Georgia

A mailing list I subscribe to passed along some interesting philatelic news.

It seems that Abkhazia, one of the autonomous republics that Stalin gave Georgia, and which Russia and Georgia just fought a little war about, has started issuing stamps following its declaration of independence and recognition by Russia.

It’s the Bill and Monica collection, apparently:

Shouldn’t that dress be blue?

If you haven’t already encountered it elsewhere, folks interested in the why’s and wherefore’s of Russia’s invasion of Georgia might want to check out this assessment published (and made freely available) by Stratfor.

Stratfor is a private specialist in geopolitical intelligence.  The subscription price for full access to their articles is too rich for my blood, but I have found their publicly-released articles and teasers interesting in the past….although I don’t always agree with their analysis.

For example, on the Georgia mess, Stratfor opines:

It is very difficult to imagine that the Georgians launched their attack against U.S. wishes. The Georgians rely on the United States, and they were in no position to defy it. This leaves two possibilities. The first is a massive breakdown in intelligence, in which the United States either was unaware of the existence of Russian forces, or knew of the Russian forces but — along with the Georgians — miscalculated Russia’s intentions. The second is that the United States, along with other countries, has viewed Russia through the prism of the 1990s, when the Russian military was in shambles and the Russian government was paralyzed. The United States has not seen Russia make a decisive military move beyond its borders since the Afghan war of the 1970s-1980s. The Russians had systematically avoided such moves for years. The United States had assumed that the Russians would not risk the consequences of an invasion.

Granted, I’m no expert on Georgia…but from other sources, I had developed the impression that the trigger for the Russian invasion, Georgia’s drive to stifle long-simmering secessionism, could easily be a manifestation of nationalism blinding leaders, triggering bad decisions.

I’d discount Stratfor’s assessment…except wasn’t it dogged adherence to bad intelligence which officially got us into the mess in Iraq?

Oh well.   If the coming homestretch for the general election campaign needed a little spice to liven things up, the cries of hawks demanding up-sizing of the military in order to respond to such affronts to American interests, budget-be-damned should make the foreign policy debate more interesting.

I note that the Air Force’s hyped Cyber Command has been shelved.  While I’m aware that that decision could be a reflection of inter-bureaucracy turf-squabbling and a desire to not duplicate other entities’ efforts….well, if we’re transitioning to a period of history where Russia is our adversary again, shouldn’t we be beefing up domestic network security from the potential antics of the Russian (and Chinese) hacker corps?

When contemplating the possibility of disruption up here in Windsor Connecticut from the upcoming revaluation, I’ve toyed around with the idea of my section of town breaking off into its own community, to avoid the tax drain from ineffective municipals schools, and a tendency for the town leadership to push for development in this area despite the town long-range plan’s call for maintaining the exurban nature of the area.

I quickly dismissed the idea as impractical.

Judging by this news from Atlanta (via the AJC), maybe I was a bit too hasty:

The Fulton County Taxpayers Foundation has mailed a glossy four-page newsletter to about 50,000 households in the area, pushing to secede from Atlanta and make Buckhead its own city.

Supporters point to the city government’s budget problems and school property tax rates and say the proposed city of Buckhead would better manage their tax dollars. Opponents fear the move would financially devastate Atlanta, which is currently struggling with a staggering budget shortfall. […]

Buckhead is considered home to many of Atlanta’s largest office buildings, some of its most expensive homes and two of the region’s haute shopping malls: Lenox Square and Phipps Plaza.

Reading through the article, it sounds like the plan suffers two fatal flaws – a majority of all voters in Atlanta would need to approve of the secession, not just the voters in Buckhead, and somehow I suspect voters in the balance of Atlanta might not like to see so much of their revenue base leave…at least not without taking their share of the infrastructure costs along with them.

And, as the article notes, there is already an incorporated municipality in Georgia named “Buckhead”.  The Potential Former Atlanta Neighborhood Known As Buckhead would need to find a new name – Hâute Buckhead, perhaps?

Even though they do a horrible job explaining it, the AJC mentions one less-publicized provision in Georgia’s new auto insurance law which is definitely worth noting:

The so-called “stacking provision” in SB 276 will allow you to piggy-back your uninsured/underinsured motorists protection onto another motorist’s policy. That way, if you’re hit in an accident and the at-fault driver has no insurance or not enough insurance to cover damages and expenses, your policy would make up the difference to the extent of your policy’s limits.

After the the new law takes effect, you’ll have three options when you renew your auto insurance:

• Get the stacked coverage;
• Leave coverage to the limits of the at-fault motorist’s policy;
• Decline having uninsured/underinsured motorists coverage at all.

If you already have uninsured/underinsured coverage when your policy comes up for renewal, you’ll automatically be signed up for the stacked option unless you opt out of it.

Unless Georgia is weirder than I realize (and with a disclaimer that I am neither a lawyer nor an insurance agent), the AJC didn’t do a good job explaining the change.

Generally, Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage pays either (the difference between your limit and the at-fault driver’s limits), or (the amount of your loss, less whatever was paid from the at-fault driver’s insurance), whichever is greater.   So, if you suffer a carry $100,000 UM/UIM, and the at-fault driver only carries $25,000, the most that you will recover under UM/UIM is $75,000, the difference between the two limits.

I believe SB276 provides the option for your limits to be on-top-of the at-fault’s driver.   In my above example, if you have “stacked” $100,000 UM/UIM limits and are hit by a driver carrying $25,000 limits, you could recover up to $125,000.

Speaking from personal experience, in a serious accident, the auto insurance limits can be exhausted very quickly (especially if the other driver only has minimum limits).  The added UM/UIM coverage is generally cheap, and most folks think its a good buy.

I’m a little troubled by the use of the term “stacking”.  “Stacking” more commonly refers to the legal interpretation in some states that says if you pay a UM premium by vehicle, your UM coverages can be stacked one on top of the other to provide increased limits.   In other words, in some jurisdictions, if you buy $100k UM and have a 4 car policy, a judge may rule that you actually have $400k in coverage.  It’s a great feature for the consumer, but it’s also a potentially nasty surprise for the insurer if that added risk hasn’t been contemplated in its rates.

A couple of blogs I follow have mentioned that the May issue of Popular Mechanics includes a feature called, “10 Pieces of U.S. Infrastructure We Must Fix Now”. I’ve seen the feature mentioned in the context of Atlanta’s water shortage, but the entire list is actually rather interesting to me (not surprising, given my interests):

• Circle Interchange, Chicago
   
• Brooklyn Bridge Approaches, New York City
   
• Industrial Canal Locks, New Orleans
  (Ships can wait 36 hours for clearance to transit, creating a drag on the efficiency of the Port of New Orleans. PM doesn’t mention that survivors of the Lower Ninth Ward would like to see the canal itself fixed by being filled in….)
   
• Atlanta’s water system
  (PM estimates 18% of the daily water consumption in ATL is the result of leaky water mains)
   
• Alaskan Way viaduct, Seattle
   
• Lake Okeechobee dike, Florida
   
• Dover Bridge, Bonner County, Idaho
  (Northern Idaho bridge for US95, scores 2 out of a possible 100 in sufficiency rating.)
   
• Wolf Creek Dam, Kentucky
  (Kentucky River dam deemed in enough danger of collapse that TVA reduced the water level behind it, to reduce flood risk to downstream towns, including Nashville.)
   
• Sacramento River levees, California
  (Remind me not to write flood cover on the Arco Arena, or on SMF.)
   
• O’Hare

None of those are surprises, and many of them are slated for repairs in the next few years, assuming funding remains available. However, it’s nice to be reminded every once in a while of some neglected priorities.

(How much money have Presidential candidates raised to date for this election cycle?)

I’ve written previously about Georgia’s desire to annex part of southeastern Tennessee to gain access to water in the Tennessee River, to alleviate pressure arising from poor planning prior to the drought.

The AJC has an article on what seems to be a more realistic solution—make nice with the feds, who actually own the plot of land Georgia really covets:

Georgia, though, could launch another legal attack. Federal land — not controlled by Tennessee — lies between Georgia and the river. The Tennessee Valley Authority, a federal agency that manages the river, owns the half-mile slice of largely untrammeled property separating Dade County, Ga., from the river.

TVA policy allows adjacent landowners to cross its property to reach the Tennessee River. Georgia, conceivably, could bypass a spat with the state by dealing directly with the federal government.

There are years of environmental bureaucracy that must be satisfied before such a plan could come to fruition, and of course Volunteer pride is still ruffled over the idea of Tennessee water going to alleviate Georgia’s lack of resource management. (Have Vols started patrolling Nickajack in their bass boats, I wonder?)

But at least this seems far more realistic than a TN-GA border war.

Longtime readers know that I am no fan of insurance rate regulation. In a competitive and free market, market pressures will keep rates from getting too crazy. However, if society perceives a need to provide some protection/stability for certain folks for coverage they are obliged to buy…then I’m OK with rate regulation on the mandatory coverage, but still prefer anything excess of that to be subject to free market realities.

Amazingly, it seems some Georgia legislators agree with that stance, and Commissioner Oxendine’s not happy. From the AJC:

On Monday, a House subcommittee and later a committee agreed to tack an amendment onto a fairly innocuous Senate bill. The amendment would let insurers raise rates on all but the minimum required coverage without having to first get approval from State Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine.

On Thursday, the House passed the amended bill 141-3 with little discussion. The sponsor told his colleagues what the original bill did, but didn’t explain fully the changes and didn’t answer questions. Less than two hours later, the measure won final passage in the Senate 43-10 while insurance lobbyists stood outside, shaking hands.

The bill now heads to Gov. Sonny Perdue for his signature.[...]

Oxendine fears the change will propel Georgia back into the bad old days of the 1980s when the state’s drivers saw skyrocketing auto insurance premiums.

“The insurance industry wants to make the change because they want more profits,” Oxendine said. “I think rates will go up and I think Georgia consumers will pay for it.”

It’s a shame that the measure couldn’t have been passed sooner, before downward frequency trends started reversing themselves. Rates will start to naturally tick upward, which will play into the fear-mongering by the commissioner and consumer advocates.

However, a measure like this should allow insurers to feel comfortable backing off when trends flatten. And, if there’s concern about insurers seeking excess profits on the backs of Georgians…well, if there were excess profits to be made, you can be sure that some player or another will try to undercut any excessively profitable insurer, which should keep such concerns in check.

Bravo to the Georgia legislature for taking such an enlightened stance!

Seen in the Chattanoogan:

The mayor has officially proclaimed Feb. 27, 2008, as “Give our Georgia Friends a Drink Day.” The proclamation comes as a result of the Georgia Legislature passing a joint resolution that seeks to pursue reestablishing the boundary between Georgia and Tennessee.

The truck load of bottled water along with the proclamation will be delivered to the Georgia Legislature Wednesday morning.

“Please know that we are willing to help our neighbors to the south with this complimentary truck load of water,” said Mayor Littlefield. “And along with this water, we want to send Georgia legislators a message that focusing on conservation efforts would be much more productive than an ill-conceived land and water grab.”

Just when I had written off plans for Georgia to push their border a half-mile further north as the sort of weird bill one normally sees introduced at the start of a state legislative session, there’s this story from the AJC:

Last week, the House and Senate passed separate measures requiring the state of Georgia to revisit its longstanding border dispute with Tennessee. The legislation was immediately pronounced an international punchline. The state Senate encouraged the giggles by singing a round of “This Land Is My Land” prior to unanimous passage.

But don’t be fooled. The people involved in this are looking at a water shortage, exacerbated by drought, that could jeopardize thousands of billions of dollars in development over the next 50 years. A wet state grows, a dry one stagnates — and the competition with neighbors is fearsome.

Sponsors of the legislation are as serious as a heart attack.

“I don’t think it’s a gimmick,” Perdue told reporters a few hours after his computer demonstration. But the enthusiasm the governor showed in the basement had shifted to a diplomatic practicality.

“I think we have to be very careful in the way we proceed in this effort. As it gets more and more serious, the people of Tennessee get more and more concerned. There was probably a better way to do this — legislation’s a sort of in-your-face sort of thing,” the governor said.

I heard a rumor that Vols and Vandy fans have set aside intrastate rivalries, and are now patrolling the Nickajack Reservoir in a flotilla of bass boats.

The AJC also provides readers access to an 18-page memorandum entitled Tapping the Tennessee (1.8 meg pdf, converted from the AJC’s .doc format document) which goes into more detail about the history of the claim.

It’s nice to see that the Georgia state legislature is focusing its efforts on important issues of the day. Not only have legislators sought to annex part of a neighboring state to grab water, but they’re also apparently indicating that license plates are a matter of most dire concern. From the AJC:

In a 142 to 10 vote, the chamber voted to stop making out-of-state university mascot tags if neighboring states don’t return the favor.

“Whatever is good for the goose is good for the gander,” said state Rep. Barry Fleming (R-Harlem), speaking with great earnestness on the matter.

Fleming was really talking about Bulldogs. He and the vast majority of his House colleagues think the citizens of the Bulldog nation living in South Carolina, Alabama and Florida, should get mascot tags of their own in those states.

At a time when Georgians are bearing the burden of the worst drought in memory, isn’t it a little odd that lawmakers would place border disputes and license plates up at the top of the agenda?

Georgia voters have to be loving this circus.