The Best Way to Address the Energy Crisis

Rep. Maxine Waters recently threatened oil companies with nationalization.

Venezuela’s nationalization of its oil demonstrates this to be a very bad idea. In fact, any politician so deeply ignorant of economics as to suggest oil nationalization is unfit for office.

The best way to address the energy crisis is through a mix of measures:
Development:
1. Issue permits and tax incentives for new nuclear power plants to be built.
2. Issue permits for new oil refineries (no major US refinery since 1976).
3. Open the entire Gulf of Mexico for exploration and development.
4. Open the Atlantic and Pacific coasts for oil exploration and development.
5. Mandate that tax incentives for alternative energy be tied to oil ‘exploration & development’ fees.
6. Don’t drill in ANWR. Leave it as a strategic reserve.
Safeguards:
7. Review relevant laws to ensure adequate and reasonable safeguards for environmental protection.
8. Pass legislation with mandatory imprisonment for lawbreaking owners and upper management.
9. Provide tax incentives for technology development in solar and offshore wind power with yearly reviews for possible inclusion of promising new technologies.
Long-term energy independence:
10. No government funded technology initiatives are needed; let capitalism work its magic.
11. Continue research into bio-fuels but It’s stupid to use corn a food stock, for a fuel source.
12. Windfall taxes discourage investment in exploration and development and increase imports. The way to ensure ‘reasonable’ profit is to increase supply.

There. Simple. Complete.

If Congress passed legislation addressing only items 2 and 3, the very next day the price of oil would drop $10-15 a barrel. The more items implemented, the greater the drop in the price of oil.

To get the economy moving:
1. Submit and approve a balanced federal budget.
2. Increase interest rates at least a full point to strengthen the dollar.
3. Lower federal tax rates by 2-3 points in each tax bracket so as to stimulate the economy and counteract the slowing effect of an increase in interest rates.

Since this is an election year, don’t look for this to happen any time soon. As always, the longer the Feds wait, the more painful it is going to be when they are forced to do something. They are waiting until political pressure escalates to the point of providing political cover.

Another interpretation of the Bible’s message: Part I

Recently I ran into this post:

The primary message of the Gospel is:
1) God is real; God is perfect and God loves you.
2) Humans are sinful by nature, and no matter what we do we cannot make ourselves righteous before a perfect God.
3) The penalty of our sin is death, or separation from God.
4) Jesus Christ came and lived a sinless life, being both God and human, and died a sacrificial death on the cross as an atonement for the sins of all humans.
5) Those who believe and accept Jesus’ sacrifice will spend eternity with God; those who do not will spend eternity separated from God.

This is the accepted Christain interpretation. the poster then says:

“People may misinterpret what the bible says to conform to their own views (nonbelievers and Christians alike) but the bible’s main message has not changed in the two thousand plus years it has existed in recorded form.”

I started to respond but by the time I had arranged my thoughts the moment had passed, so I am posting here.

Indeed, the Bible’s primary message hasn’t changed but other than popular agreement, to what do you point to dispute the assertion that men’s interpretation of that message may be flawed?

For your consideration I offer the following alternative ‘interpretation’;

The primary message of the Gospel is:

1) God is real; God is perfect and God loves you.

2) Humans are sinful as a consequence of gaining ‘knowledge’ prematurely and, the practical consequence is separation from God.

3) No matter what we do, we can’t cure ourselves from separation from a perfect God.

4) The consequence of our unavoidable inheritance of sin is separation from God, which prevents life from continually renewing, resulting in death.

5) Jesus, a human being, lived a sinless life, someone whose ‘spiritual umbilical cord’ remained intact, allowing him to stay fully connected with the divine. Who, after attaining the ability to fully embody the ’sonship’ of God, the ‘Christ’, then conducted his ministry of example and accepted a sacrificial death on the cross as a symbolic message for all of humanity.

6) Those who accept Jesus’ message and surrender their individuality to God for renewal and cleansing, will spend eternity with God; those who do not make the free-will choice to do so, will remain separated from God.

Another interpretation; Part II

Explanatory thoughts for the post above:

Humans are not sinful by nature, for how can a perfect God create imperfection? God created us as perfect because he is incapable of doing otherwise. To use a computer analogy, we screwed up our operating system but our basic hardware/base code remains perfect, otherwise we would have no hope of being ‘born again’.

Mankind’s operational software is dysfunctional, (as we ‘think’ in our hearts) resulting in an inability to refrain from error, regardless of intention. Adam & Eve’s ‘sin’ was the premature ingestion of the knowledge of good and evil, prior to the attainment of the wisdom necessary to handle it. Just as ignorant children indulging in sexual activity before emotional maturity results in unwanted and premature pregnancies.

The ‘virus’ of ‘original sin’ is inherited through the father, which is why God used the very rare but scientifically established methodology of a ‘virgin birth’ with Jesus. Simply because it was the only physical way God could bring into existence someone ‘free’ from original sin, yet born of woman.

God does not penalize. He’s not ‘into’ punishment.

He does allow consequence, accountability and responsibility because otherwise you cannot have a universe of cause and effect. Reality as we know it could not exist otherwise.

No one can ‘atone’ for your sins but yourself. For Jesus to atone for our sins would be for God to absolve us of any responsibility for our own actions.That would violate a universe based in cause and effect. It would undermine accountability.

Our sins are forgivable because our ‘sins’ are the result of our inheritance; we really, truly, do not ‘know’ what we do.

Just as the insane do not ‘know’ right from wrong…and we do not hold the criminally insane responsible… Would God be less understanding? But in order for us to be cured of this dis-ease we must allow God, our personal physician, to do the work within that is needed.

Not because God wants to rule us, for how then to explain our free will? No loving God could be simultaneously a sadist, giving a gift but then insisting we not use it. We do misuse our free will, using it in ways that are neither to our or our brothers and sisters benefit. Surrender is necessary because it is the only way to cure us! Just as, when we have a ‘cancer’, we have to trust the modern physician who recommends the seeming ‘death penalty’ of radiation and chemotherapy.

We didn’t eat the ‘apple’ but we do have to live with the consequences of our ancestor’s actions. And yes, all of us would have behaved exactly as Adam & Eve did, because Eve’s curiosity and willingness to ‘take a chance’ and Adam’s love for Eve are symbolic of our nature.

Islam’s central premise that we must freely surrender our will to God is correct.

The Bahai’s are right that all religions are divinely inspired attempts by man to understand his existence. Each ‘religion’ is but part of the truth and all are partially distorted by man. All represent efforts by God to ‘reach’ mankind.

Hinduism’s central premise that we come into existence multiple times with the goal of gradually increasing the embodiment of our ‘Christ’ self is self-evident. What kind of ‘loving’ parent gives a recalcitrant child but one chance to repent? Remember the prodigal son? He had a symbolic lifetime to return.

Buddhism is right in its premise that we are all on the road to our own ‘Buddha hood’ (awakening to our true spiritual nature). That we are all blind and, see but part of the ‘truth’ (reality).

Native American spiritual practice is right in its perception that all existence is just different aspects of the creator. Including us and, if we are but one aspect of God, his most self-aware creation, i.e. all children of God, then by definition we are he…

Judaism is right in its central premise; the metaphoric explanatory message contained in the Genesis story. It’s how we got to be in this mess and where we come from and of what our true nature consists.

Christianity is right in its central premise that Jesus found the way that leads to reunion with God. Jesus embodied that way to the extent that he became that way and fully embodied the Christ, making him permanently one with God. That is why he must be accepted (followed) because only one-way leads back to the godhead (the source of divinity) simply because God’s nature is singular and undivided.

GOP – resusitating the brand -part II

I do have some caveats regarding the tenants of GOP 2.0

STRENGTHEN NATIONAL DEFENCE: I support strengthening the military and if necessary, to historical levels as a percentage of GDP. I’d like to hear from experts like Gen. Petraeus regarding his view as to exactly what is needed in economic terms to most effectively prosecute the WoT. As well as maintain our technological and military advantages, so as to be fully prepared for any future threat’s.

GAIN ENERGY INDEPENDENCE: Absolutely, however Long-term, only alternative energy technologies will prevent future energy crises. There is no substitute for development of new choices in energy sources; they are also a necessity and, a National Security issue as well.

Democrats have to agree to limited but adequate, development of short-term solutions.

Republicans have to agree to legislation with real technical safeguards, regulatory oversight and mandatory financial and legal consequences for businesses that violate environmental parameters regarding exploration, drilling and development of new oil, coal and nuclear resources.

Republicans and Democrats have to agree on federal legislation with near-permanent incentives and rewards for development of alternative energy solutions. Place a big enough carrot in front of companies, entrepreneurs and creative individuals and they will rush to fill the need.

SECURE THE BORDERS: immediately building physical barriers, as a precursor to an overarching, sensible immigration policy is only viable if coupled with real, undeniable and comprehensive immigration reform proposals. Physical barriers are at best a short-term ’solution’, insufficient to fully address the problem. And Democrats will never agree to even temporary barriers without their being convincingly coupled with comprehensive reform and a firm time-line for the barriers eventual removal. Barriers cannot be sold as a means of preventing immigration, they can be sold as a means of funneling immigration into controlled access points.

SPUR HEALTHCARE COMPETITION: no government largesse, and yes free-market solutions… those principles alone however, are I suspect, insufficient to address the problem. Health care is increasing in cost expotentially with fundamental problems within the infrastructure of the American Health-Care system. Affordability is the principal problem of course and prescriptions such as medical pre-tax programs assume that someone is making enough to afford to have even more taken out of their paycheck. For the many millions of American families living paycheck to paycheck that prescription is unrealistic. Without affordability, health care becomes increasingly the privilege of the wealthy.

According to one report employee pay now makes up the lowest share of the nation’s gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960s. This disparity cannot be ignored by any fair-minded person.

The Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank, found productivity grew 17 percent nationally from 2000 to 2005, but median family income, adjusted for inflation, fell 3 percent. Millions of American’s are working harder, smarter and at best, just treading water. 

Until conservatives address the underlying issue of the have-nots in society, they will always face calls for government ‘largesse’. Capitalism is an economic system with undeniable benefits for society, it is also indisputable that under such a system the 80/20 rule is unimpeded. Regardless of the benefits, when 80% of a socety’s assets naturally gravitate into 20% of the society’s members, social unrest is inevitable.

The answer of course is to find methodologies that allow the middle class to expand and to do increasingly well. As an observation, in the 1950’s, the GI bill, affordable mortgages and an expanding economy resulted in just such an expansion of the middle class. We need to determine the government incentives and societal infrastructure that most encourages that paradigm to return.  

 

GOP 2.0 – resuscitating the brand

 From the Blog: Doug Ross @ Journal

Paul Mirengoff, writing at Powerline:

The Democrats appear to have picked up another House seat in a formerly “safe” Republican district tonight. The latest win for the Dems comes in Mississippi where Travis Childers, a county chancery clerk, seems to have edged out Greg Davis, a mayor. President Bush carried this district twice with about 60 percent of the vote each time. But Childers ran as a strong social conservative (Ed: pro-life and pro-gun).

…my takeaway is that the Republican brand is in such bad shape that the Dems can win virtually anywhere if they nominate a candidate whose position on key issues is, or can be made to seem, close to that of the Republican… Fortunately, the Democrats will not nominate such a candidate for president. And the Republican nominee, whether we feel comfortable about it or not, isn’t necessarily seen as intimately associated with the Republican brand. Even so, I think that Republican nominee is running uphill.

Indeed. The Republican brand has lost its way. I believe that it’s time for citizens to rise up and demand a new Republican Party! I’m calling it GOP 2.0. And I’m perfectly willing to throw out those “Republicans” who are stuck on stupid — and are stuck in the GOP 1.0 world.

 

The tenets:

STRENGTHEN NATIONAL DEFENSE – increase the size, capability and efficiency of our Armed Forces, bringing back our defense spending to historical levels as a percentage of GDP.

GAIN ENERGY INDEPENDENCE – open up ANWR and the OCS to exploration; aggressively pursue nuclear energy and green technologies; with incentives for private industry to aggressively pursue clean, renewable energy sources.

SECURE THE BORDERS – build physical barriers immediately as a precursor to an overarching, sensible immigration policy. If the boat’s sinking, you plug the holes first.

DEATH TO EARMARKS – zero tolerance for earmarks.

DEATH TO CORRUPTION – zero tolerance for corruption.

ENGLISH AS NATIONAL LANGUAGE – national unity requires a national language. That language is English.

IMPLEMENT FLAT TAX OR FAIR TAX – simplify the tax system by eradicating a tax code gone mad.

REDUCE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT – provide “whistleblower-style” awards for reducing the size of government and task the IRS (which will no longer have to worry about enforcing the tax code) with achieving the reduction goals on an annual basis

SPUR HEALTHCARE COMPETITION – Address health-care deficiencies – with competitive, free-market solutions, not Government largesse.

ADDRESS ENTITLEMENTS – engage a bipartisan consortium to create a multi-million dollar competition to encourage teams from private industry and academia to create solutions for our social security and Medicare liabilities.

This should not be a platform. It should be a promise — an ironclad commitment — to voters.

I’m asking for help here. If you agree, please email this post to your friends and/or post it on your blog (no credit or link needed). We need to resuscitate the Republican brand. ASAP.

Update: A Jacksonian published a comprehensive platform of similar traits in 2006.

In general, I like this proposal a lot. In my next post I’ll cover the details wherein my agreement is qualified.