America's Energy Problem

Is there anyone who doesn’t agree that America has energy problems?  Our addiction to foreign oil, our inability to use domestic resources or  ingenuity and, most regrettably, our lack of the ability to foster a productive conversation at both the water cooler and in Washington have left us with a situation that seemingly requires a painful solution regardless of which side of the cooler you stand.  Our shadow of a republic, a partially corporatist, somewhat socialist, hardly capitalist and amazingly useless government , has created the problem and so now, in their infinite wisdom, must come to save the day, from themselves, yet again. 

 I’m always amazed that the American public has fallen so far so fast in regards to the value we place on freedom.  There was a time where even the most average of citizen could give an intelligent oration on the form of government in their country.  There was a time when the majority of Americans thought more about the limitations of governmental power  than they did about what the government could for them.  Unfortunately those days are over.  The powerful influence of government drives the conversation about energy with both funding and legislating and thereby effectively shuts the door to opposition in the discussion.  This should be nothing new to Americans, we continually vote for this transfer of power to our government’s officials and bureaucrats.  Perhaps the conversation is more free than that; but tell me how much it has accomplished and we can at least agree on the effectiveness of the fringe components of the energy conversation.  Alternative fuels and energy systems always lose due to one common weakness, funding.  Even those with the resources like T Boonse Pickens and Ted Turner are having to seek out legislation to promote and support their point of view and interests.  Certainly our government contributes to this problem with the oil subsidies doled out every year.  Only the government can empower, favor and fund whatever companies and industries  it wants to.  An awesome power when citizens place their votes up for auction as we do.

While researching oil subsidies in America, I ran across an article where an obvious effort was made to separate the issue of the oil companies from the issue of subsidies in general. (http://cleantech.com/news/node/554  ) Once again the real issue is missed.  Why should we subsidize any industry?  If the GOP sold out to big oil, it was only because citizens allowed the sale of a party in the first place.  If the Democrats are owned by unions, it is only because we allowed it to grow too big and do too much.  While the removal of all subsidies would be ideal, this is of course another time where compromise is the only way to get anything accomplished.  Unfortunately we can’t develop our own oil quickly.  This leaves us in a position of weakness when doing business abroad.  However,  our energy crisis can be solved if we accept a few principles.  Firstly, it is going to hurt a little bit.  I don’t think anyone is going to develop a painless (cheap) implementation of a new energy system.  When we start to back off of oil subsidies we will risk an acute rise in oil prices.  Most likely oil prices would fall quickly however.  Once the path to an alternative fuel system is cleared and embarked upon, OPEC and the like are going to see the beginning of the end and will have to lower prices in an attempt to de-fund the new system through under-cutting the new competition.  Perhaps a goal for our politicians could be to cut spending and apply those dollars to a tax holiday on gas in order to temporarily offset a rise in gasoline prices when the time is right.  Secondly, government subsidies have to be a part of the solution.  One possibility would be to announce the ending of certain subsidies ahead of time.  They would have to be phased out of course, but the movement away from supporting the oil industry could make investment in alternative fuels logical and without spending any money.  Thirdly, holding an industry accountable for pollution instead of allowing lawyers to legislate it will serve people and nature better.  Bringing some common sense to the conversation about pollution could also swing the momentum in favor of alternative fuels.  Allowing our government to legislate pollution was a big mistake.  Polluting the air we breathe is not a complicated issue.  If an industry pollutes then they must be responsible for both cleaning up any pollution and repairing any damages to both people and property.  Obviously we can’t expect to drop the bill for all lung cancer patients on the doorstep of BP.  However, what we can do is set up a phased-in penalty for their pollution.  Fourthly, obviously the big problem here is the resulting price hike in response to the new expenses and cuts in revenue.  The tax holiday is potentially one part of a solution. The price hike is why we must take concrete steps forward without backing ourselves into a corner.  We can not allow our energy system such power over us again.  We must move away from funding one industry without replacing it with another.  If our politicians would realize they can provide a road map towards a new era in energy sources and delivery systems without choosing the system or source; they could move our economy and energy consumption in new ways with hardly any expense.  Perhaps it serves them better to assume the responsibility to make all the decisions for us, that way they can bicker about arguments best solved by the consumers and providers in order to avoid actually doing anything.  I often hear  of the trillions of dollars that the private companies are holding on to since 2008.  Doesn’t  it make sense that if we made the political commitment to get out of the business of subsidizing big oil and pollution without choosing the next “winner” that the public’s desire to invest in the next-big-thing would take over?   While our country can’t afford any new spending currently, that doesn’t mean we can’t find ways to support the transfer into a new energy era.  A portion of spending cuts could be retained for energy programs.  Any funding big oil loses could go to new energy projects  temporarily too.  Of course, one could also believe that competition and free market principles will provide more than estimated as well.   How and if we support the new industries is a very important question, perhaps the most important.  There can always be something better, cheaper, faster, or more efficient.  The reward for continually improving our energy consumption and source of fuel must not be locked away by legislation and an uneven playing field.  We have waited a long time to take any serious step away from oil dependency due to the corporatist alliance of government and international oil companies.  Let’s hope we don’t make the same mistake again. 

America's Middle Class

Politicians on both sides of the political spectrum love to rally around the middle class in our society.  However, I believe that in many cases they are promoting a myth.  They need the middle class to keep pumping tax dollars into the system.  They fight over the centrist vote found in the middle class in order to get into office.  The use the middle class lifestyle to both promote the opportunities in America and to justify doctrines based on “fairness” for those seeking to move up the economic ladder in our society.  Unfortunately many of these pictures they paint use lies as their canvas. 

            Our country was not built by the middle class.  I hear this falsehood spread by both parties on the hill.  Our country was built by many things, but the middle class is not one of them.  We were unfortunately built by slaves.  We were built by fearless explorers headed west in covered wagons.  We were built by exploiting our advantages in population, medicine and weaponry over Native Americans.  We were built by lower class factory workers. We were built by farming families. We were built by miners.  We were built by construction workers.  Many people became middle class due to the lessons they learned in tough times.  They learned to save their money and buy a house.  They learned to promote education and discipline at home and at school in order to set their children up for success.  They learned to start their own small business in order to provide for generations of family.  Unfortunately, our government used this advancement as an excuse to provide more things to more people in an attempt to level the playing field.  The belief that those with should provide for those without through the force of government took hold and both politicians and voters have never turned back.  Look at the history of our country and you will not find government support of the individual until somewhat recent history.  The creation of the middle class was not due to the government but in spite of it. 

            Politicians are correct when they say the middle class is important.  The middle class creates a population that threatens the government.  The higher education enjoyed by the middle class can threaten the government through enlightenment.  The lack of financial dependence is another cause for worry among politicians.  Basically, if the middle class doesn’t need the government, our politicians have something to worry about.  So what was their reaction to this threat?  They furthered their influence in the lives of every citizen.  They funnel money to just about any cause in order to group middle class voters together.  Whether it is the arts, farming, oil, banking, sports, radio, television, sexual orientation, marriage or anything else you can think of; there is some government committee or organization influencing your life.  The government has become a beacon of morality while behaving so immorally that collectively we all agree it is broken.  This is quite a feat actually.  In order to convince us all that we need it, it teaches us that it can control opinions and actions.  If you believe in gay marriage, you need to move the moral compass of anyone disagreeing through governmental force.  If you are a minority, then you must force someone to hire you through legislating fairness.  If you are a renter with no savings, you need to force banks to loan you money through the government.  All of these are false.  The idea that our government has any right to define marriage is a joke.  Why, in a country of religious freedom, should we ask much less listen to our government’s opinion about marriage?  Why can I not disagree with the idea as long as I don’t infringe on your right to lead your own life?  Why must I support the idea of gay or straight marriage with tax dollars stolen from me?  Without the intervention of government the two sides could learn to live without limiting either parties ability to live their own life.  As long as we vote based on moral principles we will be easily divided thereby strengthening our government’s control over us.   

            Through promising to control or convert people our government has convinced us that it is the only way to change our society.  Taxes are used for bribes against the voters at every turn.  Think about that for a second.  We are not allowed to make an income without our government taking some of it.  Although we are used to this idea, it wasn’t always so.  They used to be a bit more honest with voters.  If the government needed money, they taxed a product or service directly in order to raise the funds needed.  The people knew why the taxes went up and could support or rally against the new source of revenue.  Who knows where their taxes go now?  Quite literally, they take what they want, change the codes when it suits them, exempt their supporters; then leave us to fight over a few million dollars here and there for our chosen cause.  How can this be the government of liberty?  When did it become acceptable to offer up self determination for the influence of centralized power? 

            The middle class is a threat to Washington’s power.  So far, they have been able to control this threat through dividing it.  When the people realize that they do not need to use force against those they disagree with then liberty will once again flourish.  The threat of law should not guide our moral compass.  The respect between individuals allows for liberty and mutual growth.  The force of government will never truly be applied for the cause of fairness because the proposed “fairness” must be defined by those promising or receiving gifts stolen from others.  Instead of seeking fairness through government power, we ought to enforce the laws protecting us from each other without labels.  We ought to celebrate the ability to disagree without causing harm.  We ought to keep as much money as we can in order to privately fund the programs we support instead of giving it to a government who reacts by holding it hostage in return for votes.  We ought to honor the lessons learned by those who suffered to build this nation instead of listen to our leaders who teach us to expect life’s rewards to be given to us according to our need.  The middle class rose due to the prosperity allowed by liberty and the resourcefulness found in self-reliance.  It was not created by our government but may yet be destroyed by it. 

What a Government Shut Down Means For Us

The Looming Budget and Debt-Limit Fight and the Possibility of a Government Shut Down

I always thought we were more of a hot chocolate or apple cider nation.  Perhaps those newly addicted to their earl grey need to remember that honey gets you more than vinegar.  Shutting down our government due to an inability to work together will not serve those looking to reform our government.  I firmly believe that the shut down will be blamed on the Tea Party with some success.  Those on the left in our nation will be able to point to the newest members of Congress and rightly claim that they have neither realistic expectations nor the ability to work with opposing points of view.  Holding entitlement reform over the heads of the older Republicans and all but the blue dog Democrats will accomplish nothing in the long term and will only serve to push the Tea Party further into fringe politics.   Who knows what the older Republicans of the establishment will do?  Will Ron Paul and other like-minded politicians be allowed into the Republican primary debates, or will they be grouped into this fringe movement in order to justify ignoring their message and their supporters?  Will the Republicans be further weakened in our government due to a successful blame game played by the Democrats?  Will the Democrats be able to push a more leftist agenda due to rallying the centrist voters against fringe movements like the Tea Party?  This is a dangerous stand off for both the Tea Party and American politics in general. 

            $30,000,000,000 is what this is all about.  Well, roughly anyway.  With the kind of spending our federal government enjoys, this 30 billion bucks just doesn’t seem like much money anymore.  Can either party, much less our country, afford to shut down our government over such a number?  The Republicans in the House are under pressure to pass a bill removing their ability to collect paychecks during a potential shut down.  The Senate has already done so.  Yes, under current law, they still get paid if they fail to keep the government running.  Although the idealist in me wants nothing more than our “leaders” to go home for a while and quit writing legislation; the practical side of me acknowledges that during a shut down it is the myriad of lower level government employees that actually are hurt.  It is the local sandwich shop or hot dog stand that shuts down.  The local economy will see more pain than the central economy since our illustrious leaders in Washington will simply “print” more money to pay the bills they left unaddressed while shut down.  States will end up either suffering through bridge expenditures they can’t afford or assistance in lieu of pay to those affected within their borders.  Meanwhile we will all be reminded how much we need our federal politicians’ leadership to avoid future shut downs.   Their talents at playing the blame game will be on full display.  Their disgusting campaigns will once again prove we can be herded like the Romans to the Coliseum.  Give me a little right-wing-Christian slander and I’ll trade you some tree-hugger-union libel.  So what, if anything, can we gain from the shut down scenario?

            First of all we can recognize why this is really such a big deal.  Our federal government is just too damn big and has their hands in too many piles.  Our nation must learn that the ring of freedom sounds less loudly when half the population is hanging from the Liberty Bell.  We need to realize that we can not sustain the type of society in which roughly half the citizens rely on taxes for their wages.  Well, that isn’t strictly true.  We can go down the road of government employment if we are willing to be honest with ourselves and admit that liberty is not the goal of our nation anymore.  Government jobs will always reflect government control.  The second lesson we can learn is how to fight for the goals we have.  Going to Washington with a sharpie isn’t going to work when politicians will only address discretionary spending.  We need to look at the system as a whole in order to figure out how to improve our future financial outlook.    We need to figure out how to stop the lie that Social Security has become.  Everyone knows that relying on social security as a retirement isn’t realistic.  I have yet to find a supporter of social security that is willing to rely on it by choice.  So why do we tie up our money in a system that will not provide for us later?  Those who are forced to rely upon S.S. due to their economic status are really the victims here.  The system is built to promote reliance and an ever growing government.  If S.S. isn’t enough they will help with Medicare or Medicaid.  When those fail, they will use them as an excuse to not only spend more money, but also the failure will justify reforming health insurance on your behalf.  Every one of these ideas creates more government jobs.  Every government employee reduces the tax base.  Every mistake made while creating government programs creates the need for a fiat currency.  The cycle of governmental dependency never ends.  If we are to fight for true change in Washington, we need only look to the past for our set of goals for the future.  We need to stop lying to younger citizens about what we can provide for them.  We need to start holding our leaders to their oaths.  How many Presidents have started military actions without congressional approval?  Was Iraq building a Navy to attack us?  Did they have more missiles pointed at us than Russia used to?  Did Libya threaten our nation?  How many miles of American soil exactly were under threat of invasion or ruin by these foreign countries we bomb?  So let’s start with an easy one, no more war.  I support each and every man and woman of our military branches.  However, I believe we can best honor what they are fighting for by actually promoting those principles at home.  I find it interesting that we are being threatened by our politicians (and that is what they are doing) over 30 billion dollars while yet another President is spending money on a new military action without talking about the spending or Congressional approval required under the Constitution.  Last time I checked, no political leader swore an oath to the U.N. of course that could come next I suppose.  I firmly believe we could vastly reduce our presence overseas without weakening our national security here at home.  However, if the Arab League (or Europe or Asia etc..) really wants our military assistance then let them pay us for it.  Let our country be honest, we are in the business of war.  If this is going to continue then let’s be honest about it and sell our product instead of giving it away.  Of course, I hope this suggestion offends most people.  It certainly offends me, yet at least it is an honest portrayal of what we do.  We arbitrarily apply our military might to the causes that suite us at that time.  If the selling of death and regime changes doesn’t sound like a good way to turn a profit, then why are we doing it at our own peril?  If we believe in the claims that we are protectors of democracy then we need to remember that democracy is only the right to vote, it certainly doesn’t promise anything resembling fairness.  We have not brought peace on the back of bombs very well in our history and the belief that we are now is foolish. 

Let’s bring our troops home.  Let’s use them to guard our borders and true national interests.  Let’s start obeying the guidelines we were given in our Constitution.  Let’s demand that our government ONLY does those things that are impossible for us to do for ourselves.  Let’s address the tools, such as the Federal Reserve, that allow our current thieves in Washington to steal money from both us and future generations at the same time.  Let us stop idiotic expenditures such as sugar subsides or oil exploration in Brazil.  Let us decide to hold elections not based on money but merit.  Instead of arguing over a few dollars here and there, let us address the principles we have abandoned and the rest will fall into place.  In a government that spends trillions of dollars with the stroke of a pen, should we really be guided into a circus tent of side-show politics by 30 billion?   Once again we are distracted by the useless hand of government while the productive hand simply continues wasting our resources and liberty.  In the end, our government will probably not shut down.  They may not pass a budget at all like last year and instead pass continuing resolutions to keep things going.  They may act like they are coming together for the best interests of us all and pass a compromise.  I doubt either party is willing to show they can’t even fund our government, especially since they pretty much use Monopoly money as it is.  Regardless of how it turns out, the American population has been distracted with yet another short term problem with long term consequences created by our politicians.   Someday we need to fight against the systemic problems which allow Washington the power to create these issues.  Someday we need to fight about the real issues and not just about how to handle the consequences of past and current abuses of that system. 

Republican's Ridiculous Grilling of the DHS Compliance with FOIA

As I struggled to sleep tonight I stumbled upon a House Committee hearing about the compliance of the FOIA (freedom of information act) in regards to the DHS(Department of Homeland Security).  After hearing the chairman's opening statement I had no chance of sleeping.  Accusations of political interference in regards to the releasing of documents bothered me and I simply had to watch what happened.  I must admit that the opening statement of the ranking member completely disregarded these accusations but I passed this off as partisan protection at first. (For those that don't watch much Congressional action, ranking member means they were the highest ranking member of the minority party, in this case the Democrats, the chairperson is the highest ranking member of the majority party, or the Republicans.) What followed these opening statements was astounding, even for someone so critical of Washington politics as I.
If you listened to the opening questions by the Chairman you would have thought those testifying were undoubtedly guilty of allowing partisan politics to affect their jobs on a regular basis.  Furthermore, you would have believed that this was a common practice.  Almost without exception, the Chairman gave little chance for those testifying to actually answer the accusations.  He was rude, disrespectful and assumptive in his questioning.  Repeatedly the Republicans phrased questions in such a way that they answered their own queries and they basically dared the two-person panel to deny the charges.  Most of the time, when a Republican heard the beginning of a refute, they simply cut those testifying off.  Behind the Chairman's desk hung two highly partisan signs referring to transparency which gave no reference to fact and merely purported to question the integrity of the DHS and those responsible for FOIA compliance.  The tone of the Republicans' questioning was so assumptive that I found it impressive that neither of the persons testifying lost their cool.  
I was actually impressed with the testimonies offered.  Time and again it was shown that the level of information released had significantly increased since 2009.  As I was in bed watching, I didn't get a chance to write the names of those testifying, so unfortunately I can't give them here. There was a lady who was in charge of the FOIA personnel within the DHS and the DHS Inspector General.  The lady testified that they had reduced the inherited requests by roughly 84% in the first year which was far beyond the requested performance of 10% per year.  She also testified that the DHS was among the fastest in response time at about 94 days I believe.  She implemented a new system of information sharing about requests which notifies all relative parties through a shared database.  Before 2010 information was passed via email which was understandably slower and more cumbersome.  I am talking about telling the lawyers, FOIA personnel and political positions about the different FOIA requests that were about to be released.  She admitted that when she first took her job that political positions were afforded the opportunity to put their stamp of approval on releases but she quickly noted that due to the new database sharing method; notifications were given the day before information was released.  The system she inherited was put into place by Republicans.  From all of the testimony on behalf of both her and the DHS Inspector General they showed a remarkable effort to do their job as best they can.  Unbelievably, HR1 (the Republican budget proposal) cuts their budget by 9%.  If there is one place we ought not to look into for savings, I would suggest it is here.  The point of the matter is this; I didn't hear one accusation which had factual support given to it.  The only time a Republican came close, it was quickly pointed out that the procedure he was referencing was an inherited one and that it had been discarded for a system removing political appointeess' ability to affect the releasing of documents.  I must give those testifying credit.  They had all the facts to support their case while those accusing them of partisan foul play had very little if anything to back up their loaded questions.
I do believe there are a few things we can learn from the hearing.  First of all, what the hell is the DHS doing which prompts our press and citizens to file 130,000 requests for information in a single year?  We know the DHS is granted a myriad of powers totally against not only the idea of liberty but the constitution as well.  This was well documented during the initial founding of the department as well as during each time it has been up for renewal.  Secondly, we can learn that the House of Representatives is still a circus, just with a different ring-leader.  I have watched countless committee hearings over the last few years and with the possible exception of judicial nominations, I have never seen someone testifying treated so rudely without any proof of the accusations cast upon them.  These are individuals with reputations.  These were human beings for heaven's sake.  I am completely in favor of the minority party (not in the House, but in the govt as a whole) keeping the administration honest.  I am totally in favor of the checks and balances that Congress can provide by questioning those in charge of FOIA compliance.  However, if our politicians can't even hold a hearing armed with evidence to back up their accusations, what good are they doing?  They never asked the questions that would have meant something.  While the lady in charge of FOIA compliance touted their improved pro-active releasing of documents, no one asked her why there were still so many requests.  Out of  those 130,000 requests roughly 600 responses were altered or denied; yet no one asked if there were any commonalities among those 600 requests.  Not once was subject content of requests addressed.  Perhaps if someone had the guts to ask what the majority of questions were about, we might have learned something which could have helped them move forward in the hope of reducing the overhead costs of FOIA compliance.  Better yet, from the point of view of the Republicans, they might have learned something they could have sunk their teeth into.  Instead we, the citizens, are left with Republicans making a sophomoric scene and with no useful knowledge gained from what should have been an informative and highly relative committee hearing.