Fair and Open Government Contracting?

Consider the following scenario, generalized from recent news. A company submits an idea to the federal government for potential funding. The government then publishes an open competition requesting bids to execute the idea. The original company's bid is high and not the best value but the government awards it anyway. In the actual case, ethicsviolations were declared in the news to have been violated and according to the report reprimands were made.

By my read of the reported circumstances, the reprimands were to the wrong people and for the reasons. When a company submits an idea for funding, the idea is generally not donated to the government. Thus, generally the government has no right to publish such ideas. In such cases, the open competition is that anyone can submit an unsolicited proposal for funding. The government can select, or not, those of good value. Such proposals are very different from circumstances in which the idea is generated by the government. When government personnel generate an idea, the government can and should create open competition by publishing the idea and requesting bids to execute it. And, in such case the government evaluators should take the best bid to execute that idea.

The federal government has different processes for the two different situations. Based on the circumstances as reported for the case, reprimands should have gone to those who routed the idea through the wrong process. Instead, the reprimands went to those who tried to mitigate the erroneous process selection. Perhaps, both groups should have been reprimanded. In any case, the company that submitted the idea may have a tort case against the government for violation of intellectual property rules.

Fair, Low-Cost Sub-Prime Mortgage Solution?

If we limit the number of foreclosures and evictions that our government will perform annually, then lenders must be more careful about which mortgages they foreclose and renegotiate with the remainder. Each lender could be limited to a percent of loans made. The approach is fair to all. It keeps homes maximally occupied and helps the lenders to avoid taking losses. At the same time it does retain for lenders the threat of foreclosure as a means to encourage loan repayment. Also, it save the government money, rather than creating a new expense.

In addition, forfeit to the local government of foreclosed properties still unoccupied 1 year after foreclosure will encourage lenders to their foreclosure rates well to the current market. It pushes lenders to salvage mortgages in relation to each local market. It also provides governments access to unused properties to lease as affordable housing.

Does it work, or did I miss something?

Real Charity

Of late, conservatives claim to give more than democrats. Real charity begins with not taking. The old testament tells us to leave a portion of our crops unharvested that the poor may take from that portion. Such charity does not show up as a deduction on our tax returns. One financier makes a modest salary helping many buy homes they can really afford. Another makes millions scamming people to buy homes that will be foreclosed, and then gives a portion to charity to reduce his tax payment. Conservatives celebrate the latter.

"Green" Global Warming?

This analysis was triggered by interaction with a well-known climatologist who calls global warming a scam. I have since reviewed the International Panel on Climate Control's report and a sampling of dissenting reports. All reports agree on key basics: (1) The Earth absorbs and re-radiates energy from the sun; (2) The amount the Earth radiates increases with temperature; and (3) the overall temperature of the Earth adjusts such that the energy radiated balances the energy absorbed.

The global warming that we hear about is the portion due a changing planetary scale energy balance. Calculations indicate that rising levels of atmospheric CO2 trap energy in the atmosphere that is not fully negated by increasing cloud cover. If so, the planet’s temperature must rise to radiate the additional energy. A .5 degree rise in average temperature caused by this will be accompanied by a small increase in the temperature range (sigma = .05 degree). That means higher peak temperatures -- more deserts and grasslands.

Global warming of equal magnitude can also occur without any change to the energy balance on the planet. A redistribution of temperature on the planet, by itself, can change the planet’s average temperature. For warming induced by such changes, a .5 degree rise in average temperature will be accompanied by a 2 degree decrease in the planet’s overall temperature range. That means cooler peak temperatures -- more farmland and rain forests.

The temperature range is the distinguishing characteristic between the two causes of global warming. Its publication will tell us the fraction of global warming due to each cause. To date, lacking such publication, modelers who predict future climate assume a fraction. Modelers who assume that all of the warming of the past 100 years is caused by energy trapping due to CO2 create predictions that are sometimes scary.

Climate change that reduces peak temperatures creates a milder climate. This could be happening now. In the 1300’s, the Earth's average temperature seems to have risen .7 degrees without a rise in CO2. That period is called the Medieval Optimum. It was a very good period for people and nature. Since a milder climate means more of the planet will support plant life for more of the year, hence the current warming era could be “green”. Thus, as a “green” myself, I want to know the cause of the warming, before I support any effort to stop it.

It is tempting to think that even if CO2 is not causing peak temperatures to rise, that we still should try to reduce its level in the atmosphere. However, rising CO2 levels are accelerating plant growth, helping to grow the plants from which we will make bio-fuels. If CO2 levels are not causing peak temperatures to rise, then high CO2 levels are “green”.