Press-Citizen's Casino; Gazette's E-Frosty

Like Navin Johnson (Steve Martin's character in the movie, "The Jerk") discovered about the guy who guesses your weight at the carnival, the newspaper business is also "a profit deal."

It's not easy juggling balanced journalism and commercial promotion. And with circulation dropping, in part because the younger generation hasn't picked up the newspaper habit, the profit deal has become less profitable. Many newspapers believe they can no longer live out the old publisher's creed: "We aim to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." It's the comforable who are paying the bills.

Nonetheless, it's fair to watch, and comment upon, how they manage that balance.

Today's blog entry builds on and refers to a number of earlier ones. Here are three:

"Press-Citizen: Promoting Casino Gambling?" August 28, 2006

"Gazette Shames Press-Citizen," August 31, 2006

"Mr. Editor, tear down this wall!" August 8, 2006 (the vanilla Frosty essay)

The Press-Citizen's Casino

This morning's Iowa City Press-Citizen (September 14) is once again in the casino promotion business. And, once again, it is even promoting its promotion. Not just page one "above the fold" but page one above the name of the paper: "GO; JAYWALK TO CASINO, 'Tonight Show' host to perform."

Once again, in its efforts to encourage their readers to take up -- or expand -- their gambling habit, to take ever more of their money to Riverside, Iowa, and leave it in the slot machines and on the tables of the Riverside Casino, the paper has devoted both the cover, and the center spread, of its entertainment "Go" section to promote the Riverside Casino. The cover is a huge picture of Leno -- not incidentally the same photo exactly that is also used in the Casino's ads for this event.

But if this is further enriching the Press-Citizen it's not with money coming through the advertising department -- at least not yet. My early morning foggy eye saw not one line of advertising for the casino.

So what is it with the Press-Citizen and gambling?

The Gazette, by contrast, has not one line -- even in its detailed "Calendar" portion of its "Go" equivalent, called "Weekend!" -- devoted to the Jay Leno $120/$100 appearance (that I could find), though it does mention (in a very small type "Calendar" entry) that Jason Brown will be playing in the Casino's lounge that evening.

Unlike the Press-Citizen, The Gazette has succeeded in getting the Casino to part with the cost of the quarter-page ad displayed at the bottom of The Gazette's p. 7A. So it's not even clear that the Press-Citizen's strategy, if that it be, is either necessary or working.

The Gazette ad, in the smallest type that could be found in the shop, concludes -- like a drug company commercial with happy, smiling, healthy patients that must go on to list the most horrible side effects that may be your fate if you use the medicine -- "You must be 21 or older. Bet with your head not over it. NEED HELP? Call 1-800-BETS-OFF." (This under the suggestion that you should "Live it up!".)

The Press-Citizen's center spread is an interview with Jay Leno. Given that he's the host of a highly rated late night talk show, that would be a legitimate piece (by U.S. journalistic standards).

Don't get me wrong, I think it's great the Press-Citizen reports on Iowa City's creative community, and reviews shows -- most of which involve non-profit, or at least very low profit, venues.

But in this case the reason the Press-Citizen is doing it, and Leno consented to it, at this time -- or at least the effect of the paper's doing it with such an over-the-top cover and spread -- is to encourage more readers to go to the Casino.

There are potential stories here -- which are not explored.

In the interview, the Press-Citizen asks: "Ticket prices are $100 and $120 here. Is that your normal?"

Leno responds: "I don't know actually. It does seem high. I don't know what to tell you there. . . . [We're not told whether the ". . ." represents a pause in his response or a deletion of a part of his answer.] That has got nothing to do with me." Deanna Truman-Cook, "Jaywalk to Casino; Leno Brings His Act to Iowa," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 14, 2006, p. 8D.

Jay Leno thinks the ticket prices do "seem high" but "that has got nothing to do with" him?!

From where within the gambling industry did this invitation come? Why is Jay Leno in Riverside, Iowa? Who is setting those prices? And why?

Is this part of a marketing and publicity ploy for the casino -- to give the appearance that its ability to draw top national talent, Vegas-like, will continue, that this is the kind of place, and entertainment, for which one should expect to pay $100 or more? A kind of big opening splash?

The business story is also interesting. What is the capacity of the casino's large performance hall? How many $120 and $100 tickets have actually been sold? That is, is there a market among Iowans for this kind of pricey entertainment? Is this a part of "economic development" for Iowa; if so, how much of that $120 stays in Iowa and how much goes back to California -- or Nevada? (Recall the song lyric: "all the gold in California, is in a bank in Beverly Hills in somebody else's name"?)

Saturday afternoon, will the hall be filled with guests who've paid the full fare, or will it be filled at the last moment with complementary tickets for the investors and influencials who celebrated the casino's opening a couple of weeks ago?

The Gazette's E-Frosty

When is a story about a new product legitimate journalism, and when is it unabashed "product placement," publicity, promotion serving the same function as advertising (though not identified as such), whether or not it is paid for under the table or otherwise? (See
"Mr. Editor, tear down this wall!" August 8, 2006 (the vanilla Frosty essay).)

It's not an easy call.

I thought The Gazette's promotion of Wendy's vanilla Frosty was well over the top by anyone's standards (as well as offensive in its description of women).

But what about today's story (from the McClatchy-Tribune News Service) that, with picture, takes up most of the front page of the "Accent" section: Craig Crossman, "Virtual Keyboard is So Cool, You'll Have to Have One," The Gazette, September 14, 2006, p. 3D?

Clearly (to me), an unbiased comparative review of a number of similar products (e.g., PDAs, digital cameras, iPod-like devices) can perform a real function for consumers as well as being an interesting news story for those trying to keep up with new technology and what it can and can't do.

When only a single product is reviewed the balance between journalism and advertising becomes more problematical.

Another clue is the writer's enthusiasm (as was the case with the vanilla Frosty, which was said to be "beyond awesome" to the level of "uber-awesome").

To put this keyboard in perspective, it's priced at $189.95. Best Buy has a keyboard and optical mouse combination for $29.95, and I've bought keyboards alone for as little as $10.00. So selling this thing for $189.95 is going to require a really powerful sales pitch.

Craig Crossman does his best to provide it.

Crossman uses language like: "just plain amazing, and it really doesn't matter whether it will be practical or even useful," "this is something you're going to use because it will grab everyone's attention when they see you using it" -- now that's a really good reason for parting with our money for something that may not be practical or useful; and then, to make sure we got the message, he concludes -- "it's going to make you the center of attention when you use it."

And that's why I call the The Gazette's piece about the Bluetooth Laser Virtual Keyboard its "E-Frosty" story of the morning.

Mid-Week Update, Rain Forest, Etc.

A combination of things have slowed blogging, and the usual Monday morning rain forest update: travel to New York with the usual airline hassles (14 hours from NY to CR), 9/11, the school board election (yesterday), and classes to prepare for today and tomorrow, along with all the usual, accumulated, daily flow.

The NYC speech. It keeps getting revised and uploaded, primarily with additional footnotes. "General Semantics, Terrorism and War" is available at http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/writing/nysgs908.html.

Rain Forest. There's no decision yet from the rain forest board (so far as I know), but there are some stories out there to report. Once I get beyond this week I'll try to catch up on all of them and post the update next Monday.

Garchik. Sam turned in an extraordinarily impressive performance on his short fuse (couple weeks), no funds, no yard signs, virtually no issues, write-in campaign for ICCSD school board. What does it say about community support for the board that far less than 5% of eligible voters bother to vote at all, and that the incumbent got as few votes as she did against a last-minute write-in? The precise count on the write-in votes is going on today (September 13).

"Where's My Picture?" The latest email from the Harkin camp makes no mention of the $1000 photo op, or the benefits provided for those less well off and only able to pony up $300. See Nicholas Johnson, "Hat's Off to Senator Dvorsky," August 29, 2006. Just $25 for a steak and a chance to see Senators Harkin and Obama. That sounds a little more reasonable, especially with a meal included and Obama's aura.

Harkin promises that "several thousand" of his "closest friends from Iowa and across the country" will be at what is now a "grassroots political event" and Senator Obama, we are told "is looking forward to shaking hands all 'round." (Imagine how many hands he'd have to shake if Senator Harkin's acquaintances also showed up!)

But inquiring minds want to know: Is the photo op still on? Has it been cancelled? If the tickets are $30 at the gate and $25 only if purchased in advance will the photo op also be 20% more ($1200) if purchased at the gate? And, if it's been cancelled, will those $1000 donors get their money (at least $975) back?

I won't be there, but Harkin puts on a good party; with a break in the weather it sounds like it will be an entertaining afternoon with a couple of great senators, and bound to produce some rousing speeches.

They're making an effort to have it blogged live (maybe with Sam Garchik), so perhaps we can follow it online.

Voting for Garchik

The election for Iowa City Community School District board members is tomorrow, Tuesday, September 12.

Some of those who've indicated a desire to vote for Sam Garchik, thinking him probably the greatest chance to infuse creative and constructive new thinking into the present school board, have asked how to go about it.

Here are some suggestions.

1. If you feel like you need to learn more about him, look at his Iowa City Press-Citizen election op ed column, "Garchik Steps Up as Write-In Candidate," September 8, 2006. You might also want to look over his campaign literature contained within Nicholas Johnson, "Sam Garchik: 'What's He Stand For?" August 30, 2006.

2. Make sure you know where to vote. If you have questions as to where that might be, check out the Johnson County Auditor's "September 12, 2006 School Election" Web page at http://www.johnson-county.com/auditor/voter/0609sch.htm

NOTE THAT "SCHOOL POLLING PLACES" ARE OFTEN DIFFERENT FROM YOUR REGULAR POLLING PLACE. (But you can quickly and easily determine from the Web page where your "school polling place" is.)

3. (a) Write Sam's name on a piece of paper and take it with you into the voting booth. He is a "write-in" candidate. What that means is that his name will not be on the ballot. You will, quite literally, need to write his name on the ballot in the space provided. And while very minor misspellings may not invalidate your vote, clearly the more accurate you can be the better.

(b) Please note that YOUR VOTE WILL NOT COUNT UNLESS you not only write "Sam Garchik" on the write-in line provided, but ALSO fill in the bubble in front of his name. (Writing his name only indicates he's your candidate; filling in the bubble indicates you're voting for him.)

I can't tell you how or why to vote, but I can suggest a way to think about the strategy for increasing the effectiveness of your vote if you are interested in giving Sam a real opportunity to win in this uphill write-in campaign.

4. The two candidates (a) whose names are the only ones on the ballot, (b) have widespread name identification among the voters, and (c) have the support of a major voting block, and otherwise go into this election with an overwhelming advantage. Given the number of letters to the editor supporting both of them, it would appear that block is supporting both. Nonetheless, some voters will, undoubtedly, split their vote (giving one vote to Sam), or vote for only one of the two on the ballot.

Given these disadvantages, there is little probability that Garchik can finish in first place. He has to aim to finish second.

Thus, if you vote for Sam -- and one of the other two candidates, whose names are on the ballot -- you are only increasing the likelihood that he will come in third rather than second, and -- since there are only two board positions to fill -- effectively lose the election.

So if you want to make your vote count for Sam Garchik -- rather than just show your support by voting for him as one of your two choices -- you will want to consider only voting for Sam Garchik and not casting your second vote for anyone.

5. Only you can decide whether, and for whom, you want to vote, and how you want to go about that strategically. But if you'd like to see Sam Garchik elected, you might want to keep these considerations in mind.

NYC Speech: "General Semantics, Terrorism and War"

Celebrating the 60th Anniversary of the publication of Wendell Johnson's People in Quandaries, and the creation of the New York Society for General Semantics, Nicholas Johnson was asked to keynote a conference at Fordham University, New York City, September 8, 2006.

"General semantics" was born out of reflection before, during and after World War II regarding the failures of communication, the inability to think rationally about the role of language in affecting human behavior, the role of propaganda, and a rational fear about the potential destruction that would result from an all-out atomic war -- especially one that could have been prevented.

As one general semanticist once put it, the human species is the only species able to talk itself into difficulties that would not otherwise exist.

So it seemed appropriate, for a keynote at a 60th anniversary celebration, to link those beginnings to the way the U.S. administration, military, and others talk about "war" and "terrorism" today.

The lecture is Nicholas Johnson, "General Semantics, Terrorism and War," Fordham University, New York City, September 8, 2006.

"Free" College Education

There are many arguments for free (taxpayer-funded) college education. (See, Diane Heldt, "An 'F' in Affordability; Report Says Iowa Families Devote 'Very Large Share' of Income to College Costs," The Gazette, September 7, 2006, p. 1A.)

1. Americans have historically placed great value on education.

Of course, what "education" referred to evolved over the last couple centuries. Originally a third or fourth-grade edcation was sufficient to gain enough skill at "reading, writing and arithmetic" (referred to as "the 3 R's" -- obviously by those who had a little difficulty with spelling) to work on a farm or at one of the trades.

But over time this was expanded. When and how it was expanded depended on the state, and whether the schools served large urban centers or more sparcely populated rural areas, with their "one-room schools."

Sometimes the minimal education standard has been expressed in years of schooling; other times in terms of years of age of the student -- or some combination of both.

Over time, and with greater industrialization (for one of the primary driving forces behind universal education as always been to serve commerce) the assumed minimum went to six or eight years of schooling, and finally to what we today call "K-12."

The presumption has been that a well-educated citizenry and workforce is of sufficient benefit to all citizens and taxpayers that it is reasonable for all to be assessed the cost of education.

The K-12 minimum has not been further expanded in spite of all the changes in our culture, economy and basic technology during the past 50 years. Today graduate training beyond the four year college degree is required for many jobs. The jobs formerly available for high school graduates -- relatively good paying union jobs in manufacturing -- have been lost to automation and globalization. Taken together, it is not irrational to suggest that -- just as we expanded from 1-8 to K-12 -- the time has come to fund a "K-16" minimum for all: "Free" College Education.

There are many issues and problems with this idea, but I'll discuss a couple of them here -- along with proposed solutions.

2. (a) It will be harder to make the argument that the taxpayers who would be paying for everyone's free college education will receive as much benefit from those expenditures as they do from what they pay to create a community where everyone has the minimum of a K-12 education. (1) The costs are greater per student. (2) The avoidance of the negatives from an uneducated population (i.e., those who do not have a K-12 education; poverty, crime, health care) is a much greater benefit than eliminating the negatives resulting from the absence of a college-educated population. (3) Whereas kids in K-12 have no option to live, and become educated, elsewhere, high school graduates headed for college do have such options. Therefore, the local citizens paying the taxes may never see the direct benefits from the additional education provided to some of the college students who have come from outside the area, and go elsewhere once they graduate.

(b) Everyone benefits economically, personally, from their own education; the more education, on average, the greater the benefits. Thus, while society also benefits from a college-educated population, as it does from a high school educated population, the proportion of that total benefit going to the college-educated student is greater than the benefit going to the high school student. Thus, there is a greater argument for assessing the college student a significant portion, if not all, of the cost of their college education.

3. Precisely because of the increased mobility of students 18 years of age or more, the old K-12 model no longer applies to college. It was not that long ago that many Americans were born, raised, worked and died without ever venturing far from their home county. Those paying for the education of others' children were the social beneficiaries of those tax dollars.

This is not true for college. The "market" for college education is at least regional, and for the most part national.

Thus, it becomes harder to rationalize why the citizens of, say, Iowa should be taxed to pay for the education of students from Illinois. Indeed, given the national job market as well, it doesn't make a lot of sense to even categorize, or think of, students as from "Iowa" or "Illinois." They are, and may even think of themselves, as "from America." They may have grown up in more than one state. They may end up having worked in a half-dozen or more states before they retire.

Given the differences between K-12 and college education, and given this radical change in Americans' mobility, the old "land grant college" model that was such a brilliant innovation in the 19th Century, makes increasingly less sense in the 21st Century.

It is time, once again (as we did with the post-WWII "GI Bill" college education benefits for veterans of that war) to think of college as a national benefit and responsibility. The GI Bill provided the foundation on which America built one of its most impressive periods of economic growth. Free high school education was our strength in the last century; college education can do it again in this century.

4. OK, you say, but how do we fund all of this?

(a) How do we fairly apportion the benefits and costs of an individual's college education? Until the case is made for a more rational allocation, how about 50-50? Here's how it might work. (1) The college education would be "free." (Issues to be resolved: tuition only, or something toward room and board, books, and living expenses as well? Four years maximum, or five and six if necessary to get the degree? Graduate education, too, or just undergraduate?) (2) However, the costs would be tracked, not unlike student loan programs today. (3) One-half of those costs would be paid by taxpayers (as their share of the benefits).

(4) Now for the other half. The other half would come from a revolving fund. That fund would be created and replenished (after an initial "pump-priming" deposit of federal funds) with payments from those who benefited from the program with a free college education. How would the "benefit" to them of that education be calculated and collected? From their report of "adjusted gross income" to the IRS each year. Their contribution to the revolving fund would be a percentage of thier adjusted gross income. This formula eliminates the need to make value judgments about their contribution to the "public welfare." They can take any jobs they please. Someone who becomes teacher for $27,000 a year will pay back less over the course of their lifetime than someone who gets a job in the financial district in Manhattan that pays well over $100,000. No one need take a job that "pays more" just to pay back their student loans; if they earn less they pay less.

5. And the "national" support of higher education? Again, arbitrarily, until a more precise formula can be ascertained, let us say a 50-50 split. (a) A cost per student per year for a college education could be calculated; perhaps the median cost for all state-supported institutions, perhaps something slightly higher than that. (b) One half of that cost would be paid by the revolving fund, described above. (c) The other half could then be split, 50-50, between (1) the state (as its share of the "benefit" to society as a whole within that state) and (2) federal government (as its share of the "benefit" to the entire nation).

6. In Nicholas Johnson, "Choice: 'Tax and Spend' or 'Borrow and Spend'?" September 4, 2006, I tried to make the point that it is more productive to think, analyze and talk in terms of "programs" rather than "taxes." If a tax-supported program pays back, or saves, multiples of what it costs it would be truly foolish not to raise and invest the taxes to produce that gain -- all because of some ideologically-driven aversion to "taxes." If a program costs more than it returns financially, but produces social benefits (say, a "safety-net" program) supported by many, we then have a political issue rather than an economic one; if a majority of the electorate, and their elected representatives, vote for it the program will exist; if not, it won't.

Clearly, everything mentioned in this blog entry requires research, data, best practices, analysis and so forth. I've been specific, not to argue for the specifics I've used, but only to make more understandable the general proposition.

That proposition, if true, is that the benefits of education so far exceed their costs, and the times and needs have sufficiently changed, that Iowans can no longer afford to receive: "A 'F' in Affordbility."

Balance and the Balance of Trade

In Nicholas Johnson, "Ya Don't Play-a Da Game . . .," September 6, 2006, I wrote, in part:

"President Clinton said something to the effect that 'we have more problems than we deserve, and more solutions than we've ever tried.' However important you may think the issues of 'God, guns and gays,' or the 'war on terrorism' (and Iraq), may be, there is a lot more we need to talk about.

"There's no room to list everything, but universal health care (and basic public health measures), reversing the ever-increasing multi-trillion-dollar debt and adverse balance of trade, energy policy (including global warming), and attempting to rebuild positive international relations come immediately to mind as examples." (emphasis supplied)

James Eaves-Johnson soon responded with this comment added to the blog entry:

"Just one comment: There is no such thing as an 'adverse balance of trade.' My household has a so-called 'adverse balance of trade.' I import almost everything and export almost nothing (except occasional 'exports' to Goodwill). Most of my assets are financed with foreign investment (most of my assets being my home, and foreign investment being a mortgage). I am better off for this arrangement. America is too. Do we really want more manufacturing jobs or less foreign investment? I prefer that we have excellent professional services and a high credit rating than a so-called 'favorable balance of trade.'

"Other than that, great piece.
"9/06/2006 10:01:39 AM"

Now I'm grateful for the basically positive "review," and I'm the first to concede I have no credentials as an economist, but a couple days later, going through old papers during a plane ride, I got around to reading the New York Times for September 6 and found that a fellow who does have those credentials seems to share some of my concern.

I don't mean to use this is a "'tis-t'ain't" argument -- like I say, I don't really know what I'm talking about -- but I think the economic condition of the U.S., the significance of our multi-trillion-dollar-debt owned by the Chinese and others, and our "adverse balance of trade," strike me as potentially sufficiently significant that I thought it worthwhile to share this gentleman's insight, and to bring the discussion out of the "comments" portion of the blog and into a new blog entry.

The article is Steven R. Weisman, "U.S. Trade Deficit Is Called a Threat to Global Growth," The New York Times, September 6, 2006, p. C7.

It is largely a report of a speech by the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, Rodrigo deRato. I'll quote just three paragraphs from the story:

"Mr. de Rato's warning about imbalances, one of many from financial experts in recent months, is to be taken up at the annual meeting of the directors of the I.M.F. and the World Bank this month in Singapore.

"The Bush administration has said that while it is concerned about trade and current-account balances, there is no cause for alarm because countries will continue to lend the United States money to finance the deficits.

"But many economists warn that the United States cannot sustain its current $800 billion annual trade deficit, which has led to trillions of dollars in dollar-denominated reserves being held by China and other Asian countries, and by Saudi Arabia and the other major oil producers."

At least he's one economist who seems to feel, contrary to James Eaves-Johnson, that perhaps America is not "better off with this arrangement."

Royal Flush

Joe Sharpnack (http://www.sharptoons.com) nicely captured gambling in his editorial cartoon this morning in The Gazette. With a sign above a toilet reading "The Casino is Open," the instructions involve a two step process: (1) shows a picture of paper money with an arrow pointing into the bowl, and (2) pointing to the flushing handle, on which is hanging a card reading "Thank you! Come again!" The Gazette, September 7, 2006, p. 6A.

Also see, Jim Walters, "Casinos Are for Losers," September 1, 2006, who concludes his column:

"Can you personally afford to gamble? Got enough in the bank to put your kids through college and retire? Paid off that mortgage? Got enough socked away for this winter's heating bills? Ready for the threatened dismemberment of Social Security, Medicare and your pension plan?

"If you're really hard up for casino-style entertainment, here's an idea. Put up some flashing lights in your bathroom. Put on the music of your choice. Get some really nice hors d'oeuvres and mix your own drinks. Now start flushing $20 bills down the toilet. When you've finally had enough "entertainment," at least you can remind yourself that you saved on gas and didn't pollute the environment.

"Casinos are for losers."

Of course, none of this addresses the issues discussed in Nicholas Johnson," Gambling and Paternalism," September 4, 2006: Why should it be anyone's concern (beyond the gambler him or herself) that someone else is flushing $20 bills down the toilet (or down a slot machine)? What is the rationale for public policy concerns about gambling? (This is not to suggest that no such rationale exists, only that the question is one that needs to be addressed.)

Iowa: It's a Big State . . .

. . . but not that big.

WHO Radio reports that the Earthpork board is travelling the state, looking at the sites in Pella and Riverside, and "is expected to announce the location for the project near the end of the month [of September 2006]."

Just how big is Iowa? How long does it take to drive from Pella to Riverside? How long does it take to look at two sites? We've been told the board is travelling together. Do they talk to each other? What are they going to be doing with the next three weeks that will make their decision better at the end of this month?

WHO reports that "one of the obstacles to building has been the ability of local officials to come up with some of the financing for the project."

It's true the project has financial problems. Big, decisive, financial problems. But it's unfair to say it's the fault of "local officials."

The town selected is supposed to come up with $25 million. The project's promoters need to come up with $155 million.

Ironically, the Iowa communities have been able to raise more money, locally, in 10 months than the rain forest's promoters have been able to raise, nationally, in 10 years. (Of course, that's not a very high standard since they've raised nothing. Still, it's necessary to make the point to put things in proper perspective.)

Here's the story:

Site Selection Near for Earth Park
Friday, September 1, 2006

"THE EXECUTIVE BOARD FOR THE 155-MILLION DOLLAR ENVIRONMENTAL LEARNING FACILITY THAT INCLUDES AN INDOOR RAIN FOREST WAS ON THE ROAD THIS WEEK TOURING POTENTIAL BUILDING SITES IN RIVERSIDE AND PELLA. THE CENTRAL IOWA LOCATION IS ACTUALLY ON 70-ACRES NEXT TO LAKE RED ROCK. ONE OF THE OBSTACLES TO BUILDING HAS BEEN THE ABILITY OF LOCAL OFFICIALS TO COME UP WITH SOME OF THE FINANCING FOR THE PROJECT. MARION COUNTY SUPERVISOR SAM NICHOLS SAYS IT IS HIS UNDERSTANDING THAT EVERYTHING AS FAR AS LOCAL GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION IS IN PLACE AND EVERYTHING AS FAR AS THE DEVELOPERS ARE CONCERNED IS IN PLACE. NICHOLS SAYS HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT MORE DEVELOPERS COULD WANT AS A LOCATION FOR THE PROJECT BECAUSE THE SITE NEAR PELLA IS A PERFECT EARTH PARK SETTING. THE EARTH PARK BOARD IS EXPECTED TO ANNOUNCE THE LOCATION FOR THE PROJECT NEAR THE END OF THE MONTH.

WHO Radio, September 1, 2006.

"Ya don't play-a da game . . .

. . . ya don't make-a da rules."

That was the reaction the Des Moines Register's beloved humor columnist Donald Kaul once offered to those religious leaders who practice celebacy but want to regulate the sexual behavior of everyone else. (Kaul's still writing; see Minuteman Media.)

It seems to me applicable to the current flap over Nussle's supposed flip-flop regarding abortion. See, State29, "The Nussle Abortion Thing," September 5, 2006.

(As a grace note, having read Nussle's Project Vote Smart issues survey, I pointed out to a local legislator during Chet Culver's speech at the Iowa City Labor Day Picnic (September 4) that Culver was mistaken in his statement that day that Nussle opposed a woman's right to choose. Nussle responded to the survey that he supported the right to abortion in the first trimester.)

I've expressed in this blog my disappointment with Democrats (and Republicans) who refuse to disclose their positions on the issues to Project Vote Smart and others. See, "Taking a Stand" in Nicholas Johnson, "It's Getting Harder to Be a Democrat," September 1, 2006.

Elections are an opportunity for "continuing education" on the public policy choices confronting our country. See, Nicholas Johnson, "Election as a Civics Class," Des Moines Register, November 6, 2004. Project Vote Smart exists to encourage that education and public dialogue. See, Project Vote Smart.

President Clinton said something to the effect that "we have more problems than we deserve, and more solutions than we've ever tried." However important you may think the issues of "God, guns and gays," or the "war on terrorism" (and Iraq), may be, there is a lot more we need to talk about.

There's no room to list everything, but universal health care (and basic public health measures), reversing the ever-increasing multi-trillion-dollar debt and adverse balance of trade, energy policy (including global warming), and attempting to rebuild positive international relations come immediately to mind as examples.

When candidates deliberately try to avoid the "teachable moments" provided by the campaign season, when they demonstrate their willingness to put their own election or re-election above the interests of the nation (or state), they are doing all of us a grave injustice -- if not, indeed, demonstrating their lack of qualifications to hold office.

At a minimum, when they refuse to participate in Project Vote Smart they should at least have the decency not to attempt to use to their partisan advantage the positions of their opponents who have participated.

"Ya don't play-a da game, ya don't make-a da rules."

The Other (Costly) White Meat

Pork.

Lots of bloggers are critical of pork from time to time.

But I had occasion to come upon a blog the other day that is totally focused on pork: Porkbusters.

You may have been well aware of Porkbusters for years.

It came to my attention because it picked up on State29's entry about my "It's Getting Harder to Be a Democrat," September 1, 2006. Porkbusters: "Nicholas Johnson Isn't Abandoning the Democratic Party," September 2, 2006; State29: "Nicholas Johnson Isn't Abandoning the Demcratic Party," September 1, 2006.

State29's comment included the following:

"I think party affiliation will matter less and less into the future as people network and realize that on some issues we have common ground.

"A lot of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents agree on issues like eminent domain, corporate welfare, lifetime politicians, expansion of casinos, campaign financial disclosure, nepotism, earmarks, and so on."

It's an important -- and hopeful -- observation that played a role in my entries: "A funny thing happened . . .," September 2, 2006, and "Choice: 'Tax and Spend' or 'Borrow and Spend'?" September 4, 2006.

Our progress as a nation, state, and region will be a function of our ability to seek the "common ground" of which State29 speaks.

To borrow a line, we need the serenity to accept the disagreements we cannot seem to resolve ("agree to disagree"), the courage to move on to the progress that can come from working on those things where we share common ground, and the wisdom to know the difference between when we're just wasting time arguing, and when we're working toward consensus solutions.

Hat's Off to State29

There are a lot of reasons why I read State29: good writing, consistent quality, great sense of humor, cutting edge, makes me think – including wondering how State29 can put in a couple paragraphs what takes me a couple of pages.

But among those reasons is the fact that the blog is consistently hitting on issues I care about: media criticism, the Iowa governors’ race, the Riverside Casino (and gambling in general), the Earthpork Forest (and economic development in general), and irrational governmental spending.

Just by way of example, here are some entries from the last couple of days – all worth reading.

“The Nussle Abortion Thing,” September 5, 2006, (media criticism; governors' race);

“Psychics Are Real,” September 5, 2006, (media commentary);

“Culver: Iowa’s Financial House is in Order,” September 5, 2006, (governors' race);

“Remember, Iowa Had To Compete With Ak-Sar-Ben,” September 5, 2006, (gambling; economic development; irrational government spending);

“$6.45 and Hour and Free Parking,” September 4, 2006, (Riverside Casino);

“Scotsman.com: Iowa Porkforest has ‘Little Environmental Value,’” September 3, 2006, (Earthpork forest).

Oh, and it saves me a lot of time and effort to be able to just link!

Gambling and Paternalism

A friend has raised some issues regarding what I call “paternalism" (or "maternalism" if you prefer): “Why shouldn't people be permitted to gamble if they want to?”

More generally, when is it appropriate for the state to regulate an individual’s behavior?

What follows is in no sense represented to be a final draft -- or even a proposal for that matter. Nor is it represented to be the opinions or analysis of someone professionally qualified to speak on the subject. It's just my early ruminating.

The issue comes up in a variety of contexts: motorcycle helmets and automobile seat belts for adults, all kinds of limitations on minors, requiring "smoke free" restaurants and public buildings, limitations on degrees of intoxication, sale or possession of illegal drugs, and so forth.

Caveat: I’m operating on the premise that we’re talking about regulatory judgments based on some kind of scientific fact. I’m not addressing – one way or the other -- the issues associated with the efforts to enact laws that will enforce the moral or religious values of one group upon all others without regard to societal or individual harm.

I've often struggled with this issue and never satisfactorily resolved it, because I start with the default position, or general rule – to which there are of course many exceptions – that people ought to be free to do whatever they want.

And often, when dealing with one of those exceptions, once you brush away all the reasons for the regulation/limitation (e.g., the cost imposed on society by an individual’s foolishness has been covered by a bond obtained by that individual prior to their action) you are left with: ““Look, I really do know better than you what is good for you. What you are doing to yourself isn’t good for you, and since you won’t stop it on your own, we’re going to pass a law to make you stop it.”

And I’m not very comfortable saying that.

So what are these exceptions where some regulation may be philosophically (and politically) acceptable?

1. Children. There tends to be less controversy regarding limitations on "children’s" behavior -- their purchase of alcohol and tobacco, guns, pornography, their obligation to attend schools and when they can drive a car or get married. That’s not to say those issues (restricting a child’s free will) are not also worthy of being addressed – or that they would necessarily be decided differently even if the kids were making the rules. But they don’t; adults do. And adults don’t seem to express much concern, politically or otherwise, about these restrictions on children’s “freedom” – notwithstanding the somewhat arbitrary setting of ages (e.g., drinking age).

2. Harms to others. There’s the old line that "your freedom to swing your arm stops where my nose begins." One basis for restricting individual freedom is that while one should be free to do harm to oneself, one can fairly be restricted from doing harm to others.

Whatever may be one’s position with regard to the purchase, sale, ownership and possession of rifles and handguns, most would agree that limitations on target practice on the streets of heavily populated downtown urban areas is reasonable.

There will be arguments about the degree to which fraud and unfair business practices should be regulated, suggestions that we can’t protect everyone from their naiveté and inexperience and that caveat emptor (“let the buyer beware”) should take care of those problems.

Second hand smoke has been a controversial issue in this category. While one can argue that customers have a choice of bars and restaurants, the workers there have somewhat less choice.

3. Financial burden on taxpayers. Should motorcyclists be compelled to wear helmets?

They are not children, so that rationale is inapplicable. For the most part it is they, rather than others, who will be physically injured or killed in accidents. So why shouldn’t they be permitted to assume that risk?

One reason might be that some dead or injured motorcyclists, not to mention those with severe brain damage, could impose significant economic costs on taxpayers.

OK, goes the rejoinder, what if the motorcyclist is required to post a bond, or otherwise hold taxpayers harmless, against such costs? Then what's the reason to require helmets? Well, there are other losses, as in a wrongful death case, such as the family's loss of the income the motorcyclist would have provided during his or her lifetime. OK, suppose those are covered as well?

At some point you reach the stage where there is no real basis for arguing there is a legitimate public interest in legally requiring the use of safety features by adults (unless they are designed to protect others as well).

And thus, as quoted above, about all you’re left with is the unsatisfactory “Look, I really do know better than you what is good for you” argument.

4. Addictive behavior. If ever “I know what is good for you” might be considered as a possible basis for regulation, it could be with regard to the category of behavior that an individual starts by choosing, but soon becomes behavior over which they have little or no control – such as cigarettes or heroin. I’m not saying that makes it OK to interpose the state to prevent an individual’s free choice; I haven’t resolved that one to my satisfaction; but it does seem to me that harmful behavior to an individual (and no one else) that become addictive is more harmful to that individual (and less of a "free choice") than harmful behavior that can be stopped at any time.

5. Gambling. If it is true that there are significant societal negative externalities from gambling – including increased crime, bankruptcies, domestic abuse, and suicides – then (for some individuals) the free choice to gamble may be addictive, impose costs on taxpayers and cause harm to others.

The challenge is that – unlike, say, heroin use – this will not be the consequence for every gambler. So how to find those for whom gambling creates a problem for taxpayers or others?

One approach would be to think in terms of one of the reasons given for the increase in the tobacco tax: that tobacco contributes to increased health care costs paid for by all taxpayers, and that therefore it is fair to assess those who use the tobacco for at least a proportion of that cost -- in the form of taxes levied on the sale of tobacco.

Another analogy would be the gasoline tax (or any "use tax"), which is a way of assessing those who use the roads for the cost of building and maintaining roads -- since there is at least a rough relationship between the amount of gasoline purchased, the number of miles driven, and the wear and tear on the roads.

Thus, the social costs of gambling could be shifted to either (a) the gamblers themselves, with some form of a gambling tax, or (b) what would have the same effect but be much easier to administer, the tax could be assessed against, and paid by, the casinos (which would, of course, pass it along to the gamblers in the form of, presumably, say, lower payouts on slot machines).

The shortcoming of this approach would be that, while it would cover some incremental costs to taxpayers, it wouldn't do much for the family left in bankruptcy -- or with the primary earner in prison.

So another analogy for gambling would be the way in which drinking and driving are regulated (behavior that may cause harm to others as well as oneself). It may be good practice to never drink any amount before driving. But that is not the regulatory standard we use. The standard is the percentage of alcohol in the blood -- which varies according to what was consumed, how much was consumed, over what period of time, how long ago, as adjusted for various body types.

How might that kind of approach be applied to gambling -- theoretically, of course. .

Bear in mind that what follows is not intended as a serious proposal for public policy. It is simply a way to start thinking about the issue, to approach it theoretically, conceptually.

If a way could be found to track how much an individual gambler loses, as a proportion of what he can afford to lose (harming himself, perhaps, but at least not harming others, or passing costs off to taxpayers) -- a variable amount, like blood alcohol levels in determining drunk driving -- that would enable a policy that provides optimum freedom of choice for the population of gamblers while protecting individuals

Many casinos use "player cards" that provide some kinds of benefits for the gambler. If these used a universal card, they could track total gambling losses, not just those at a single casino. An arbitrary amount (based on some data and rational analysis) could be selected as an acceptable level of gambling losses for anyone -- like the permitted blood alcohol levels, say $100 or $200 per month. It would be presumed that anyone could lose that much without endangering their ability to keep their home and feed their family.

Like I say, I am not for a moment suggesting that this should really be done. But it may be a way to think conceptually about coming up with some scheme that actually would work that could maximize individual freedom to gamble while minimizing the adverse social impact.

Choice: "Tax & Spend" or "Borrow & Spend"?

Following my "It's Getting Harder to Be a Democrat," September 1, 2006, Bill Maron has entered a comment that includes the following: "I don't want my taxes to go up which is what will happen if the Democrats get control of Congress. That's the only thing they seem clear on doing."

Normally, I respond to comments with comments. But what I'm about to say is sufficiently long, and related to a new subject, that it's worth a new blog entry.

For some years now I've been trying to avoid engaging in overly simplistic and partisan (i.e., "Democrats good," "Republicans bad") discussions, whether in blogs or casual conversation. It's kind of boring, and I haven't seen a lot of constructive progress come from such banter (and often shouting on TV). My friends are all over the spectrum politically; and for many -- even those with whom I've held some public policy discussions -- I haven't a clue as to how they vote.

In fact, that was a part of what I was trying to communicate with my "It's Getting Harder to Be a Democrat" entry.

"Tax Increases"

Although "tax policy" can have its own charm as a public policy discussion topic, I've never found political rhetoric about "taxes" very useful.

It's possible to make arguments as to why all government should be abolished; no public highways, defense weaponry, prisons, schools, parks and public lands, libraries, and so forth.

But not many people hold that view.

Once one recognizes that some tax-supported government functions are kind of useful (if not essential) then the discussion immediately shifts from "taxes" to (a) alternative "program" options, and (b) efficiency and effectiveness in their operation.

Hopefully, the same analysis would be applied to the private sector. In other words, I kind of like energy, but I wasn't particularly enthusiastic about the way Enron went about it. I like having prescription drugs when the doctor prescribes them, but I'd prefer the lower prices that would result from the elimination of the "research" costs associated with "cosmetic" changes and the advertising and marketing exprenses of TV advertising focused on the ultimate consumer (who cannot buy the product without a prescription).

Similarly, I like the idea of a Defense Department, but if there are retired admirals and generals who believe we could have more effective national security if the right cuts were made of up to 1/3 of current defense spending (as at least there used to be), I'd like to see their suggestions further investigated.

Much of what I and others blog about involves what is sometimes called "corporate welfare." Do I want to see even more of the taxpayers' money handed over to wealthy owners of businesses? No. But it's not that "I don't want my taxes increased," it's that I don't want those programs expanded -- because they're not effective, and economic development can be done more efficiently in a variety of other ways.

Actually, if I could be convinced that by spending twice as much on rational "economic development" programs we could get ten times the results -- that would benefit all Iowans -- I might be persuaded to support an increase in the expenditure -- and my taxes.

There's apparently some evidence that the costs of early childhood health care, day care and education can more properly be thought of as an "investment" than an "expense" -- because of the significant multiplier those programs provide in future cost avoidance.

As a school board member I once proposed a take-off on "Sim City" and similar programs that I called "Sim School District." It would be little more complicated that a "what-if" spreadsheet of school district costs and outputs. Stakeholders who wanted higher salaries, or smaller class sizes, would be able to see the relationship between programs and costs (with a public program for which total expenditures are relatively fixed.)

That's a bit of an introduction as to why I don't find talk of "cutting taxes" (or "tax increases") very useful when engaged in separate and apart from a discussion of the programs that will be reduced/eliminated (or expanded/created).

"Tax and Spend" or "Borrow and Spend"?

(a) Talk about programs aside, I believe we have some very serious financial problems in this country involving federal budgets out of balance, rapidly rising national debt (funded by foreign countries), and an out-of-control imbalance of trade. So, yes, I wish both parties' leadership would get the spending under control. (That's also a theme of many of these blog entries.)

(b) I don't see members of either party willing to give up their opportunities to bring home the pork to their states/districts.

So I don't see this as a partisan issue ("Democrats bad," "Republicans good"). As I think back I can't recall any Iowa Democratic U.S. Senator ever providing as much as $50 million for any project that has brought Iowans as much ridicule as has Senator Grassley's indoor rain forest.

(That's not to say Democrats wouldn't do it if they could; it's just to say, I don't think "it's all the Democrats fault.")

(c) I don't have the precise figures before me, but I believe that Presidents Reagan and Bush the Elder ran up a larger national debt than all prior presidents combined. And that President Clinton made significant strides in reducing budget deficits and national debt. And that President Bush II has, once again, run up additional, really staggering, multi-trillion-dollar debt.

Again, I'm not saying the Democrats are paragons of fiscal virtue; I'm just saying I don't think all blame can be laid at their feet.

We -- who are now practicing "negative savings" -- are living off of the savings of the Chinese, Japanese and others willing to invest in U.S. government bonds and the U.S. stock markets.

(d) Either we go the way of the less fortunate third world countries, and suffer with rampant inflation (or national bankruptcy) or some Americans, some day, are going to have to have their "taxes go up" to pay off that debt. Let's simply hope that the country ends up choosing that option over inflation or bankruptcy.

It is in that sense that it is President George W. Bush and the Republican Congress that is raising taxes -- even if not yours. He's raising the taxes of my grandchildren and greatgrandchildren.

I don't like it that President Bush is raising taxes in this way; but since he is, I'd rather he raise my taxes -- for a variety of reasons, including the fact that it will save billions in debt servicing/interest -- than to spend the money on myself and leave the debt burden to the generations to come.

(e) Given the choice between "tax and spend" Democrats and "borrow and spend" Republicans, I'll take the "tax and spend" Democrats any day -- while working politically to elect public officials who will bring rational analysis to government programs, and efficient administration to the management of those programs paid for with my tax dollars.

Rain Forest: Monday, September 4 Update

The regular Monday update on the Iowa rain forest Web site has now (10:30 a.m.) been made (September 4, 2006).

As usual, it contains links to the full text of relevant news stories, and links back to blog entries here related to those stories. This week there is, of course, a disproportionate number of stories related to the Riverside casino's opening. (The casino is relevant to the rain forest because Riverside is one of the two remaining possible locations for the rain forest in Iowa, and the casino has offered to play a role in funding it).

_______________

[Every Monday since December 2005 there has been a weekly upload to the pre-existing Iowa rain forest Web site I maintain. In all, printed out it would run over 100 single spaced pages; there are, in addition, links to the full text of hundreds of newspaper stories and reports. It is very probably the most complete resource on the topic anywhere on the Web.

It is found at: http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/politics/IaChild.

Over the past few months the scope of the Web site has expanded from the rain forest project to include material related to the broader range of attractions and economic development generally in which the proposed rain forest exists and by which it must be evaluated.]

Technorati tags: Iowa Rain Forest, economic development, attractions, tourism, rain forest, pork, Earthpark, Earth Park, Iowa, casino, gambling, Riverside, Pella

"Is This Eden? No It's Iowa"

The rain forest's promoters often point to (and even visit) a facility in England that has been a model for their design. If Eden works in Cornwall, they say -- up to and including financially -- so will their project in Iowa.

There are a great many reasons why "the Eden project" in England is far from a perfect analogy for the rain forest proposed for Iowa. There's not space in a blog entry (even one of mine) for all the reasons why. But those reasons include everything from the much more favorable climate for rain forests in Corwall, to the much more tourist-appealing surrounding countryside, beaches and castles, to the much greater passion for gardens among the potential visitors.

But now Bradley Franzwa has brought a couple more to my attention: buggy plants, and buggy attendance projections.

Buggy Plants

"The problems began in 2002 with both attendance and bugs:

"Imported vine pest found at Eden Project

"VINES, SOIL and sculptures at the Eden Project were ordered to be destroyed after an aphid-like pest that kills vines was found. The pest, known as Grape Phylloxera, was discovered by government plant health inspectors on a routine visit to the Cornish conservatories last month.

The Independent (London), August 9, 2002.

"The project had initially planned to use natural pest extermination such as lizards, tree frogs, praying mantises, and geckos. A year later they were found to be unsuccessful. In early 2003 they started bug bombing (7 days closed) and continue to this day. See "Plant Health," Eden Project Foundation, September 2, 2006.

"Problems have occurred in spite of strict quarantine methods prior to introducing plants to the dome. They now have expanded the site to include a 'dry' dome with a different climate for the visitors to see when the 'wet' domes are shut down for spraying. Admission prices are half-price on those days.

"There are some environmental and agricultural issues here that should be addressed before we quarantine tropical plants in the parking lot of the casino prior to introduction into the rain forest dome.

"Just some things for the farmers in the region to consider.

"Can you imagine the panic that would occur if a new pest was introduced into Iowa farming as a result of a federally funded project like this?

"Perhaps Orkin should be brought in as a project consultant/supporter ["corporate partner']. At least the casino would be a good harborage for the termites and cockroaches that occupy the rain forest.

Buggy Attendance Projections

Iowa rain forest promoters pointed to Eden to justify their projections of 1.5 million or more annual visitors to a rain forest in Iowa.

Franzwa notes: "The Eden Project shouldn’t necessarily be promoted as the project that sets the standard in world rainforest projects. In 2001, they enjoyed just under 2 million visitors. By 2003, it dropped down to 1.40 million visitors. The latest numbers from the UK’s Association of Leading Visitor Attractions (ALVA) now show the project lured only 1.17 million visitors in 2005. A yearly consistent attendance drop of 10% should be considered in any copycat model we try to build here."

[The British Association of Leading Visitor Attractions reports its statistics reveal that Eden's 2005 visitors totaled 1,177,189 which, it says, was a 3% decline.]

"A Funny Thing Happened . . .

. . . on the way to this forum."

Early this morning, on little sleep and lots of coffee, I was sufficiently giddy after reading the Press-Citizen's latest revelations about TIFs, to put up an entry regarding my application for a TIF for my tool shed. [Nicholas Johnson, "TIF-ing My Toolshed," September 2, 2006.]

But that's not "the funny thing" to which I refer; at least I'll leave the success of that humor to the judgment of others.

Only later in the morning did I get around to checking State29, where I found a link to my Nicholas Johnson, "It's Getting Harder to be a Democrat," September 1, 2006, entry from last evening. State29 makes the point that "party affiliation will matter less and less into the future as people network and realize that on some issues we have common ground." State 29, "Nicholas Johnson Isn't Abandoning the Democratic Party," September 1, 2006.

I couldn't agree more.

But the funny thing was that I already had. For the very next entry I read, State 29, "High Rise Corporate Welfare," September 1, 2006 -- written before my "TIF-ing My Tool Shed," but read by me after writing it -- dramatically made State29's point.

We had both, inadvertantly, started at the same place, and ultimately came to the same conclusions -- independently -- with regard to TIFs for the Hieronymus Square project.

In short, we had, unwittingly, proved State29's thesis.

My experience, in Washington and since, is that the most meaningful divisions are not between "liberals" and "conservatives" -- or Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians. They are between (a) those who see problems and seek solutions, and find data and "best practices" relevant to policy formulation and administration, on the one hand (and are willing to change their minds when the data dictates they do so), and (b) those who don't see problems, don't care to think about them if they do, can ignore data, are seldom willing to change a position, and are content to repeat like a mantra the rhetoric and talking points of their ideology or partisanship.

This is neither to say that "agreement" should always be our most highly prized goal, nor that it is always possible. It is simply to say that State29 is right, and that when folks are able and willing to focus on solution strategies and talk with each other (rather than shout) they are likely to discover, as President Bill Clinton used to say, that "we have more problems than we deserve, and more solutions than we've ever tried."

And, the next time the disagreements involve folks willing to blow us up, an extra $200,000 for more negotiation might be an alternative worthwhile testing before launching another $2 trillion-dollar war.

TIF-ing My Toolshed

If I were still writing songs I'd borrow the music from "I'm Going to Hire a Wino to Decorate Our Home" and write some lyrics about how I'm going to get a TIF to build my tool shed.

What produced that flight of fancy?

It was the Iowa City Press-Citizen's revelation this morning (September 2) that Coralville now has 19 active TIF districts! Nineteen, count 'em.

I'd say anyone who builds anything in Coralville, and doesn't get his or her snout in the public trough and suck out enough to get the city's taxpayers to pay for it, is a naive fool. Talk about "socialism for the rich and free private enterprise for the poor" -- especially given the fact these funds were supposed to be used for urban renewal of blighted areas, and affordable housing for the poor. Taxpayers pay the costs and developers keep the profit -- from selling multi-hundred-thousand dollar condos to the wealthy. What a sweet deal!

The matter came up in the course of a report of the latest dip into Iowa City taxpayers' pockets with a TIF of $1.3 million a year for 13 years to be given to the private developer who wants to build and profit from a $40 million, 13-story high rise in downtown Iowa City. Hieu Pham, "Developers Ask for TIF Money; Request Made to Fund Hieronymus Square High Rise," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 2, 2006, p. 3A.

I figure if a town as small as Coralville can have 19 TIF districts those districts must be getting small enough that maybe I can get one to build my tool shed.

Think of the pay back in economic development for Ithe Iowa City-Coralville area as a result of all the tools I'll buy to fill it. Think of all the jobs that will be created with the people I'll have to hire to come on the property and repair the do-it-yourself projects I've mangled.

But of course there's no way I could pay for this myself, without a little help from a TIF. So that's why I'm asking local taxpayers to build it for me.

I could build the tool shed in Mexico I suppose -- or some neighboring state that would be willing to fund it for me. But, shucks, I'm a native Iowan and I'd really rather keep this "jobs program" and all the money it will pump into the local economy right here in good old Iowa. ("Go, Hawks!)

I figure, what's another TIF when you've already got 19, right? Twenty's kind of a round number.

"I'm going to get a TIF now
"To build my tool shed
". . ."

Additional lyrics welcome.

Correction Re: Governor Vilsack and Rain Forest

As a result of a conversation with Governor Tom Vilsack this evening (September 1) I would like to correct an impression left in Nicholas Johnson, "Rain Forest Breaks Silence, Not Ground," September 1, 2006. [For a report on the evening see, John Deeth Blog, "Hangin' in Coralville With Dvorsky and Friends," September 1, 2006. My own take -- and that of wife, Mary -- is that the Governor's speech was one of the best political speeches we've heard -- certainly around Iowa]

In the course of discussing KWWL-TV7's report of David Oman's assertions about the rain forest funding, I quoted from the station's news story and then said this about a possible Vision Iowa grant to the project:

2. "Earthpark Executive Director David Oman said, "'We need to partner with one of these two communities to go to Vision Iowa.'"

I would simply repeat what I've said before on this one -- "I know no reason to think that the Vision Iowa board, if it had the money, would give it to the rain forest" -- but for this comment from Bradley Franzwa:

"Vilsack was on the Iowa Press this week and was getting frustrated at the questions focusing on his presidential (non) campaign. He started listing other things he would rather discuss. Then he said,

“'HOW ABOUT THE IOWA VALUES FUND AND THE 2,000 JOBS THAT WE ARE ABOUT READY TO CREATE AS A RESULT OF BOARD ACTION IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS?”

"­What the heck is he going to do with this? Right now the fund only has $5 million in reserves. The rain forest is preparing their application for funding probably with signatures from leaders from two communities. Is Vilsack really going to gift the rain forest just before leaving office? Is there already an agenda made for the Vision Iowa Board Meeting in Clinton on September 13?"

My private conversation with the Governor this evening, the details of which I do not feel free to reveal, do permit me to say that I believe my first statement ("I know no reason to think that the Vision Iowa board, if it had the money, would give it to the rain forest") is closer to the case than the implications of what follows, above.

It's Getting Harder to be a Democrat

When I was in Texas in the 1950s there was reference to something called "yellow dog Democrats." They were the Texans whose loyalty to the Democratic Party was so strong they would have even voted for a yellow dog if named and placed on the ballot in the Democrats' column.

I've campaigned for almost every Democratic candidate for president since 1948, received three presidential appointments from two of them, and run for U.S. Senate and House as a Democrat. But I've never considered myself a yellow dog Democrat.

I think there are lots of issues one needs to weigh when evaluating candidates. Any given two or three aren't necessarily decisive. But for a Democrat it is troubling to see Republicans seizing the lead on issues one thinks important.

Gambling.

As anyone following this blog knows, I've been writing about the Riverside casino recently. This began because of my interest in the proposed Iowa indoor rain forest, and the possibility of it being located near, and possibly partially funded by, the owners of the Riverside casino.

But I'm also interested in economic development generally, so I've been following the casino from that perspective as well.

My view, simply put, is that the negative social externalities from gambling more than offset any possible economic benefits -- even if it were possible for a state's citizens to gamble themselves into prosperity, a proposition I find problematical in the extreme.

So obviously I care about Democratic and Republican candidates' positions on gambling.

State29 has just taken Chet Culver (the Democrats' candidate for Iowa governor) to task for endorsing even more Iowa gambling casinos. See "Chet Culver Wants More Casinos," September 1, 2006 ("Fort Dodge and Ottumwa should be the first cities to receive casino licenses").

Of course, as State29 notes, Ed Fallon says, "I think gambling is a parasitic industry that will one day collapse under its own weight. But I would rather not get to that point."

"So," you say, "What's the problem? Ed Fallon's a Democrat." Right. But if you recall the primary, he's the one the Democratic Party leadership -- indeed virtually all Democratic legislators -- not only ignored but affirmatively campaigned against. Democratic voters ultimately rejected their "leadership's" choice, Mike Blouin, who is now back at his old job with the Iowa Values Fund, giving away Iowa taxpayers' money to wealthy business persons and corporations. But it wasn't enough to elect Fallon after the leadership's assault.

This morning's (September 1) Gazette reports on Republican Congressman Jim Leach's efforts to restrict online gambling, Steve Gravelle, "Frist to Back Gambling Curbs; Leach Holds C.R. Hearing on Internet Gambling Bill," The Gazette, September 1, 2006, p. 1B.

And for some reason I stumbled upon this entry from the Johnson County Republicans' Web site from last May:

"Riverside, the future home of the state's largest Casino and Resort, is just south of the Johnson County border in Washington County.

"I know that there is a good bit of difference of opinion within our party on the issue of gambling -- though I personally tend to come from the school of thought that our state legislators our addicted to gambling revenues just as badly as a compulsive gambler is addicted, and that we're making a terrible mistake when consider a casino positive economic development."

["Casino Coming to Neighbor Riverside," JCR Blog [Johnson County Republicans], May 7, 2006.]

Campaign finance.

I believe the role of big money in politics exceeds all other possible issues in importance.

So long as money plays the disproportionate role that it does in politics and governing at both the federal and state level, so long as legislation is for sale, any progressive legislation opposed by large business interests or the wealthy is doomed.

All too many Democrats are unwilling even to speak up about these evils, let alone do anything about them -- including setting a personal example. They say they take PAC money because they have to -- "And, after all, you wouldn't want that awful Republican to get elected would you?"

Republican Congressman Jim Leach (and Iowa's rejected Democrat, Ed Fallon) have taken the lead on campaign finance reform with legislation as well as rhetoric, and set an example by refusing to take PAC money.

(Although he's no longer with us politically, when Wisconsin's Senator Bill Proxmire was urging me to run for the U.S. Senate, and we talked about campaign finance, he explained how he found it possible to run, state-wide, for $30. What did he spend all that money on? The postage to send back the unsolicited campaign contributions.)

I've never felt that "winning is the only thing," whether in sports or politics. Some things are more important. Once the Democratic Party decided that its candidates would take money from the same sources as the Republicans the Democrats significantly undercut their uniqueness. And they've certainly distanced themselves from what was historically the Democratic Party's natural base of the poor, working poor, and working class -- lest they be charged with engaging in "class warfare" -- as if ignoring the needs of "the least of us" is not its own form of class warfare.

(The exception, that in fairness deserves mention, is John Edwards who, far from trying to avoid the issues surrounding poverty is actually making them the focus of his talks.)

As for "practical politicians" who are willing to put aside issues of ethics and morality I would only note that the Party's current strategy hasn't been working all that well either.

Following the 2004 presidential election, I wrote that the Democrats:

"had an opportunity to do a little introspection after the results in 2000. What could they have done better? They chose, instead, to look for a scapegoat, and found it in Ralph Nader.

"Vice President Gore would have easily won had he held the support of Democrats. There were many multiples more Democrats who voted for Bush than there were Democrats who voted for Nader. And more than half of those who voted for Nader were either Republicans or indicated that, but for Nader, they would not have voted at all.

"Never mind that, said the party’s apologists, 'It’s all Nader’s fault.'

"This year [2004] the Democrats don’t have Nader, or anyone else, to scapegoat.

"Perhaps now we will, at long last, take a look in the mirror, finally devise our own 30-year strategy, and begin the long, hard walk down the dusty road to recovery."

Nicholas Johnson, "Democrats Recovery Begins by Looking in the Mirror," The Gazette, November 4, 2004.

It's two years later. Have the Democrats done it? I don't think so.

Taking a stand.

The Gazette editorialized the other day about Project Vote Smart's National Political Awareness Test. It's a non-partisan, "good government" effort to provide voters information about the positions of their candidates for public office. (The organization's page for Iowans is here.) Editorial, "Voters Want to Know," The Gazette, August 31, 2006.

The Gazette reports that "Both major political parties are advising candidates not to take the test. Party officials say the candidates will lose control of their campaign messages and they will be exposed to opposition research." That's one awful commentary about our major political parties -- both of them. What's worse, for a Democrat, is who did, and who did not, take "the test."

The Republican candidate for Iowa governor, Congressman Jim Nussle, did. The Democratic candidate, Secretary of State Chet Culver, did not. Moreover, apparently he has always refused to take it even as Secretary of State.

Republican incumbant Congressman Jim Leach not only takes the test, he was actually one of the founding board members for the organization. His Democratic Party challenger, Dave Loebsack, has so far refused to take it.

In Nicholas Johnson, "More on 'Open' Political Fundraisers," August 30, 2006, I had reason to refer to Iowa House candidate John Hulsizer, Jr. "John Hulsizer, Jr., is the Republican candidate for Iowa Legislature, House District 27. His Democratic opponent is Pam Jochum. The 'Iowa Prosperity Project' has an interesting service, asking candidates for their positions on various issues. The page for the Hulsizer-Jochum race is here." He responded; she didn't. Not surprisingly, The Gazette, reports Hulsizer also took the National Political Awareness Test.

What is it about Democrats that makes them want to keep their positions on the issues a secret?

Pay to play.

I had occasion to write about John Hulsizer because of a follow up to my blog entry about Democrats who do, and do not, put a "ticket price" on campaign fundraising events -- a price that is on a constituent's ability to talk to his or her elected official. Nicholas Johnson, "Hat's Off to Senator Dvorsky," August 29, 2009, contrasting Dvorsky's "contributions welcome" to U.S. Senator Tom Harkin's graduated scale from $1000 to $300 to $25 that determines who does, and does not, get a picture taken or otherwise gets close to the Senator and his guest.

Out of a sense of fairness, I was obliged to report upon finding out, that while Democratic Senator Tom Harkin charges for proximity, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley does not. Nicholas Johnson, "More on 'Open' Political Fundraisers," August 30, 2006. John Hulsizer was having a fund raiser with no minimum contribution required, and as a result Senator Grassley was willing to make one of his relatively rare appearances at a fund raiser.

I'm not abandoning the Democratic Party. The Republican U.S. Senate and House leadership have not, in my view, earned the right to continue running up astronomical debt for my great grandchildren with their tax cuts for the wealthy and their "earmarks" -- such as Senator Grassley's $50 million matching grant for his Republican friends who'd like to build an indoor rain forest in Iowa -- among other things.

No, I'm not abandoning the Party, but I'm darn sure not very happy with what's happened to it, either.

Thanks to State29, K.L. Snow, Everest Poker News

Thanks to State29 ["Nicholas Johnson Has Field Day," September 1],

Diary of a Political Madman (K.L. Snow) ["Coming Soon to an Artificial Body of Water Near You," September 1], and

Everest Poker News and Promotions ["Rain Forest Breaks Silence, Not Ground blackjack fact," September1, 2006],

for their links to Nicholas Johnson, "Rain Forest Breaks Silence, Not Ground," September 1, 2006, and Nicholas Johnson, "Out of Body, Out of Mind," September 1, 2006 -- especially if it was one of their links that brought you to this blog.

Out of Body, Out of Mind

Like a band of Iraqi insurgents, the Iowa City Press-Citizen continues its unrelenting attack on the sensibilities of eastern Iowans this morning (September 1) with yet one more over-the-top promotional effort to have us leave more of our money -- otherwise available for meaningful investment -- on the tables down by the Riverside (casino).

In case you've missed the paper's assessment of the joys of gambling in an eight-page special supplement, the cover and center spread of the weekend "GO" section, and numerous other articles, we're reminded once again today with words and phrases like "bubbled with excitement," "'it's fantastic,'" "'better than Las Vegas,'" "'the most wonderful thing to bring to Eastern Iowa,'" "revitalize the small town [of Riverside, population 922]," "'fabulous,'" "'everything is first class,'" "'absolutely gorgeous,'" "'a phenomenal resort for Iowa,'" "'a Nevada casino at its finest,'" "'it's beautiful,'" "'just a wonderful place to come,'" and "'this is awesome.'"

That's a lot of praise to plug into a 631-word story.

Moreover, owner Dan Kehl outdid himself:

"'I'm so excited this night is finally here,' chief executive officer Dan Kehl said. 'It feels surreal ... like one of those out-of-body experiences.'
. . .
"'It's like a great big family reunion,' he said.

" . . . Kehl led a toast . . . 'May the work that you do be the play that you love.'"

And, of course, although there was a dramatic description of a woman who won something from a slot machine there were no references to losses.

[In fairness to the reporter, Rachel Gallegos, a couple points should be noted. She has demonstrated her professional skills at balanced reporting, see Nicholas Johnson, "Gallegos Wins Casino Preview Coverage Comparison," August 30, 2006. And a newspaper story with her byline represents a good deal more than what she might write as a personal entry in a blog. The Press-Citizen is owned by Gannett, an enormous multi-media conglomerate which owns, among other things, one of, if not the, largest newspaper chains in the country. The paper has a publisher, a managing editor, an assignment editor, and others involved in the editorial process. It is, after all, a business, with an advertising department. So it's impossible for us to know what she was told to write, what she did, in fact, write that was edited out, and so forth.]

Rachel Gallegos, "Guests Toast Casino; Gambling Begins in Riverside," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 1, 2006.

The paper's only salvation is that -- like the thoughtful editorial the day of the eight-page casino promotion -- today's editorial page contains an op ed by Jim Walters, "Casinos Are For Losers," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 1, 2006, pointing up the downside of a casino in Riverside.

I have presented the news story and the op ed in parallel columns to dramatize the differences between them.

The double irony is that Walters is writing, in part, about the disparity between some newspapers' news coverage and their editorial positions -- during a morning when that disparity is on display once again with his commentary and Gallegos' story.

The reason it's a double irony is that the paper Walters chooses to talk about is the Wall Street Journal. But the Journal's disparity is precisely the opposite of what we find in the Press-Citizen's promotion of gambling. The Journal's editorials are, sometimes, promotional of right-wing, ideological, Republican, partisan, positions -- without much of a nod to even data and evidence, let alone opinion, on the other side. Their news stories, and investigative journalism, on the other hand are widely considered to be some of the best journalism in the country.

When it comes to all the thorny complications in the pros and cons surrounding gambling in Iowa, the Press-Citizen is precisely the opposite of the Wall Street Journal. We get the unabashed promotion of the joys and blessings of gambling in the news stories and have to turn to the opinion page to get a balanced presentation of the issues.

You're on to something Jim Walters.

Rain Forest Breaks Silence, Not Ground

The rain forest folks have the darnest ways of getting out the news -- Boston papers, small town Iowa weeklies, and now KWWL-TV7, Waterloo, "Earthpark Board Tours Proposed Sites," KWWL-TV7, August 30, 2006.

I'm indebted to State 29 ("Lake Red Pork or Riverpork?" August 31, 2006) who brought this to my attention, kindly noted my past comments on the subject, and invited me to have "a field day" with the KWWL item.

And I also appreciate Bradley Franzwa sending it along.

You may recall when last we heard about rain forest site selection, that David Oman, who originally hinted the final decision of a location might be made in January 2006 -- and subsequently extended this "deadline" to February, March, April, May, June, July, and August -- most recently promised that the board would made its decision in September.

Well, according to KWWL's exclusive, news-breaking story, while the board has not yet made this very difficult decision it has -- nine months later -- gone to look at the two remaining sites: Pella and Riverside. (All other sites have chosen to drop out; none was actually "rejected"). According to KWWL, this is "the first time the Earthpark board members toured the two proposed sites as a group" -- a rather stunning admission.

As is often the case, the greatest revelations are at the end of KWWl's piece. Let's take them in turn:

1. "The city of Riverside still needs to come up with about $5 million."

Notwithstanding the total disconnect between assertions and data, Oman and others have been saying for months that both Pella and Riverside have "met or exceeded" the rain forest's demands that the selected city come up with $25 million.

Now they're finally admitting this was not true? Only now they've discovered "Riverside still needs to come up with about $5 million"?

And "$5 million"?! Isn't $20 million more like it?

In Riverside, the casino owner -- said to be the source of $10 million of the $25 million -- has not yet actually contributed anything to the rain forest so far as we know. His pledge, if that's what it is, represents only $1 million as a down payment, with promises of a million a year until $10 million has been given. So that's somewhere between $0 and $1 million.

His parents have promised $2 million -- unless their contribution is also spread over time. So that is something between $0 and $2 million, for a total of something between $0 and $3 million.

The rest -- according to David Oman and the casino owner -- is said to be $800,000 a year for ten years from the Washington County Riverboat Foundation. But the Foundation has yet to receive a request for the money, let alone discuss, vote, and grant it. The casino owner and Oman have sort of spoken for the Foundation -- which is supposed to be independent of the casino and beyond the control of those two. So, if they ever get that $800,000 (and there's considerable dissention within the community over transferring money -- originally promised for things like libraries and schools -- to a rain forest) we see a maximum of $3.8 million of the $25 million Oman has demanded actually in hand.

$25 million "met or exceeded."?! Only a $5 million shortfall?!

2. "Earthpark Executive Director David Oman said, "'We need to partner with one of these two communities to go to Vision Iowa.'"

[Please see revision of this section in Nicholas Johnson, "Correction Re: Governor Vilsack and Rain Forest," September 1, 2006.]

I would simply repeat what I've said before on this one -- "I know no reason to think that the Vision Iowa board, if it had the money, would give it to the rain forest" -- but for this comment from Bradley Franzwa:

"Vilsack was on the Iowa Press this week and was getting frustrated at the questions focusing on his presidential (non) campaign. He started listing other things he would rather discuss. Then he said,

“'HOW ABOUT THE IOWA VALUES FUND AND THE 2,000 JOBS THAT WE ARE ABOUT READY TO CREATE AS A RESULT OF BOARD ACTION IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS?”

"­What the heck is he going to do with this? Right now the fund only has $5 million in reserves. The rain forest is preparing their application for funding probably with signatures from leaders from two communities. Is Vilsack really going to gift the rain forest just before leaving office? Is there already an agenda made for the Vision Iowa Board Meeting in Clinton on September 13?"

Whatever the case may be, Oman clearly needs to clear a few more hurdles than to "partner with one of these two cities" to guarantee his rain forest will be getting any more money from Iowa's taxpayers.

3. "We're bringing Siemens along, other companies are coming along."

On October 30, 2004, an email was fired off to Coralville officials over Ted Townsend's signature saying, among other critical things, "GE, Ford, SGI, HP, Interface, USGBC, the US Department of Energy, the US Department of Education, CAA, and all the other world class entities WE are about to bring to your town, never heard of Coralville until WE introduced them to it. Frankly, none of them care a hoot about Coralville even now. They are deciding to come there because they believe in our project and IT’S potential to impact all humanity."

GE, Ford, HP, Siemens -- where are they?

"Companies [have been] coming along" now for some time -- but somehow they never quite arrive. Most recently it's Siemens; but there's no detail as to what Siemens is going to do for the rain forest -- certainly no cash figure.

One possibility that has been mentioned is that Siemens will display its wares inside the rain forest. If that's the kind of "corporate partnership" the rain forest promoters have in mind they're going to end up creating something that looks more like the exhibit hall at a convention than their promised educational venue.

Once again rain forest watchers are saying, "Show me the money!" Right now no known corporation has thrown any into the forest.

4. "Project leaders say they're still about a month away from making a final decision on a location."

Is this really about "a final decision on a location"? Has it ever been? What is this touring board going to find out during the next 30 days that couldn't have been learned during the last two years, or that they don't know now?

In case you weren't there to get a piece of the birthday cake, let me remind you that this project just celebrated its tenth anniversary. Ten years without raising a dime of money beyond that of the guy whose idea it was, and his friend Senator Chuck Grassley, whose generous gift of the federal taxpayers' money is now conditioned on an unmet $50 million match from elsewhere (and who, so far as is known, has yet to put a dime of his own personal fortune into the project).

Isn't what's "still about a month away" the long-postponed final decision as to whether there's enough cash on hand -- or prospects of getting it -- to match the $50 million matchable grant, and then to raise the additional $55 to $80 million to get the project built? And then whether the facility can produce a sufficient revenue stream to keep it open? (See Nicholas Johnson, "Oman: Taxpayers to Pay for Earthpark's Operation," August 27, 2006.)

"Oh, it's a long, long time" (from 1996 to 2006) "and the days dwindle down to a precious few" as we await the board's "September" decision.

Breaking silence is not the same as breaking ground.