Political & actuarial musings and assorted roadgeek trivia

Connecticut is number one…and I’m not sure we should be happy about that.

Seen at Daily Fuel Economy Tip:

For the first time in history, America has a state with an average gasoline price above $4 per gallon. To the surprise of many, the first state to $4 wasn’t California, or even another West Coast state - instead, the dubious honor of being the first state with $4 gas goes to Connecticut.

According to state-wide figures posted on GasBuddy.com, Connecticut first crossed the $4.00 threshold shortly before noon this morning. Since then, the price has fallen back to $3.99 a gallon. For basis of comparison, Wyoming currently has the nation’s lowest state-wide average price at $3.48 per gallon.

And CT hit the $4 mark first even without the benefit of the half-percent gas tax hike which takes effect in just under two months.

Seen in the New York Times:

The battle over voting rights will expand this week as lawmakers in Missouri are expected to support a proposed constitutional amendment to enable election officials to require proof of citizenship from anyone registering to vote.[...]

The Missouri secretary of state, Robin Carnahan, a Democrat who opposes the measure, estimated that it could disenfranchise up to 240,000 registered voters who would be unable to prove their citizenship.

Now, I’ve been uncomfortable with the notion of requiring Voter ID.  I can understand the concerns by proponents of the concept, but the fact of the matter is that even in this day and age, some people lack photo ID.  Despite the difficulty in participating in society without identification, it’s not a requirement.

I realize that the Supreme Court supported Voter ID laws in part due to plaintiffs’ failure to produce anyone who really was impacted by the law.   However, I can’t help but think that the folks most likely to be impacted are also the folks least likely to complain about being impacted.

The expansion of such a measure only seems to aggravate the problem to me.   A little over a year ago, my wife and I had the experience of trying to secure new “proof of citizenship” for her, in advance of a cruise, since she had forgotten where her passport and birth certificate were.  The hoops we had to go through to get her a new copy of her birth certificate weren’t insurmountable…but that was only because we had net access at home, the means to easily copy some of the supporting documentation required, and spare cash to pay for the processing fees.

I can easily imagine how nearly-impossible the process might seem to a disadvantaged individual.

I’m reminded of something in the Constitution, the 24th Amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

I know “ID” and “proof of citizenship” don’t translate to “poll tax or any other tax”… but for folks who don’t have the requisite documentation, it would seem that they will be required to shell out a few bucks to obtain that documentation…and that sounds like “other tax” to me.

This only fuels my suspicion that it’s time to move on from the increasingly-illusory belief that an ID is not mandatory in American society.   If you’re going to require identification to exercise one of the fundamental rights of citizenship, you might as well mandate that everyone possess identification documents, and help those without such papers to obtain them.

If we are going to slide down that slope, however, could we at least get some privacy protections to cushion our assimilation?

One of the more annoying messes in the wake of Katrina was, at least among those homeowners who had flood coverage, how claims settlement could be delayed by wind and flood coverage being provided in two policies, each with somewhat different terms.

Some Gulf Coast politicians would have this, as well as many other wind vs. water issues, resolved by expanding the National Flood Insurance Program to provide wind cover as well.

However, in a Times-Picayune blog post made over the weekend, comes word of an idea being circulated by Adam Scales, an associate professor at the Washington and Lee School of Law:

Rather than having homeowners buy two policies — a flood policy from the government and coverage for fire, theft, liability and wind from a private insurance company — Scales advocates making companies sell policies that would provide all the coverage people need and having the government reimburse the companies for flood claims.

The idea is that changing the flood program from a retail venture to a reinsurance program operating behind the scenes would allow consumers to collect one insurance check and start rebuilding their homes and the broader economy while leaving any disputes for the companies and the government to resolve. Mandatory coverage would also solve the problem of not enough people having flood insurance, and would put the program on better financial footing.

“It would push disputes up one level to the wholesale level. Now you would have an argument, say, between State Farm and the federal government about how to deal with the aggregate loss,” said Scales, who began studying the flood program after watching New Orleans fill up with water on television. “It clearly makes the wind-water distinction meaningless to the average consumer.”

Part of that sounds quite a bit like an idea I floated post-Katrina.   If coverage exists, then the insured’s claim ought to be paid, with the question of how much of it is wind versus water pushed to the back room for lawyers and accountants to deal with without interfering with the customer’s recovery.

Of course, that would require that some of the differences in coverage terms in flood versus traditional homeowners insurance be smoothed out.  For example, the maximum amount of coverage available under the NFIP is lower than what can be obtained in your typical homeowners program.  And even if limits were the same, the nature of what personal property or ancillary structures are or aren’t covered can vary between the two contracts.

But we’ve known that updating the NFIP standard contracts to fit modern personal insurance needs is one of the items on the flood insurance reform agenda…albeit further down the list from near-insolvency and questions of rate adequacy….and from the foolishness of expanding the program to cover wind.

Aside from trying to cover the internet bill, one of the main reasons I carry ads on this site is just pure, geeky curiosity — a desire to dabble a little bit with the optimization techniques professional ‘net types do, as well as wondering what sorts of ads would appear given my eclectic range of interests.

I have to say that the nature of some of the ads that have popped up have been somewhat disturbing.    I’d expect a few questionable items to leak through, despite Google’s efforts to the contrary…but an ad I saw on my front page is disturbing…especially considering the source:

It takes a little more than just a degree to qualify as an actuary, folks.  And while I’ve been rather vocal in the past in transitioning the actuarial exam process away from self-study exams into something more interactive, taking advantage of distance-learning techniques…. I’m pretty sure this isn’t that.

But what troubles me…it’s a Washington Post-sponsored ad?  Come on now!

I’ve put in a filter to keep that ad from appearing again.  On the off chance anyone was deceived by it, I apologize….and I am extremely disappointed in WaPo for associating with such a scam.

There’s been quite a bit of banter around the net, since the reemergence of McCain’s primary campaign, about whether he satisfies one of the Constitutional qualifications for becoming President — that he be a “natural-born citizen”.

McCain, of course, was born in the Panama Canal Zone to American parents.

Most reasonable folks seem to accept that McCain passes the Constitutional test.  He’s a citizen, has never been naturalized, and he was born (as opposed to having been manufactured and programmed by Cylons….or so we believe).

Nevertheless, there has been an observation that “natural-born citizen” is not a well-defined term, and perhaps there is some interpretation which would cause the intent of the Framers to be that McCain doesn’t qualify.

Well, I saw on a mailing list, something that should put even that speculation to bed.   It turns out that one of the early acts of Congress provides the missing definition, and indicates our early leaders’ intent.

From the Immigration Act of 1790:

And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens….

So, can we put this silliness behind us?

One of the greatest characteristics of the American federal government is the system of checks-and-balances imposed on the three branches by the founding fathers.  The notion that if one part of the government gets too out of control, the others have a means to impose sanity is a powerful one, which has generally kept Washington from getting too nutty over the past couple of centuries.

Unfortunately, the founding fathers didn’t contemplate the formation of political parties.  As a result, there is always the potential that one part of the American political duopoly can gain control of both the Executive and the Legislative branches, and potentially the Judicial as well.  A single political agenda wielding power over both houses of Congress and the White House can go a long way towards bypassing Constitutional checks on power.

Consider, for example, the excesses of the first six years of the current administration…or the excesses of the first two years of Bill Clinton’s White House.

I have said before, and I will continue to say, that I am happiest with the government when no one political party controls both chambers of the Legislative branch, and the Executive branch.

I’m aware that some folks are concerned that divided government inevitably leads to gridlock.  If I can indulge in a little bit of flippancy… gridlock is the point.

Seriously, I have a healthy distrust for politicians.  Yes, I know that many, if not most, politicians are fine, upstanding individuals.  However, the demands imposed by fundraising to be elected and reelected, the need to support partisan goals in order to gain support for your own interests, and the general corrosive influence of spending so much time in political circles rather than the real world leads to a climate where too much shenanigans can be created.

In theory, a divided government — with the two major parties controlling different parts of the government — should be a potentially effective check on such shenanigans.  It is, after all, in one party’s interest to highlight and block the other’s antics.  If each party accomplishes nothing but the blocking of the other party’s bad ideas…the country is probably the better for it.  Lock the politicians inside the beltway, and let the rest of us lead our lives free from their interference. 

Despite my cynicism towards day-to-day political antics, there are things that the government needs to accomplish.  There are generally enough bright, good folks in elected offices belonging to both parties that I have faith that should something need to be done, it will be done in a bi/non-partisan manner.

I could wish for some sort of Constitutional change to ensure divided government…but frankly, imposing such a certainty would likely lead to some other forms of abuse and gaming, including a further solidification of the Democrats’ and Republicans’ duopoly on political power.

Instead, I’m going to have to hope that more voters will see the sanity and logic of imposing the check-and-balance of divided government as they consider who they will vote for on Election Day.

This week brings us to Dhaka, Bangladesh

One of the few prominent highway features in Dhaka is the Babu Bazar Bridge, which spans the Buriganga River.  It’s one of two bridges spanning the river — rather remarkable considering the metropolitan area is home to roughly seven million people.

I live just up the hill from a local reservoir.

In past years on weekend days with at least decent weather, the sound of buzzing outboard motors can be heard wafting up from the reservoir.

However, this year…well it’s blissfully quiet outside.

The reservoir’s open — I’ve seen folks driving to and from the boat launch with canoes and kayaks — but no powerboat sounds can be heard.

Presumably that would somehow be related to the almost-$4/gallon gas prices we’re seeing…which also happens to be the cause of some bad moods among a few boat/yacht dealers I know.

Found via an Actuarial Outpost thread:

Surely, this can’t help the actuarial branding campaign going on. 

Over the past few months, it seems like many folks not associated with or beholden to the corn clique of the agribusiness industry have started to realize that biofuels relying on food crops — corn in particular — might not be such a good idea.

For example, consider this graphic which appeared in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

Can we quit drinking the ethanol kool-aid now?  (Although, the algae line looks interesting.  I wonder what the catch is….)