Jack Lessenberry Essays and Interviews

Essay: Power Source - 5/16/2008

Here’s what the majority Democrats had to say when they passed this energy bill package last month.

“The Michigan House of Representatives today passed a comprehensive, long-term energy plan that will create thousands of jobs now for Michigan workers, keep electricity affordable for consumers and businesses, and ensure that our state has the safe, reliable power supply necessary to achieve major economic growth.”

Welcome to the wonderful world of doublespeak, Funny, but the House Democrats seem to have failed to mention that they also agreed to change the rate structure so that residential customers will pay a whole lot more and businesses a whole lot less.

True, this bill does set targets for renewable energy. But when I read the bills, I was unable to figure out just what penalty the utilities will have to pay if they don’t meet the renewable energy targets.

When I talked to the governor’s special energy advisor about this, I got a lot of doubletalk. And I came away utterly convinced that if any penalties are assessed, the utilities will cheerfully be able to pass them on to the consumers. They will also be allowed to propose rate increases that will automatically take effect if the state public service commission doesn’t stop them within a certain time period.

However, it gets worse.

These bills are now before the state senate, which, unlike the House, is still controlled by the Republicans. I have a hunch that they will fight to make any renewable energy targets strictly voluntary.

And you just know how fast these big utilities will move to spend money to make any change that they don’t have to make. Especially now that these bills also newly enshrine the CMS Energy and DTE Energy’s near-monopoly status.

What these bills are really designed to do is please the big two utilities, while maybe, at best, giving them a gentle nudge in the renewable energy direction. I’ll bet they drag their feet.

What is needed is a bill with teeth. Set a schedule for realistic renewal energy targets, and prescribe a system of rewards for making them and penalties for missing them. The penalties need to be real, and not something that can be passed on to consumers.

Something, say, requiring state government to open the field up to new competitors hungry enough to get it done. We also need to be honest. The governor has talked about renewable energy creating 19,000 jobs in the near future.

Skip Pruss, her energy advisor, talked as if most of these jobs would be created in tool-and-die shops. He sees an avalanche of orders for windmill parts from other states hot to get in on the renewable energy craze.

Call me a cynic, but I’m not convinced.

If we want renewable energy, we need to push for it. But not via a bunch of bills basically designed to create a safe monopoly for two energy companies who are still going to build coal-fired plants.

We can do better. Starting by insisting that our politicians be more honest.

Hear Audio Story   

Interview: Skip Pruss - 5/16/2008

Governor Jennifer Granholm is a big proponent of renewable energy. A package of bills now before the state Senate would require that power producers obtain at least ten percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2015. Skip Pruss is the governor’s special advisor on alternative energy and the environment. Michigan Radio’s Jack Lessenberry spoke with him about the energy legislation.

Hear Audio Story   

Essay: State of the State - 5/9/2008

When I read Charlie Ballard’s state of the state survey this morning, a few things never mentioned in it popped into my mind.

First of all, it seems clear that anyone who wants to win Michigan this fall better stop talking about silly side issues, and start addressing our state and our nation’s serious economic problems.

So far the Democratic candidates have spent a lot of time squabbling about who was most against Iraq. Meanwhile, we’ve paid vast attention to a retired preacher whose words have since been repudiated by the candidate who used to go to his church.

Ballard’s survey, which is one of the most accurate in opinion polling, indicates what voters think of those issues. The answer is: Not much. Only seven out of every thousand feel that foreign policy is a top issue in this campaign.

And only two in every thousand think that race relations and diversity should be on the front burner. What about the so-called ‘moral issues” that seem to surface every election season?

Well, they are of concern to precisely one half of one percent of Michigan’s population. We are facing tough economic times this year, and our hearts are in our wallets.

Two thirds of us think the top issues are either jobs or the economy. When you throw in taxes and budget issues, that rises to about eighty percent of us.

When you look at these numbers, it is hard to see how any Democratic candidate for president could possibly fail to win Michigan this fall. A solid majority think George W. Bush has done a poor job.

They don’t much like Jennifer Granholm either, but she isn’t running. What they really worry about, however, could be best summed up by the title of Charlie Ballard’s last book:

Michigan’s Economic Future.

Four out of seven of us say we are worse off than a year ago. Less than one in every four of us thinks we are in better shape. We still are hopeful about the future.

Americans are traditionally the most optimistic people on the planet. But we aren’t starry-eyed. Forty-four percent of us think we’ll be better off this time next year. Thirty-five percent say worse off. And that’s the most pessimistic they’ve been since this survey was started. Voters are going to be looking for a president who can help us get out of this pothole, and avoid bigger ones.

Twenty-eight years ago, I covered another presidential campaign that looked like it would end in a dead heat. Then the candidates had a single debate. “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” the challenger asked, “Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores?”

Days later, the man who said those words carried 44 states, including Michigan. Today, we once again know the answer to those questions.

For the rest of this year, voters are going to be looking for someone who can make them feel better off four years from now.

Hear Audio Story   

Interview: Charles Ballard - 5/9/2008

The results of Michigan’s annual State of the State Survey were released today. The survey asked Michigan residents about their economic situation and what issues they thought were most important. Charles Ballard is a Professor of Economics at Michigan State University. He is also the director of the State of the State Survey. Michigan Radio’s Jack Lessenberry spoke with him.

Hear Audio Story   

Essay: Inflation - 5/7/2008

If you really want to know how bad inflation is, you could do one of two things. You could talk to distinguished economists and bankers like Dana Johnson, and read official government reports.

Or you can talk to someone on a fixed income who has to drive a lot. Or go to the closest grocery store, and talk to the parent who is doing the weekly shopping for the wife and kids.

You are likely to get two vastly different impressions. Now don’t get me wrong. This isn’t Weimar Germany, where you had to take a wheelbarrow full of cash to the store to get a loaf of bread.

It isn’t even Argentina in the 1980s, where I watched people run out and buy merchandise on their lunch hour in case the value of their money melted to nothing by nightfall. But there is a problem with inflation in this country. It is growing, and those suffering the most are those who least can afford to do so. Which is usually the case.

To some extent, inflation hits everybody differently. When we measure inflation, we normally use the consumer price index, which is based on an attempt to create a so-called “market basket” of goods and services reflective of what the average consumer might buy.

In some areas, particularly electronics, we are actually seeing deflation. In 1950, a small black and white TV with a fuzzy picture cost about five thousand dollars in today’s money.

And you don’t have to be very old to know that I-pods and big-screen, HDTVs cost less now than just a very few years ago.

Housing is cheaper too. Which is not a good thing if, like most middle-aged Americans, your single biggest asset is in the value of your home. Oh, you are fine for now, unless you need to sell it.

Then, especially in Michigan, good luck. Where inflation is steepest these days is in food and energy prices. Those tend to be fixed and unavoidable costs for most people, especially in Michigan, where we have decidedly inferior public transportation.

Poorer people pay a higher percentage of their total income for both food and fuel. That means their incomes are shrinking.

The kind of inflation we are seeing now hurts the poor more than it does the rich -- and especially the poor whose incomes don’t automatically rise with inflation. Crash programs aimed at increasing ethanol production could harm some people more than it helps them.

Hurt them by driving up food prices. Few people have noticed, but Costco and Sam’s Club are quietly limiting the amount of rice customers can buy. They worry about coming shortages.

Alan Greenspan, the most famous chair of the Federal Reserve in history, said this week he now fears the economy is once again prone to a new round of inflation. When he speaks, you can bet his successor, Ben Bernanke, is listening. If you expect the feds to cut interest rates again in the near future, you may want to think again.

Hear Audio Story   

Interview: Dana Johnson - 5/7/2008

Inflation is rising… And, it’s worrying economists and investors. Dana Johnson is chief economist of Comerica Bank. Michigan Radio’s Jack Lessenberry spoke with him about how concerned we should be about the rate of inflation.

Hear Audio Story   

Essay: Doctor Shortage - 5/1/2008

I have a close friend who is a family care physician who is still practicing full-time at age 81. He goes to his office every day, and visits two nursing homes where he has been medical director.

His wife wishes he would at least slow down and take a little more time for himself. He has a beautiful home and perhaps the finest private library I’ve ever seen.  But he feels an obligation to his patients, some of whom have been with him for fifty years.

Naturally, he also loves what he does.  But he isn’t happy at all about what is happening to his profession.

“The corporations want to destroy the doctor-patient relationship,” he tells me.

“Places like the Detroit Medical Center don’t want you to have a relationship with a doctor, They just want you to have a relationship with the institution. They don’t want you to pick your own doctor, they just want to assign whatever one is next to see you.”

He thinks the managed care world wants to reduce physicians to something like the anonymous mechanics who will change your brakes at Sears.

He is a physician of the old school. He spends as much time with each patient as he thinks justified, which means that his waiting room resembles a backed-up airport terminal in a snowstorm.

For him, the assembly line model was meant for Plymouths, not physicians.  To be fair, medicine is changing, and his model of doctor-patient relationship may no longer work in today’s world.

Yet it isn’t clear that the corporate model is working very well either. After my friend moaned that “American kids don’t want to be doctors any more,” I introduced him to a young woman who planned to go to school to be a physician’s assistant. He snorted.

“So she wants to be a nine-to-five doctor,” he said. Medicine is a sacred calling to him, and real doctors are on call 24/7. 

That may be a bit extreme. Still, if you are a physician who is an employee of a  walk-in clinic, it is probably harder to see yourself as engaged in a long-term relationship with your patients.

Huge changes in health care are coming. All three remaining presidential candidates agree that far too many people are left uncovered. The tide of public sentiment and the aging of the baby boomers means health care will be a major topic soon.

What form health care reform will take is unclear, except that there will be some kind of movement towards universal coverage.

That means we need to train lots more doctors. Common sense indicates that the government should establish financial incentives aimed at making becoming a family care physician attractive.

If anyone objects, the bill’s sponsor should proclaim that this is a matter of national security.  Granted, funds are limited.

But if you had a clear choice between spending money on the war in Iraq, or spending to establish enough doctors for our future needs, where do you think our priorities should be?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

Hear Audio Story   

Interview: Gregory Forzley - 5/1/2008

A new survey shows that more than forty percent of the state’s forty-thousand doctors plan to retire within the next decade. And, indications are that there aren’t enough new doctors in the pipeline to replace them. Doctor Gregory Forzley is a family physician and Chairman of the Michigan State Medical Society. Michigan Radio’s Jack Lessenberry spoke with him.

Hear Audio Story   

Essay: Taxing Concerns - 4/29/2008

I can think of a number of words for the present situation involving the Michigan Business Tax, but the only one I can say on the radio is SNAFU: situation normal; all fouled up.

Whether the legislature and governor will now fix this, no one knows. But it is worth reviewing how we got there.

Last year saw the mother of all budget battles. The state was running nearly a two billion dollar deficit, thanks to years worth of irresponsible behavior on the part of both parties.

Much of it came at the hands of term-limited legislators who didn’t have to worry about long-term responsibility. Democrats, led by the governor, were unwilling to make more deep cuts in state services or cripple our universities, and therefore the state’s future.

So, the governor timidly came out for extending the sales tax to all services. But she was so wishy-washy and timid about it that her own proposal didn’t have a chance. The Republicans, on the other hand, were big tough and manly. They insisted on tax cuts.

They said the state needs to live within its means, and stop taking so much of the taxpayers’ money. The rich taxpayers, anyway.

But when they were asked what services they wanted to slash, they ran and hid, or offered science fiction solutions.

There was one area where the notorious big-spending Democrats did feel the budget could be cut: prisons. We spend more on prisons, per capita, than any nearby state. We spend more on prisons than on higher education.

But Republicans did not want to cut prison spending. For they were big and manly, and needed to look tough on crime.

So the lawmakers dithered to the very last moment. As originally passed, the new Michigan Business Tax looked good.

What should have happened next was clear. Make what cuts could be made, and raise the income tax from 3.9 to 4.8 percent.

That would have meant some pain for everyone. But Michiganders are used to income tax rates going up and down.

When I was buying my first house they were as high as 6.35 percent, but we all survived. But last year, the lawmakers were only willing to raise taxes to 4.35 percent. Then they briefly enacted a patchwork quilt of taxes on services that didn’t have powerful lobbyists protecting them, like fortune tellers.

But the Michigan Chamber of Commerce then went bananas. So to balance the budget, as required by law, the lawmakers repealed that and slapped a surcharge on the Business Tax.

Now they need to fix this, pronto. Here‘s what to do. Go back to the drawing board and raise the Michigan income tax. Get rid of the surcharge on the Michigan Business tax, fast.

Then adjust that tax so that it rewards job creation and stable growth. That‘s something our lame-duck governor and legislature could accomplish for the good of us all. However, that would require a few profiles in courage. So don’t hold your breath.

Hear Audio Story   

Interview: Gary Olson - 4/28/2008

The state legislature passed the new Michigan Business Tax last year, after repealing the much-despised Single Business Tax. Now, however, new tax bills are arriving and some businesses aren’t happy with the amount they have to pay. Economist Gary Olson is Director of the Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency. Michigan Radio’s Jack Lessenberry spoke with him.

Hear Audio Story