In 2010 the US Mint produced 3.49 billion pennies at a cost of 62.3 million dollars. If you spotted something wrong here, you are correct. That calculates to 1.79¢ per penny. The nickel is no better, 359 million nickels produced at a cost of 9.2¢ per nickel. That’s a loss of over $40 million and rapidly escalating.

“The unit cost for both penny and nickel denominations remained above face value for the fifth consecutive fiscal year. Higher unit cost and demand for the five-cent coin increased the overall loss the United States Mint incurred from producing these denominations in FY 2010. Penny and nickel coins were produced at a loss of $42.6 million, nearly double the FY 2009 loss of $22.0 million.”[1]

The increasing disjoint in the value of the metals in coins versus their face value forced the US Mint to implement regulations to prevent anyone from melting down coins to sell the metal at a profit.

“WASHINGTON — The United States Mint has implemented regulations to limit the exportation, melting, or treatment of one-cent (penny) and 5-cent (nickel) United States coins, to safeguard against a potential shortage of these coins in circulation. The United States Mint is soliciting public comment on the interim rule, which is being published in the Federal Register.”[2]

The final rule went into effect on April 17, 2006.

In 2002 Representative Jim Kolbe (R-Arizona) introduced legislation, the Legal Tender Modernization Act, to halt production of the penny. Sadly, that effort went nowhere and died when the 107th Congress adjourned. He tried again in 2006 with the Currency Overhaul for an Industrious Nation (COIN) Act. That too went nowhere.

Why would anyone be opposed to saving over $40 million per year?

The argument is that consumers would lose when transactions are rounded up. Some would indeed be rounded up, but others would be rounded down. Professor Robert M. Whaples of Wake Forest University analyzed over 200,000 transactions and found, predictably, that it evens out.

“If the penny were eliminated, rounding prices to the nearest nickel would not cost consumers extra money, according to a new study by Robert M. Whaples, professor of economics at Wake Forest University.”[3]

Years ago this rounding issue was even larger. The US half penny was last minted in 1857. Ever since then the penny has been the smallest coin in circulation. In case you didn’t know there has been some inflation since 1857. The Consumer Price Index only goes back to 1913. The buying power of the penny back then requires 22¢ today.[4] For decades all transactions were rounded to what today would be the nearest quarter. Rounding is not an issue.

The real reason the penny survives today is to protect the profits of a private company. Jarden Zinc Products, the sole supplier of the zinc blanks used to make pennies, lobbies hard to protect their profits at our expense.[5]

The time has come to stop making pennies and losing $millions.

http://www.retirethepenny.org/

[2] Press release December 14, 2010, US Mint, United States Mint Moves to Limit Exportation & Melting of Coins

[3] Press release July 18, 2006, Wake Forest University, Professor’s research supports eliminating penny

[4] Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI Inflation Calculator

[5] Americans for Common Cents

(CNN) — This week Virginia Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, called Anita Hill and left a message on her answering machine inviting her to apologize for testifying during Clarence Thomas’ confirmation hearings.

It is hard to imagine why Virginia Thomas would make such a call. Surely she could not have expected an apology. And there was a very real chance that the press would hear about it and call attention back to the issue of Clarence Thomas’ conduct. Such public attention would bring with it the possibility that someone would come out of the woodwork to support Anita Hill’s claims, which is precisely what happened. Lillian McEwen, who dated Clarence Thomas years ago, paints of picture of someone whose behavior is exactly what Anita Hill claimed during the 1991 hearings.

Could it be that a very shrewd Virginia Thomas has just made the first move in a messy divorce?

As it happens I was in the hospital during that week in 1991. With nothing else to do I watched the hearings from gavel to gavel.

In the interests of full disclosure, when he was nominated I thought both by experience and scholarship Clarence Thomas was unqualified for the Supreme Court. His nomination was a cynical way for George Bush Sr. to replace Thurgood Marshall with someone from the very far right while preempting serious opposition. It worked, the black community decided that replacing one black justice with another black justice was good enough, even though Clarence Thomas opposes everything Thurgood Marshall stood for.

During the hearings several things were very clear.

• Anita Hill didn’t want to be there. She was a reluctant witness. She had nothing to gain in subjecting herself to attacks from the right. I found no reason to believe she wasn’t telling the truth.
• Clarence Thomas followed the right wing playbook to the letter. When they catch you in a lie, get very angry and very loud.

“This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.”

• No one in the senate was listening. After all was said and done not one vote was changed.
• Special kudos to one member of the senate panel, Edward Kennedy. On matters of sexual misbehavior he knew that his best course of action was to remain silent. The conduct of everyone else on the panel, from both sides of the aisle, was embarrassing to watch.

(PHOENIX) — Republican lawmakers in 15 states Tuesday announced a nationwide effort to change the way the 14th Amendment is interpreted and stop granting citizenship to babies born in the USA to illegal immigrants.

State legislators don’t have the authority to reinterpret the constitution.

The 14^th amendment was passed following the Civil War. It overruled the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision that slaves and their decedents could not become citizens of the United States.

Section one begins, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Later in United States v. Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court provided the 14^th amendment the interpretation we know today. It gives citizenship to anyone born in the United States to parents who are foreign citizens not employed in an official or diplomatic capacity.

It is very unlikely that the Supreme Court will overturn precedent in this case. Reinterpretation of the 14^th amendment is a dead end. But that does not preclude another constitutional amendment redefining the right to citizenship.

The arguments on the right are filled with misinformation and outright lies. For example the term “anchor babies” is a complete fantasy. Having a child who is a US citizen does not provide any assistance to an illegal immigrant trying to stay in the country as tens of thousands of people have discovered the hard way.  However, that does not mean the nation should not have a rational conversation on the subject.

Jus soli (right of the soil) is not the only way nations define who is eligible for citizenship. In fact The United States is among a small minority of nations using Jus soli. Other nations instead use Jus sunguinis (right of blood) or some combination of the two. Maybe it is time to redefine eligibility for citizenship. And while we are at it perhaps we should create a mechanism to revoke citizenship even from those born in the U.S. where both parents are citizens. Know anyone you would like to throw out? My list could go on and on…

Political advertisements are exempt from the truth in advertising laws. The proliferation of 527 committees has exacerbated the situation. Groups such the “Swift Boat Veterans for ‘Truth’” on the right and Move-on.org on the left are free to state as fact, things that are demonstrably not true, i.e. lies. The campaigns are a little more careful, preferring spin to outright lies. But spin is nothing more than the application of carefully selected facts, wrapped in meaningless characterizations and speculations designed to make the voter believe things that are not true, i.e. lies.

If the campaigns do not provide accurate information what of the mainstream press?

The right has long complained of a liberal media bias. The right believes that reporting facts that do not support their position is biased. At its best the mainstream press sits the opposition, pointing out all the flaws in the policies of those in power. Since the right has most of the money and the power they are frequently the target. However, campaign season is not the mainstream press at its best. Campaign coverage is superficial, they treat the campaign as a horse race who’s ahead and who’s behind. The lead story is the latest poll results, nothing useful in helping the voter decide.

What about alternative news sources?

The right has developed a very effective strategy to deal with the press, they buy it. “News” sources like FOX News and virtually all of talk radio are owned and operated by the right. They are not simply “biased” toward the right they are pure propaganda outlets. One day I was listening to Rush Limbaugh as he mercilessly lambasted then President Clinton for planning to run for a third term as president. You had be listening very carefully to the first 15 seconds of the segment to realized the 30 minute tirade was based on nothing more than “What if President Clinton was thinking of running for a third term?”

Let’s take a look at some of the issues.

Vietnam

Does it really matter? Probably not, neither of candidates are today who they were then. However that has not stopped the vicious attacks on both candidates.

John Kerry

The “Swift Boat Veterans for ‘Truth’” ran ads proclaiming that John Kerry was lying about his combat service. Republican senator John McCain called the ads “dishonest and dishonorable”. He was no stranger to the tactic. “It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me.” http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5612836/

Why the lies? first, to get their man elected. That was certainly the only reason for the attacks during the 2000 primary campaign on John McCain’s very admirable service. But the attacks on John Kerry go deeper. Vietnam was the most heavily divisive issue of its day. The two sides hated each other with a passion that is almost unfathomable. And for many that day has never ended. When he came home, John Kerry, decorated war hero http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005460, changed sides and changed sides very publicly. For many that was an act of treason, absolutely unforgivable. For them anything necessary to stop John Kerry is justified.

For a rundown of the facts try: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

George Bush

George Bush didn’t go to Vietnam, but then neither did I. Did his family connections help him avoid service? Of course, but then I’m sure my mom requested the intersession of the Almighty on my behalf. Various groups have claimed that George Bush did not satisfy the requirements for his National Guard service. The basis is a number of documents that don’t or no longer exist and a few documents that cannot be verified. But a document that does exist and was verified is an honorable discharge. http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/ANG22.gif

Iraq

This issue matters big time.

The war in Iraq was a very different kind of war. Unlike the WWII, Korea, Vietnam or the first Gulf War there was no precipitating incident. It was a preemptive war. The administration stated that Iraq presented an imminent threat to use weapons of mass destruction. That is the only reason good enough to justify such action.

But now the evidence is in, there were no weapons of mass destruction, much less an imminent threat. http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html,

Not only do we know there were no weapons of mass destruction, but we now know that senior administration offices were aware that the evidence for weapons of mass destruction was at best suspect. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/international/middleeast/03tube.html?oref=login

Writing for the journal Foreign Affairs, George A. Lopez and David Cortright make a persuasive argument that the sanctions, much maligned by the George Bush worked.

“But despite Saddam’s recalcitrance, the record now shows that the UN disarmament program — which Vice President Dick Cheney dubbed ‘the most intrusive system of arms control in history’ — decapitated Iraq’s banned weapons programs and destroyed the infrastructure that would have allowed it to restart clandestine programs.”

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040701faessay83409/george-a-lopez-david-cortright/containing-iraq-sanctions-worked.html

At the time of the first Gulf War the case against Iraq was beyond question. An yet George Bush senior took months to build support around the world. He understood, as apparently his son does not, that unilateral action is very dangerous.

We continue to pay a very high price for war. Over 1,000 Americans have died in the fighting so far. Over 12,000 innocent civilians were killed by US action plus uncounted others at the hands of insurgents, and the death toll rises every day. http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/

We inflicted a couple hundred billion dollars in damages and drove our economy from budget surpluses to the largest deficit in history.

We lost the respect of our allies and we are reviled throughout the Arab world. In Pakistan, perhaps the Bush administration’s closest ally in the war on terrorism, 46% of the people believe that suicide bombings against Americans are justified! In Jordan over 70% believe such action is justified! The fight on terrorism requires allies throughout the world, especially among Arab moderates. Instead we have driven the moderates to support of terrorism.

The Pew Global Attitudes Project http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=206

If a flawed choice to go to war weren’t enough the conduct of the war leaves more than a little to be desired.

Abu Ghraib was the symbol of the mistreatment of the Iraqi people by  Saddam Hussein. Somehow we turned it into a symbol of the mistreatment of the Iraqi people by the US. Was George Bush responsible for the atrocities? No, but neither has he shown the appropriate level of indignation.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact

The economy

Not long after coming to office George Bush proposed tax cuts. I watched television as he explained that there would be budget surpluses for the next ten years and he wanted to give some it back to taxpayers. Less than a year later the budget surplus was gone and he said that we needed the tax cut because the economy needed help. Next came 9/11 and he said we needed a tax cut to fight terrorism. Next, the war in Iraq and we needed a tax cut for the war!

And for all the administrations claims that this is a middle tax cut that simply isn’t the truth. As republican John McCain pointed out “60 percent of the benefits from Bush’s tax cuts go to the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans and that’s not the kind of tax relief that Americans need.”

As reported by the Congressional Budget Office the tax cuts are nothing less than a shift in the burden of taxation away from the rich and onto the middle class.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5689001/

Supreme Court

Also at stake in the election is the makeup of the Supreme Court. Justice John Paul Stevens is 84; Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, 79; and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, 74. Only Clarence Thomas is under 65. It is likely the next president will name several new members to the court. George Bush has publicly stated that the two justices he admires are Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the two justices on the extreme right of the court.

A sharp shift further to the right will have a dramatic and nasty effect upon the nation.

Some months ago Findlaw did a detailed analysis on the likely impact of this election on the direction of the court. It is well worth reading.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/07/dorf.scotus.elections/

Science

At heart I’m an engineer. I believe you can ignore and distort facts only at your own peril. When the government ignores and distorts facts the nation is in peril. I find the behavior of the administration particularly troubling because of extraordinary extent of the distortions. As the Union of Concerned Scientist, not usually very active in partisan politics, stated in a document signed by 5,000 scientists including 48 Nobel laureates :

“Across a broad range of issues—from childhood lead poisoning and mercury emissions to climate change, reproductive health, and nuclear weapons—the administration is distorting and censoring scientific findings that contradict its policies; manipulating the underlying science to align results with predetermined political decisions; and undermining the independence of science advisory panels by subjecting panel nominees to political litmus tests that have little or no bearing on their expertise” http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/index.cfm

Since that report was released the administration’s actions have only provided additional examples of this wanton disregard for scientific facts.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1449

I find this type of subjugation of science to politics infuriating.

If you want to read the spin and the lies try:

Republican Party http://www.gop.com/

Democratic Party http://www.democrats.org/

Swift Boat Veterans for “Truth” http://www.swiftvets.com/

Move-on.org http://www.moveon.org/front/