation, I’m rerunning this inspirational  energy efficiency story, first posted July 25, 2008.

Energy efficiency is by far the biggest low-carbon resource available. It is also, as we’ll see, every bit as renewable as wind power, solar photovoltaic, and Concentrated solar thermal power Solar Baseload.

People who have little experience with what serious energy efficiency investments can do for a company or a state “” this means you, neoclassical economists who consistently overestimate the cost of climate mitigation! - think it is a one-shot resource wherein you pick the low hanging fruit. In fact, fruit grow back. The efficiency resource never gets exhausted because technology keeps improving and knowledge spreads to more and more people.

After leading the country in comprehensive efficiency efforts that have kept per capita electricity demand flat for three decades, California does not merely believe it can continue at this pace, they plan to accelerate their efforts and actually keep electricity demand itself flat. I have discussed California’s efforts and plans in previous posts (see Policies in Need of Californication and California makes efficiency “business as usual”), and will discuss them further in Part 4.

The focus of this post is the best corporate example of the inexhaustible nature of the energy efficiency resource “” Dow Chemical’s Louisiana division.

You might have predicted that by 1982, after two major energy shocks, if any company in the country had captured the low-hanging fruit of energy savings, it would be one as energy intensive as a world-class chemical manufacturer. Nonetheless, energy manager for the division’s more than 20 plants, Ken Nelson, began a yearly contest in 1982 to identify and fund energy-saving projects. His success was nothing short of astonishing.

The first year had 27 winners requiring a total capital investment of $1.7 million with an average annual return on investment (ROI) of 173%. After those projects, many in Dow felt that there couldn’t be others with such high returns. The skeptics were wrong. The 1983 contest had 32 winners requiring a total capital investment of $2.2 million in a 340% return - a savings of the company’s $7.5 million in the first year and every year after that.

Even as fuel prices declined in the mid-1980s, the savings kept growing.  Contest winners increasingly achieved the economic gains through process redesign to improve production yield and capacity. By 1988, these productivity gains exceeded the energy and environmental gains. The average return to the 1989 contest was the highest ever, an astounding 470% in 1989, 64 projects costing $7.5 million saved the company $37 million a year “” a payback of 11 weeks.

Anyone would predict that after 10 years, and nearly 700 projects, the 2000 employees would be tapped out of ideas. Yet the contest in 1991, 1992, 1993 each had in excess of 120 winners with an average our ally of 300%. Total savings to Dow from the projects of just those three years exceed $75 million a year.

Here’s the shocking part:

Read more

Yglesias

The Market Value of a Life

Investors Business Daily explains that “People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.”

Hawking is, of course, British and always has been.

Meanwhile, as with all anti-rationing talk you really have to wonder what rightwingers think happens in a free market system. In a pure market, your life is worth what you’re able to pay. The way the free market works, if an indigent woman gives birth to a premature infant you let the infant die. Thankfully, no country—not even the US of A—is actually sufficiently committed to free market principles to let infants die like that. We do, however, allow many expectant mothers to go without the best possible prenatal care, thus jeopardizing the well-being of their children forever. Twelve year old children wind up dying because their parents can’t afford routine dental care.

Politics

Angry Town Hall Participants Erupt, Demand ‘More Choice’ In Health Care

During a recent town hall in Massachusetts, an angry attendee asked Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-MA) why she and other Members of Congress won’t enroll in a public plan. Tsongas responded, “People often say why don’t the American people have what those of us in Congress have.” As she tried to explain the substance of the health care reform bill, the town hall participants began screaming, refusing to allow her to speak.

As a member of Congress, Tsongas said she has a “tremendous array of choice” in health care options available to her. The audience yelled, “We want choice! We want choice!” To those who were willing to listen, Tsongas explained, “That is essentially what we are creating for the American people – we are creating greater choice.” Watch it:

As is often the case with these angry town hall participants, their fervent complaints are grounded in a shallow understanding of the facts. The truth is, Obama’s health care plan delivers for those who want more choice, like members of Congress have. The public option would insert public/private competition in a “market” that is currently dominated by a monopoly of health insurers who dictate the terms. As Republican congressman Tim Murphy (R-PA) said:

One of our big frustrations with insurance companies is they control the marketplace, they control what’s done, a lot of times doctors not making the decisions here.

Obama is pushing to establish more health care choices for the consumer by creating a national health insurance exchange “where Americans can one-stop shop for a health care plan, compare benefits and prices, and choose the plan that’s best for them, in the same way that Members of Congress and their families can” in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. “One of these options,” Obama said, “needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market so that force waste out of the system and keep the insurance companies honest.”

Yglesias

A Road With Fewer Rules

Brighton, UK (wikimedia)

Brighton, UK (wikimedia)

Whenever people start complaining about urban cyclists not following traffic rules, the typical response is to say that cyclists need more dedicated space on the road rather than awkwardly being shoved into street traffic.

But when I think about this, I’m always reminded of the fact that arguably we need fewer traffic rules. The basic idea of traffic rules—separated uses, painted lane markers, giant signs, etc.—is to make it safe for the drivers of cars to drive their cars very quickly. That’s an okay design principle for a highway, but its nearly-universal adoption as a design principle for urban roadways is arguably very misguided. If it were up to me, more city streets would follow Hans Monderman’s shared space principles and just be undifferentiated stretch on which cars, bikes, mopeds, pedestrians, etc. are all free to travel. The over-arching “rule” would be “don’t collide with anyone.”

After all, if you think about a car-free space—a park or pedestrian plaza of some some, say—there’s not a need for elaborate “traffic rules.” The people aren’t herded into lanes or strictly told where to walk. The convention is to stroll on the right side of the sidewalk or whatever, but people are free to be flexible as the situation dictates. The point is that you’re not supposed to collide with anyone, and that everyone needs to undertake the personal responsibility to pay attention to what’s going on.

Yglesias

Senate Malaportionment and Ideology

A very useful chart done by Ezra Klein shows that there’s no clear partisan valence to the Senate over-representation of low-population states:

statesize-thumb-454x308

You see the Republican senators colored in red, the Democratic ones in blue. The chart plots DW-NOMINATE ideological ranks versus state population size ranks. If you do it by population rather than than by population rank it looks a little different, since California is substantially larger than Texas, but it’s a small difference and that’s probably not the right way to look at it.

What you get out of senate malaportionment is not so much a partisan imbalance as simply an imbalance of interests. The idiosyncratic needs of residents of large, empty squares in the interior west are catered to by the federal government. The idiosyncratic needs of residents of urban cores are not. Or to take an even clearer example, look at in how California’s farmers are treated relative to the farmers of the plains.

Politics

Beck agrees with Palin’s ‘death panel’ claim: ‘I believe it to be true.’

Last week, Sarah Palin made the audacious claim that President Obama plans to institute a system of “death panels” where “bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of [people's] ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care.” Even some conservatives rejected Palin’s claim as “crazy.” Today on his radio show, however, Glenn Beck said that he thinks she has a point. ” I believe it to be true, but that’s quite a statement,” said Beck, adding, “I believe she at least should be listened to and you should question, ‘Is it evil?’” Listen here:

On Sunday, former House speaker Newt Gingrich also agreed with Palin.

Update

In a Washington Post chat today, media reporter Howard Kurtz condemned Palin’s comments:

Portland, Ore.: Is there a point when the media should simply say a politician is wrong? I ask in reference to Sarah Palin’s “death panel” comment.

Howard Kurtz: Yes, there is a point where the media should say a politician is wrong, and this is the point. There may or may not be a legitimate discussion about the end-of-life counseling in the Obama health plan (which is voluntary, by the way) and whether it is intrusive. It’s a long way from that to “death panels,” even by the loose rhetorical standards of modern politics. I was surprised that the ex-governor’s Facebook comments didn’t get much pickup at first, though that is starting to change in the last couple of days. As I noted in this morning’s column, wasn’t it Sarah Palin who demanded that journalists “quick making things up”?

Media

White House Attempts to Counter Health Care Misconceptions

rclogo-1-1

If you want to defeat a legislative proposal, the absolute best messaging tactic you can adopt is just to lie about. Mainstream media coverage of your lies will often treat them as credible simply because the lies are being offered. At worst, the occasional “fact check” item will slap you on the wrist, but inevitably will need to come up with some way to define the other side as being just as bad. Under no circumstances will you get headlines like “Senator So-and-So Lies About Health Care.” And so doubts get planted in people’s minds.

Thus far, nobody’s really quite sure how you beat back a concerted campaign of deception. But the White House is trying with with this Health Care Reality Check website.

Something I would underline, however, is that creating a better-informed citizenry is really something that people who care need to undertake as a personal responsibility. Once someone becomes convinced that Barack Obama has a secret plan to euthenize their mother, Obama saying “no I don’t” isn’t going to un-convince them. After all, that’s exactly what Obama would say if he did have a secret “death committee” plan. A personal message from a friend, relative, or coworker is likely to have more impact. Similarly, media organizations are much more likely to get their act together if they’re hearing from readers and viewers. You can’t just despair about the state of things, you need to actually try to do something about it.

Politics

Right Wing’s Anti-Health Care Icon Is Uninsured, Seeking Donations To Pay For Care (Updated)

kennethgladley Last week, during a scuffle between health care town hall protesters and SEIU members at a town hall hosted by Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-MO), anti-health care reform protester Kenneth Gladney was injured and required hospitalization:

Among the injured was Kenneth Gladney, 38, of St. Louis. He said he was with the Tea Party, handing out yellow flags with “Don’t tread on me” printed on them, when he was assaulted. He said he sought hospital treatment for injuries to his knee, back, elbow, shoulder and face.

“I was attacked for something I believe in,” he said.

Since then, conservatives have been using Gladney’s case as a cause célèbre to claim that “union thugs” are being used to silence dissent at health care town halls and have turned him into a hero of their movement.

The irony is that Gladney’s situation underscores the vital need for health care reform. He was recently laid off and lost his insurance (14,000 Americans suffer a similar fate each day). Because he has no affordable health care option available, Gladney is now soliciting donations to pay his medical expenses:

Less than 48 hours later, protesters gathered Saturday in front of the union’s offices, many of them holding signs with a slightly different version of the message: “Don’t Tread on Kenny.” [...]

Gladney did not address Saturday’s crowd of about 200 people. His attorney, David Brown, however, read a prepared statement Gladney wrote. “A few nights ago there was an assault on my liberty, and on yours, too.” Brown read. “This should never happen in this country.”

Supporters cheered. Brown finished by telling the crowd that Gladney is accepting donations toward his medical expenses. Gladney told reporters he was recently laid off and has no health insurance.

Commenting on the Gladney incident, The Moderate Voice writes, “Seriously, you can’t make this stuff up. If anything was more calculated to make the Right look foolish than this St. Louis incident then I’d love to see it.”

Under the House’s health care proposal, Gladney would be guaranteed a coverage option and would likely receive a subsidy to purchase affordable health care.

Update

The Washington Independent contacted Brown, who said his client Gladney is not uninsured after all. “He’s just unemployed,” says Brown, and “has insurance through his wife.”

Older

Newer

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up