McCain and Obama Talk Science

–Lauren M. Ruhland, 2008 MCPP intern & editor, MichiganScience

Last year, a group of citizens interested in science decided to invite the major party candidates to an independent debate on science and technology policy and founded Sciencedebate 2008 in the process.  Both Barack Obama and John McCain declined to debate the issues face-to-face, but each agreed to answer Sciencedebate’s 14-question survey on topics ranging from national defense and health care to innovation and the state of the world’s oceans.  Among the highlights:

On innovation: Obama says he would increase science funding and funding to Science/Technology/Engineering/Mathematics (STEM) education, citing our technology trade deficit with China as a symptom of problems with the current system.  McCain emphasizes the “well-established entrepreneurial spirit and creativity of America’s thinkers and tinkerers,” but also promises funding hikes for research in growing fields like nanotech.  He would also create a White House Science and Technology Advisor to guide the nation’s science policy.

On climate change: Both candidates support a cap-and-trade system to manage carbon emissions.  Obama says he would work with the United Nations and fellow G8 members to address the issue; McCain would institute big incentives for the development of zero-emission autos.

On education: Obama and McCain both want to spend more money educating America’s schoolchildren, who lag far behind their peers in math and science.  Specifically, both hope to increase teacher pay in order to attract more qualified science teachers.

The whole thing is pretty long, but it provides a lot of insight into the policies that could come into effect under either of the likely next Presidents.  Both McCain and Obama suggested spending increases or expansion of current programs in almost every question.

The Free Market is Smarter than I

Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern

I find the free market fascinating because, many times, it offers valuable solutions that we are difficult to see.   I was introduced to yet another great free market solution when I read an essay written by Peter Leeson titled Do Markets Need Government? The essay illustrates a true story that takes place in pre-colonial Africa.

Angolia, in the late 19th century, was a large exporter of beeswax, ivory, and wild rubber.  The trade consisted of two groups, the buyers and sellers.  The buyers were the European middlemen who hired agents to collect the goods.  The sellers were the local Angolians.  The European agents were armed and traveled in large caravans while the local producers lived in small villages and were often unarmed.  Despite the fact that the Europeans had a power advantage over the locals, trade still existed.

There were times, however, that the European agents would kill off villages and steal all of the goods rather than paying.  At this point in time, there was no government to intervene in these affairs.  How could the free market solve a criminal problem such as this without a court system or police force?  The free market solution happens to be very simple and does not require huge monetary costs.  A typical government solution requires large sums of monetary value to create courts, jails, and police.
Continue reading

Prior Proper Planning…

Lauren Ruhland, 2008 MCPP intern

In the wake of Hurricane Gustav, the Department of Energy says it may be willing to open up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to alleviate a potential “economically-threatening disruption” in the oil supply and a subsequent increase in fuel prices.  Given that the SPR exists and this is its stated purpose, I guess it could make sense for them to act right now.

Unfortunately, they can’t do it.  The system designed to provide the country with petroleum in times of emergency is inaccessible during a power outage, and electricity hasn’t been restored yet.

As the folks over at Knowledge Problem point out, both threats to the oil supply and big power outages are fairly rare.  “If the two kinds of events were uncorrelated, then simultaneous power outages and economically-threatening disruptions in oil supplies would unlikely in the extreme,” they write. “But the two kinds of events are not uncorrelated, obviously.”  There are generators at the site, but they aren’t powerful enough to pump oil out of reservoirs.

Mayor rated low, but DPS worse

–Lauren Ruhland, 2008 MCPP intern

If you didn’t get one of the 25 seats reserved for members of the public at the governor’s removal hearing for Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick this morning, the whole thing is being streamed on the Free Press’s website.

To coincide with the hearing, the business organization Detroit Renaissance released a poll of city voters’ opinions on different current and potential governmental leaders and city institutions.  A whopping 80% of Detroiters are dissatisfied with the direction the city is heading, and almost as many (73%) view the mayor unfavorably.  69 percent of respondents think Kilpatrick ought to resign.

Despite their largely unfavorable impression of the mayor, only 69.5% consider his performance to be “fair” or “poor.”  Contrast that with their rating of the performance of Detroit Public School board– 89.5% place it in those two categories.

In other words, an alleged perjurer, facing ten felony counts ranging from obstruction of justice to assault, who is being called to resign by two out of three constituents, is still percieved to be doing his job more effectively than the city’s school board.

Is Bringing jobs to Michigan a Worthy Goal?

Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern

In Michigan, it seems that all we hear about on the news is the great jobs Jennifer Granholm brings to Michigan.  I find it puzzling, however, that we still have an unemployment rate that is significantly higher than the national average.  If Governor Granholm actually brought jobs to Michigan, I would expect our unemployment rates to fall, not rise.

This “creation” of jobs reminded me of an article I recently read by Isaac Morehouse.  It goes to show that perhaps Granholm (and others like her) do not wield the magic power to create jobs out of thin air.  Perhaps she is using scarce resources (tax money) that could be used more efficiently elsewhere.  The article shows that we should not be focused on the creation of jobs, as it does not create wealth.  Wealth is what raises every citizens standard of living and provides what is demanded.  Wealth, in its simplest form, is goods and services.  If Michigan were to produce what was actually demanded by the market, we would be much better off.