How We Solve the US Energy Riddle

What is our energy future?

Lately, conservatives have been arguing that we need to focus on extracting our fossil fuel energy in the US so that we can become energy independent. The problem with that is: even if we become 100% energy independent, if that energy independence is based on fossil fuels, other countries will continue to have influence on what we would pay for gasoline, coal and natural gas. This is because in a global marketplace, US companies will sell their product to US consumers for as long as it is economically feasible to do so. Once people in other countries increase their demand (and price) for fossil fuels, US companies will be glad to sell their products to them instead... until we can out-bid them and keep the supply here.

Also, I believe that at some point it may be cost-effective for countries like China to refine oil to export to the US. When countries without air quality standards or labor regulations can cheaply refine oil into gasoline and find a way to transport it inexpensively enough, I can imagine that we will be buying our refined fuel from those countries. This may sound preposterous but consider that we already send tons of flour to China for them to mix with melamine and mercury and send back to us in the form of cookies and crackers for us to consume.

Green energy, on the other hand, cannot be exported. Energy from windmills and solar will bring jobs that can't be outsourced. These are the industries of the future. This is where our long-term energy solutions will come from. We can't ignore it. We must embrace it. We should not be afraid of new technology. Of course, in light of our current economic crisis, it may be risky to gamble on somebody inventing ways to make green energy solutions viable in the near term. Green energy has a lot to prove still, despite the fact that it promises some amazing things. Fossil fuels however have a current, real, intrinsic value.

So here is what I propose: we aggressively harvest some of our fossil fuel energy over the next several years. If done correctly, fossil fuel energy could be a good source of jobs and we do need jobs desperately. It is true that fossil fuel projects won't create many jobs on their own. The XL pipeline project, for instance, is only expected to produce an estimated 20,000 job years (yeah, job years, not jobs--that's 20,000 jobs for one year; or 10,000 jobs for two years; or one thousand jobs for 20 years--it's not exactly going to turn our country around). We can create more jobs by over-regulating the fossil fuel energy industries. Most of the disasters that have occurred in the in the past few decades could have been avoided or greatly mitigated if crews and containment equipment were on the ready as oil companies promised they would be. If we actually make fossil fuel mining companies follow through on their legal and contractual obligations this time, there will be more workers to respond to a disaster, meaning more jobs filled, and fewer and far less severe catastrophes. The additional government regulatory jobs would improve oversight of  the operations of the industry. Yes, it is more bureaucracy but it also creates more jobs and reduces environmental impact. It is also likely to save lives (kind of important) and stimulate the economy. We stop funding terrorists and get cheaper fuel prices in the short term.

Anyone uncomfortable with trading more bureaucratic government jobs for more domestic energy production should consider the practice of oil pipeline "pigging" and its record of failure. Now imagine that a pipeline is proposed to run near your child's school or through your favorite hunting area. Government oversight is needed to ensure that safety regulations are closely followed and disasters affecting our citizens and environment are minimized.

Here's the other catch, profits from the new fossil fuel bounty would have to be taxed a bit to offset the environmental damage by funding research into green energy options for the long-term. Drastically reducing domestic fuel prices would only cause more consumption. If we accellerate our production of domestic fossil fuels, we need to devote much of the cost savings to move the whole country forward and not to just be a boon to energy companies. A little tax on the fossil fuel energy income and a little increase on the gasoline tax would be required. Then the whole country can benefit from capital that can be invested in green energy (our long-term solution).

The faster we can get green energy solutions paying off for us, the better. We need to compete with China for manufacturing those products since they are what will be in demand in the future. That may mean subsidies for green energy companies. Perhaps, more Solyndras. But as much as people like to make Solyndra out to be a big deal, the best information out there says that it was not a scandal. It was an unfortunate waste of money but in the bigger picture, most of the investments we've made in new technologies have paid off far more than enough to offset the few that failed. A little more of this will be in our long-term economic interests. In the short term, we suck the fossil fuel energy from this country like a demon sucking the last drops of blood form the skull of its victim and hope that we have the intelligence and dedication to ensure that it is done safely and responsibly.

It is a little complicated and not 100% to the satisfaction of the two ideologies that exist in this country. But I believe that it is a wise, responsible and sensible compromise to accomplish the goals of both sides; giving us all lower fuel prices, greater national security (which requires less military spending), improved environmental protection, more jobs and improved economic growth.

That's how we fix the energy problem. Now, can we go fix the CORRUPTION in Washington?

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

More Socialism, Please!

Underachievers? ...Like the banks? If you are a casual follower of politics, you probably have heard that President Obama is a socialist. As a political junkie, this just didn't seem at all accurate to me. Of course, it is not accurate. It is what is called hyperbole--a claim based on some fact that is blown way out of proportion and used to sway voters that don’t follow every step of every political “player”. For instance, you may have heard that President Obama “socialized” the federal student loan program. I had heard this years ago and I decided to research the issue. What I found is that Obama stopped paying banks to give loans to students and instead restructured the program so that the government would give student loans directly, cutting out banks as the middlemen. Of course, the banking industry didn't like that. Apparently the Republican party didn't either, hence, it was labeled a "socialist" program. But can’t such a change only save the country money? How can it not cost less to make loans to students directly rather than have to pay the salaries and bonuses of bankers in exchange for them servicing the loans? A wikipedia.org article states: "By directly lending to students, the government is projected to save taxpayers $68 billion dollars over the next several years." You would think that would make Republicans, and all Americans happy. The only concern I have been able to uncover from critics of the change is that the banks were “assuming risk” that the US government will now have to assume. OK, that is a valid argument.  But does that make the new program socialism? I believe that any thinking person would have a difficult time accepting that assessment. Furthermore, if there was so much “risk” why would the banks be willing to service the loans? I have a hard time believing that they did it out of the goodness of their hearts, but rather believe they did it because it was lucrative for them to do it. So then, how could it not be more economical to cut them out of the equation? Most people in the country feel that higher education is important for Americans to achieve the American dream and for the country to continue to prosper. That being the case, politicians will always pretend to care about and promote programs that keep student aid available. When interest rates are high, students are not able to pay the interest fees. To keep higher education affordable, the federal government used to pay banks the difference between the high interest rate and a modest rate that students can actually afford to pay. This was an issue during the 2004 presidential election. Interest rates had fallen dramatically yet the federal government was still paying banks the high interest rate. It was a great deal for the banks. Not so much for the US taxpayer and was no benefit at all to students. So if people want to call common sense, cost-saving measures “socialism”, then maybe we should reexamine our fear of socialism. Or at least re-calibrate our BS sensors to recognize political hyperbole. If Republicans have a better plan for student loans, then show us the plan. Explain why it is better. Resorting to such ridiculous rhetoric indicates a weak political position, poor judgment and dishonest manipulation of facts, voters and the system. When politics reaches this low point, the country is in serious trouble. ~R. Charan Pagan information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker Los Angeles, CA 90017 http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

Ease Up On the Propaganda, Dude!

If you are paying attention, you probably heard that GE earned over $10 billion in profit yet paid no Federal taxes in 2010 and actually got a tax benefit from Uncle Sam. That turned out not to be wholly true but GE has heavily invested in lobbying the federal government and usually pays a tax rate of about 7% whereas many other businesses may pay as much as 40%. This is pretty outrageous but even more so when you consider that GE has moved thousands of US jobs overseas. It doesn't seem like a company that deserves (or needs) a giant tax break to me. So I get a little put off when I see GE's advertising campaign that seems to serve as a PR (public relations) initiative. One ad talks about how the medical devices that GE makes have helped people diagnose and/or treat their cancer. It's a feel-good commercial for sure. It tugs at your heartstrings and makes you feel good about how this company helped to save the lives of people. The commercial makes GE sound much more like a company that deserves a big tax break from the federal government. But what if there was a smaller company out there that is working on a better machine? A machine that is more accurate, more convenient and more cost-effective? This company is hypothetical as far as I know but such a company would not be able to afford to compete with GE for special favors from Uncle Sam. Therefore, their better machine would not be available for anyone.



Are you convinced that you're getting a fair share?

This is the danger of having a plutocracy- a country where very wealthy are able to buy what they want from government at the expense of the general public. This is the reason that everyone should demand fairness in the tax code and the electoral and legislative processes.

Another disturbing piece of propaganda comes from Chevron. Their TV ad mentions that they donate money to schools to teach kids science. Great! Such donations rarely come without strings attached. And I certainly have to wonder if the stings attached to this deal will be tied at the other end to textbooks that have no mention to the environmental damage related to fossil fuel energy. I know for sure that letting companies that deny the science of climate change shouldn't be teaching science to our kids.

You almost have to admire what seems to me to be a well thought-out strategy: industries pushes for tax breaks and offshore their profits so that the government goes broke. And when government can't afford to educate our kids or provide health care to our citizens, well here comes big business to lend a helping hand! Do you think these businesses will be too important to fail when we are dependent upon them for education funding and cancer detection and research?

So industry and the wealthy appear to be well-organized to ensure that their interests are served by government and that their propaganda is disseminated to convince us of the benevolence of the whole situation. What do you think will happen if we are not also organized? Do you think we may get steamrolled, bamboozled and taken advantage of? You really don't need to wonder. Our public schools are bankrupt and under-funded while corporations reap record profits and pay record low taxes on that wealth. Most of the wealth in the country has gone to the top .01% while the wages for the rest of us have stayed flat (when adjusted for inflation) since the 1970's. Has there really not been a single US worker that contributed to that explosion of new wealth? Shouldn't those who helped to create that wealth also get a small piece of it? Apparently not, under our current system.

How did this happen? How did our government and our political system stop serving us in favor of serving the wealthy few? After all, we have the power to vote to hire and fire these politicians. When corporations are considered "people" and money is considered "speech" politicians are going to turn to the "people" that have the most to "say". I won't try to claim that every politician is a greedy, corrupt person but every singe one of them depends on campaign contributions to get re-elected. Do you have a few million bucks you can contribute to a political campaign? If not, your representative will be talking to George Clooney, Foster Friese, Susan Serandon and the Koch brothers instead.

Some of the wealthy people that have the privilege of having great influence over the government may be less self-serving than others but the mere fact that you can't talk to a politician today unless you are a millionaire, and probably won't be able to have any serious influence unless you are a billionaire, should be disturbing and infuriating to all of us. Do you accept being marginalized in your own country so that a privileged few can steer our country in a direction that serves their interests and/or ideology?

I strongly believe that our only chance to recover control of our government is for us to stand together and demand changes. Together we are bigger and stronger and more influential than the industries, the celebrities, the corporations and the media. I know that political pundits have often said that those people who are politically to the left or right of you are "loonies", "pinheads" and "brainwashed fools". But don't we all want the same basic things from our government and our country? Justice, fairness and a comfortable lifestyle with a shot at earning great success and wealth? A government that is more efficient, more effective and more accountable to us? Can we work together to achieve those things or shall we continue to fight with one another over disagreements? How successful has that been so far? If we work together we can achieve the things we all want. When we fight with each other we have to accept what the politicians give us.

In the past several years upward mobility has slowed to a crawl. Few people in the lower class ever move up to the middle class. And few in the middle class ever move into the upper class. When we go into full reversal and only the very wealthy maintain or advance their financial positions and the rest of us slide backward, will you then be motivated to change things? Will you have finally had enough? Will it be too late to change things? Our time is now. Our birthright--a country of our own--is at stake. Are we Americans or are we merely shadows of our brave and ambitious forefathers?

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

Politics 101 (The Role of the Federal Government)

US Capitol Building

I’ve spent three of the past four weeks working in San Francisco. I’ve missed a lot of my usual news programs and have had to supplement the information with mainstream media news, my mortal enemy! Anyway, I can see why mainstream media news is so popular. It is nauseating yet totally intoxicating and addictive at the same time.

I found the hard right Fox News and the hard left MSNBC to be the most compelling stations. MSNBC has a series of promotional videos that I rather enjoy. One features Lawrence O’Donnell talking about the G.I. Bill. [I had hoped to provide a link to the video but it doesn’t appear to be online anywhere.] O’Donnell states that the percentage of college graduates in the country before the G.I. Bill was just 6%. He then states that the G.I. Bill pushed that up to 20%. He said that it allowed his father to go to college and receive a good education so that his father could then put his five kids through college. O’Donnell ends the promo saying that “the critics called it ‘welfare’.”

This video really strikes at the heart of one of the philosophical divides in our country. Should the federal government provide things to its citizens in an attempt to improve their lives, strengthen the country and make a better world or should the federal government stay out of things and hope that the private sector and individual states make the correct choices to accomplish that end, to the best of their ability?

Right-wing thinkers would say that the federal government should stay out of everything that The Constitution doesn’t specifically grant it the power to do. I certainly understand that and agree with the sentiment. But my more contemplative answer would be that if the government can do something to improve the lives of people then--in some cases--it should. Building our highway system and great public works projects like the Hoover Dam are good examples. These are things that have been enormously beneficial for the country and could not have been done by private businesses because the scope was too great and/or the costs were too high, with no real way to garner a profit from the giant expenditure.

And this brings me back to Lawrence O’Donnell’s promo. Would we have been able to become the world’s biggest military super power without a healthy stock of college graduates in our country to build our weapons systems? Would we have been able to build a nation with the greatest infrastructure in the world? Would we have been able to beat the Russians to the moon? Think of all the amazing technologies and advances that were made because of that one goal. Would our country have the reputation and prestige had we not established ourselves as the world’s greatest and most dominant nation? Were it not for government investment, we would not have the internet as we know it today. The gadgets you love and depend on (e.g. iPhone, iPad, GPS, etc.) would certainly not exist.

What innovations for tomorrow are being cultivated by the federal government today? What inventions of tomorrow will spring from those investments? New gadgets, cures for diseases, better ways to educate, better and more efficient ways to communicate, better and more efficient energy sources? Certainly the government can run amok and create disastrous programs or programs that in time go far beyond the scope and cost of what was initially proposed and agreed to. This is why citizens need to be involved and informed so that we can provide the proper oversight.

So the politics of our country is not, and should not be, an argument about which side is going to “destroy our nation” and which side will save it. It should be a civil discussion about finding the correct balance of harnessing the power of our amazing country and utilizing our federal government to bring about beneficial changes to society without creating a government that is too vast or over-reaching. That’s it. Once we recognize this, fixing the problems of our country will be much simpler.

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/