Archive for the ‘ Hawaii State Economy ’ Category

John Carroll

John Carroll

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Media Contacts:

Barbara Hester – PR Coordinator  (808) 384-5907

Gayle Gardner – Campaign Chairman (808) 595-7127

Alice Paet-Ah Sing - Campaign Director (808) 542-2902

John Carroll – Candidate (808) 526-9111 (808) 545-3800 fax

Gubernatorial Candidate, John Carroll, Former State Senator and Former Chair of the Republican Party of Hawai‘i, announced today that he and Honolulu attorney Christopher Dias have filed a precedent setting law suit.  The suit requests for injunctive relief from the United States Government, relief from the provisions of the Jones Act, which created shipping restrictions that adversely apply to only one State in the Union; the island State of Hawai`i.  Carroll stated that the restrictions are excessively expensive for Hawai`i’s people and are in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments as well as the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Carroll stated that he had originally intended to instruct his Attorney General to file a class action on behalf of the people of the State of Hawai`i when he took office as Governor.  He now states he sees no reason to delay.  Carroll believes in getting things done.  Carroll explained,  “One of the purposes of enacting the Jones Act was to ensure that the United States of America would be well equipped with a maritime fleet that could compete in a worldwide economy.  Unfortunately, it created unconstitutional restrictions on commerce between the State of Hawai`i and worldwide shippers as well as on interstate commerce.”

Since Hawai`i is separated from the continental United States by 2,300 miles of ocean and, of course, has no highways, railroads or pipelines from the continental United States, Hawai`i is dependent on ocean shipping for at least 90 percent of every commodity used and consumed in the state.

The Impact of the Jones Act on the People of Hawai‘i

The Jones Act requires that for a ship to operate in interstate commerce, (between states), it must be built in America, owned by Americans, 75 percent manned by an American crew, and maintained and flagged in the United States.  The net effect of the enforcement of the Jones Act on the State of Hawai‘i’s population has been wide-ranging.

Examples:  The expense of agricultural production became prohibitive, not only because of the inbound shipping cost of fertilizers, herbicides, and farm implements but also due to the outbound shipping costs for our locally grown fruits, livestock and ornamental plants.  Hawai‘i cattle ranchers are faced with an intolerable situation.  They often have to transport their cattle, from Kawaihae to Vancouver B.C. on a Canadian owned Corral Lines to remain profitable.  The cattle must then be trucked (often for 500 miles)  into the U.S. to be fattened and sold.  To go direct, some are flown on Boeing 747 aircraft.

There has emerged a monopolistic control of shipping in and out of the State of Hawai‘i, eliminating the cost reduction benefits of competition.  As will be shown at trial, the cost of everything from automobiles to paper towels is significantly higher because of the enforcement of the Jones Act provisions.

By comparison, the tiny islands of Singapore and Hong Kong, which do not have similar trade restrictions and with less than 1/20th the land mass of Hawai’i, enjoy a Gross Domestic Product in excess of two billion (2,000,000,000.00) U.S. dollars per year. That is 40 times greater than Hawai`i’s GDP of fifty million (50,000,000.00) U.S. dollars per year when government spending and tourism are excluded. This is an absurdity for Hawai‘i’s economic viability.

The Fundamental Purposes of the Commerce Clause

The fundamental purposes of the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution are, among others, “…to assure the unrestricted flow of commerce throughout the several states,” 282 NE2d 336,  “…to assure to the commercial enterprises in every state substantial equality to access to a free national market,” 517 P2d 691.  Further, the “…power granted is a positive power to legislate concerning transactions which, reaching across state boundaries, affect the people of more states than one, and to govern affairs which the individual states,with their limited territorial jurisdictions, are not fully capable of governing.” 322 US 533.  Clearly, the Jones Act and its provisions are in direct violation of the spirit of the Commerce Clause.

By Russell Pang

HONOLULU – Governor Linda Lingle today submitted to the State Legislature the Administration’s plan to meet a projected $650 million revenue shortfall for the remainder of the current fiscal year (FY09) and biennium budget fiscal years 2010 through 2011.

The Administration’s plan balances the budget without raising taxes, without any layoffs or furloughs of state employees, and without making significant cuts to essential public services or programs.  It combines the use of federal stimulus funds, tobacco funds, interest from and charges to various special funds, adjustments to selected benefits for state employees, and further tightening Act 221 tax credits.

“While we are working to take maximum advantage of the federal funds available through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, the additional federal funds alone will not be sufficient to close the projected revenue shortfall,” said Governor Lingle.

“In developing this balanced budget plan, our top priorities were to ensure we do not take any more taxpayer money out of the economy to support government, that we not add to the state’s unemployment by laying off employees, that we preserve essential public services, and that we continue to invest available resources in projects that will create jobs in the near term and achieve our long-term priorities such as energy independence.  This budget accomplishes those goals,” the Governor added.

In December, Governor Lingle submitted her Administration’s FY10-FY11 biennium budget which included a detailed plan to make up for a $1.1 billion revenue shortfall projected by the Council on Revenues.  On January 9, 2009, the Council lowered its revenue projections further by an additional $650 million for FY09, FY10 and FY11.

The Governor subsequently submitted an $81 million plan to close the FY09 shortfall through a combination of transferring funds from various special funds, including the rainy day fund, implementing additional restrictions on discretionary spending and utilizing additional federal reimbursements for Medicaid.

“Over the past year, we have made difficult but necessary decisions to reduce spending to ensure the state lives within its means,” the Governor said.  “At the same time, unprecedented national and global fiscal and economic challenges continue to impact our local economy and these realities mandate that we cannot continue to operate in a business-as-usual manner.

“We also must resist the impulse to raise taxes and fees because Hawai‘i’s families and small businesses are facing unprecedented challenges. We must ensure they keep as much of their money as possible.”

The Governor pointed out that additional budget adjustments will likely be needed when the Council on Revenues meets again on March 12, because it is anticipated that the Council will revise its revenue forecasts downward.

In addition to the plan to close the FY09 shortfall, the Administration is proposing the following nine action items to provide the state with additional general fund revenues needed to close the revenue shortfall:

  • Utilize federal stimulus Medicaid funds. Nearly half of the shortfall will be covered by an estimated $320 million in Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) funds. The matching federal funds for treating Medicaid patients are part of the $15 billion in Medicaid assistance being made available to the states under the recently passed federal stimulus plan. Hawai‘i is scheduled to receive $106.7 million for FY09, $142.2. million in FY10 and $71.1 million in FY11.  As of last week, states were allowed to start accessing FMAP funds (Impact: $320 million, FY09-FY11.)
  • Redistribute a portion of the Tobacco Settlement Funds. The Administration supports a bill (HB1731) currently before the Legislature to reallocate the distribution of the Tobacco Settlement Special Fund, including depositing 14 percent into the state’s general fund.  This action would add $7 million per year to the state’s revenues.  (Impact: $14 million, FY10-FY11.)
  • Transfer tobacco tax revenues to the general fund. The Administration supports a bill (HB1732) currently before the Legislature which would allow the use of tobacco tax revenues. The redistribution of the tobacco tax is expected to add $33 million to the state’s general fund in the upcoming biennium. (Impact: $33 million, FY10-FY11.)
  • Advance the general excise tax filing date. The Administration supports a bill (HB1735) currently before the Legislature to change the filing date for the general excise monthly tax return from the last day of the calendar month following the month in which taxes accrue to the 20th day of that month.  The earlier collection of taxes within the fiscal year will generate a one-time revenue gain of $40 million in FY11.  (Impact:  $40 million, FY11.)
  • Remove the exemption for certain special funds from assessments. The Administration proposes removing a provision that currently exempts certain special funds from paying their fair share of assessments to support central services and departmental administrative expenses.  A bill (HB1740) currently before the Legislature would remove the exemption for all but a handful of special funds, including the Hawai‘i Hurricane Relief Fund, Convention Center Enterprise Special Fund and Tourism Special Fund.  The Administration supports this measure, but proposes also allowing the following special funds to retain the exemption from assessments:  State Educational Facilities Improvement Special Fund, Hawai‘i Health Systems Corporation Special Fund and University of Hawai‘i Special Fund.  This action would result in an additional $9.8 million annually. (Impact: $19.6 million, FY10-FY11.)
  • Transfer interest earned on certain special funds to the general fund. The Administration supports a measure (HB1733) before the Legislature to allow the transfer of interest earned on investments of special funds, revolving funds and special accounts into the general fund.  This action would not impact the amount in these funds that are generated through user fees or charges.  The use of the interest earnings would result in an estimated $38.2 million in general fund revenues. (Impact: $38.2 million, FY10-FY11.)
  • Discontinue employer-funded group life insurance. The Administration supports a bill (HB1726) currently before the Legislature to prevent the Hawai‘i Employer-Union Health Benefit Trust Fund (EUTF) from providing group life insurance benefits if the premiums are paid for by the state or a county.  Currently, the employer (the state or a county) pays the entire premium for the life insurance benefit.  Premiums are more expensive than paying death benefits directly to survivors.  Discontinuing this practice would save the state $4.1 million in FY10 and $4.3 million in FY11.  (Impact: $8.4 million, FY10-FY11.)
  • Seek adjustments to the EUTF health benefits plan. The Administration will seek adjustments to the current Employer-Union Health Benefit Trust Fund health plan through collective bargaining negotiations. If the current health benefits plan is sustained, with the state covering 60 percent of the cost, the premiums will increase by an estimated 29.4 percent.  This proposal would not affect retirees and their dependent beneficiaries. This effort would provide a cost savings of approximately $48 million per year.  (Impact: $96 million, FY10-FY11.)
  • Further tighten Act 221 to reduce tax credits to investors in technology businesses. Rather than allowing investors to get back a full dollar for each dollar they invest, investors will receive 50 cents for each dollar invested, sharing their risk with state taxpayers.  This effort will save an estimated $43.9 in the biennium. (Impact: $43.9 million, FY10-FY11.)

In addition to closing the revenue shortfall over the next two years, the Administration is also focused on ensuring long-term fiscal stability for the state.  The Administration supports a bill (HB1715) currently before the Legislature to increase by five years the minimum retirement age and minimum length of service before a state employee can receive full service retirement benefits.  The measure would only apply to employees who enter public service on or after July 1, 2009.  The annual savings for this proposal starting in FY2013 is approximately $39 million.

.

Part I covered the history and purpose of the Jones Act.

Part II covered proponents arguments and analysis.

For the full study with all figures and tables, log on to Jones Act study 2009.

By Daniel Brackins

Job Protectionism and Unemployment

As has been noted the U.S. shipping industry attempts to increases the wages of its employers with the use of the Jones Act. This is primarily accomplished through unions. A binding minimum wage can be introduced either by law or through collective bargaining.

The point of intersection of the supply and demand curves is the equilibrium point where supply equals demand. This point changes with shifts in the demand for labor (increase in demand for labor will increase price of labor).  If labor markets were free to operate with no outside influence, then supply would equal demand, and all those who desired employment would be employed.

We see that if the wage rate is higher than the equilibrium wage rate, the supply of labor will exceed the demand. By creating an artificial price floor for labor that is above the equilibrium wage rate, the supply of labor will exceed the demand (at that wage rate) and not all people who seek employment will be able to find a job. Note that if the wage is set below the equilibrium wage, it will have no effect on the equilibrium point for the labor market (a nonbinding constraint). The higher the minimum wage above the equilibrium wage, the greater is the impact. The magnitude of the impact is also determined by the number of people who are currently being paid the minimum wage, and therefore directly affected by the change. Bargaining power obtained through the representation of large numbers of workers can result in wage rates that are well above the equilibrium rate. Often studies allude to cases where there appears to be little or no negative effects resulting from a minimum wage increase. These conclusions may occur due to the magnitude, timing, and number of employees impacted by the increase.

There is an inability for unions to create wage equality through artificial wage inflation. In the unions’ attempt to equalize wages they have essentially done the opposite. An artificial increase in wages above the real market value assumes an infinite amount of monetary supply (Gallaway & Vetter, n.d.). With this failed logic it would be acceptable to pay a floor sweeper $50 per hour or perhaps $500 per hour. Yet the money supply is not unlimited; therefore, any shift will create a side effect. As a result any money given to one person must be taken from another. In the case of wage inequality it is wages that would have been given to another had the wages been

In the industry represented in the diagram there are a total of 5,000 jobs possible before saturation occurs.The market rate has established $10 per hour for this job and would allow for maximization and full employment. However, if an artificial rate were established at $50 per hour, as a result, only 1,000 workers could be utilized. This would prevent 4,000 workers from entering the industry.

Decline of U.S. Shipping

In comparison to other nations without cabotage restrictions there has been a decline in the U.S. shipping fleet, losing out to the competition of these other nations (Competition, 2006).  This is occurring despite the protectionist policies of the United States.  A comparison of vessels operating can be seen in figures 3 and 4.

It must be noted that the protectionist policies of the U.S. has reduced the number of U.S. flagged ships in operation.  On the other hand countries that exercise free trade policies, without cabotage laws, such as Panama, Singapore, and Hong Kong have a flourishing merchant fleet.  Open competition has created incentives for companies to operate in these nations.  Even U.S. shipping companies are aware of this benefit.  Despite having to pay a 36% penalty fee under Jones Act laws, Matson has some of its ships repaired in Shanghai, China.  Matson spokeman Jeff Hull stated, “[despite the fee] it’s still considerably cheaper” (Little, 2001).

References

1800JonesAct. (2008). The Jones Act U.S.C. Title 46 (Recodified 2006). Retrieved November 21, 2008 from http://www.1800jonesact.com/maritime_statutes/default.asp

Competition in the Noncontiguous Domestic Maritime Trades (2006).  U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration.

Little, R. (2001). U.S. merchant fleets sails toward oblivion.  The Baltimore Sun.  Retrieved October 1, 2008 from http://www.mcall.com/topic/balte.bz.
sealift06aug06,0,7707946.story?page=1

Longshormen, Making $100K Per Year, Won’t Reduce Demands (2002). Rense.com. Retrieved September 29, 2008 from http://www.rense.com/general30/long.htm

Maritime Flags of Convenience Visualized (2007). gCaptain. Retrieved September 29, 2008 from http://gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/tag/data/

McClintock, M. (2004). Merchant Marine Act of 1920. eNotes.com. Retrieved October 2, 2008 from http://www.enotes.com/major-acts-congress/merchant-marine-act

Official USDA Alaska and Hawaii Thrifty Food Plans: Cost of Food at Home (2008).  United States Department of Agriculture.

Official USDA Food Plans: Cost of Food at Home at Four Levels (2008).  United States Department of Agriculture.

The Economic Effects of Significant U.S. Import Restrains Fifth Update 2007 Investigation No. 332-325 (2007).  United States International Trade Commission.

The Hidden Costs of U.S. Shipping Laws (1996).  Public Interest Institute.

The Price of Paradise! (n.d.). Alternative-Hawaii. Retrieved October 1, 2008 from http://www.alternative-hawaii.com/overpop.htm

The World Factbook (2008).  Central Intelligence Agency.  Retrieved October 2, 2008 from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

.

Part I addressed the history and purpose of the Jones Act in this series.

By Daniel Brackins

Proponent Argument

In addition to national defense, proponents argue that the Jones Act provides additional benefits to the United States.  Among these include job protection due to unfair competition by from other nations.

Job Protection

Phillip Grill (1996) says that job protected by the Jones Act is 124,000 (as cited in The Hidden Costs, 1996).  Grill further says that these jobs must be protected in order to prevent the loss of jobs to foreign competitors, who charge less than fair wages for similar work done by U.S. workers.  This is a claim to unfair competition.  Indeed the wages of a merchant marine are incredibly high compared to their counterparts.  A U.S. longshoreman or marine clerk can earn upwards of $100,000 to $137,000 per year (Longshoremen, 2002).  Indeed this is a much greater salary found in such places as China.  This increased cost of wages will be further analyzed.

National Defense

In the wars of this century, commercial shipping has been critically important. The relevant question is not whether future threats might require that fleets of commercial-type ships be available. The question is whether present programs provide such a capability effectively and efficiently.  If the U.S. flagged fleet is fully employed during peacetime serving commercially important domestic and international trades, it is neither an entirely reliable nor a low-cost military reserve. This was verified during the Gulf War (Ferguson, n.d.).

Some security justification for transporting war material in peacetime exclusively on U.S. flagged ships is valid. The fact that a large fraction of military preference cargo consists of household goods and private automobiles dilutes any such basis for incurring the high costs of cargo preferences. Further, cargo preference does not buy much reserve military capability; the cargo preference largely supports bulk carriers and container ships that are of limited military use (Ferguson, n.d.).

The higher than competitive prices that are permitted under the antitrust exemption for conference ratemaking may be important, given present regulatory constraints, in sustaining the U.S. flag fleet. However, more than 80 percent of traffic in American international liner commerce is carried by foreign companies. Therefore, whatever military gain is achieved through conference price fixing accrues predominantly to foreign governments (Ferguson, n.d.).

The defense-related rationale for present policies presupposes that, despite the enormous capacity available on the open market, only U.S.-flag service could be relied on in an emergency. In contrast, the Military SealiftCommand made extensive use of foreign ships and crews in the Gulf War, and representatives of the Department of Defense have recently declared that there is no need to rely on the U.S.-flag commercial fleet in any foreseeable wars (Ferguson, n.d.).

Analysis

Operating Cost Differentials

Vessel costs are primarily comprised of capital and operating costs. Capital costs refer to vessel construction costs.  Operating costs include wages paid to crews, direct fuel charges, insurance, maintenance and repair, and other administrative expenses. Of these, labor and maintenance costs are typically higher in absolute terms for U.S. vessels than for foreign-flagged vessels (table 1). U.S. crew costs generally account for most of the differences in operating costs between U.S. and foreign flagged vessels. For example, manning costs account for 77 percent of the operating cost differential for a typical oil tanker and 81 percent of the cost differential for a typical containership (The Economic Effects, 2007).

Table 1.

Expense Category

U.S. Flagged

Foreign Flagged

Crew

12,705

2,940

Fuel

4,410

3,045

Maint. & Repair

2,310

1,470

Insurance

13,335

13,335

Other

1,500

1,400

TOTAL

$34,260

$22,190

Source:  The Economic Effects, 2007

The above table indicates a large crew expense for U.S. flagged ships.  In addition to the higher salaries demanded, American ships must hire more crew members than foreign ships, often 23 or more, compared with as few as 11 on other vessels (Little, 2001).  Even ship owners willing to pay American salaries say they were forced from the fleet because of all the other expenses that the U.S. flag requires. “Foreign crews eat less, they travel economy class, they seem to use less [provisions], there’s less overtime, no workers complaints,” said Vass, who re-flagged the LNG Aquarius. “I can’t think of anything that didn’t cost more. Like the beef. They would only eat prime American beef - not choice, like your wife feeds you, but prime, U.S. beef. We had to fly it out to Japan.”I’m not saying the Americans aren’t good. They are. But the foreign crew doesn’t mind eating Australian beef” (Little, 2001). In the past 25 years 1,600 vessels have left the U.S. fleet (Little, 2001).

In Hawaii many cattle ranchers have decided to use airplanes to ship their cattle.  They find it cheaper and more efficient than shipping them on U.S. flagged ships.  These cattle fly on 747s in livestock containers at 30 cents a pound (Little, 2001).  They have no other choice since foreign flagged vessels are not allowed to ship cargo from one U.S. port to another.

If foreign vessels were allowed to participate in U.S. cabotage, some industry analysts maintain that, in addition to complying with environmental laws, foreign vessels operating in U.S. domestic waters would be required to comply with other U.S. regulations, including federal and state tax, immigration, and labor laws.  According to industry representatives, foreign vessel compliance with these laws likely would increase the costs of such vessels operating in Jones Act trade, thereby substantially decreasing the cost differential between U.S. and foreign flagged carriers.  However, only some of these laws would apply to foreign vessels if they were allowed to participate in Jones Act trade (The Economic Effects, 2007).

Job Protectionism and Unemployment

As has been noted the U.S. shipping industry attempts to increases the wages of its employers with the use of the Jones Act.  This is primarily accomplished through unions.

1800JonesAct. (2008). The Jones Act U.S.C. Title 46 (Recodified 2006). Retrieved November 21, 2008 from http://www.1800jonesact.com/maritime_statutes/default.asp

Competition in the Noncontiguous Domestic Maritime Trades (2006).  U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration.

Little, R. (2001). U.S. merchant fleets sails toward oblivion.  The Baltimore Sun.  Retrieved October 1, 2008 from http://www.mcall.com/topic/balte.bz. sealift06aug06,0,7707946.story?page=1

Longshormen, Making $100K Per Year, Won’t Reduce Demands (2002). Rense.com. Retrieved September 29, 2008 from http://www.rense.com/general30/long.htm

Maritime Flags of Convenience Visualized (2007). gCaptain. Retrieved September 29, 2008 from http://gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/tag/data/

McClintock, M. (2004). Merchant Marine Act of 1920. eNotes.com. Retrieved October 2, 2008 from http://www.enotes.com/major-acts-congress/merchant-marine-act

Official USDA Alaska and Hawaii Thrifty Food Plans: Cost of Food at Home (2008).  United States Department of Agriculture.

Official USDA Food Plans: Cost of Food at Home at Four Levels (2008).  United States Department of Agriculture.

The Economic Effects of Significant U.S. Import Restrains Fifth Update 2007 Investigation No. 332-325 (2007).  United States International Trade Commission.

The Hidden Costs of U.S. Shipping Laws (1996).  Public Interest Institute.

The Price of Paradise! (n.d.). Alternative-Hawaii. Retrieved October 1, 2008 from http://www.alternative-hawaii.com/overpop.htm

The World Factbook (2008).  Central Intelligence Agency.  Retrieved October 2, 2008 from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

By Grassroot Institute of Hawaii

Senate Bill 659

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2009/Bills/SB659_.pdf , a measure with the potential to greatly increase transparency and accountability in Hawaii state government, has been scheduled for hearing at 9:30 am on Thursday, February 5 in conference room 211 of the state Capitol. The bill, which is being heard by the Senate Ways and Means Committee, would create a publicly-accessible, online database for all state grants and awards over $25,000. You may remember that a similar bill was passed in the prior legislative session, but the Governor allowed the bill to go into effect without her signature, and the bill was never implemented.

SB 659 addresses concerns shared by the Governor and others.

Regardless of your feelings for or against the bill, we encourage you to submit written testimony no later than Wednesday evening, or even more importantly to provide oral testimony at the hearing on Thursday morning.

The meeting notice and instructions on giving testimony can be found here

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2009/hearingnotices/HEARING_WAM_02. Please check back regularly to confirm no changes have been made. If you decide to give testimony, we would appreciate it if you could let us know, so we can keep track of the impact GRIH and its supporters are having. If you have any further questions, please contact me the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii at 808-591-9193.

One final note—The companion bill of SB 659 is House Bill 1840, introduced by Representative Gene Ward and referred to the House Finance Committee.

We encourage you to contact members

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/house/comm/commFIN.asp of the committee, in particular Chair Marcus Oshiro, to share your thoughts as to whether or not this bill should be given a hearing.

Editor’s note:  Hawaii Liberty Chronicles contributor, Daniel Brackins, has released his research on the Jones Act’s economic impact on Hawaii written on assignment for his 6000 level Economics course at Hawaii Pacific University.  It will be released in parts with this first portion covering the history and purpose of the Jones Act.  Pictures added at editors discretion.

The Merchant Marine Act of 1920, commonly referred to as the Jones Act, is a United States Federal statute that regulates maritime commerce in U.S. waters and between U.S. ports.  It is a cabotage law which also contains provisions regarding seamen’s rights.  These cabotage provisions restrict the carriage of goods or passengers between U.S. ports to U.S. manufactured flagged vessels.  In addition, it maintains that 75% of the crew members must be U.S. citizens.  Also repair work of U.S. flagged vessels’ hulls and superstructures is limited to 10% of foreign built steel weight (1800JonesAct, 2008).  These restrictions are largely American protectionist policies.  These policies have a significant impact on the economy of the United States.  Since Hawaii is an island which relies on trade and commerce for subsistence, the Jones Act has severe negative implications for the economy of Hawaii.

No reliable analyses of the economic benefits of U.S. maritime polices have been published.  Nor has there been a reliable study as to the benefits of a repeal of the Jones Act.  As a result, judgment of these policies must be made by their rationale and their specific impact on certain economic sectors. Unfortunately there is even less information available for the economic impacts on the State of Hawaii.  This paper will focus on the implications for the economy of Hawaii.  It will demonstrate that costs for moving cargo between U.S. ports is far higher than if such restrictions did not apply, and that this cost is passed on to the consumer.  It will also show that the U.S. shipbuilding industry has also suffered as a result of the Jones Act, and this it has prevented U.S. flagged ships from competing in international shipping.  In addition a focus will be on the final implications for Hawaii’s consumers who bear the burden of this failed economic policy.  Ultimately it will be shown what steps can be taken to reverse the negative impacts of the Jones Act and make Hawaii a prosperous state.  Conclusions will be drawn from the general impact of the cabotage law on the United States and its effects on Hawaii.

The Hawaiian Merchant leaves San Francisco Bay on Aug. 31, 1958, with 20 24-foot containers on its deck. The Matson ship inaugurated container shipping in the Pacific. Photo: Matson Navigation Co.

The Hawaiian Merchant leaves San Francisco Bay on Aug. 31, 1958, with 20 24-foot containers on its deck. The Matson ship inaugurated container shipping in the Pacific. Photo: Matson Navigation Co.

History and Purpose of the Jones Act

The intent and purpose of the Jones Act has been codified in the preamble of the Act itself:

  • It is necessary for the national defense and for the proper growth of its foreign and domestic commerce that the United States shall have a merchant marine of the best equipped and most suitable types of vessels sufficient to carry the greater portion of its commerce and serve as a naval or military auxiliary in time of war or national emergency, ultimately to be owned and operated privately by citizens of the United States; and it is declared to be the policy of the United States to do whatever may be necessary to develop and encourage the maintenance of such a merchant marine…(1800JonesAct, 2008)

The history of the Jones Act must be evaluated in its historical context.  At the turn of the century the United States was completing a process of development after overcoming the turmoil of the Civil War.  It was at this time that strong and viable merchant fleet became a political priority.  The British, known for a strong merchant fleet, were looked upon as a model because of their ascension to a position of dominant world power.  This was attributed to having a strong naval fleet.  Sir Walter Raleigh stated, “Whosoever commands the sea commands trade; whosoever commands the trade of the world commands the riches of the world, and consequently the world itself” (McClintock, 2004).

Destroyers present include: USS Farquhar (DD-304), at left; USS Reno (DD-303), center; USS William Jones (DD-308), right center; and USS Hull (DD-330). Photographed by the Shura Studio, Honolulu. Courtesy of Charles Sass, 1979. U.S. Naval Historical Center Photograph.

Another development was the need for American military forces to have a dependable sea lift capability in time of defense.  This was realized during World War I.  The infant U.S. Navy did not possess the capability of performing this function, and thus relied on the civilian sector for the transport of military cargo to overseas destinations.

The volume of cargo and international trade for the U.S. merchant fleet had drastically decreased due to the economic decline and global turmoil caused by World War I.  Further complicating the ability of the U.S. merchant fleet to compete in international commerce were higher construction and operation costs. For example, in 1926 the comparative monthly crew costs for ships of equal size were: $3,270 for the United States; $1,308 for Great Britain; and $777 for Japan.  Historically, the United States curbed the impact of such issues through cabotage laws, which are government measures used to protect or foster a domestic shipping industry by reserving all or a portion of international sea commerce to ships which fly the national flag (McClintock, 2004).

Cabotage laws were first introduced with the Shipping Act of 1916. The Shipping Act stated that only citizens of the United States, or companies in which a controlling interest was held by a citizen of the United States, could own a U.S. vessel. Additionally, the secretary of transportation had strict control over the transfer and chartering of U.S. vessels to foreign companies, and it provided for the regulation of rate agreements to avoid rate wars.  Subsequently, Congress passed the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, which was arguably the nation’s most influential cabotage law (McClintock, 2004).

1800JonesAct. (2008). The Jones Act U.S.C. Title 46 (Recodified 2006). Retrieved November 21, 2008 from http://www.1800jonesact.com/maritime_statutes/default.asp

McClintock, M. (2004). Merchant Marine Act of 1920. eNotes.com. Retrieved October 2, 2008 from http://www.enotes.com/major-acts-congress/merchant-marine-act

NEWS RELEASE
THE GRASSROOT INSTITUTE OF HAWAII

2009 Hawaii Pork Report
Grassroot Institute and CAGW Expose Waste in Hawaii Government

Jan. 28, 2009 — Hawaii taxpayers recently paid almost $3,000 for a state employee to travel to Los Angeles for the Grammy Music Awards, according to a new report from The Grassroot Institute of Hawaii (GRIH) and premiere taxpayer watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW). In the midst of a significant state budget shortfall, the 2009 Hawaii Pork Report reveals that bureaucrats continue to spend taxpayer dollars in questionable ways. The exposé, which is the first of its kind in the state, reveals egregious waste, abuse and mismanagement of taxpayer dollars—and gives concrete examples of overspending to policymakers looking to trim fat from state and local budgets.

Some examples of frivolous spending that are sure to raise the ire of hard-working citizens include:

·       $2,829.91 for a state employee to travel to California for the Grammy Awards;

·       $875,000 to reconstruct a hiking trail that is now barred from public access at a cost of an additional $50,000 a year;

·       $130,000 to an artist for ceramic tiles adorning water coolers at the Hawaii Convention Center; and

·       $2,400,000 for substitute custodians in public schools.

Pearl Hahn, GRIH policy analyst and lead author of the report, remarked, “The only thing more shocking than the sheer amount of waste is the degree to which government officials will go to hide that waste. This report gives dozens of examples of abuse of taxpayer dollars—but there are hundreds, if not thousands, more examples waiting to be found.”

“The 2009 Hawaii Pork Report is the first step in bringing fiscal sanity to the Aloha State,” said David Williams, Vice-President for Policy at CAGW in Washington, D.C. “With an economic downturn it’s important for government to get rid of unnecessary and ridiculous programs and evaluate those essential programs making government more efficient. Before taxpayers are asked for one more dime of their hard earned money, state and local governments need to rebuild the trust they’ve lost,” he said. “Establishing a website with state and local government expenditures and creating a state Grace Commission to go through every nook and cranny in the budget would help fix that broken trust.”

The 2009 Hawaii Pork Report can be found at the GRIH website: www.grassrootinstitute.org. The mission of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii is to promote individual liberty, free market economic principles and limited, more accountable government.

Finer Points Must Be Addressed for Hawaii’s Future Freedom

By Daniel Brackins and Dan Douglass

On Monday Governor Lingle issued her State of the State address. Politically she came across well and sensible. To her credit she connected with the public much more-so than last April when her address to the Hawaii Economic Association sparked our initial Economic Reality Check for Governor Lingle. Some things we agree with and others we don’t. Finer points must be addressed.

In her speech there were a few surprises. She called for energy independence (not a surprise) and food self-sufficiency (surprise). This is an admirable goal since the premium cost of food is an unnecessary burden for Hawaii’s people. Yet she failed to mention that Hawaii’s high cost of food is caused by two primary factors: the shipping monopoly (resulting from no Hawaii exemption from the Jones Act) and food tax. Food is an item that the consumer has no choice but to buy. Food is a necessity for life, and yet the state taxes this. The Governor must concert efforts, based on the understanding that under our current economic conditions many could use the additional 4% in their pockets.

Urging various state departments to buy local produce seems a well start, but skirts the basic problem of how the once booming agricultural industry has been incrementally destroyed in our state by the shipping monopoly. The consequence of state departments paying premium costs for local goods will increase the cost of the various departments (unless the departments are downsized) that ultimately all the taxpayers of Hawaii pay for.

The basic flaw is common in the bureaucratic mindset from county to federal. It is the false assumption that consumption/consumerism is the answer; this mantra of economic stimulus through liquidity. But where does the flow come from? It’s taken from the productive sector that generates voluntarily growing stimulus (through the free exchange of goods and services) that must be left alone as much as possible. To punish the productive sector by urging consumption on the state departmental level is utter nonsense that in effect continues to “kick the can down the road” for the longer term.

Lingle also called for a reduction in government services and pay cuts for government employees (surprise). We agree that this is a necessary step. There is a huge amount of overlap and duplication of government services. We recommend that the governor create a special task force (at no taxpayer cost) to eliminate overlap, improve efficiency, and reduce waste. We feel that this alone would eliminate the state’s projected $1.8 billion deficit.

Ultimately lasting wealth will come from entrepreneurial determination. This is something creative that almost always dies once government’s sticky fingers or iron fists get in on the action. Thus it takes courageous leadership to outsource, streamline and sunset governing agencies out of the productive sector’s way as much as possible.

Thus we stand firmly opposed to the Governor’s proposal to delay, curtail, or eliminate tax credits, exemptions or deductions. Tax cuts will allow the additional money in the consumers’ and investors’ pockets to help stimulate the economy through additional purchasing power. Moreover every proposal for tax reform should be evaluated apart from the typically exaggerated claims. How to think about any given tax reform? Here are four rules:

  • 1) If a bill reduces taxes through lower rates or increased deductions, it should be supported;
  • 2) If a bill increases taxes through raising rates or repealing deductions, it should be opposed;
  • 3) If a bill includes tax increases as well as tax reductions, it’s intellectually incoherent and therefore probably a trick;
  • 4) If a bill promises to reduce taxes and increase revenue, it should be rejected out of hand.

While we agree that a deferral of the transit tax on Oahu should be an option, it does not go far enough. The transit tax should be eliminated for similar reason stated above. Transit tax collections have already dropped by 16% since last year, a total of $2.6 million. This is in opposition to what the planners had anticipated when they claimed revenue would continue to rise each year. This makes funding the rail system without raising taxes unrealistic. We believe that the whole rail project itself should be scrapped. In the current state of economic crisis on all bureaucratic levels, Hawaii productive taxpayer base (the real golden goose) cannot finance the Honolulu Rail Cartel’s monstrosity.

Once again we must reiterate that she reconsider her own five-point economic plan. Our own plan to stimulate Hawaii’s economy would include the following:

  • Offer large tax incentives to business- this would include eliminating the corporate income tax or, at the very least, largely reducing it. This would include all industries, leaving none out. Incentives for small business development must also be explored.
  • Lowering the tax burden- a reduction of taxes across the board including the GE tax. Taxes magnify the cost of doing business in Hawaii.
  • Personalization of services- by eliminating wasteful state run services, such as the Department of Human Services (as an example), and outsourcing to non-profits, government spending can be largely reduced. This will also help with the previous point of tax reduction.
  • State exemption from the Jones Act- this would effectively terminate the shipping monopoly and lower the cost of goods substantially.
  • Free trade zones- by allowing tax free, tariff free, and duty free goods to be exchanged in Hawaii, the state could become a trading hub in the center of the Pacific connecting many areas of the world.
  • Marketing to outside business- with large incentives for business, the state should market on the mainland and in other countries in order to bring business to Hawaii.

Both Hawaii Republican and Democratic Party politicians must shun the temptation of enriching friends, families and allies at the expense of the families and businesses on the brink of moving to economically freer states or nations. Our Hawaii’s future freedom demands these bold measures from all our leadership that generates incentive for success and eliminates corruption.

Governor Linda Lingle’s 2009 State of the State Address

Senate President Hanabusa, Speaker Say, Lt. Governor and Mrs. Aiona, former Governor Ariyoshi, former Governor Waihe‘e and Mrs. Waihe‘e, members of the Legislature, cabinet members, Chief Justice Moon, Chair Apoliona, Mayor Tavares, Mayor Kenoi, military leaders, members of the Consular Corps, distinguished guests, and to the people of Hawai‘i…good morning and aloha!

It is a great privilege and a humbling experience to come before you each year to share my thoughts about where our state stands, and where we are headed.

The annual State of the State Address is a time-honored tradition in states all across our great nation.

It is a time to take stock of where we are as a state, to recognize a few successes, and to lay out a clear roadmap for our future.

In this sense, it is a fairly typical speech.

But this has not been a typical year. We are facing a time like no other in our state’s history.

And 2009 will be one of the most challenging years in our nation’s history as we confront one of the severest economic crises we have ever faced.

The daunting task we face in the months ahead is making some very difficult decisions in order to address our immediate fiscal problems.

These are not decisions that any of us want to make, but they are decisions that must be made.

They are the same kinds of decisions being made across our state by individuals, families, businesses and organizations as they too confront a near-term future with substantially fewer financial resources, and a high degree of uncertainty.

I’m an optimist by nature…and as Winston Churchill said, “An optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.”

So, I come before you today with a clear understanding of the enormity of what we face in the near term, but still enthusiastic about planning for our future together and optimistic about Hawai‘i in the 21st century.

Together we will meet both our near-term and long-term obligations by making those decisions necessary to navigate through the turbulence of the current fiscal crisis and achieve our preferred future.

That future includes energy independence, increased food self-sufficiency, and a 21st-century infrastructure that supports existing and emerging industries.

Our future also includes a well-cared for environment that increases recreational opportunities across the state.

We cannot afford to merely hunker down and muddle through the next year or two.

This is a time for us to work together to address the immediate reality, while searching for those opportunities that will enable us to emerge from this situation stronger than ever.

This dual effort will take patience and courage because there will be those who want to ignore reality and continue spending at current levels.

And others who only want to deal with our immediate revenue shortfall while deferring any talk of the future.

Either approach would leave us far short of meeting our duty to the people of Hawai‘i – a duty both to live within our means and position ourselves for a brighter future.

As we face this historic challenge, it is easy to forget how much success we have enjoyed in recent years.

I want to review the solid progress we have made in several areas, including home ownership and helping those most in need.

Since May of 2006 we have built nine new emergency shelters and transitional housing projects that provide safe and clean places to live for many who previously could only find a night’s rest in our parks, beaches, doorways or in their cars.

Nearly 2,800 people, including hundreds of children, have received not only safe shelter, but social services and an outpouring of community support to help them transition from homelessness to self-sufficiency.

It took many people to achieve so much in just two-and-a-half short years. I want to thank our entire community for embracing and helping those who had lost all hope.

In an attempt to address a completely different kind of housing need, we’re all aware of the success the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands has had.

They’ve awarded more land to their beneficiaries than at any time in the history of the trust, and we all enjoy seeing families who have waited for decades finally receiving their homesteads.

But there’s a much larger DHHL story that will be fully revealed in the years ahead.

It is the story of a native Hawaiian agency that has chosen to meet its fiduciary duty to its beneficiaries by leading in a way that benefits the larger community of Hawai‘i.

Whether it’s their pivotal role in the $110 million Kroc Center, development of the future DeBartolo regional mall, kick-starting the infrastructure UH West O‘ahu needed in order to move forward, or being the first state department to move its entire O‘ahu operation to the Second City of Kapolei, DHHL has chosen to lead.

We now look to them as an important and integral part of our economic recovery, and as an example of how to develop desirable communities.

They are even blazing their own trail in our state’s efforts to achieve energy independence and provide a clean energy future for the generations that will follow.

Few could have envisioned six years ago the heights to which DHHL and the Hawaiian Homes Commission would soar.

I believe their well-recognized success has been achieved partly because of how they contributed to the broader community.

DHHL is not just about building homes, it is about building great communities.

And they have succeeded because they have demanded more of themselves and their beneficiaries.

The bottom line is that they have chosen to lead, not follow…and what a joy it has been to watch their transformation and ongoing journey.

I want to personally thank the DHHL staff and those who have served on the Hawaiian Homes Commission for showing us all what great things can be achieved when you recognize we are all part of one ‘ohana.

An important part of that ‘ohana is Hawai‘i’s keiki, especially those who are most vulnerable.

Two remarkable trends have occurred in Hawai‘i’s child welfare system since 2005.

The first is a 50 percent decline in the number of children in state care, to just 1,500 children, which is the lowest number since 1993.

At the same time, Hawai‘i’s child re-abuse rate also dropped by half to just 3.1 percent, which is one of the lowest re-abuse rates in the United States.

These positive trends were the result of a fundamental shift in the state’s approach to child welfare.

The Department of Human Services previously removed children from the custody of their biological parents at a rate four times higher than the national average, with no improvement in safety outcomes.

Today, DHS, and its community partners, uses a comprehensive assessment system to carefully weigh the risk factors in a child’s family environment, and ensure that they receive much-needed social services.

Director Lillian Koller has received national recognition for these and other achievements.

In November of last year, Governing Magazine honored her as a “Public Official of the Year” for widespread improvements at the Department of Human Services, including the overhaul of the child welfare system.

This was the first time a public official from Hawai‘i has won this prestigious national award.

I know Lillian believes that this success would not have been possible without our many outstanding social service agency partners as well as her own committed staff. Mahalo to all of you.

No matter how noteworthy these and other achievements may be, recent reductions in revenue forecasts mean that they and other worthy programs will take a back seat to our more immediate need to balance the budget.

Today’s struggling economy has created a deep hole in our budget that we need to dig out of this session.

The Council on Revenues has never in its history lowered its projections by so much in such a short period of time.

Over the past eight months, the Council has reduced its general fund revenue projection by $1.4 billion.

This downward projection reflects an unprecedented decline in tourism, construction, business activity, and consumer demand brought about by national and international events beyond our control.

These events – including sub-prime lending, frozen credit markets and volatile oil and other commodity prices – will impact us for at least the next couple of years.

Climbing our way out of this hole won’t be easy.

It won’t be quick.

It won’t be without pain; but it will be done.

The pain that will be felt by individuals and organizations both in and out of government will cause some to search for a specific reason or person to blame.

When a recently retired couple watches the value of its 401K drop dramatically…or a family struggles to make the mortgage payment now that their work hours have been cut back…or a social service agency faces the need to lay off employees because the government reduces the purchase of a service contract they were counting on…it is natural to want to understand why this is happening, and to hold someone accountable.

But we must refrain from playing the blame game because we know this downturn was not caused by any of us.

And we know we had been making good decisions in recent years to create a brighter future for Hawai‘i’s people by lowering taxes, increasing science and math education, moving toward energy independence, and preserving more of our natural and cultural resources.

We also know that we are all in this together, and it is only by sticking together that we will be able to deal effectively with the immediate fiscal crisis and strengthen our economy in the long run.

We will need a mixture of courage, compassion, and collaboration to cope with the unprecedented budget gap we face.

Collaboration doesn’t mean we will see all issues the same way, it means that for the sake of Hawai‘i’s future, we must acknowledge our predicament and find an acceptable way to move ourselves forward.

In order to do this, we must start by accepting the fact that in this new economic and fiscal environment, there is simply no possible way to continue operating and spending the way we have.

Although I am extremely optimistic about Hawai‘i’s long-term prospects, I am not going to sugarcoat the immediate challenge we face.

In order to maintain the public’s confidence and trust, we must be open and honest about the nature and magnitude of what we are facing.

The reality is that we will have to make some unpopular choices that will reduce some services and cause others to be delivered in a different way.

Not because we want to, but because we can’t afford business as usual.

A number of projects will likely be delayed, curtailed, or possibly eliminated.

Not because we want to, but because we can’t afford business as usual.

We will have to ask government employees, like those who work in the private sector, to accept some reduction in wages and benefits.

Not because we want to, but because we can’t afford business as usual.

Some who currently enjoy special tax credits, exemptions and deductions will see them reduced or eliminated.

Not because we want to, but because we can’t afford business as usual.

This is a time of shared sacrifice when everyone must be willing to give up something.

This is a time when we must rely on each other, because no one is coming to rescue us.

We must also keep in mind that the economy will likely continue to soften in the near-term, perhaps causing the Council on Revenues to further reduce projections at its March meeting and then again in May after the budget is adopted.

We are not alone in facing this new reality and near-term uncertainty.

Families and businesses across the country and throughout our state have had to come to terms with this same situation.

But we should also recognize that the difficulty we face is temporary.

Our nation will regain its economic footing, and so will Hawai‘i.

How fast we recover here at home will depend to some degree on the decisions we make during this session.

Our solutions need to be decisive enough to address our immediate situation, but just as important, must prepare the way for our future.

Short-term solutions that merely defer the hard choices to those who will follow us are just as bad as no solutions at all.

We can’t meet our responsibility by kicking the can down the road.

We must make meaningful choices now that address the reality we face today while laying the foundation for a better future.

That better future is one that transitions us from an economy over-reliant on land development to one that is innovation-driven and relies on the capacity of our people.

A key area where we must bring innovation to bear is ending our over-reliance on imported foreign oil.

Oil pollutes the environment, it sucks billions of dollars out of our economy, and leaves us dependent on the goodwill of foreign countries and companies for our very survival.

We remain today the most oil-dependent state in America, but we have made great strides over the past few years.

Today windmills hum atop Kaheawa Ridge on Maui delivering clean, plentiful power and displacing the need to import 220,000 barrels of foreign oil each year.

On Lana‘i, a 10-acre solar farm now provides 30 percent of the island’s peak power needs.

A geothermal project on the Big Island that currently provides power for 30,000 homes is in discussions to increase its output by 50 percent.

And on O‘ahu, engineers are already figuring out where we will be plugging in the electric cars coming to dealer showrooms in the near future.

Last year we entered into a unique partnership with the federal Department of Energy called the Hawai‘i Clean Energy Initiative or HCEI.

It established the goal of a 70 percent clean energy economy by 2030.

HCEI experts from government, national labs, our military, utilities, universities and the private sector have recommended specific actions to achieve the 70 percent clean energy goal through indigenous renewable resources and energy conservation.

My administration and legislators will introduce several bills based on these HCEI recommendations.

These changes will significantly increase energy efficiency in our commercial buildings and residences, give consumers more control over their energy costs, transition us to alternative fuel vehicles, such as electric cars, and ban new fossil fuel power plants in Hawai‘i.

When adopted, these proposals will form the basis for Hawai‘i’s transformation to one of the world’s first economies based primarily on clean energy.

Implementing these policy changes will require a large measure of collaboration as we will need public funding, assistance from county governments, conservation by citizens, and investment by the business community.

To successfully transition to a clean energy economy, we will need the involvement of our entire community, alignment of our efforts, and a continual focus on our objectives.

I expect there will be a fair amount of spirited debate about the specific energy choices we should make, but if we recognize that we cannot go back to where we were, then I believe the choices are clear.

We can either work together toward a clean energy future or continue to operate in a business-as-usual fashion that will leave Hawai‘i vulnerable to the vagaries of world oil prices and the whims of foreign countries and companies.

As the world’s most isolated set of islands and our nation’s most oil-dependent state, a clean energy future is no longer simply a desire of environmentalists, it is an absolute necessity for our long-term economic survival.

This energy transformation is something we owe to future generations, and something they have a right to expect.

They have a right to expect energy security.

They have the right to expect stable and lower energy costs, and a cleaner environment.

They have the right to expect higher-paying, green-collar jobs that come with a thriving new energy sector.

And they have the right to expect us to stop sending up to $7 billion a year out of Hawai‘i to buy foreign oil, instead of keeping most of it here at home, to circulate in our economy.

Over the past 12 months, remarkable progress has been made toward achieving a secure energy future for our state, and we are being hailed as a national model because of our effort.

We must remain steadfast in our pursuit of energy independence and security, regardless of fluctuating oil prices.

Another area in which we must decrease our over-reliance on outside sources of supply is the food we eat.

We import 85 percent of everything we consume.

We need to take action now to increase Hawai‘i’s food self-sufficiency and strengthen and preserve agriculture for future generations as required by our State Constitution.

We must increase our efforts to protect the best agricultural lands from development.

And, we must strengthen our commitment to provide affordable water for agriculture.

Increasing our food self-sufficiency will contribute to the state’s economic recovery by keeping more of our money here at home.

If we replace just 10 percent of the food we currently import, it would create more than $300 million in economic activity, generate $6 million in taxes, and create 2,300 new jobs.

I will be asking state agencies such as schools, prisons and hospitals to take the lead by purchasing locally grown fruits, vegetables, poultry, eggs and meat.

Under new rules, Hawai‘i farmers will receive a 15 percent price preference when placing their bids for state purchases.

If we each make an effort to buy more locally produced food we will be contributing to our economic recovery, helping Hawai‘i farmers lower their unit costs, and protecting our open spaces.

Agriculture keeps Hawai‘i green, it recharges our aquifers and promotes a healthy lifestyle and good nutrition for families.

It also diversifies our economy and supports small businesses and rural communities.

Another requirement for a strong and innovative economy is an advanced communications infrastructure that will serve as the backbone for connecting us to the global economy.

This 21st century infrastructure is essential to creating the kind of high-paying jobs we are striving for in the coming years.

The communications infrastructure we have in place today barely meets our current needs.

We need to be planning for tomorrow’s needs.

We shouldn’t be limited in our thinking to believe that what we have in place today is acceptable.

We need to dream about tomorrow, and begin now to lay the groundwork for getting there.

We need a communications infrastructure that will allow us to achieve competitive advancements in the areas of: education, health care diagnosis and treatment, public safety, research and innovation, civic participation, creative media, e-government, and the foundation for overall economic development.

We have been working with the Legislature’s Broadband Task Force to craft a bill that recognizes the convergence of technologies that are used to provide voice, data and video services through wireline, wireless, cable and satellite communication.

The bill consolidates regulation and advocacy of communication services under one agency, a new Hawai‘i Communications Commission, in order to make attainable the latest communications services at the earliest possible time.

The Commission will not increase the size of government.

It will be funded from existing fees, and will focus on achieving specific goals, including: creating broadband access on a competitive basis at reduced prices…streamlining the permitting process…and providing access to businesses and residents by 2012 at prices and speeds that will make us a world leader and a place that will attract investment, while empowering our residents with enhanced communications capability.

This exciting, high-tech proposal couldn’t have moved forward without the hard work over the last two years of the Broadband Task Force, and I applaud the Legislature for the foresight shown in establishing it.

Although I have been discussing ideas that will position us well for the future, I think you would agree that the problem that bothers residents the most today is the everyday annoyance of sitting in traffic.

Sitting in a seemingly endless line of cars, burning expensive fuel, missing an appointment or your child’s soccer game, is not the way any of us want to spend our time.

The status quo has become intolerable, so we have joined with legislators in proposing a six-year, multi-island, Highways Modernization Plan to address known traffic problems with proven solutions.

This plan is intended to save lives…save time…and save money.

The program combines road building, highway and bridge safety improvements, anti-congestion traffic management, and a pavement maintenance program, in addition to safety legislation and increased public outreach and education.

The bulk of the near-term projects will be started using existing funds and anticipated federal fiscal stimulus funding.

The longer-term projects will be paid for by increases in highway-related taxes and fees that would be triggered at a future date if steady job growth indicates that our economy is growing again.

In other words, we will have a plan in place that is ready to go to construction when our economic situation improves. This innovative recommendation to tie future increases to measurable economic results in order to address a long-festering problem is the kind of creative approach being used by departments and agencies throughout government.

I have challenged every one of our departments to find new and creative ways to improve our quality of life in these tough economic and fiscal times.

The Department of Land and Natural Resources has risen to this challenge, and developed a comprehensive proposal to renew our state parks, small boat harbors and trails as well as the very way we care for these precious places – a true “Recreational Renaissance” that will benefit all residents and visitors.

The heart of the plan is $240 million in capital improvements over five years for both land- and ocean-based recreation.

The Department will fund this innovative plan by dedicating rents from some existing commercial properties to pay debt service, and developing now-vacant industrial and commercial lands that will fulfill the high demand for light industrial spaces in areas suitable for those uses.

Additional funding to support maintenance and operations will be generated from leases and concessions in parks and harbors combined with a small entry fee paid by visitors at a limited number of high-destination parks.

The plan’s final piece is the development of new land and ocean recreational opportunities through a public-private partnership to develop the long-proposed Ke‘ehi Lagoon Triangle adjacent to Lagoon Drive in Honolulu.

This centerpiece initiative will include 119 acres of light industrial space as a long-term source of revenue, coupled with new marina slips, canoe club storage and practice areas, boat ramps, storage and dry docks, beach parks and picnic areas.

I want to thank the staff at DLNR, DBEDT and Budget and Finance who developed this creative and comprehensive proposal which creates brand new, non-tax revenues and a better way of managing and caring for our recreational, natural and cultural resources.

It’s sure not business as usual at DLNR!

Working together, we can set the stage for this long-overdue “Recreational Renaissance” that will provide residents and visitors across our state with new and better recreational areas that are well-maintained, secure and enriching.

I am especially enthused about working with the Legislature on this and other proposals as a colleague rather than an adversary.

I will do more than reach across the aisle; I will walk across the aisle, and my door will always be wide open to you.

Our collaboration will demonstrate to the people of Hawai‘i that when history called on us to do so, we rose to the occasion.

I firmly believe that only by working together can we produce the kind of significant results that will enable us to exit this temporary downturn, and to position our economy for a stronger and more sustainable future.

Before concluding I want to take a moment to speak about the case pending before the United States Supreme Court involving the issue of ceded lands.

The issue involved in this case is not whether ceded lands should or should not be sold.

Rather the issue involves the fundamental question of whether the State of Hawai‘i has clear title to the land transferred to us by the federal government at the time of statehood.

The roots of this case date back to a decision made by former Governor Waihe‘e in the 1980s to sell certain ceded lands on Maui and Hawai‘i for the construction of affordable housing.

It was a decision he believed was in the best interest of all the people of Hawai‘i.

It is a decision that former Governor Cayetano defended in court because he believed it was in the best interest of all the people of Hawai‘i to do so.

And it is a decision that we are appealing to the United States Supreme Court because I believe it is in the best interest of all the people of Hawai‘i.

Acting in the best interest of all the people is the same standard I applied when supporting the Akaka Bill, fighting to protect federal programs benefiting native Hawaiians, or expediting Hawaiian Homestead leases.

And I will continue to advocate for these issues in the coming years just as passionately as I have in years past.

I call upon all who cherish what is the essence of Hawai‘i to come together with a willingness to understand and respect the nature of this case and its importance to the future of our state.

Our current fiscal crisis and the ceded lands issue arise during the same year that we commemorate our 50th anniversary as a state.

It is a time when we can reflect on just how unique we are among the 50 states.

But it is more importantly a time to remind ourselves that regardless of the short-term decisions we must make in this moment of economic difficulty, we should remain firmly anchored on the sure footing of Hawai‘i’s rich culture, diverse heritage and sometimes complicated history.

Governors of Japanese, Hawaiian, and Filipino descent have delivered State of the State addresses at this very podium.

Hawai‘i elected the first Asian American to the United States Senate.

And, less than a week ago, Hawai‘i’s heart swelled with pride as one of its own, Barack Obama, became the first African American to take the presidential oath of office when he was sworn in as our nation’s 44th president.

We have so much to be proud of in our history, and so much to look forward to in the coming years.

We are indeed the most unique among all the 50 states, and we are certainly capable of meeting this current challenge.

In my heart, I know that if we work together to make these difficult budget decisions, the people of Hawai‘i will understand that these weren’t the decisions we wanted to make but that we had to make.

The people of Hawai‘i are counting on us to lead our state through this unprecedented time – and that is exactly what we are going to do.

When the curtain comes down on our time on this stage, I want our collective legacy to win reviews as a story of pulling together for the good of all rather than being written off as a cast of characters who was each acting in their own one-man show.

If we deal decisively with the current crisis while keeping our eyes open to the opportunities that these kinds of challenging times create, then the people of Hawai‘i will conclude that we have lived up to our obligation.

Now, let’s get to work.

… and deferring the transit tax for a year or more to provide relief to Hawaii tax payers. Everything is on the table for debate and discussion.

~ Colleen Hanabusa, from Senate President speech (01/21/09)

Read the complete article in The Filipino Chronicle.

By Danny De Gracia

John F. Kennedy once observed that when written in Chinese, the word “crisis” is composed of two characters, one meaning danger, the other meaning opportunity.  As Filipinos begin the new year, crisis, danger, and opportunity abound.

According to the International Monetary Fund, the world is experiencing “the most dangerous shock” that financial markets have seen since the 1930s, and is on the verge of a global recession which, many believe, is inescapable despite frantic measures by governments and banking institutions alike to avert it. In the Philippines , the National Statistics Office reported last month that 2.5 million are now unemployed, an increase of 6.8 percent.  In the United States , the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicated in December that 91,000 jobs were lost in retail trade; 85,000 jobs were lost in manufacturing; 82,000 in construction; 76,000 in leisure and hospitality; 150,000 in accommodation and food services; and 101,000 in professional and business services. Filipinos were hit especially hard as the same report indicated that the number of Asian Americans without work has increased to 343,000.  In addition to a weakening economy, Filipinos are still faced with challenges in the areas of under representation in government, stagnation in upward social mobility, preserving a cultural identity in America , as well as security and safety concerns as the global War on Terror enters its eighth year.  Many Filipinos can’t help but wonder: are the best days ahead, or behind us?

The Economy

Abroad, numerous countries are implementing or considering the implementation of massive tax cuts to save their economies. In the Philippines, while only four years earlier national leaders were looking to increase taxes to procure higher revenues, today there are plans to cut the corporate income tax from 35% to 30% to help the private sector retain more employees, encourage investment, and in the words of Ralph Recto, Secretary of Socioeconomic Planning, make the Philippines “more competitive in the long term”.  In the People’s Republic of China – one of the last remaining bastions of communism after the Cold War ended nearly two decades ago – a tax cut amounting to $17.5 billion U.S. dollars (120 billion yuan) is likewise being considered for corporations.  Here at home, a growing number of individuals believe that our national and local leaders should follow the rest of the world and reduce taxes to help ameliorate our economic crisis.

“The macroeconomic model known as the Laffer Curve teaches us that there is an optimal point of taxation, beyond which people and businesses produce less, revenues fall, and economies cool,” said Sarah Hunt, host of the new local television talk show Better Government. “I believe that the [state legislature] should pay specific attention to this notion, seeing that we have some of the highest taxes in the country. We even place a tax on food and medicine! I think it resides in the interest of the people of Hawaii to pay more attention to what goes on at the State legislature and start holding their elected officials accountable. Somewhere down the line, legislators started reflecting their own self interests and not of that for which they represent.”

Jamie Story, president of the Grassroot Institute, an Oahu based public policy think tank, believes that low taxes is an important part of a healthy economy. “Members of the Filipino Caucus and all state legislators in general should work to repeal taxes and place a freeze on new spending in the 2009 legislative session,” Story commented: “ Taxpayers, small business owners, and families all need tax relief now more than ever.  Economic stimulis or bailout packages don’t remedy the poor economic situation, in fact they exacerbate it by increasing government debt and taxes, which take money from taxpayers when they need it most and cause the money we do have to lose value.”

Grassroot Institute, which conducted a simulation last year to determine the effects of the increase in Hawaii ’s General Excise Tax, or GET, released a policy brief in October 2008 in which it was projected that some 6,054 local jobs could be lost as a result in 2009.  By 2010, the same study suggests that there could be a decrease in private investment by $159 million, a decrease in personal income by $360 million, and a decrease in disposable income by $765 million all as a result of the 0.5% GET increase.

“Employers are forced to lay off workers because of decreased business and increased taxes, and families have fewer resources to spend on necessities like food and clothing,” Story noted. “Instead, members of the Filipino Caucus should take the lead by proposing tax relief along with cuts in wasteful spending – that will allow struggling families to keep more of their hard earned dollars in these difficult economic times.”

By Tom McAuliffe

HONOLULU, HAWAII — The Grassroot Institute of Hawaii (GRIH) has released a new study from the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University.

The Economic Impact of the Akaka Bill: Unintended Consequences for Hawaii estimates that the Akaka bill could cost the state up to $690 million per year in lost revenue.

The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007 (S.310 and H.R.505) in the 110th Congress, also known as the Akaka Bill after sponsor Senator Daniel Akaka, proposes to create a sovereign Native Hawaiian Governing Entity (NHGE) within the state of Hawaii. This is the first study on the economic impacts of the proposed bill, which is expected to be re-introduced in the new session of Congress.

The Economic Impact of the Akaka Bill: Unintended Consequences for Hawaii is a straightforward look at how passage of the bill would hurt Hawaii business while pitting neighbor against neighbor,” said Grassroot Institute President Jamie Story. “Regardless of one’s feelings about the Akaka Bill and its benefits or shortcomings, it is vital to examine the economic impact of the bill on Hawaii’s people. This study demonstrates the irreversible economic damage the Akaka Bill would do to Hawaii, and we hope Washington DC officials will take this into consideration.”

Among the study’s findings:

• The bill could exempt Native Hawaiians living or shopping on land ceded from the state from paying state income and sales taxes.

• There may be a transfer of state-owned lands to persons designated as native Hawaiians to the detriment of non-Native Hawaiian taxpayers and, correspondingly, to the state economy. The resulting tax increases would have large, negative impacts on the state’s economy leading to a possible reduction of 20,793 private sector jobs, a loss of $417.2 million in investment and a loss of $1,461 in real per-capita disposable personal income annually.

“We’ve looked at the bill, as introduced in the last session of Congress, from many different angles and have provided an objective in-depth analysis of what the economic impacts might be on Hawaii and its citizens,” said Dr. David Tuerck, Executive Director of the Beacon Hill Institute and co-author of the study. “In The Economic Impact of the Akaka Bill: Unintended Consequences for Hawaii we’ve identified the most likely effects of the Akaka Bill on the Hawaiian economy. By almost any plausible interpretation of the bill, those effects are uniformly negative,” adds Paul Bachman, Director of Research at Beacon Hill.

The new The Economic Impact of the Akaka Bill: Unintended Consequences for Hawaii study is available free of charge at the Grassroot Institute web site. Please visit: http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/studies for more information.

Tom McAuliffe is the communications director for the GRIH. The mission of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii is to promote individual liberty, free market economic principles and limited, more accountable government.

The Beacon Hill Institute engages in rigorous economic research producing readable analyses of current public policy issues for voters, taxpayers, opinion leaders and policy makers. Please also visit: http://www.beaconhill.org for more information on that organization.

By George L. Berish

Perhaps Hawaii Transit Tax to Plummet [12/30] will force economic rationality on Hawaii’s office holders whose only response to all problems is “more debt”. In good times to leverage good intentions: In bad times to “fix” the economy.

It may also cause voters to back out of the trees — the choices itemized in Honolulu Rail Enters Defining Year [1/3/09] – so they can see the forest – Hawaii can’t afford Rail.

Why? For starters, during the Administration’s “vibrant” economy, Hawaii added a couple billions to general obligation debt, and from 2000 to June 2007 it added $5 Billion to the Government Retirement System’s underfunding (certainly several Billions higher today).

And bond raters have already “taken notice” by recommending “investors … bet against debt issued by … Hawai’i” [Business Briefs12/11/08], so a bond rating cut looms.

Just add up the Mayor’s facts:  Rail’s cost is $5.2 Billion;  A federal bureaucrat “hopes” Hawaii will get $1.2 Billion from the federal government (that just spent multiple Trillions it doesn’t have?);  Rail’s ticket sales will pay less than half of its operating costs;  Rails useful life is about 15 years, so repaying the $4 Billion net cost in that time at 4% will cost about $30 million per month – more with a bond rating cut;  But the transit tax that only produced $16 Million per month in “vibrant” 2007 and  has since plummeted to $13 Million.

So before the trees (details) distract us from the real question: Mayor Hannemann, who pays, and how, for $14 - $17 Million per month debt repayment shortfall, and the more millions of ticket sale shortfall?

Thanks to Jon Yamasato for ‘The State of the Real Estate- 2009 Forecast.’

By Romy Cachola

Funding for the city’s 20-mile minimum operable segment of rail has always been a major concern for me.

The half-percent GET collection for rail for the first 20 months was $246 million. If averaged out over the 15 years of collection, the total GET would be about $2.2 billion, which falls short of the overly optimistic $4.1 billion in GET surcharge revenues estimated in the draft environmental impact statement.

The following are other reasons for concern:

  • With GET levels down, there may not be enough funds collected to build the eight-mile first segment from East Kapolei to Waipahu, which I suspect may cost around $1 billion.
  • The airport alignment, if selected instead of Salt Lake Boulevard, would add $220 million more to the total price tag, plus an additional $75 million to double-deck the platform and guideway at the Lagoon Drive station, according to the draft EIS.
  • According to the president’s budget for fiscal year 2007, as stated in the Annual Report on New Starts Proposed Allocation of Funds for Fiscal Year 2007, there are 21 other transportation projects ahead of Honolulu’s rail project that have applied for full funding grant agreements.

I stated early on that we can expect one or more of the following proposals if our construction cost estimates are off:

  • Extend the half-percent GET collection beyond 2022, the final year of tax collection.
  • Increase the GET to 1 percent.
  • Borrow money by floating bonds.
  • Increase property taxes.

It seems that the administration’s plan to fast-track the first segment of the project using collected GET funds is coupled with the notion that once construction begins there will be no stopping. This may explain why the administration is hinting at floating bonds sooner rather than later to make up for the shortage. If we are forced to borrow money, as I suspect we will be, the debt service will be an added strain on taxpayers.

Instead, I strongly suggest, if at all possible, that the city fast-track its application to secure a FFGA with the Federal Transit Administration before starting construction.

The benefits of an FFGA are that it:

  • Defines the project scope.
  • Establishes a firm date for project completion.
  • Provides a mechanism for designating funds for future years.
  • Leads to the development of accurate cost estimates.
  • Permits the use of state and local funding for early project activities without jeopardizing future federal funding for those activities.

An FFGA will result in better predictability and transparency and hopefully prevent cost overruns and delays of the project. Also, an FFGA will give our taxpayers peace of mind and comfort in knowing that they won’t be saddled with the burden of repaying long-term debt through borrowing. We would further save taxpayers’ money if the more affordable Salt Lake Boulevard alignment, which has a solid ridership base, is selected.

The City Council and administration need to keep taxpayers’ best interests in mind for this multi-billion-dollar project. A successful project is one that will not only encourage commuters to leave their cars at home but also won’t bankrupt our taxpayers’ pocketbooks.

Contact Romy M. Cachola, Councilmember for District VII at 768-5007 .

By Kenli Schoolland

Article originally published in Hawaii Reporter on 11/28/07.

Isn’t it rather pathetic that a majority (56 percent) of 8th grade Hawaii students have “below basic” knowledge of Science? Mathematics and Reading are only slightly better, with more than 40 percent of Hawaii students in the “below basic” knowledge category in those subjects.

These are abysmal results, and one wonders who is at fault. Hawaii consistently ranks in the lowest five states in the nation for the quality of education. How can this be when the government in 2002-2003 was spending $1,489,092,000 on education? Where does this money come from? Why from the taxpayers, of course! The National Education Association, or NEA, conducted a study of the individual states and found that with a 2 percent increase in government spending on education, the results of the increased consumption tax would decrease the number of jobs in Hawaii by at least 500.

The NEA concluded that:

Tax revenues are simply being taken out of the economy and not being respent. As would be expected, an increase in taxes affects jobs negatively in all states and in all years. This negative effect on jobs increases over time, as businesses and individuals continue to make location decisions favoring areas offering greater opportunities.

The people being affected by such a poor education system and decreased number of jobs are primarily those with lower incomes. Also, those who can afford to send their children to private schools still have to help pay for the miserable public school system as well, even when they aren’t using it. Is that fair? I don’t think so.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, at least 15 percent of the students in Hawaii attend private schools; which is one of the highest proportions in the nation. This is no wonder considering how poor the government school system is on the islands.

The government spent an average of $8,100 per student in 2002-2003 (most likely that amount has grown in recent years). That is sufficient for tuition in quite a few private schools in Hawaii. For example, according to a recent article on private school tuition costs in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, $8,100 could cover the tuition for Sacred Hearts and Damien. Undoubtedly the quality of education in those schools are much higher than in government institutions.

Wouldn’t it be best for people to keep that money that the government spends for them and choose their own schools? If the government still wanted to make sure that education was compulsory for all minors then they could return the money to the rightful owners in the form of vouchers. These vouchers would go toward tuition for private schools, and then the government would no longer need to waste money on its failing school system.

The voucher system would help the education of Hawaii’s students tremendously. One article in the Hawaii Reporter talks about the possibility of the voucher system:

Eight studies on the benefits of these choice initiatives find significant academic benefits for students using the programs to attend private schools… Charter schools in Hawaii are saving taxpayers about $34 million per year in per pupil costs, because the state funds charter students at only half of traditional public school students. Miraculously, charter school students still outperform traditional public school students, despite operating on a shoestring budget.

Hawaii’s charter school success only hints at the heights to which student achievement could soar if a wide range of choices were available to parents — including public, private and home schooling — through tax-credits, vouchers and scholarships.

Milton Friedman was a highly revered economist and a Nobel Prize winner for economics. He was wise in his advice about moving away from government schools to private schools. A voucher system is one way to achieve that, but definitely not the only way. If the government really wants to help the children of Hawaii, then that is the best first step.

By Kenny Lee

Governor Linda Lingle’s request for all departments to provide a budgetary reduction plan is causing heated debate among stakeholders in Hawaii’s public education system. As the Board of Education struggles to make $46 million in cuts on a $2.4 billion budget, it is an ideal time to review the money that has been spent and the results of this investment. The Department of Education Operating Budget has grown from $972 million in FY 99-00 to $2.4 billion in FY 08-09.1 The current proposed reduction of $46 million represents a mere 1.9% cut of the entire budget.

As funding has increased, enrollment has decreased. Public school enrollment peaked in ’97-’98 with over 189,000 students and since then has steadily declined (Figure 1). For the current school year, the DOE’s official enrollment figure is 177,871.2

This increase in funding and decrease in enrollment means that the DOE spends $13,782 per student per year. This rivals the tuition of all but the most expensive private schools in Hawaii.

Despite the significantly increased funding, Hawaii public schools lag national averages on the Scholastic Aptitude Test. The SAT is a widely accepted predictor of a student’s success in college. *

Hawaii’s scores are declining while the gap widens between Hawaii’s performance and US performance. In 2002, Hawaii public school students scored 65 points below the national average. Today, they score 88 points behind the rest of the country (Figure 2).3

Our public education system is not just failing to prepare our children for college. The National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, is the “gold standard” of educational testing for grades K-12. It is administered by the US Department of Education and serves as a common yardstick across all 50 states. Hawaii’s performance has consistently lagged behind national averages, most recently finishing second to last in 8th-grade mathematics and third from the bottom in reading.4

Hawaii’s performance is particularly alarming considering that many students in Hawaii do not even complete high school. Examining enrollment numbers by grade level, it becomes clear that more than one-third of children who enter the 9th grade do not receive a diploma four years later. The national statistics are clear on how education level affects income. A person without a high school diploma earns on average $19,915 per year. This compares to $29,448 per year for those with high school diplomas, and $54,689 per year for those with Bachelor’s degrees.6 With 5,000 students failing to graduate each year, Hawaii is losing $3.6 billion in lifetime earnings with each non-graduating class.7

When it comes to Hawaii’s public schools, it is clear that we have spent more and more and received less and less. In the late 1990’s, the Superintendent’s office pointed out repeatedly in its annual reports that the State of Hawaii did not devote a large enough percentage of its budget to education. At the time, the DOE received 14% of the state’s budget.8 Today, the DOE consumes 23% of the state’s annual funds, receiving almost $500 million more than any other department.9

Taxpayers have fed the public education system well over the last 10 years. The problem lies with the system itself. Continually increasing funding to an ineffective bureaucracy will do nothing but waste our time, our money, and our children’s future.

Key Facts

• Hawaii taxpayers spend $2.4 billion per year on public education, up from $972 million just 8 years ago.

• Hawaii spends almost $14,000 per student per year, more than the tuition at most private schools.

• Over the last 8 years, test scores have gotten worse.

• One-third of 9th graders don’t receive a diploma 4 years later.

Kenny Lee is a policy intern at the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. He is currently a student at Hawaii Pacific University majoring in finance. See more about the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii at http://www.grassrootinstitute.org.

REFERENCES

Honorable Linda Lingle

Governor, State of Hawaii

Subject: Oahu Regional Transportation Plan 2030

Refs:     a) Oahu Regional Transportation Plan 2030 (ORTP 2030)

http://oahumpo.org/ortp/index.html.b) Tampa Elevated reversible -

http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/172c) Managed Lane Study “Transportation Alternatives Analysis for Mitigating Traffic congestion between Leeward Oahu and Honolulu. The full report is available at

www.eng.hawaii.edu/~panos/UHCS.pdf.d) DEIS Honolulu High-Capacity transit Corridor Project Nov 2008

Dear Governor Lingle,

President elect Obama is meeting with State Governors today to encourage the Governors to submit public works projects to create 2.5 million jobs and to stimulate the economy. Below are two highway projects that are very much needed to eliminate the severe Central Oahu traffic congestion on H-1 at the H-1/H-2 merge and at the Middle Street Merge.

The Oahu Regional Transportation Plan (ORTP) 2030, reference (a), lists State Project No. 52 , Nimitz Flyover (2.2 mile, Estimated cost - $250 million) will substantially remove the Middle Street bottleneck. However, to increase traffic capacity while reducing the cost of this project, it is strongly suggested that the Nimitz Flyover structure be built similar to the Tampa Elevated three-lane Reversible HOV as described on reference (b). The actual 2005 cost for the 10 mile Tampa Reversible is $420 million or $42 Million per highway mile. Using a geographic and escalation factor of 100 percent, the 2.2 mile Nimitz Flyover at $80 million per mile would cost $175 million for three HOV reversible lanes.

Reference (c) recommends the Tampa Reversible type highway over this Nimitz segment and provides the downtown terminal connections from the Nimitz HOV Flyover via an elevated busway from Iwilei to Hotel Street and a single lane underpass to both Alakea St/Halekauwila Streets. Note that one of the three lanes would exit the Flyover at Waikamilo Rd. to provide access to job centers in Kalihi, resulting in the Flyover having only two lanes entering downtown.

The planned ORTP 2030 Project No. 45, Interstate Route H-1, “Widen the Interstate Route H-1 by one lane in the eastbound direction, from the Waiawa Interchange to the Halawa Interchange (cost estimate $251 million)”. A better highway project would be to build a three-lane reversible HOV “Kamehameha Flyover” which has three times higher traffic capacity for a slightly higher cost. The solution is to build a 4 mile, elevated, three-lane reversible HOV “Kamehameha Flyover” over the median of Kamehameha Hwy from the H-1/H-2 merge to the H-1 Viaduct east of Aloha Stadium. Again, the three-lane “Kamehameha Flyover” structure should be similar to the Tampa three-lane reversible, reference (b), which should cost about $80 Million per mile for a total cost of $320 million. Reference (c) provides the highway connections between the “Kamehameha Flyover” and H-1, H-2, Farrington Highway and Kamehameha Highway at the Waiawa Interchange.

The DEIS, reference (d), shows the rail route over Kamehameha Highway between Pearl City and Aloha Stadium which could conflict with the proposed three-lane “Kamehameha Flyover” route outlined above. If the rail is built, it is suggested that both the Kamehameha Highway “Flyover” and the Rail be built within the elevated Kamehameha Highway corridor. In this case, only a two-lane “Kamehameha Flyover” is needed ( instead of three-lanes) to be built alongside and parallel to the Rail transit. The rail with a capacity of 6,000 commuters per hour and the two-lane “Kamehameha Flyover”, with a capacity of 4,000 vehicles per hour, should be adequate to substantially reduce the bottleneck at the H-1/H-2 merge.

You will note that a three-lane HOV Flyovers on Kamehameha Highway and on Nimitz Highway will not need Rail to eliminate the two bottlenecks at Pearl City and at Middle Street merge.

I strongly urge you to appeal to President elect Obama to provide federal funds for these two Sate highway bypasses around the  H-1 bottlenecks to eliminate the Central Oahu traffic congestion and to support Oahu’s slumping economy

Sincerely,

Ben Ramelb P.E.

Honolulu

By Dan Douglass

Permaculture is a dual combination of the words permanent and agriculture as well as permanent and culture.  It was coined in the 1970s and has since been most promoted by Bill Mollison.  To find out more about Bill and his work visit his site.

Urban Permaculture in Chicago, Illinois.

Urban Permaculture in Chicago, Illinois.

Farms in unused plots of land is a concept I was introduced to by a Salt Lake neighbor here in Honolulu.  In his profession he analyzes trends in non-profits.  He expressed his deep concern for food supply in Hawaii.  The food banks experienced significant decrease in consumables donated while a significant increase in need.  He recommended unused land be put to wise use through community farms where the governing jurisdiction lease land for low or no cost to the willing and able public to grow fresh produce.

Urban Permaculture in Brooklyn, NY.

Urban Permaculture in Brooklyn, NY.

The following videos demonstrate that Urban Permaculture is not only possible, but that it has been successful in a variety of municipalities in the U.S. and world.  Why not here in Honolulu and the rest of Hawaii?  Many of our schools are adjacent to City or State parks where even as little as five thousand square feet of land allocated to permaculture could yield year round produce and instruction opportunities to our children.  The City could offer property tax incentives to associations that implement urban permaculture.  And forget the politically and economically bankrupt ‘Transit Oriented Developments’ that destroy Honolulu’s beauty, Hawaii as a whole needs ‘Agriculturally Sustainable Development.’ With our ideal tropical conditions and nutrient rich soils permaculture can be a reality here to the benefit of our environment, economic and consumable needs, cultural enrichment and the next generation.

Parts 1-4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qpyocn1Vc5U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCyDN9nAnVQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmW4nIgjkb4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYhCtpJY1NI

By Panos Prevedouros, Ph.D.

Fossil fuel energy dependency and “carbon footprint” (a 21st century moniker for air pollution and green house gasses) are major concerns of many citizens which, combined with the wrong belief that rail systems are energy efficient (because they are “electric”) lead to wrong conclusions and decisions.

Rail systems can indeed be efficient if they are heavily utilized. Alas, only in cities with several million of densely distributed population the utilization of rail is high enough throughout the day. Those systems experience crash loads in the peak hours and heavy loads during most of the off peak hours. As a result energy per passenger mile is low and efficiency is high. Many of them in Canada, France, Japan, Taiwan or the United Kingdom are powered by electricity from nuclear or hydroelectric plants, so their carbon footprint is minimal.

However, in small population cities like Honolulu, a rail system may see some heavy utilization for two to four hours per day and the rest of the time it runs with a light load of passengers (and sometimes nearly empty) which leads to a very poor overall energy efficiency. Worse yet, its electricity come from diesel and coal, so the carbon footprint is very large.

The same could be said about buses, but buses do not have stations with lights, elevators, escalators, ticket machines, etc. and the security and other required attendants. Buses can be propelled by clean energy, e.g., fuel cells. There are several such buses in demonstration service and of course there are many hybrid buses on the streets of Honolulu already. Most buses in the city of Tacoma are LNG, or liquefied natural gas which burns much cleaner than liquid fossil fuels and is relatively abundant.

However, the comparison of rail to buses is baseless. Buses do fine without rail, as TheBus in Honolulu demonstrates. But rail is useless without buses. Honolulu’s proposed system has 20 stations and that’s it. Honolulu has thousands of activity points and hundreds of thousands or residences. Its proposed rail has twenty stations. The disconnect is obvious and only buses and cars can bridge the huge gaps between where the rail goes and where the people go. (That’s one of several reasons why rail does not reduce traffic congestion.)

Except for nuclear, there are no clean energy power plants producing power for rail systems and this is unlikely to change any time soon since existing power plants have very long useful lives. So the present and long term (~20 year) conclusion is that rail systems in smaller cities (~2 million or less)

  • have a large carbon footprint,
  • are heavily dependent on fossil fuels for their electricity, and
  • consume a lot of energy per passenger.

For brevity, I am only giving you part of the story here. The energy consumption and carbon footprint for rail systems is huge not only because of the heavy construction and equipment involved to build and operate them, but also because of their dependency on cars and buses to take people from stations to their final destinations.

What’s the outlook for cars? Fortunately we do not have to make any guesses. The outlook for the U.S. car fleet is already present in Asia and Europe.

Compared to the oil crises of the 20th century which propelled the Japanese auto industry to international prominence, this time there is better news because U.S. auto manufacturers won’t be left out. On the contrary, their EU and Asia divisions are manufacturing remarkable cars. (Note that all the discussion herein is for vehicles being sold out of dealer showrooms, not for concept cars.)

Ford Fiesta and Mazda 2 are jointly developed small cars of the size of a BMW Mini, a popular small vehicle on Oahu. The 1.6 liter diesel engine of the Fiesta is capable of taking it to a top speed of 120 mph and provides an average fuel efficiency of 56 mpg, almost twice of today’s 1.6 liter gasoline powered Mini. The similar Mazda 2 was chosen the 2008 World Car of the Year.

Ford also offers the C-Max a 5 or 7 passenger car in the compact category with a 58 cubic feet cargo ability with the rear seats folded. Both gas and diesel engines are available. The gas engine delivers an average of 32 mpg whereas the diesel engine delivers 41 mpg.

Ford Kuga is a stylish crossover vehicle which is sold with only one engine option: A two liter diesel which delivers an average of 37 mpg and needs refueling every 550 miles. Ford plans to bring this vehicle in the U.S., but apparently the average U.S. Ford customer is not as sensitive to fuel price and pollution as their EU counterpart: A 2.5 liter gasoline engine is planned for it. Or perhaps a 2 liter hybrid version. The latter may come close to the efficiency of the EU version (but with a more complex and expensive power plant combination.)

GM will introduce the Opel Corsa to the U.S., a car slightly smaller than the VW Rabbit. The Corsa has been sold in Europe and elsewhere for over 10 years and there are eight different motors for it, depending on version and market. Of great interest is the version presented at the 2007 Frankfurt Auto Show which combined a 1.3 turbo diesel engine with a hybrid motor to deliver a 63 mpg fuel efficiency and good performance.

Then of course there are competing offerings from Toyota (the 3-cylinder iQ gets 56 mpg), or the fully-electric Mitsubishi MiEV (costs about $25,000 and has an 80 mile range.)

Honda already imports the Fit to the U.S. The 2009 version delivers 27 mpg in the city for under $15,000. In various automotive magazine tests, the Fit delivered a frugal 35 mpg overall. The 2009 Toyota Prius is still formidable at 48 mpg in the city. Honda’s answer to that is the 40 mpg in the city Civic hybrid.

Speaking of hybrids, statistics of the U.S. Department of Energy show that their sales took off in 2005. Sales started at 9,000 units in 2000 and grew quickly to 84,000 by 2004. But in the last three years their sales have exploded: 210,000 units in 2005, 253,000 in 2006 and 352,000 in 2007. It is likely that a half million units per year sold in the U.S. will be reached by 2010 despite softening fuel prices and weak overall economy.

In conclusion, if people are concerned about carbon footprint and dependency to fossil fuels, then looking to return to 19th century commuting in trains is not the answer. Been there done that. Too limited, too crowded, too inconvenient.Modern society evolved out of it.

Technology is providing the solutions to the problems. This is the same technology that in one person’s life time took us from the 1920 Ford Model T with its top speed of 35 mph and a fuel economy of 20 mpg to, say, the 2009 Ford Escape Hybrid with its top speed of over 100 mph and fuel economy of 34 mpg in the city.

In the next 20 years there will be an abundant selection of vehicles that are two or three times more efficient than today’s average offerings. This reduces fossil fuel dependency substantially. Combined with less travel, more telecommuting and wider use of renewable energy and natural gas, dependency on oil can be reduced dramatically.

In the next 20 years, scientific knowledge may overcome unfounded fears and allow us to replace oil fueled power plants with nuclear ones, for the benefit of our planet. This is a win-win-win proposition for the U.S.: Less dependency on oil imports, green house gas free electricity generation, domestic high-technology infrastructure development boosts the local and national economy.

If that occurs, then fully electric and truly non-polluting vehicles are possible. There are several fully electric cars available, the Tesla Roadster being the most spectacular U.S. electric vehicle in small production. Affordable and clean electricity is needed for mass production of electric vehicles and convenient fueling at Electron Stations which today we call Gas Stations. Or at park-and-plug parking stalls: It is not hard to imagine a parking meter with an electric outlet, isn’t it?

Better Place offers a concept of an all-electric car future. Hawaii’s Governor Lingle has been briefed. California signed up last week.

By Laura Brown

Every year in Hawaii, without fail, the Department of Education (DOE) announces to the media that it will have to make drastic cuts to sports, school bus transportation or even school lunches if forced to enact budget cuts as directed by the Governor. This year, the DOE threatened to cut Junior Varsity Sports to help make up for a $9.2 million state-mandated cut to the $2.5 billion budget. A reportedly emotional, four-hour board meeting ensued, with the mayor and other state representatives testifying against such a cut. Meanwhile, the DOE’s Chief Financial Officer admitted a $41 million carryover in unencumbered funds at the end of the 2007-08 fiscal year, but a review of unspent, unencumbered funds in May 2008 revealed a balance of well over $200 million.

Every year these DOE “cry wolf” tactics dupe the public into believing that Hawaii’s public education is under funded, but this time the Governor simultaneously released news that 651 DOE personnel recently attended a conference at a Disneyland Resort in Orlando, Florida at a cost of at least $1.2 million. In response, a flood of skeptical comments from the public filled the commentary sections of the daily newspapers.

How can the Board of Education (BOE) believe that it must cut programs while the DOE carries over hundreds of millions of dollars? How can the Legislature annually appropriate millions in emergency funds not knowing that the DOE has more than enough money in the bank? A past superintendent testified before a Ways & Means committee that the DOE Budget Office does not communicate with the Accounting Office. In other words, there may be a budget “shortfall” on paper, but expenditures are consistently less than budgeted.

In order to capitalize on recent media events, the public’s perception that government education is underfunded must be replaced with an understanding of how the DOE receives and spends its resources.

Laura Brown is an education writer and researcher who writes for Grassroot in Review, Hawaii Reporter, and other publications.

What concerns you most in Hawaii?

Economy

Education

Environment

Energy Supply

Homelessness

Native Hawaiian Issues

Traffic Congestion

Water Supply

Other

By Jon Yamasato

In an effort to keep you up to date on what’s happening in the real estate market, I wanted to share with you the latest Oahu Real Estate Activity Report for October 2008. Here are some highlights:

  • Real estate sales for single-family homes are down 20.8% for single-family homes and 26.6% for condominiums.
  • Median sale prices are down as well for both single-family homes and condominiums (-4.6% and 2.9% respectively).
  • The Oahu Real Estate Report for October’s second page content focuses on the reasons to be a buyer in this market. Reasons include taking advantage of the current interest rates, tax benefits and opportunities to build equity, credit and future wealth.

Areas around Oahu have mixed results in price appreciation due to each neighborhood’s unique market conditions. For more information on how your specific neighborhood performed this past month, please contact me.

Resales Median Price
ALL OAHU
Aug-Oct 08
Aug-Oct 07
% change
Aug-Oct 08
Aug-Oct 07
% change
Single-Family
689
870
-20.8%
$620,000
$650,000
-4.6%
Condominium
952
1,297
-26.6%
$320,000
$329,500
-2.9%

SPOTLIGHT: Reasons to Buy in this Market

The chart below illustrates how different interest rates affect your monthly mortgage payments and buying power. As interest rates increase your monthly mortgage increases and the property amount you can afford decreases. Taking advantage of the current low rates will save you money in the long term.

If you would like to read the full report, please click the link below to download the Oahu Real Estate Report.

Oahu Real Estate Activity Report - October 2008
*Requires Adobe Acrobat Reader

Editor’s note: originally published in Hawaii Reporter on Sept. 23, 2008.

By Daniel Brackins and Dan Douglass

With so much attention focused on the economy, Gov. Linda Lingle has finally taken the time to address this important issue in her article titled, “In Hawaii, A Time to Pull Together”, which was published in Hawaii Reporter on Sept. 22, 2008.

As opposed to her previous comments on mainland woes not applying to Hawaii’s economy she now admits that, “residents are feeling the impacts in the form of higher prices and even job losses.” She follows this with a plan to help Hawaii’s economy overcome its current problems. While we believe that her plan to implement a 4 percent restriction on discretionary spending for government departments is a step in the right direction, there is definitely much left to be desired in her proposed economic plan.

According to Gov. Lingle’s website her proposed five point economic plan includes:

  • Increased tourism outreach and marketing;
  • Investing in improvements to our infrastructure and state facilities;
  • Lowering business fees and providing tax relief;
  • Attracting outside investment, especially in renewable energies; and
  • Maximizing federal dollars and partnerships.

While these five points may seem fine on the surface we would like to point out a few flaws in each:

  • Increased tourism outreach and marketing- this seems like an obvious choice for an economy dependant on tourism. More tourists will equal more revenue; however, with a weakening national and global economy where will the tourists come from? Tourism will continue to decline in the state with a lack of confidence in the U.S. economy. Marketing and outreach may buffer the decline of tourists, yet how much money will these marketing programs cost and what is the cost benefit analysis? When has marketing ever been a viable foundational solution to a failing statewide economy?
  • Investing in improvements to our infrastructure and state facilities- how will spending tax money on state projects improve the economy? This is simply redistributing money from the productive sector of the economy to the unproductive sector. Government is not a productive sector, and therefore there will be no benefit.
  • Lowering business fees and providing tax relief- we agree that this could be beneficial to the economy. This begs the question of what fees will be lowered, and by how much. In addition, what kind of tax relief is proposed? Will these be low enough to attract out of state business from moving to Hawaii? If not, they do not go far enough.
  • Attracting outside investment, especially in renewable energies- this is a great idea; however, we must defer to the previous point. Will there be enough tax incentives for such businesses to be developed in the state?
  • Maximizing federal dollars and partnerships- we believe that using tax dollars from federal sources is once again a redistribution of money from the productive sector to the unproductive sector. How can Hawaii have a self sustainable economy if it is depending on tax money from the mainland to funds its projects? Also by having to create government partnerships with private business is a clear indicator that business has no incentive to relocate to Hawaii, and must be bribed with tax dollars to operate in our state.

Gov. Lingle also states that, “a key component includes developing our work force to ensure that people have the education, skills and knowledge needed to compete successfully in the global economy…” This is a great idea, but the reasoning is flawed. Hawaii can train a workforce with plenty of education, skills, and knowledge but how does the state plan to keep these workers from leaving the state and becoming economic refugees on the mainland?

There are few industries available for recent graduates and skilled workers to participate in. In addition salaries in Hawaii are about 10 percent less for the same job at the same sized company on the mainland. Couple that with higher prices on almost everything in Hawaii. The cost of living in Hawaii is 30 to 60 percent higher than the mainland, depending on family size.

The cost of consumables weighted to pricing patterns of grocery and drug store chains is as much as 66% more than the U.S. average depending upon family size, earnings level and spending. For example, a family of 4 renting in Honolulu needs to earn $111,695 or 55% more income to maintain a lifestyle similar to a comparable family earning $72,000 on the mainland.

While there is plenty of land to grow all the perishable foods Hawaii needs, the high cost of land, tax laws, leasing difficulties, labor, transportation, and water makes it unprofitable for agricultural businesses. Thus about 90% of our food is imported. With the Jones Act in place the cost of importing goods also increases the price for the consumer. Moreover increased pressure to use agricultural land for resort development helps to fuel the high cost of living in Hawaii.

In closing Gov. Lingle, “believe[s] that as a state we are on the right track in pursuing these long term goals.” We feel that she is off track and headed in the wrong direction leading the state to further economic downturn.

We received feedback regarding “Economic Reality Check for Governor Lingle Part III” and her latest economic address from a state employee who has closely followed economic trends in Hawaii and abroad since the 1970s:

“The way I read it, the [Lingle] editorial sounded like, ‘we only have a myopic view, which blinded us to external activities that would have a detrimental impact on our local economy.’”

Our own plan to stimulate Hawaii’s economy would include the following:

  • Offer large tax incentives to businesses- this would include eliminating the corporate income tax or, at the very least, largely reducing it. This would include all industries, leaving none out. Incentives for small business development must also be explored.
  • Lowering the tax burden- a reduction of taxes across the board including the GE tax. Taxes magnify the cost of doing business in Hawaii.
  • Personalization of services- by eliminating wasteful state run services and letting the free market run these, government spending can be largely reduced. This will also help with the previous point of tax reduction.
  • State exemption from the Jones Act- this would effectively terminate the shipping monopoly and lower the cost of goods substantially.
  • Free trade zones- by allowing tax free, tariff free, and duty free goods to be exchanged in Hawaii, the state could become a trading hub in the center of the Pacific connecting many areas of the world.
  • Marketing to outside business- with large incentives for business, the state should market on the mainland and in other countries in order to bring business to Hawaii.

These proposals are bold, but big problems require bold solutions. Our administration cannot continue on the same path, and must adopt these points for a viable and self sustainable Hawaii economy.

Last Saturday’s primary election demonstrated that Mayor Mufi Hannemann’s victory was not inevitable. In spite of his multi-million dollar war chest, the dedicated effort of several out-funded campaigns stopped his effort.

The Lingle administration can learn a lesson that dedicated efforts with the right foundational ideas can deter ‘inevitable’ economic doom.

By William and Joanne Georgi

We read with interest an article on “Hawaii retirement fund loses nearly $1 billion.”

What was not said was that the plan had an unfunded liability of $5.11 billion out of a total of more than $15 billion that the actuaries (life insurance mathematicians) say we will need for our state employees retirement.

That meant the state had funded about 68% of its liability, one of the lowest levels nationally. Several years ago we had a huge surplus of funds.

Why wasn’t it used to fund the liability?

It is time our state legislators step up to the plate and make the tough financial decisions that need to be made. I only hope they are willing and/or able to do it. Our total state budget is $10 billion.

Where is the money to adequately fund our retirees going to come from—the highway tax fund? Again?

By George Berish, F.S.A.

As an actuarial Fellow, I know State ERS loses 8.5% [11/1] misses the big story.  From 6/30/00 to 6/30/07, the System’s unfunded liability increased from $0 to $5 Billion, and FY 04-07 government contributions grew explosively: $290, $390, $480, $600 (000,000’s).

It’s the cost of Rail.  It’s $5,000 per infant, child, adolescent and adult.  It all occurred during Hawaii’s “vibrant and expanding” economy.  And the yet-to-be-released 6/30/08 report is certain to add another $2 Billion.

Taxpayers need a public hearing, because the claim that System assets only protect member benefits is false.  Benefits are backed by the taxpayers’ “full faith and credit”.  E.g. even if the Trustees lost all System assets:

– No government retiree would lose 1 penny of current benefits or of promised future COLAs.

– No government worker would lose 1 penny of already earned benefits or earn 1 penny less per year in the future.

– Taxpayers would replace 100% of the loss, and continue paying for benefits earned in the future.

Trustees who claim no obligation to consider taxpayer interests when setting their investment policy’s risk level should think again.  Fiduciary Duty is always, and only, owed to people whose interests are at stake – we taxpayers.

By Paul H. Brewbaker

Author’s note: This October 2008 forecast revision reflects the intensification of financial volatility and stock market losses since Lehman (September 15, 2008), the reversal of U.S. real personal consumption expenditure growth in the GDP accounts from (plus) 3-4 percent last year, 1-2 percent during the first half of this year, to (minus) -3 percent (at annual rates) in third quarter 2008, as well as the reversal of oil and commodity prices, and the unexpected strengthening of the U.S. dollar (and the Japanese yen), along with a remarkable recent reduction in air fares and Hawaii hotel room rates. Unbelievably, all of these factors have changed–literally reversed in several cases–since the August forecast revision. This forecast revision was prepared before November 4 election outcomes were known. So, for example, my forecast includes neither Obamanomics nor TheTrain. The rapidly changing fortunes of the economy and this forecast, this year to date, make interesting comparisons to its predecessors, which can be found at: August 2008: https://www.boh.com/econ/reports/econ082608.pdf (after high energy/food inflation eroded prospects for real income growth); April 2008: https://www.boh.com/econ/reports/econ042008.pdf (shortly after the Aloha Airlines and ATA shutdowns, and cruise ship withdrawals, reduced tourism capacity); January 2008: https://www.boh.com/econ/reports/econ013008.pdf (prior to the substantial downward revisions to 2006 and 2007 Hawaii payroll employment (the so-called February “rebenchmarking” that occurs each year)).

· Hawaii’s economy continued to slow in third quarter 2008. Domestic visitor arrivals declined 19.4 percent during the third quarter, total arrivals declined 16.6 percent. Airline shutdowns earlier in the year and the U.S. consumer retrenchment produced an 18.2 percent loss of scheduled air seats to Hawaii from North America for fourth quarter 2008. Ironically, high oil prices that contributed to the collapse of two air passenger carriers serving Hawaii at the beginning of second quarter 2008 have more than reversed. A return of lower air fares may contribute next year to a stabilization of tourism, Hawaii’s principal export.

· Payroll employment growth slowed to 0.01 percent in the third quarter from 0.3 percent in second quarter 2008. Hawaii’s seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate rose to 4.5 percent in the course of third quarter 2008, up from about 2.5 percent two years ago. First half 2008 Hawaii real personal income growth slowed to 0.4 percent, year-over-year (0.6 percent, annualized, between second half 2007 and first half 2008). Tourism is the primary channel through which external pressures are exerted on Hawaii’s economy, aside from monetary integration with the mainland. The credit crunch is also exerting drag on local investment spending and local consumption spending.

· Third quarter 2008 U.S. real GDP growth slid to an advanced estimate of -0.25 percent, down from +2.8 percent in the second quarter and the second time in the last year real GDP growth has turned negative (-0.17 percent in 2007Q4). The July-September quarter marked an intensification of the financial crisis, with a flight to quality and hoarding of liquidity. A 20 percent loss in stock market value since mid- September produced the second largest period stock market volatility in the history of the S&P 500 Index (graph, page 12). A consumption contraction may well have tipped the national economy over into recession. U.S. exports also may lose traction as the global economy slows, although housing investment is closer to stabilizing after a multi-year decline.

· Monetary policy responses have been aggressive and innovative. In September 2008 Congress passed the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). By October the Treasury and Fed had gone as far as proposing to acquire preferred equity stakes in some commercial banks, making a market for commercial paper, providing a backstop for most money market mutual fund deposits, increasing deposit insurance, and paying interest on bank reserves. The Fed reduced its policy target federal funds rate to 1 percent at the end of October and began paying interest on bank reserves, measures to increase its control over the target and to maintain its focus on quantitative money supply management. Investment banks either were acquired by commercial banks or adopted commercial banking charters.

· Flight to quality kept U.S. Treasury Bill yields below 100 basis points throughout October 2008. The 3- month spread from the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) to Treasuries widened to 450 basis points but then gradually diminished later in October, a sign that gradual return to financial normalcy is possible. High liquidity risk premiums and the associated credit crunch impede economic activity, but policy interventions are slowly beginning to bleed off the perception of risk. A steep Treasury yield curve is likely to persist well into or through 2009, with short-term nominal interest rates in a range of 1-2 percent, after “normalization,” and long-term rates in the low- to mid-4s

· Rapid energy deflation reduced the headline U.S. CPI inflation rate to 4.9 percent in September 2008, year-over-year—the same as Honolulu’s in first half 2008—from 5.6 percent in July. U.S. inflation decelerated to 2.6 percent on a three-month annualized basis. Core inflation was 2.7 percent, year-overyear. Fed policymakers acknowledged the diminution of inflation risk. Inflation expectations implied by TIPS yields crumbled to a range of 1-2 percent, as recession probabilities increased. The Fed’s 2 percent inflation “target” now seems more reachable.

Paul Brewbaker is the chief economist for the Bank of Hawaii. See the full report at the Bank of Hawaii Economic Research Center https://www.boh.com/econ/ (October 31, 2008)

Editor’s note: originally published in Hawaii Reporter on Sept. 19, 2008.

By Daniel Brackins, John Carroll and Dan Douglass

Now is the time for a demonstration of leadership unlike ever before seen in the history of Hawaii. The clock is ticking and the only thing Gov. Lingle has to gain or lose is her own future political career.

Our state leaders must not succumb to the failed systems of the old boy networks that infest, corrupt and destroy every area of Hawaii’s economic livelihood, but rather convey an unparalleled vision of economic freedom that will not only inspire the oppressed of Hawaii to action but establish an unshakable and globally competitive marketplace in Hawaii.

The faces of the economically oppressed have grown and diversified over the years. It’s not only the hungry family or individual you see at IHS or River of Life Mission, but any and everyone who can no longer survive in Hawaii’s failing marketplace.

These are our family members, colleagues, friends and neighbors who ultimately end up purchasing the one way ticket to a place of economic refuge. Will our leaders unashamedly put the self-benefiting political deal-making aside and take the courageous necessary steps that will empower and restore Hawaii’s economy?

It has been five months since Governor Lingle gave her speech on the state of Hawaii’s economy- “Highlighting Hawaii’s Economic Challenges and Opportunities.” It was at that time we responded to her disconnection with the hardships of the Hawaii’s citizens in “Economic Reality Check for Governor Lingle.”

The Governor’s office responded to our piece with, “Gov. Lingle Has the Facts and Solutions on Hawaii’s Economy.” Their response continued to be cluttered with misstatements, and warranted our reply in, “Economic Reality Check for Governor Lingle Part II”

On Sept. 16, 2008 the Honolulu Star-Bulletin reiterated our predictions in reporting that Hawaii is facing a recession. Gov. Lingle claimed many months ago that “reverberations from the U.S. economy are now being felt worldwide,” but “many of these stories [about a failing economy] simply don’t apply to Hawaii.”

Hawaii is now facing increased numbers of bankruptcies, layoffs, business failures, foreclosures, and increased unemployment.

All of these are indicators that Hawaii’s economy is in peril; indicators that Gov. Lingle and her administration seemed to have missed when painting their rosy picture of the economy several months ago. Yet we mentioned all of these factors in our analysis, but they were dismissed as “completely ludicrous statement[s] based on zero fact.”

We earlier claimed that the state is “peering into possibly the most painful economic period in our Hawaii’s history since statehood.” With the current national economic crisis possibly being one of the worst since the 1930’s, how can Hawaii not be affected?

Hawaii has not hedged itself against a downturn in the national economy. Our economy relies mainly on tourism. With a lack of confidence in the U.S. economy, travelers are very unlikely to come to Hawaii for vacation.

In turn our economy has seen a decline in the tourism industry. With fewer tourists coming to fuel our economy all other businesses are affected. One of these affects is an increasing unemployment rate with businesses having to cut expenditures.

The solution to hedge some of these negative effects would have been a vibrant sustainable economy in Hawaii. We provided many possibilities in our previous articles, but two foundational examples are the establishment of free trade and an agricultural industry in the state.

Why does industry and commerce based on importing and exporting in Hong Kong and Singapore flourish while Hawaii spirals downwards? Why do we pay so much more in Hawaii for everything shipped in when our central location should be a tremendous contribution to boom our economy?

Now, in excess of 90% of all goods, food, consumables, and others are imported. Why? With the nearest cape 2300 miles away to the East, the negative impact of the Jones Act on Hawaii’s fragile economy is truly devastating. How does this affect Hawaii? One instance that most can relate to is the cost of goods such as milk. Milk is on average over $7 a gallon. This is because there is no significant dairy production in the state, and milk must be shipped from the mainland.

Once upon a time agriculture was Hawaii’s leading economic component. Every item we use in agricultural production such as fertilizers, feeds, pesticides, and field equipment must be imported. With just two companies controlling all the shipping, these costs skyrocket above what is being paid for the same items on the mainland. Implements manufactured in Russia, Denmark and China are simply not available to Hawaii’s farmers.

Additionally, even if we produce our very delicious fruits such as mango, lilikoi, papaya, lychee, grapefruit, melons, rambutan, and oranges we cannot ship them to world-wide markets where they can command the highest prices. Our healthy cattle, free of hoof and mouth or mad cow disease, would be highly prized in international markets and bring substantial profit here to our ranchers.

The major impediment to eliminating this constricting law is our own Congressional delegation and the State of Hawaii’s administration that choose to not act to reform this denigrating law. With a Hawaii exemption from or elimination of this Act, coupled with major free trade zones, our Hawaii would be well on its way towards a self sustainable economy.

Investors and business would pour into Hawaii, this could lead to new industries being developed that will bring revenue and employment to the state.

Currently the GDP of the state is about $50 billion; with our suggestions Hawaii could expect a GDP of well over $200 billion. Singapore and Hong Kong, both with a vastly smaller land mass than Hawaii, bring in a GDP of over $222 billion and $208 billion respectively. Both of these areas use many similar economic principles prescribed by us, and are economically self sufficient.

Our state politicians were not prudent enough to take proactive measures. Hawaii’s citizenry is now faced with fearful uncertainty. There are no simple solutions and we do not expect a quick end to the current financial crisis, with more turmoil ahead. We urge Gov. Lingle to take the lead and begin to take the steps necessary to make Hawaii a self sustaining economy. The hope of our state rests in the determined productivity and ingenuity of the rising generation. Our current officials have a choice. To oppose and stifle this hope through special-interest driven regulatory policy and bailout at the public’s expense or to facilitate future freedom by getting out the way of honest competition and demanding integrity every time they look in the mirror.

Originally published on 05/02/08 on Hawaii Reporter subtitled ‘What Hawaii Residents Want to Know.’

By Daniel Brackins and Dan Douglass

Lenny Klompus no doubt is one of the best, if not the best at what he does here in Hawaii as our Governor’s Communications, Senior Advisor. As Senior Advisor he must bear significant responsibility for her disappointing speech given last Friday, “Highlighting Hawaii’s Economic Challenges and Opportunities,” that was analyzed and challenged in an op-ed entitled, “Economic Reality Check For Governor Lingle“.

Possibly it is Klompus who has not ridden around Oahu lately and seen the tell-tale signs of Hawaii’s failing economy more so than our Governor as referred to in the response piece. Whether he sees the current realities through empathetic eyes or not, he at least deserves credit for taking the tremendous political risk in continuing to talk up the economy when Hawaii’s public is experiencing rapidly growing economic pain.

In Klompus’ most recent op-ed entitled “Gov. Lingle Has the Facts and Solutions on Hawaii’s Economy,” he states that Brackins and Douglass “should recognize that the Governor is leading the state’s economic solutions.” This is recognized. That is why the analysis and vision statement was addressed to her and not her advisors, cabinet or anyone else. That being said, we thank Klompus for taking the time out of his busy schedule that must recently be consumed with how to best address the recent Aloha Airlines Cargo crisis and other situations in need of a good whitewash.

The administration is to be greatly commended for leading Hawaii from a $215 million deficit in 2002 to a $420 million surplus this year. On top of that, many in Hawaii are aware and very grateful that the Governor has promoted refunding Hawaii’s taxpayers. Nevertheless, spending policies are more in line with the out of control spending akin to the Democrats when a budget increase of $306.7 million is proposed.

The people of Hawaii are by and large making sacrifices in their budgets unlike ever before. We now see unprecedented numbers of homeless families and individuals along our shoreline, under our bridges and in our parks. Shouldn’t our entrusted leaders at the very least refrain from increasing the tax burden of the struggling taxpayers of Hawaii? A long time neighbor who closed the family restaurant down late last year is now moving to Las Vegas and wants to know.

As Klompus states, the Governor has championed herself to not only diversify but transform the economy. Our economy is still fundamentally dependent on military industrial and tourism as it was five and a half years ago at the Governor’s inauguration and as it was since the 1990’s. So where’s the transformation? Many friends and family who are now working for tech companies in San Jose and Seattle who’d like to move back to their home state want to know. At least they agreed that the stump speeches were inspiring and voted for her.

Where is the administration’s seriousness to see Hawaii grown commodities produced on our barren agricultural lands for immediate and long term survival? The productive farmers from Hilo to Hanapepe and local shoppers looking for competitively priced, locally grown products want to know.

Where is the administration’s seriousness to benefit the public’s interest by breaking up Hawaii’s shipping monopoly through lobbying for a Hawaii exemption in the Jones Act? This is where tremendous economic stimulus remains suppressed. Why didn’t Klompus address this arguably most significant point? Hawaii’s consumers who pay nearly double freight costs for everything coming in because we have little to no exports want to know.

Klompus addresses the great strides the administration has made in energy efficiency. This is undeniable. But are we at the forefront when only 10 state facilities are implementing solar? Will we retrofit all of our facilities to best use natural light rather than electricity, cross ventilation rather than air conditioning and solar panels for electricity? High school students about to graduate who see what they are inheriting if they decide to live in their home state want to know.

Klompus skews the numbers by stating that, “Even with increases in foreclosures brought on by the national subprime mortgage crisis, Hawai‘i ranks 45th in the country in foreclosure rates. We had four times fewer foreclosures in 2007 than in 1997.” That is certainly true between 1997 and 2007. It is 2008 where single family home sale activity is now at the same level as it was in 2001 (pre-boom) while the median price for February and March of this year are lower than they were last year. Where are Klompus’ figures for this year? As we stated in our earlier piece, “Hawaii’s March foreclosure rate was 84.6 percent above the same month a year ago.”

He continues to question our statement regarding the possibility that this may be the most painful economic period in Hawaii’s history since statehood. He asks where we were in the 1990’s. We thank Klompus for alluding to evidence to support our claim. In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s real estate values dropped by about 10 to 20 percent. This was followed by a recession.

Historically, recessions usually begin about two years after real estate peaks out, and the peak for this cycle occurred in 2006 (in the previous cycle it was 1989). In addition, depressions and recessions occur on average every 18 years. This leads us to the year 2008. To answer Klompus’ question about where we were in the 1990’s, Daniel Brackins traveled extensively with his military parents during that decade and Dan Douglass as a Hawaii product of the 1970’s started voting in Hawaii at that time.

Mark Twain said, “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.” This adage also applies to unemployment measurement. Klompus states that, “Hawai‘i’s unemployment rate is tied for fourth-lowest in the nation. Despite what Brackins and Douglass say, this is a valid measure that is applied consistently across every state and nationally.” Simply because Klompus says it’s valid doesn’t make it true. We provided ample evidence explaining why the unemployment rate is skewed.

The measure reported by the media as the unemployment rate that severely undercounts the unemployed is referred to as U-3. The U-3 rate is obtained by dividing the narrowest definition of the unemployed by the work force. The U-3 definition does not include whom the Bureau of Labor Statistics calls discouraged and marginal workers, those who want a job but have given up the search because market conditions and personal experience indicate the process is futile. Rather the U-6 unemployment rate counts the marginal and discouraged. The U-6 unemployment rate for Hawaii is around 9%. Mr. Klompus has probably not often enough traveled on the Leeward coast. Perhaps he can ask those living in tents cities whether or not the unemployment rate is as low as he indicates.

Yes, our proposed solution includes reduction in government spending. Isn’t this a principle that Republicans are supposed to uphold? Yet Klompus claims, “This would be a mistake.” He also states that, “There is a significant return on investment that comes with spending money.” This begs the question, what has the government produced that is productive? Where are the returns? Could it possibly be our consistently ailing Department of Education? The only long term productive and positive returns to be found are associated with the free market.

“We can pay for infrastructure improvements now, or pay twice as much in the future,” says Klompus. These words sound very familiar to the words of Democratic leaders, espousing their socialist agendas. Perhaps it is also on the Governor’s agenda to silently support the supposed “beneficial” Honolulu rail project. There are options available to the people of Hawaii that would allow us to take more responsibility for our state through the free market. Less government spending equals more money in the pockets of Hawaii’s citizenry. Doesn’t more money in our pockets then exchanged through local commerce result in a more productive economy? A mother who understands this basic principle who has to pay $6-$8 for a gallon of milk wants to know.

Klompus goes on to claim that “Ultimately, politicizing our economy for personal gain is bad for business and bad for our residents.” We agree, and the Governor should not have given her speech on the economy in order to boost her own political standing, especially since many of her “facts” were skewed. We believe that the economy is the driving force behind our entire state; as such it affects all of us. Relating to the public about the current state of the economy is essential in order to gain transparency in regards to the spending of our government officials.

“Governor Lingle has been in public service for almost 24 years – 10 years on the Maui Council, eight years as Mayor of Maui and five and one half years as Governor,” says Klompus. While this is true, length of service does not equate to positive economic productivity. Did Governor Cayetano’s 26 years of public service equate to economic productivity when Governor Lingle first ran against him in 1998? Positive economic improvements will result when leadership changes towards less government intervention and greater personal and market oriented freedom.

As Klompus said, serious times call for serious solutions. So does the current administration have the best answers based on facts? We disagree. Rather we believe that the citizens of Hawaii, who bear the brunt of failed government policy, have the answers.