I find it astonishing to see members of the current version of the Republican Party posing for pictures next to hybrid vehicles and touting the virtues of conservation. It is equally disturbing to hear the president talk of increasing the CAFÉ standards as a way of reducing demand. Where were these people six years ago? Do they only come out of their cave in a crisis and then try to fool the American people into believing they really care with an insulting $100 check?
I think everyone has forgotten what Vice President Cheney said about conservation nearly six years ago. He said that conservation was a nice virtue, but not part of a sound energy policy. Can any statement be more ignorant of the facts and documented science?
I am not and have never been a tree hugger, but politicians who dismiss conservation as part of a sound energy policy are as foolish as the conservationists who refuse to allow wind farms to be built for fear that migratory birds will be killed. One extreme is as bad as another. An energy policy must include, exploration, technology, government intervention via tax incentives and disincentives, as well as conservation and behavior modification.
A $100 bogus pandering by Senator Bill Frist aside, there is no short term fix to this issue. The crisis is not $3.00/gallon gas; it is our dependency on foreign oil and on oil itself. The high price of gas may, in the short term, help to curb waste and reduce demand as well as give the oil companies a pot of cash to use for exploration.
President Bush is only now talking about our dependency, but the issue goes back many decades. While Al Gore did not and does not have all the answers on this issue, nor does anyone else, he has been talking about it throughout his political life, as have others. While I don’t believe either President Bush or Vice President Cheney could be accused of collusion, they are simply old oil men who are dedicated to protecting the status quo. They believe only in finding additional supplies and ignore the science and behavioral virtues of conservation. They need only to look as far as the New York City water crisis of the late 80s and 90s where through conservation, the urgent need for a new pipeline was able to be delayed. Conservation is not a fad or pseudo science. It is or should be part of any real energy policy.
They tout ANWAR as the holy grail of their energy policy and blame the democrats for now allowing the drilling in this region. Both are wrong. We do need to continually find new sources of oil and I, for one, feel we can drill anywhere safely and with little disruption to the environment. Until we begin to flatten or reduce our demand for oil, we have to find new areas to drill.
If it were up to the tree huggers, we would never build a wind farm, a nuclear power plant, a new refinery or ever drill anywhere again. Even Edward Kennedy does not want a wind farm off shore form his home. I don’t know what form of energy they want us to use, but a compromise has to be part of a sound energy policy.
These two extremes must give way to a multi-faceted long term approach. We need a Manhattan Project of sorts. This nation needs to declare war on our dependency on foreign oil. We are at our best when at war, but it has to be a war that all Americans can relate to and see the need to wage it. The Brazilians have done it. Why can’t we? As the world’s largest consumer, we should have been way out in front of this issue instead of being well back in the pack. As the world’s technology leader, this is just an embarrassment and leads other nations to feel that we just don’t care until the problem blows up in our face.
A Common Sense Energy Policy:
1. The government must lead the way through incentives and disincentives to both business and the people of this nation. There are some things so important that our government must intrude into both the marketplace and into our daily lives to bring about needed change. This is one of those times and issues that cannot be left up to the pure capitalism or the whim of the populace. The government can chart a new path for this nation. It will only take a president with a clear and persuasive vision and a congress to do the right thing for our nation and to have the strength to say no to special interests. You can bet that the special interests will be out in force from both ends of the political, business and environmental spectrum to wage their own war against any change to the status quo.
a. Tax incentives to the automotive industry to produce more fuel efficient vehicles. There must be additional incentives to individuals to buy those vehicles.
b. Agricultural incentives for farmers to grow “Energy Crops”. We pay farmers not to grow crops. Why not pay them to grow crops that can be used to make ethanol?
c. Tax incentive to power companies, business and individuals to use solar, wind, geothermal and other technologies to produce electricity. Every federal building should have solar panels to produce electricity and new construction could easily use Ground Source Geothermal heating and cooling.
d. Government grants to colleges and universities to explore new technologies and to improve on what we now use. As an example; my own car gets 40mpg on regular gas and it is 10 years old with 125,000 miles. There is not a single vehicle today aside from a few hybrids and diesels that have improved on this. Why Not? Every other product has been improved over the past 10 years and is barely recognizable from its decade old predecessor. I can’t believe the internal combustion engine can’t be improved.
I know the question will come up as to how to pay for these incentives and the politicians will laugh when I mention the word waste and earmarks, but each of those $100,000 chunks of pork and those $50,000,000 bridges and the like add up to billions of $$. Government has grown larger in the past six years than at any time since LBJ. From the Dept. of Homeland Security to the Directorate of Central Intelligence, from the Prescription Drug Plan to the war in Iraq, and finally to the recently approved Transportation spending bill, I think we can all find enough in just a few years to fund an explosion of new technologies and incentives.
Ronald Reagan would turn over in is grave to see what the Republican Party has turned into. The national treasury has become the play money piggy bank for every wasteful project anyone can think of to buy votes back home. The lobbyists buy the politicians, not with envelopes, but it is damn close to it. (Duke Cunningham aside) The politicians find wasteful earmarks to buy votes with and place them in major spending bills at 2am. Why fix the thousands of bridges that need repair when you can build a new one to nowhere? Reagan vetoed a bill with only a handful of earmarks. Bush never met a spending bill he didn’t like. It must be like a sugar high. The more you eat, the more you want. I know I digress, but it just makes me sick to see conservatism disappear.
The republicans and democrats used to be different coins with completely different ideals and visions. As of 2006, neither has a vision for the future of this nation and they are simply different sides of the same coin, lacking in ethics, vision, dedication and conscience.
4. There must be a national campaign for conservation. We don’t want to restrict freedoms, but we do need to change behavior. Every other developed nation as well as many developing nations attempts to change behavior when it is in the best interest of the nation. Just a small drop in demand will have a huge impact on the price of oil/gas. We know based on the ever increasing demands of the major developing nations, namely China and India, that unless we do something revolutionary, our world supply of oil will tip to a critical point. Depending on which expert you talk to, may have peaked or be close. Even with increased exploration and production, we can only hope to keep pace with demand. Conservation must have a place at the table. It all adds up.
5. Finally, we do have to continue to find new sources of oil for many years to come until we can flatter and later reduce our demand from current levels and we have to untie the hands of the fuel distribution network by reducing the dozens of regional blends of gasoline.
a. Develop the untapped Gulf of Mexico, ANWAR, Oil Shale, Tar Sands, etc. As the price goes up, the alternative sources become cost effective.
b. There is a two-fold benefit to higher oil prices: The energy companies will have the needed capital to find and develop new oil fields as well as to explore new technologies for producing oil synthetically. Additionally, behavior will shift as Americans switch to higher efficiency vehicles and use less fuel.
c. There are so many blend of gasoline that when there is a regional shortage, we can’t simply ship more to the affected area as we do with the power grid. It has to be refined locally. Reducing blends will reduce costs and ease the supply shortfalls.
d. A renewed push for public transportation. We could have high speed rail lines between many major urban areas, but we don’t. Only the government can do this. Again, every other developed nation has.
We have been spoiled and complacent about energy, but as the price of gas goes up, our awareness of the remedies available will increase also. Politicians are feeling the heat when they should have been looking out for our interests all along. Keep the $100 bucks Senator Frist. Try having a “Unique for Washington” vision for America. Instead of wasting time trying to keep the Delays of the world in power, do what is right. I know it takes courage to stand alone, and few have what it takes these days, but there are some visionaries out inside the Beltway. Speak Up.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Thursday, April 13, 2006
The Bush Mistake
I was in the military during Gulf War I and proud to be there. I served in the middle east and fully supported our mission at that time as spelled out by President George Herbert Walker Bush.
President George W. Bush started this war on the wrong foot and has not found his balance yet.
1. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress convinced us otherwise.
2. Saddam was not a threat to anyone outside of his own country. Our no-fly zones were working to protect the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south.
3. There was no doubt that Saddam was a bad man and had committed atrocities on his people, but Iraq was not a failed state such as Ethiopia or Afghanistan. The citizens got up each day, went to work and came home going about their lives in relative safety. Now they are moving by the thousands out of their homes in the cities to the country. Sectarian violence is rampant. Civil war is imminent. Baghdad is an armed camp with concrete walls for sidewalks. Bodies are found daily. Women's rights have moved backwards as Islamic law begins to spread. As Ronald Reagan used to ask, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" Ask the average Iraqi who is just trying to make a living and who knows little of politics.
4. Where there were once no terrorists, now there are thousands using the Iraqi people and U.S. troops as cannon fodder.
5. There was no 911 connection. Saddam was a despot, but not crazy. He did not want to invite another attack.
6. Our troops are on a brave and gallant mission doing their best to protect themselves from the relentless roadside attacks. The fault is in the strategic mission not in our troops who are only following and trusting in the orders of the officers and civilian authority giving those orders.
90 percent of the fatalities in the past two years have been IEDs. The poor young men and women are getting picked off like ducks in a shooting gallery while the terrorists are honing their skills with each attack.
Iraq has become the Harvard of terrorist training camps with a ready supply of targets.
When will it end?
When enough people begin to protest vocally and when active duty generals begin to resign in protest, the slaughter will end. America needs to become angry. 2350 deaths make me angry, but I guess we need more for the nation to wake up. The presidents approval ratings are down, but we only know this from polls. Americans need to take to the streets and let their views be known.
Everyone needs to watch the movie "Network".
I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore.
Can you all say that?
President George W. Bush started this war on the wrong foot and has not found his balance yet.
1. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress convinced us otherwise.
2. Saddam was not a threat to anyone outside of his own country. Our no-fly zones were working to protect the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south.
3. There was no doubt that Saddam was a bad man and had committed atrocities on his people, but Iraq was not a failed state such as Ethiopia or Afghanistan. The citizens got up each day, went to work and came home going about their lives in relative safety. Now they are moving by the thousands out of their homes in the cities to the country. Sectarian violence is rampant. Civil war is imminent. Baghdad is an armed camp with concrete walls for sidewalks. Bodies are found daily. Women's rights have moved backwards as Islamic law begins to spread. As Ronald Reagan used to ask, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" Ask the average Iraqi who is just trying to make a living and who knows little of politics.
4. Where there were once no terrorists, now there are thousands using the Iraqi people and U.S. troops as cannon fodder.
5. There was no 911 connection. Saddam was a despot, but not crazy. He did not want to invite another attack.
6. Our troops are on a brave and gallant mission doing their best to protect themselves from the relentless roadside attacks. The fault is in the strategic mission not in our troops who are only following and trusting in the orders of the officers and civilian authority giving those orders.
90 percent of the fatalities in the past two years have been IEDs. The poor young men and women are getting picked off like ducks in a shooting gallery while the terrorists are honing their skills with each attack.
Iraq has become the Harvard of terrorist training camps with a ready supply of targets.
When will it end?
When enough people begin to protest vocally and when active duty generals begin to resign in protest, the slaughter will end. America needs to become angry. 2350 deaths make me angry, but I guess we need more for the nation to wake up. The presidents approval ratings are down, but we only know this from polls. Americans need to take to the streets and let their views be known.
Everyone needs to watch the movie "Network".
I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore.
Can you all say that?
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Failure to Reform
It amazes me that the congress does not appear to have what it takes to institute genuine and far reaching reform in the face of repeated scandals and revelations from pure bribery to the veiled version in the form of campaign donations for favorable legislation.
One Senator, David Dreier, the mouthpiece of what looks to be a weak effort, claims the Republicans are the party of reform now that it is in vogue. My question is, where have they been and what have they done over the past six years of the Republican Congress? Federal spending has increased more under George Bush than under any recent president. Does K Street run the country? The party of limited government and Ronald Reagan is now the party of huge new government programs and gifts to big business.
Only a few brave and forward thinking senators have been pushing reform throughout their time as elected officials. John McCain is looking more and more like the man in the right place at the right time. Rather than being on the outside with an unpopular issue, barely getting an audience with Cheney on campaign finance reform six years ago, he is now in the middle with the issue everyone wants to talk about. Tom Coburn is also now the man on the inside with a hot issue. He has correctly tied the plague of Earmarks as one of the root issues in lobbying reform.
If these two senators and their supporter can push through a package of real reform that breaks the back of the shadow government, a.k.a. Lobbyists, and puts a halt to the latenight insertion of illegal amendments to previously approved bills, then we may see a slowing or even reversal of federal spending.
Until our elected officials quit treating the federal treasury as a grab bag, and learn the meaning of ethics, there will not be any reason for the American people to vote for them or vote at all. Is it any mystery that we have some of the lowest voter turnout in the world because the two parties are simply two sides of the same coin?
Wake up Congress. The time has come to do the right thing and say no to special interests and get back to the ideals of the Republican party of years past.
One Senator, David Dreier, the mouthpiece of what looks to be a weak effort, claims the Republicans are the party of reform now that it is in vogue. My question is, where have they been and what have they done over the past six years of the Republican Congress? Federal spending has increased more under George Bush than under any recent president. Does K Street run the country? The party of limited government and Ronald Reagan is now the party of huge new government programs and gifts to big business.
Only a few brave and forward thinking senators have been pushing reform throughout their time as elected officials. John McCain is looking more and more like the man in the right place at the right time. Rather than being on the outside with an unpopular issue, barely getting an audience with Cheney on campaign finance reform six years ago, he is now in the middle with the issue everyone wants to talk about. Tom Coburn is also now the man on the inside with a hot issue. He has correctly tied the plague of Earmarks as one of the root issues in lobbying reform.
If these two senators and their supporter can push through a package of real reform that breaks the back of the shadow government, a.k.a. Lobbyists, and puts a halt to the latenight insertion of illegal amendments to previously approved bills, then we may see a slowing or even reversal of federal spending.
Until our elected officials quit treating the federal treasury as a grab bag, and learn the meaning of ethics, there will not be any reason for the American people to vote for them or vote at all. Is it any mystery that we have some of the lowest voter turnout in the world because the two parties are simply two sides of the same coin?
Wake up Congress. The time has come to do the right thing and say no to special interests and get back to the ideals of the Republican party of years past.
Saturday, July 09, 2005
The Myth of Homeland Security
It was only a matter of time before the next terrorist attack in the western world. After 911 there was Madrid and now London. With all of the increased security, it is logical to ask how this could happen.
The reporters headlines were, "Could this happen here?" A really stupid question.
Of course, it could and probably will happen here and there is virtually nothing we can do about it. It doesn't matter how many more departments we dump into the already bloated Federal Government. We have the FBI, CIA, ATF, DEA, Secret Service, NSA, DIA, NRO, State, County and local police departments. Did we really need another agency?
In a free society such as most of those in the western world and Japan, anyone at anytime can, if he/she/they have the determination, plan and execute an attack on virtually any part of our society, infrastructure or leadership. It is exponentially more difficult to stop a dedicated individual or small force than a 10,000 man army. A similar situation exists in Iraq where we easily overthrew Saddam, but we cannot stop the insurgency.
What happened in London was a tragedy greater than anything since WWII, but it was a lesson for us all that, even in a city with more cameras than any on the planet, one or two or four people can wreak havoc on a city of millions. What if the bombs had been chemical, biological, or dirty nuclear in style?
The attacks were successful as a bold statement to the coalition that the terrorists are a fully mobilized, financed and lethal force that will not go away. These terrorists were home grown, but with support from deep in Pakistan.
There will always be people who hate us and they will only be stopped by random chance. I'm not saying we shouldn't try, but we should never go to bed each night and feel totally safe. There is no such thing.
Even with terrorist attacks as a certainty in the near future, it is better to simply wear your seat belt, sun screen and watch your cholesterol. You will most likely die from something as plain as the nose on your face or get struck by lightning or bitten by a poisonous snake. Terrorism is a blown out of proportion threat that we have new spent billions of $$ on in both substantive measures and pure pork.
The reporters headlines were, "Could this happen here?" A really stupid question.
Of course, it could and probably will happen here and there is virtually nothing we can do about it. It doesn't matter how many more departments we dump into the already bloated Federal Government. We have the FBI, CIA, ATF, DEA, Secret Service, NSA, DIA, NRO, State, County and local police departments. Did we really need another agency?
In a free society such as most of those in the western world and Japan, anyone at anytime can, if he/she/they have the determination, plan and execute an attack on virtually any part of our society, infrastructure or leadership. It is exponentially more difficult to stop a dedicated individual or small force than a 10,000 man army. A similar situation exists in Iraq where we easily overthrew Saddam, but we cannot stop the insurgency.
What happened in London was a tragedy greater than anything since WWII, but it was a lesson for us all that, even in a city with more cameras than any on the planet, one or two or four people can wreak havoc on a city of millions. What if the bombs had been chemical, biological, or dirty nuclear in style?
The attacks were successful as a bold statement to the coalition that the terrorists are a fully mobilized, financed and lethal force that will not go away. These terrorists were home grown, but with support from deep in Pakistan.
There will always be people who hate us and they will only be stopped by random chance. I'm not saying we shouldn't try, but we should never go to bed each night and feel totally safe. There is no such thing.
Even with terrorist attacks as a certainty in the near future, it is better to simply wear your seat belt, sun screen and watch your cholesterol. You will most likely die from something as plain as the nose on your face or get struck by lightning or bitten by a poisonous snake. Terrorism is a blown out of proportion threat that we have new spent billions of $$ on in both substantive measures and pure pork.
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Warren Buffet on Social Security
Warren Buffet was quoted on CNN's Money program with Lou Dobbs, as calling for an increase in the salary income level on which Social Security is taxed. It is currently at about $90K. Raising it would have more affluent Americans pay a larger share of their income than they currently contribute.
He also called for means testing. He stated that he gets a check for $1700 monthly and cashes it, but would be able to eat without it. He realizes that those individuals or couples who are lucky enough to have a high retirement income do not need their monthly check. It is a pointless and wasteful giveaway to a rich elite when there are so many more people who barely scrape by even on full benefits.
He also called for means testing. He stated that he gets a check for $1700 monthly and cashes it, but would be able to eat without it. He realizes that those individuals or couples who are lucky enough to have a high retirement income do not need their monthly check. It is a pointless and wasteful giveaway to a rich elite when there are so many more people who barely scrape by even on full benefits.
Monday, May 02, 2005
Social Security Simplified
Social Security should be treated like any other entitlement program. To receive the pension guarantee payments at age 62 or 65, regardless of how much was paid into the system, the recipient should have to prove need. This need would be based primarily on income.
Those individuals whose income exceeded a specified amount should not receive any payments. It makes absolutely no sense for high income retirees to receive any Social Security payments. So many retirees are forced to wait by the mail box for their check while others have two or more homes and receive the same amount.
There could certainly be a graduated system for payouts rather than a single income threshold. Additionally, should the income of the more affluent retirees fall below the threshold, for whatever reason, they would then qualify for either partial or full payments.
The argument that, "I paid into it, therefore I'm entitled to it.", does not make any sense. Virtually every other government entitlement program requires a means test. Why should Social Security be any different.
I simply find it strange that Bill Gates and I will get the same check when we retire. Does that make sense to anyone?
Your comments are welcome.
Those individuals whose income exceeded a specified amount should not receive any payments. It makes absolutely no sense for high income retirees to receive any Social Security payments. So many retirees are forced to wait by the mail box for their check while others have two or more homes and receive the same amount.
There could certainly be a graduated system for payouts rather than a single income threshold. Additionally, should the income of the more affluent retirees fall below the threshold, for whatever reason, they would then qualify for either partial or full payments.
The argument that, "I paid into it, therefore I'm entitled to it.", does not make any sense. Virtually every other government entitlement program requires a means test. Why should Social Security be any different.
I simply find it strange that Bill Gates and I will get the same check when we retire. Does that make sense to anyone?
Your comments are welcome.
Sunday, May 01, 2005
The Case of Tom Delay
I don't know how Tom Delay can live with himself. He smugly states that he broke no laws, but he is merely hiding behind the very lobbyist friendly laws that the Congress has slowly created to allow the members to party hardy with any and all special interest groups and PACs and then say there is no influence peddling. He takes lavish trips with shady characters from a world few of us can comprehend and dares to call it meeting with constituents. Maybe no laws were technically broken, but would a parent teach their children or would a teacher teach his/her students to follow this example?
He has been investigated over and over again by his peers only to be protected by a newly appointed ethics committee that abruptly changed the rules to protect him. What are we coming to and when will these politicians wake up?
It is true that most Americans don't care or even want to know about this, but so many of our problems are rooted in this area. This is the birthplace and the shady world of how legislation is created and the veiled corruption that follows. Lobbyists and big time donors pay the bills in spite of their denials to the contrary and then the members of Congress show their gratitude with an implicit quid pro quo.
It has to stop. The few politicians that try to bring about change, John McCain and others, are tolerated, but stifled in their attempts to reform the ethics rules.
The money has to be taken out of politics.
He has been investigated over and over again by his peers only to be protected by a newly appointed ethics committee that abruptly changed the rules to protect him. What are we coming to and when will these politicians wake up?
It is true that most Americans don't care or even want to know about this, but so many of our problems are rooted in this area. This is the birthplace and the shady world of how legislation is created and the veiled corruption that follows. Lobbyists and big time donors pay the bills in spite of their denials to the contrary and then the members of Congress show their gratitude with an implicit quid pro quo.
It has to stop. The few politicians that try to bring about change, John McCain and others, are tolerated, but stifled in their attempts to reform the ethics rules.
The money has to be taken out of politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)