Great to hear from you. I'm not sure how to change the discussion. The "rise of the right"... the tea partyers... the activist right has been one the greatest things in recent times. Not that I agree with most of what is said on the right, but I love that people are getting involved. I don't want to paint the world with a broad brush, but it had been my experience that most of the population had been pretty apathetic up until the last couple of years. I know that we had protesters on the left when we started the war in Iraq and I know people on the left were called unpatriotic for last 9 years because of it. I know that right has been up in arms about national health care for the last year and a half and the left has mocked them endlessly.

How do we cross the lines? How do we get people to see that most likely what is in their interest is in the interest of most people? I am part of the nameless, faceless masses and it is time that we begin to see that we are stronger united than divided. When we are divided it is usually for the benefit of someone other than ourselves. Our greatest moments as a nation were achieved when we focused and united for higher goals.

I guess the question is.... What do we want our nation to look like? What ever we answer, we can achieve. The key will be having a rational discussion about the goals. (We'll have to kill the rhetoric though, you're right.)

While that was the old thought on oil, I don't believe that is what happened this time. I believe there are secondary markets of speculators that driving prices out of whack. We are about half of peak price now, it is hard to find reasons for much of any of our prices. Oil prices used to surge on news of a possible small protest near a pipeline in Nigeria. (I may be off but I think it didn't takke much more than that.)

I don't think government is losing power, I just think they are losing power relative to the multi-nationals. If this spill had happened in a country not as powerful as ours, BP would not have coughed up the money. We may not be to far off from being that downtrodden country. That said, I think that it is extremely important that the citizens are the watchdog of the government. For the majority of my life, I have watched private industry manipulate the government for their gain. I have watched safety standards for everything from work places to water come underfire for the profits of the wealth uber-class. It is more important than ever to make sure the government is working for the people. This happens with democrats and republicans.

My point with the Bush comments were that lower prices dont always follow deregulation. My understanding at the time was that the lower prices were the result of extremely high productivity rates, depressing future shortage chances, as we just got super efficient.

You are right that it would come from somewhere. But the idea would be that this would be for the greater good. Could we blindly trust the government to do this? I doubt it. Can we just raise the price of the items that we want to move away from? Probably. If we send that market signal it will probably push people to choose a the less expensive option. As people choose the alternatives, those prices will drop over time.

Thanks for the site. I will check it out.

As far as power, the green economy is about reducing the amount of power used by making buildings and machines more efficient without reducing performance. And, it is about finding alternative sources of energy.... wind, solar, geo-thermal, nuclear, etc....

You are right about it not being in the constitution.... the authority is found in Section 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The idea of stepping in when states fail was found in the federalist papers.

As to the suggestion of double taxation, the answer is plain. The wants of the Union are to be supplied in one way or another; if to be done by the authority of the federal government, it will not be to be done by that of the State government. The quantity of taxes to be paid by the community must be the same in either case; with this advantage, if the provision is to be made by the Union that the capital resource of commercial imposts, which is the most convenient branch of revenue, can be prudently improved to a much greater extent under federal than under State regulation, and of course will render it less necessary to recur to more inconvenient methods; and with this further advantage, that as far as there may be any real difficulty in the exercise of the power of internal taxation, it will impose a disposition to greater care in the choice and arrangement of the means; and must naturally tend to make it a fixed point of policy in the national administration to go as far as may be practicable in making the luxury of the rich tributary to the public treasury, in order to diminish the necessity of those impositions which might create dissatisfaction in the poorer and most numerous classes of the society. Happy it is when the interest which the government has in the preservation of its own power, coincides with a proper distribution of the public burdens, and tends to guard the least wealthy part of the community from oppression!

This is from Federalist 36

Even without the federalist papers, it is well proven that the federal government has the power to mandate to the states. Just look at No Child Left Behind.

As far as government and the economic system, I believe that the United States is one of the most successful economic systems every attempted in the history of the world. I am saying that the United States has help sow the seeds of the most successful economics systems in the world. You have to admit the government built the roads, right? (Obviously, my larger point is that what is the difference between our nation and others, and our success and others failure is our government and the rules it set up to make the system successful. Honestly though, with the growth rate in China in recent years it is hard to say that our system is currently the best at producing growth.)

Approximately 34.1 million Americans have been diagnosed with asthma by a health professional during their lifetime.
An estimated 300 million people worldwide suffer from asthma, with 250,000 annual deaths attributed to the disease.
Workplace conditions, such as exposure to fumes, gases or dust, are responsible for 11% of asthma cases worldwide.
About 70% of asthmatics also have allergies.
The prevalence of asthma increased 75% from 1980-1994.
Asthma rates in children under the age of five have increased more than 160% from 1980-1994.
It is estimated that the number of people with asthma will grow by more than 100 million by 2025.
http://www.aaaai.org/media/statistics/asthma-stat...

I got that by googling Asthma rates.

I don't think we have that much oil, but I think we agree on the fact that we don't want to send all of our money to the middle east. That should be the focus that we work together to solve, rather than just bashing one another. Obama wanted to expand off shore drilling, but unfortunately BP had a huge spill in the gulf. Ending that plan.... so what is left to do?

First your point that gas is too expensive, it appears that you are saying it is too expensive even if you take out all the taxes we pay. Which would leave, in my opinion, the oligopoly as the explanation. Not a monopoly, where it is one provider, but a situation where there are few providers and they can manipulate the market prices by colluding to manipulate market supply. I ask, what entity could work to break this collusion? What entity could magnify the voice of the people loud enough to stand against the greed, wealth and power of the few private citizens that hold the rest of us hostage to their supply whims? (I think you know what entity I think could try, but honestly our government is losing strength relative to the international conglomerate.)

Currency valuation is a serious issue. I would say that we are devaluing the dollar at an amazing pace, but so is the rest of the world. We have been actually gaining value versus the Euro.

I will say that you don't need to go back to Nixon for oil prices. You can check me, but I remember oil being right around $10 a barrel in 1999. That was before all the deregulation that took place during the Bush administration. Just saying we might want to look at cause and effect very closely.

As far as normal jobs are concerned. I think carpentry is a pretty normal job, one of the oldest anyway. That is who installs new windows and doors. And as far as willing, there is usually a big up front cost to installing energy efficient windows, doors and insulation. But the logic is that it is better to pay $100 a month to heat a home until the end of time, then it is to pay $200 a month. The problem is that it cost several thousand dollars to make that possible, so it will take several years to make it "worth it". This is were the government could step in to off set some of those initial costs.

Yes we pay taxes on fuel, but I was saying that we still don't pay enough for the fuel to capture all of the true costs associated with fossil fuels.

As far as the US and the industry staying away, I believe we are one of their largest customers, so they can't stay too far away. As far as production, I am pretty sure we don't have a very large portion of the reserves. (Does 2% sound familiar.) China is a centrally planned economy that doesn't abide by the free market principles, but you are right they have been very successful in growing their economy and ruining their environment. China is also leading the world in green technology, even enticing our entrepreneurs to start their businesses over there. India is one of the most successful nations with wind farming. There electrical grid didn't support uninterrupted power to their ever expanding industrial base, so they had to turn to wind turbines to generate power locally. They are a major player in the growing green economy.

As far as the constitution, the federal government is meant to step in when the states fail or it is more efficient to do on a federal level.

Ultimately, green jobs (insulating, building wind turbines, geo-thermal heating and cooling, building windows, installing windows, installing doors, etc....) are local jobs and opportunity for local small businesses, this is where jobs are made. It is hard for me to support the ultra wealthy and powerful oil and gas companies over the local business man. For those who do, I question their motives.

The most basic principle that President Obama is trying to convey, which I believe was glossed over in this short article, is that the price we pay for the more traditional sources of energy are not accurately representing all the costs. One of the costs not captured in the price at the pump, and the one that you may be most familiar with, is the cost of sending money to the middle east to buy their oil, which in turn in some cases is used to fund organizations that work against the United States and then in turn the United States has to spend money on to thwart the goals of these organizations. If we hadn't bought the oil, we wouldn't have to spend the extra money on the defense. Buying the oil has costs beyond what we pay at the pump. This also true of environmental impacts. We burn fossil fuels, which at its most basic can be harmful to human health. Asthma rates increase, more kids go to doctor, that is a cost not born at the pump, it is paid by whoever is paying for the health care. Or we have a polluted stream, or maybe even a polluted gulf of Mexico. The idea is to capture some of those external costs and put them into the actual supply and demand equation. So that way, when you are paying at the pump, you can see all the costs associated with filling up your car not just the direct costs.

As to the suggestion of double taxation, the answer is plain. The wants of the Union are to be supplied in one way or another; if to be done by the authority of the federal government, it will not be to be done by that of the State government. The quantity of taxes to be paid by the community must be the same in either case; with this advantage, if the provision is to be made by the Union that the capital resource of commercial imposts, which is the most convenient branch of revenue, can be prudently improved to a much greater extent under federal than under State regulation, and of course will render it less necessary to recur to more inconvenient methods; and with this further advantage, that as far as there may be any real difficulty in the exercise of the power of internal taxation, it will impose a disposition to greater care in the choice and arrangement of the means; and must naturally tend to make it a fixed point of policy in the national administration to go as far as may be practicable in making the luxury of the rich tributary to the public treasury, in order to diminish the necessity of those impositions which might create dissatisfaction in the poorer and most numerous classes of the society. Happy it is when the interest which the government has in the preservation of its own power, coincides with a proper distribution of the public burdens, and tends to guard the least wealthy part of the community from oppression!

This is from Federalist 36
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/...

From this part of the federalist papers (and other parts as well), it would seem clear that the founding fathers definitely were intending on the using the federal government to govern. Again, I think we can have discussions on what is the best way to govern, what is the best way to create a more perfect union, but I think all of this nonsense that is written in this essay only obscures reality and the constitution. Getting people to believe that their fundamental freedoms are under attack with everything the progressive movement does obscures the truth. Please don't misunderstand, I do believe that certain policies do put our freedoms in jeopardy, but to paint the progressive movement and its leaders with a broad brush that says all of their policies do this is a little silly. Bans on assault rifles could rightly be challenged as going against our constitution and the supreme court should look at it and the people should be able to cry foul. The patriot act could rightly be criticized for violating search and seizure rights. But to pretend like the regulation of industry is an affront to the freedoms of the people is just not intellectually honest. I believe we should always have a debate about the details and to what extent regulation should take place, but we have been caught in this strange world where people throw around scary rhetoric. Some would say this is done intentionally to get people to focus on their emotion, rather than their reason. Those who say it is done intentionally are implying that these leaders have an interest in people not thinking rationally. Is that the intent of this essay?

I have posted this reply to several of the replies my original post received. I apologize if this is redundant, but I was not sure if everyone would be able to see it if I just replied once.

As to the suggestion of double taxation, the answer is plain. The wants of the Union are to be supplied in one way or another; if to be done by the authority of the federal government, it will not be to be done by that of the State government. The quantity of taxes to be paid by the community must be the same in either case; with this advantage, if the provision is to be made by the Union that the capital resource of commercial imposts, which is the most convenient branch of revenue, can be prudently improved to a much greater extent under federal than under State regulation, and of course will render it less necessary to recur to more inconvenient methods; and with this further advantage, that as far as there may be any real difficulty in the exercise of the power of internal taxation, it will impose a disposition to greater care in the choice and arrangement of the means; and must naturally tend to make it a fixed point of policy in the national administration to go as far as may be practicable in making the luxury of the rich tributary to the public treasury, in order to diminish the necessity of those impositions which might create dissatisfaction in the poorer and most numerous classes of the society. Happy it is when the interest which the government has in the preservation of its own power, coincides with a proper distribution of the public burdens, and tends to guard the least wealthy part of the community from oppression!

This is from Federalist 36
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/...

From this part of the federalist papers (and other parts as well), it would seem clear that the founding fathers definitely were intending on the using the federal government to govern. Again, I think we can have discussions on what is the best way to govern, what is the best way to create a more perfect union, but I think all of this nonsense that is written in this essay only obscures reality and the constitution. Getting people to believe that their fundamental freedoms are under attack with everything the progressive movement does obscures the truth. Please don't misunderstand, I do believe that certain policies do put our freedoms in jeopardy, but to paint the progressive movement and its leaders with a broad brush that says all of their policies do this is a little silly. Bans on assault rifles could rightly be challenged as going against our constitution and the supreme court should look at it and the people should be able to cry foul. The patriot act could rightly be criticized for violating search and seizure rights. But to pretend like the regulation of industry is an affront to the freedoms of the people is just not intellectually honest. I believe we should always have a debate about the details and to what extent regulation should take place, but we have been caught in this strange world where people throw around scary rhetoric. Some would say this is done intentionally to get people to focus on their emotion, rather than their reason. Those who say it is done intentionally are implying that these leaders have an interest in people not thinking rationally. Is that the intent of this essay?

I have posted this reply to several of the replies my original post received. I apologize if this is redundant, but I was not sure if everyone would be able to see it if I just replied once.

As to the suggestion of double taxation, the answer is plain. The wants of the Union are to be supplied in one way or another; if to be done by the authority of the federal government, it will not be to be done by that of the State government. The quantity of taxes to be paid by the community must be the same in either case; with this advantage, if the provision is to be made by the Union that the capital resource of commercial imposts, which is the most convenient branch of revenue, can be prudently improved to a much greater extent under federal than under State regulation, and of course will render it less necessary to recur to more inconvenient methods; and with this further advantage, that as far as there may be any real difficulty in the exercise of the power of internal taxation, it will impose a disposition to greater care in the choice and arrangement of the means; and must naturally tend to make it a fixed point of policy in the national administration to go as far as may be practicable in making the luxury of the rich tributary to the public treasury, in order to diminish the necessity of those impositions which might create dissatisfaction in the poorer and most numerous classes of the society. Happy it is when the interest which the government has in the preservation of its own power, coincides with a proper distribution of the public burdens, and tends to guard the least wealthy part of the community from oppression!

This is from Federalist 36
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/...

From this part of the federalist papers (and other parts as well), it would seem clear that the founding fathers definitely were intending on the using the federal government to govern. Again, I think we can have discussions on what is the best way to govern, what is the best way to create a more perfect union, but I think all of this nonsense that is written in this essay only obscures reality and the constitution. Getting people to believe that their fundamental freedoms are under attack with everything the progressive movement does obscures the truth. Please don't misunderstand, I do believe that certain policies do put our freedoms in jeopardy, but to paint the progressive movement and its leaders with a broad brush that says all of their policies do this is a little silly. Bans on assault rifles could rightly be challenged as going against our constitution and the supreme court should look at it and the people should be able to cry foul. The patriot act could rightly be criticized for violating search and seizure rights. But to pretend like the regulation of industry is an affront to the freedoms of the people is just not intellectually honest. I believe we should always have a debate about the details and to what extent regulation should take place, but we have been caught in this strange world where people throw around scary rhetoric. Some would say this is done intentionally to get people to focus on their emotion, rather than their reason. Those who say it is done intentionally are implying that these leaders have an interest in people not thinking rationally. Is that the intent of this essay?

I have posted this reply to several of the replies my original post received. I apologize if this is redundant, but I was not sure if everyone would be able to see it if I just replied once.