ARCT - Adjustable Rate Carbon Tax?

I have an ARM, adjustable rate mortgage. I decided to invent a new acronym - ARCT - Adjustable rate carbon tax, applied to the consumption of fossil fuels.

Here's how the game works, considering oil specifically.

The U.S. decides to limit oil consumption to current levels for the next say 4 years. That's about 21 million barrels of oil per year. After 4 years the oil will be limited further by a 3% decline per year. I make up the numbers but they can be designed based on our projected need for decline.

All oil consumed in the U.S. will have an "excise tax" applied to oil imports and internal production. This tax is set at a fixed level every quarter year. It is set based on a formula designed to predict the relationship between cost and demand. Each quarter the formula is adjusted based on new information and a new level set.

Say oil now is averaging $50/bbl, and the magic formula says we need $80/bbl oil to keep consumption constant. Then we apply a $30/bbl tax on top of the market price. Poof, we have $80/bbl oil.

Now say perhaps world demand drops, and the market price drops to $35/bbl over the quarter, and consumption starts rising. Then the next quarter might apply a $45/bbl tax.

Perhaps an oil crisis will occur, and market prices rise to $75/bbl, while we have $45/bbl taxes. Under a crisis we might lower our taxes for the rest of the quarter, but if the price+tax is $90/bbl and consumption is not being greatly harmed, then no adjustment will be made until the next quarter.

I think there may be terrible room for market manipulation. For example, oil producers might conspire to get market prices up near $80/bbl near quarter's end, knowing the tax will just be reduced and they can make more money. For now, assume such actions can be minimized.

I don't really know how high prices have to go to start reducing consumption. I've personally talked with people who will keep their SUV, even with $10/gallon gasoline, and do little to reduce their consumption.

The economy has no real "shunning" power to excess consumption. Money is free to buy almost anything short of human slavery. If 10% of the people will not conserve under any prices, then the rest just have to compromise more. That's the reality of market economics. If I'm only willing to pay $100 for World Series Tickets, and scalpers can sell then for $500, then I'm out of the market.

There will be many who WANT to continue consuming, but will be priced out of the gasoline market. Between purchase costs and insurance and maintenance and fuel, I imagine many people are already priced out of driving cars. That is, some people may go years on the edge, taking older cars and using credit cards to fund their maintenance and fuel, slowly falling into a hole they'll never get out from.

Personally I can see much of the costs of owning a car are more "fixed costs", those that don't decrease with more used. There's estimates on cost per mile, and usually around $0.30/mile, but really it should be a function of miles driven/year.
Perhaps: Cost/year = $2000 + $0.15/mile. (Statistical average)
So if I drive 10,000 miles/year, it'll cost $3500 or $0.35/mile
And if I drive 5,000 miles/year, it'll cost $2750 or $0.55/mile
Under such a formula, I'm either encouraged to drive more miles to take advantage of the low per mile costs OR share the car with someone else to share the costs.

Certainly many people are not in an easy position to share a car. My roommates, for example, each have their own cars. They drive their cars to work during the day, and are out in the evening, and so the only time I might be able to borrow them would be at night, when things are closed and I can't do errands anyway.

I've considered offering to share costs equally for small access, at least during winter months, but in order for it to be useful to me they'd have to be able and willing to NOT use their car on days that I need one. That is, they'd need to be able to take a bus or bike to work for example. Now they both might benefit by lowering their car costs. However the inconvenience of all alternatives to cars are so high that they'd most likely discount the possibility.

Certainly there's numerous retired people in my neighborhood, many surely with cars sitting in their garages all day, at least sometimes. They also might benefit by some cost sharing. However they, I imagine, prefer the convenience of the car being available anytime, and dislike the risk of someone else wrecking their car, and generally have car costs well budgeted and don't need any savings.

Overall it seems clear to me that decreasing the number of cars must have an effect of decreasing the number of total miles driven. Under my prescribed carbon tax, the higher prices are supposed to reduce consumption.

I suppose in addition to a oil/gas tax, a vehicle tax itself can also make cars less affordable.

It is elitist of me to have a goal of reducing the number of cars.

AND car sharing can actually INCREASE total miles driven. I think about someone who can't drive. Instead his parants have to drive to his place and drive him around, and drive him back. Extreme case. Say he needs to go to a 3 hour meeting two mile away. His dad lives 10 miles away. So his dad drives 26 miles once to drop him off, and 26 miles again to pick him up. That's 52 miles driven for a 4 mile trip!

Of course any smart person would realize a 4 mile walk can be done in an hour, while his dad is not only wasting gas, he's wasting his time as well! He might not always think that way when he has "time to burn", but when it is repeated over and over, alternatives must be considered.

We live in extravagant times, and nature will teach us otherwise sooner than we think.

Higher prices all around are necesasary. How can we EVER properly price a nonrenewable energy source?

I haven't gotten at all into the possible alternatives. I expect smaller, lower powered cars could be developed for lower fuel costs. Perhaps electrical powered cars could run on city streets without great batteries, and some sort of running connection, like light rail. I expect in time ethanol/hydrogen fuels could be more competitive if they use renewable energy sources like solar/wind/hydro.

Overall, I think given a vast reduction of energy needs, renewables could compete with high taxed fossil fuels. I hope so, but I just can't see it within our current demands. There's no transitioning to alternatives without higher costs and lower demand. I believe that 100%.

Back to my elistism, if I support higher prices, I support pricing people out of the market. Ideally investment in mass-transit can transition us from cars being a necessity back to a luxury.

Back to neighborly sharing, I admit I am a coward. I can afford a car myself. I don't like feeling of "begging" for sharing. AND perhaps it also demonstrates another level of failure. If I had a relationship with my neighbors that was purely limited to using their vehicle, they can feel used. I apparently don't care enough to keep in contact with neighbors without needing something.

It's easier to see the failing than to take the time to change them. I like the "high speed" life, even without regular access to cars. To slow my ambitions and connect to neighbors seems overall overwhelming.

Certainly I see however hard it is for me to connect, people on the bottom, trying to balance work, family, and money are on the edge and will equally feel unable to reach out to neighbors.

On the other hand, children at least are connectors, and parents have other reasons to know their neighbors.

It is easier to just say "Let's use mass-transit" and everyone's happy, but really I know mass transit is also costly and can't be accepted to do everything.

I admit, if I want to give a public message about higher costs, I have to be willing to offer a vision for how we'll do it.

Why us?

Just a little question.

Specifically why is the U.S. been blessed with consuming 25% of the world's oil each year while only holding 2-3% of the world oil reserves?

More importantly, why ought we to expect to be able to contine this trick?

A small detour, getting "data" to back up statistics is pain, but there are numbers out there.
Example:
BP oil reserves by region: 2004

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9003054&contentId=7005895
Proven Reserves by Continental regions
----------------------------
Middle East: 773.9Bbbl (63.0%)
Europe/Eurasia: 139.2Bbbl (11.3%)
Africa: 112.2 Bbbl (9.1%)
South/Central America: 101.2Bbbl (8.2%)
North America: 61.0Bbbl (5.0%)
Asia Pacific: 41.1Bbbl (3.3%)
Total: 1228.6Bbbl

North America is Canada, USA, and Mexico, and combined we have 61Bbbl of reserves, and 5% of the world reserves. (Reserves being claimed "proved", meaning a 90% confidence that at least that much oil is available)

How much do we "consume" as a region?
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/publications/energy_reviews_2005/STAGING/local_assets/downloads/pdf/table_of_regional_oil_consumption_2005.pdf

24.619Mbbl/day in 2004 --> 8.986Bbbl/year

If you compute 61Bbbl/8.986Bbbl/year you get 6.8 years of "proved reserves" available within our continental region, assuming we did not trade for oil from outside.

That would seem a frightening statistic. Calmer minds will have their buts:
1) But "proved reserves" are intentionally low, AND these 2004 numbers are 20% higher than BP's 2002 estimates!
2) But oil is a world commodity, sold to the highest bidder, and so we can buy what we need.
3) But there's nonconventional oil, like Canada's "sand tars" and US "Shale oil" which are more expensive, but available when we need it.
4) But "The Industry" is prepared to get us more oil now that prices are making new investment worthwhile. (After a 20 year collapse of world prices)
Others...?

I can't answer all these and I accept that in the short term, it is possible we can continue without serious disruption. The USGS says world oil production can continue increasing at least until 2030 by known and likely reserves.

Still the fact that we use so much more than most of the rest of the world to me suggests we've got the most to lose if there's problems with the production and distribution system.

The U.S. has a "Strategic Petroleum Reserve", to handle disruptions, now "topped off" at just uder 700Mbbl.
http://www.energybulletin.net/3544.html

Given US consumption is about 21Mbbl/day that reserve is worth 33 days of US consumption. Of course a total disruption is unlikely. Say a 10% disruption can be subsidied for 330 days, almost a year. But given we now import something like 2/3 of our consumption, a mere 10% drop is not unreasonable. Of course conservation can play a bigger effect in the short run for oil consumption - and a 20% drop there alone might be done with a combination of pricing and rationing.

It is hurtful to my sensibility to even try to talk calmly about such an unsustainable situation as we've fallen into.

If we go back to 1970, the year that U.S. Oil production peaked, we muddled through a decade of high prices that resulted from the end of our "monopoly" on setting world oil prices. Probably that's the most fundamental reason of "Why us?" since we were first to widely exploit oil, along with large reserves to consume and sell before our peak.

We had an out then, expanding our imports. It was a little scary. President Nixon was worried about national security over oil dependency. President Carter suggested the U.S. stop increasing our consumption of oil and conserve what we had left. But all those fears were lost into the 1980's when oil prices plummeted from oversupply.

It seems to me that the flood of cheap oil in the 1980s and 1990s acted as a low-cost energy source for a world-wide economic engine. So country after country looked at the U.S. as a model and in trying to copy our success, they began their own exponential growth in consumption of oil.

People are now worried about China's massive growth in oil consumption and imports, but they are still below a quarter of U.S. gross consumption with 4 times our population.

It would seem to me that the U.S. lead the growth of oil consumption, and now we ought to lead the decline. I mean in the heroic sense of being trail-blazers. But power is hard to give up, and so our share of the oilpie is in decline at least, and we're mostly just hoping for something else to come along.

I'm afraid that I'm a follower of the Carter approach. Given predictions of oil demand exceeding supply within zero to 20 years, I say too much is at stake to risk an uncontrolled failure of our economy from an oil crisis. I'm on the side of Richard Heinberg, author of Powerdown, that the most sane solution is to voluntarily reduce our consumption.

Challenges of "Global Warming" were not enough for the U.S. to consider reducing our consumption of fossil fuels. Why should risks of shortages get our attention any better?

I continue to believe the strongest reaction is conservation in the short term, and I'd support much higher federal gasoline taxes as the most powerful incentive. We know prices will increase in the fuure, so the best preparation is to "pay ourselves" for our consumption, and invest the money back into our country to rebuild our lifestyles in ways that reduce our dependence upon cheap energy.

As an intellectual, the solution is obvious. As a politician's power in a democracy, I can see any proposals that have a direct impact on people's freedom and power will be resisted. How do you sell "powerdown" to an unwilling democracy? The answer is education as always, but it is an uphill fight, and like global warming, when people are asked to sacrifice, they'll want hard evidence, and although the "trends" are solid, the future is not. There's no way to escape a hope that tomorrow the next great thing won't propell us past the fossil fuel age into Star Trek and Jetson worlds of the future.

No one talks about energy limitations in science fiction, do they?

I was raised to see great technological progress. This computer I tap away at now was a dream 50 years ago. The internet is barely a decade old, a world wide data communication network. The possibilities seem endless. Will we be halted in our tracks for lack of a little energy?

I'm not quite as pessimistic as Jim Kunstler, author of The Long Emergency, is over our future. I accept a fair chance that humanity will one day be able to support 6 billion people on earth without fossil fuels. But I'm sure we're not there, and convinced no one sees that path. I accept an even bet that the world population in 50 years may plummet due to our environmental destruction and depletion of our energy sources that keep our economy humming. That 50 years is within my potential lifetime, god willing. Will I be a survivor or a victim in this new world that will be created?

I accept the philospophy that culture changes through Memes http://memes.org - ideas are formed that promote successful and that success allows it to be reproduced, just like genes are passed on, until some more successsful meme takes over, or the original meme causes side effects (pollution of any sort) that destroy the followers. Something like that, a bad attempt, but I'm thinking specifically about the "decision" for humanity to "industrialize" by abundant fuels and mechanization of physical work. It was a "good idea" in the sense of producing success, but the consequences of our dependence allowed our population to grow beyond alternative lifestyles, and now we're stuck. The spiral went up for 200 years, along with the growth of the US, and now we're heading into a downward spiral, unless we can change direction somehow.

My certainty is based on sustainability arguments. I think Einstein said "You can't solve a problem with the same consciousness that created it." I don't see modern culture as being capable of "powering down". We are only capable of looking up at the next solution that fits our demands. I'm SURE such vision means our next step, if successful, can at best move us one step further away from sustainability. My assumption is based on the idea that life ought to be powered by solar energy. All science fiction assumes we are not limited to solar power, and that fiction is directly based on the modern industrial memes that we've developed over the decades.

In my mind, whether we fall next year, or in 30 years, it is certainty. I'm okay if we want to challenge other energy sources, like fusion, but we shouldn't depend on success there.

I guess my main question relates to the fear that "Given an unfair advantage in the past, in the world oil consumption, why should we expect to continue this advantage?"

Fairness is not an objective term in any real measure. I suggest fairness (fair share) as possible tools to help give context to our dilemma.

Specifically, consider the US has 5% of the world's people, and consume 25% of the world's oil each year. A "fair-minded" person might say we're better off reducing our consumption to a world average. Even assuming world oil production would maintain itself, much less fall as peak oil theory predicts, that means th US must reduce our consumption by a factor of 5. To me that sets an arbitrary goal, even if still unsustainable. At least in the process of challenging the goal, we will be closer to the solution than if we wait for a crisis to force it upon us.

Even the Kyoto signing nations, fighting global warming have much more modest goals, many just holding consumption (CO2 production) constant, much less claiming a desire to reduce by factor of 5!

Where's the incentive to "give up" a hard earned "market share"? It is communistic to suggest "people are equal" and poor people in Africa or India ought to be considered equally to our own needs.

I promote higher gasoline taxes to reduce consumption, but I fully admit it seems unlikely to reduce consumption to the degree I suggest without completely destroying the economy as we know it. In my mind there is no timescale that a "controlled powerdown" will be fast enough to deal with peak oil. Still, again and again, whatever CAN be done, should, and we'll have a smaller distance to fall later.

It is at least interesting to imagine "what we should do", and still wonder if I'd have the heart to follow through, even on my own.

Life is short - enjoy it! The future will take care of itself, right?

Prolife Triumph?

Groups like Planned Parenthood see the appointment of John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme court will tip the balance against the 1973 Roe vs Wade decision that legalized abortion.

I must admit I don't have much "fight" in me. I'm tempted to say to the Prolife Conservatives, "Okay, you win. Whatever." and see what happens.

Things go in cycles and it seems the current cycle gives advantage to the "opposition".

I sort of felt that way with Bush's re-election as well. Let the bastard destroy what he can, and they're responsible for the results.

Not a very progressive position, surrender, but HELL, what's a person supposed to do - be a full time activist?!

It seems to me that "Saving Roe" takes too damn much energy, and there's more secure fights available.

I suppose I can't help but believe there will be new restrictions on abortion "rights" as new cases arise to the highest court, but it seems inconceivable that the court would fully reverse itself.

I can imagine a reverse might take the form of moving the debate back to the states, and each state can fight on their own. That wouldn't seem a great loss. I mean it seems fully unlikely for a 50 state consensus to come against lawful abortion.

Maybe it would be horrible, with wide and deep conflicts erupting state by state.

I just can't fight this one.

Bomber for babies

With all the attention on the Muslim suicide bombers and terrorism, it's valuable to me to hear of another religious fanatic willing to kill for his cause.

See article pasted below.

On the surface cases like this are great for feelings of moral superiority of the average reader. Most all of us can look face-to-face with an unrepentant murderer and claim we're against that. And, unlike many murder cases, like O.J., we have the satisfaction of a confession to close our heart to his suffering.

On the other hand, I wonder if perhaps such characters, expressing their hatred so openly, so full of self-righteous anger, if he could become a martyr for other would-be executioners still on the fence.

On first reading, certainly cases like this are cases where I think the death penalty is best applied. Self-confessed murders can be safely killed and the world will no longer need to deal with his insanity.

But I have to agree with the life imprisonment as a better punishment. God works in mysterious ways, at least to the living, and so as long as we can keep him from killing others, I prefer giving him the chance to yet be a teacher for the world. I mean we'll letting him continue to have a choice, whether to repent or not.

He is a "living experiment" on how individuals account for their actions. I accept the "road less traveled" in this case is for him to reflect on his morality and come to a different conclusion than the one that lead to his actions.

Overall I have more appreciation for someone honest and open in his hatred, than someone who tries to "be judge" and desire no accountability for his decisions to a greater power.

I'm not saying he "wanted to be accountable", but given society forced it on him, he might have continued to maintain his innocence despite all evidence. Instead he took the power offered, the public stage to present his views. So that helps us be sure we were right, and helps him offer his politics.

Of course Christianity of Jesus says "He who is without sin may cast the first stone." Jesus offered lots of challenging advice. I guess in this case, that would support imprisonment over death.

For me the interesting question is how the prolife supporters view this man. Of course there's 100 million opinions perhaps, but overall I wonder will he be viewed as a crusader for God's justice? Will people seek him out? Perhaps if he's gifted, and he sounds not without intelligence, he could write a book about his actions and views. I wouldn't have anything against such a book being written, not because I'd agree with anything he'd say, but because again it's an open challenge to society and he's got nothing left to hide. Of course, I'd assume it would be illegal for him to profit from book sales.

I ought to be more sympathetic to the police officer killed and the maimed nurse. Yes, I ought to be sympathetic about many horrors committed against people I don't personally know. In this level, I'm with the murderer, the monster, seeing it as a political act, rather than a personal one.

There is a truth that if enough people were willing to kill to prevent abortion, that it would most surely have an effect on abortion. Of course most of all it might have an effect of moving it underground - same thing as it being outlawed. And I guess some of that has already occured, with the number of abortion clinics available greatly reduced. Certainly were I a doctor who performed abortions, I'd have some fear for my life, and I'm not sure I'd stick with it, if another option opened for me to serve.

I wonder - If I was prolife, AND I wanted to talk with this man, if I wanted to learn from him, would that make me partially responsible for his actions? (Or someone else who may follow?)

The "moral" approach it seems to me would be to play his game in reverse. In order to be "good" I am forced to condemn his actions, and ideally keep him from communication from anyone who would support his agenda.

You could say he is a "prisoner of war", because he has declared war on Law and Order. Maybe the term is meaningless for citizens. He's ready to start the revolution on a single issue, and trash all goodness on the unlikely belief that the world will be a better place when he's done.

For me, I might imagine being a revolutionary, but I have a hard time imagining the outcome. Even if I thought legalized abortion needed to be stopped, I ultimately don't believe I can kill enough people to stop it. I don't know how killing people will teach those I don't kill to play by my rules. Ultimately the only successful revolution is one that is willing to kill everyone who isn't 100% behind your cause.

There are times and places where I can imagine killing may be necessary, even actions that knowingly risk killing people who did not deserve to be killed.

I suppose I could get myself into a real revolution. I basically surrender the abortion issue because ultimately it is a self-destructive act. Basically, I'd rather have dead babies, than crack babies, or abused babies, or neglected babies. I surrender saving babies unless I'm willing to devote my life to saving babies that are not aborted.

My imagined revoltion would probably be more of the Indiginous People sort. Where "The Machine" or "The Beast" (if you like christian cult language) of greater culture tries to take away or destroy something held sacred by a smaller group of people trying to defend what they have.

The small defending themselves against the strong is the only noble battle. Of course I'd as much prefer the "Nonviolent resistance" experiment of Ghandi or MLK. Dying can be heroic, but killing never is.

Unfortunately such fantasy puts me at odds with my society. Since I work for "The Machine", everything the machine does is in part in my name, and I am a part of the violence in the world for my cooperation. I am properly bribed to keep my month shut.

For me, I can associate more on the big stuff than the little stuff, you like forests versus babies. We can grow new babies faster than we can recover old growth forests, and MUCH faster than we can recover the fossil fuels we consume.

I'm all for the brave defending-the-homeland revolutionaries out there who don't want their lands to be exploited for oil. Money earned from oil is like money earned from gambling - it is "not ours" unless we can replace it for future generations. AND I know money power is a positive loop that can't help but be corrupting to everything it touches.

For myself, I'd move away from oil rich lands rather than fight to protect them, but some people will fight.

Admittingly I don't have the heart for revolution, for what it takes to succeed, and I don't really believe it can succeed ultimately.

I suppose a part of me lives with the Gods of Mother Nature. To see a hurricane destroy homes and kill people is horrible, but a part of me says "Go Mom!" we are most of the time arrogant and ignorant, and we think we're in control. I sort of like it when that illusion of control evaporates, even for a day, and we have to step back and reassess our ambitions and vision for what life is about.

So perhaps I see "Mr. Bomber for Babies" as such a force of nature. Ultimately he is just a tiny force, like a raindrop. Whether he precedes the storm beginning or end I don't know.

****************************************
http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/5512631.html

Abortion clinic bomber gets life term
July 19, 2005 RUDO0719

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — An unrepentant Eric Rudolph declared Monday that abortion must be fought with "deadly force'' as a judge sentenced him to life in prison for setting off a remote-controlled bomb at an abortion clinic that killed an off-duty police officer and maimed a nurse.

"Children are disposed of at will,'' the 38-year-old Rudolph said, jabbing the air in a speech that echoed a rambling manifesto he issued in April when he pleaded guilty to four bombings in all, including the blast at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. "The state is no longer the protector of the innocents.''

Rudolph's fiery statement came as his victims confronted him court, branding the anti-abortion extremist a cowardly "monster'' and recalling how their lives were devastated by the 1998 clinic bombing in Birmingham.

"It gives me great delight to know you are going to spend the rest of your life sitting in an 8-by-12 box,'' said the clinic's director, Diane Derzis.

Under a plea bargain that spared him a death sentence, Rudolph received two life sentences without parole for the Birmingham bombing. Next month, he will receive two more life terms for the deadly Olympic bombing and two other attacks in Atlanta.

Rudolph spent more than five years on the run in the North Carolina wilderness, employing the survivalist techniques he learned as a soldier. He was captured in 2003 while scavenging for food behind a grocery store.

When it was his turn to speak Monday, Rudolph angrily lashed out at abortion and the Birmingham clinic.

"What they did was participate in the murder of 50 children a week,'' he said, shackled at the ankles and wearing a red jail uniform. "Abortion is murder and because it is murder I believe deadly force is needed to stop it.''

Emily Lyons, the nurse wounded by his bomb, said Rudolph was nothing but a coward.

"When it was your turn to face death you weren't so brave again,'' Lyons said in a forceful voice, occasionally looking across the aisle at Rudolph. "You want to see a monster, all you have to do is look in the mirror.''

The bombing also killed police officer Robert "Sande'' Sanderson outside the New Woman All Women clinic. Sanderson's widow, speaking with Rudolph to her back, told the court she will "never forget the look on my son's face when I told him Sande was gone.''

"I want to tell you there is no punishment in my opinion great enough for Eric Rudolph. When Eric Rudolph leaves this earth and has to face final judgment, I'm going to leave the final judgment in God's hand,'' she said.

Seated at the defense table, Rudolph nodded in agreement.

Lyons was wounded by flying nails and other shrapnel. She has undergone 21 operations, lost her left eye and has scars on her arms and legs. She is no longer able to work.

But she said Rudolph failed to deter her or the work of the women's clinic.

"I faced five pounds of dynamite and hundreds of nails yet I survived,'' she said. "Do I look afraid? You damaged my body, but you did not create the fear you sought.''

Rudolph faces sentencing Aug. 22 in Atlanta for the Olympic bombing, which killed one woman and injured more than 100 other people, and for 1997 bombings at an abortion clinic and a gay bar in Atlanta.
****************************************

Government shutdown thoughts

Greetings y'all from the great state of Minnesota!

Our state government has been on "shutdown" status since July 1, due to the failure to agree on a balanced budget plan.

Myself, I was camping at Gooseberry State Park from June 26- July 1, and would have lost our last day of camping, except for a quick bill to keep the state parks open over the 4th of July weekend. (I'm not sure of the details of the bill)

The only apparent shutdown I saw was the rest stops along 35 were all closed. I guess licensing departments are also closed.

Looking online I find:
http://www.governor.state.mn.us/
Looks like the State Park bill is a permanent one for parts of the government - AGRICULTURE, ENVIRONMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BILL. The bill keeps state parks open and provides money for farm and job-training programs ( Senate File 69)

Main information at:
http://www.doer.state.mn.us/shutdown/

With closed list:
http://www.doer.state.mn.us/shutdown/pdfs/closed.pdf
****

Agency Discontinued Services & Public Impact

Education

1. State and federal funding for libraries would be delayed.
   
2. State funding for early childhood programs, including ECFE, would be
   delayed.
   
3. State and federal adult basic grants and aid would be delayed.
   

Health

1. Suspend grants to local public health agencies
   

Public Safety

1. Suspend issuing new drivers licenses and driver testing.
   
2. Administrative support and training for troopers will be reduced.
   
3. Most vehicle title processing will be delayed.
   
4. Internal investigations delayed.
   

Transportation

1. Slow or no response on all maintenance activities.
   
2. Rest areas will be closed, affecting July 4th holiday travelers.
   
3. Suspend message boards & traffic information for motorists.
   

****
Compare to "open" list:
http://www.doer.state.mn.us/shutdown/pdfs/open.pdf

Overall a rather short list being closed.

I am overall glad for at least some accountability with the shutdown process. I'm glad states are required to balance their budgets - unlike the federal government. Admittingly it has little affect on me in the short term. I dislike the wastefulness of the process, but it seems necessary to do something.

I don't know who I ought to "blame" on this shutdown. I don't have any immediate desire to "throw the bums out" for failing to pass a budget. There's strong opinions out there for direction and all sides surely have some strengths to have a place in the decision. I suppose we might have as easily been like the federal government where one party controls all 3 branches - Senate/House/Governor, and then we'd have a very efficient process perhaps - steamrolling opposition.

I'm glad the DFL is there in the Senate to oppose the Governor's Gambling expansion plans, even if perhaps a good number of republicans might equally have strong feelings against it.

I'm gratified there was a $0.10/gallon gas tax passed, even if the governor vetoed it. It shows recognition for our needs for government funding for transportation. This amazing step shows something has changed in the consciousness of the representatives over previous years.

I don't support the Governor's pledge to the Tax Payers League against raising taxes. Clearly the governor made a foolish mistake, one that he can't easily squirm out of without looking foolish. I do appreciate some of his willingness to look foolish.

Looking at the Tax Payers League website:
http://www.taxpayersleague.org/issues/pr_display.php?rid=304 Article from Mark Buesgens, R-Jordan, Minnesota House of Representatives

$1.4 billion desired by the DFL sounds like a rather big number for a state of ~5 million people, extra ~$280/person/year perhaps. Maybe $1000/family?

I really try to see "both sides", and hope for room for compromise. The "smaller government" movement is played on the "my money" card. Somehow the republicans have to convince people that their taxes are "too high". They also have to convince people that it is "unfair" to demand higher income people pay a higher rate for their taxes on the grounds that such people are the movers and shakers of the state and they'll do their moving and shaking elsewhere unless we keep their taxes low.

I'm unmoved by arguments that I pay too much in taxes, or that it is unfair for wealthy people to pay more. I am more concerned on long term trends and I do accept that there needs to be debate on what functions a government ought to perform and how they will be funded.

I'm unmoved by the "nanny state" diatribe against social programs. I do accept that there are long term consequences of our programs that need to be addressed. If we're unsure whether such programs are sustainable in the long term, we ought to consider whether it's better now to "ween" ourselves from them, even if they are still within the "affordability" of a wealthy and prosperous state.

Overall I think the republicans for the moment must give in to the DFL positions that increase some taxes to cover maintaining current programs. The republicans have made their point crystal clear that they represent smaller government. So it's up to "the people" to see if they agree next election cycle and dump the DFL majority in the senate, and raise the republican margin in the house, as well as keeping the Governorship.

Why should the republicans compromise now? Because people like me exist who believe that a strong state is supported by a strong set of social programs, and who are willing to pay more to keep it.

It would be nice to be nonpartisan and say the democrats also need to compromise. They do! But they have the more noble side in the short term. Our tax rates were lowered in 2000 when we thought we had a surplus. Well, what harm does it do to raise them now (for everyone) back to the old rates?

YES, trouble is a'brewing in our future, and that trouble will as likely as not require much greater costs than our current shortfalls. YES, increasing government now will make future cuts even more harsh when they come.

I'm "long term" all the way in policy, but for the moment I only accept "shrink the government" as a scare tactic to keep the system fearful enough that people will get a clue and not assume we'll always have what we have now.

I don't believe there are many people who will choose to move to Wisconsin to reduce their income taxes. I think we've got a good place here, more than enough to attract good people to our state.

And on the shutdown?

Ugh, come on Reps, you've got the upper hand. You've made your point, but lets move on and get a compromise budget that is honest and free from undue ideological blindnesses.

Please?