Taxing Drivers per Mile

Many people may or may not have heard about the latest proposal in the United States to tax drivers based on how many miles they drive a year because less tax revenue is being generated due to more people driving hybrid and alternative energy vehicles. This idea on the surface sounds like a good idea for governments, but with a small scratch of the surface it is very easy to see that this is a ludicrous idea. U.S. Governments need to help promote the use of alternative energies and not penalize people for it.

Luckily the Obama administration has stated that it will not seek to do this. However, there are ten states that are willing to pursue this unfair tax. The governments that want to do this will no doubt cause people to keep using gasoline powered vehicles instead of seeking cleaner and greener solutions. This tax is a horrible idea in all shapes and forms.

Government Bailout

All the talk about bailing out Wall Street and other large firms truly makes me sick. The people who run these companies will just mismanaged their funds again through high risk investments. The real people who need to be bailed out are the home owners who cannot afford their mortgages anymore. The government should be taking over their loans and giving them fixed-rate, affordable loans so the home owners will not lose their homes, the banks will be saved because they are not losing money, and the government will not lose money in the end because the home owners will still be paying off their loans.

This makes perfect sense yet most people do not see this.

A Mandate for New Home Building

Various local governments have different housing standards and codes for how homes should be built. It's now time for the U.S. government, or at least state governments, to add to the codes for the betterment of the nation and in a small part help improve the world.

The change that is needed is to mandate that all new homes being built should be able to generate a percentage of the energy they use in a year. The amount of energy should be calculated based on the average consumption for a house in a range of sizes and geographic locations. The percentage of energy that must be produced by the home should be around 25-50% of what is used. I feel this is reasonable, but the percentage would truly need to be determined by a panel of scientists and researchers. In addition to producing energy, each home that is connected to the electrical grid should be built with the capability to sell back the energy they do not use. This eliminates the need for an energy storage system.

To make this transition less painful, I feel that the government should not monitor how much energy is being produced after the home is sold. We do not need "energy police". The benefit to the owners of saving money on their energy costs should be enough incentive to keep using and maintaining their systems (solar, wind, etc...).

There are two ways to make this solution work. A home can produce a large amount of energy, or it can consume a small amount of energy so the required amount to be produced can be small. The heavy use of materials and devices that conserve energy will be extremely beneficial for everyone.

One Way Out of America's Economic Slump

One of the major reasons for America's economic slump is the rising cost of fuel. The price of crude oil has dropped significantly over the past few weeks (even though gasoline and diesel have not dropped much), however the lower prices will not last. It's time for a major overhaul, and the technologies already exist to do this.

I typically believe in smaller more efficient government, however there are times when this strategy needs to change. Similar to the Tennessee Valley Authority that was established by the U.S. government in 1933, we need a similar government owned company to handle alternative energy production (among other projects that the TVA were involved in). It's time to spend money to create jobs, and launch the U.S. towards a hydrogen fuel based economy. The first steps will be hard, but the long term affects will be tremendous.

The apprehension by the government to do this is apalling. It also appears that whether Obama or McCain win the presenditial election that neither will do enough to make this drastic of a change. The change can be much easier than it sounds.

This change can either be made drastically or gradually. To break out of the economic slump it needs to be made drastically. Gradual change has not been working, and promoting the use of ethanol (while it seemed good at first), has been a contributing reason as to why food costs have increased. People in the government need to step up and move forward. Enough with short term patches and minor solutions because they are getting us no where. We need the change now.

Oil Company Profits in America

There is something seriously wrong with American oil companies making record profits when the cost of fuel is so high. The logic does not make sense. When the cost of crude oil increases doesn't this increase the supply costs for some of these oil companies? Are these companies profiteering at the expense of everyone?

American oil companies have had tax breaks, and it's time to remove these "gifts". They definitely can cover their expenses because they are making record profits, so there is no fear that these companies will pass on the expenses to the consumers. If they do, then the government should look into this further and try to prevent it.

The next smart thing to do with the extra tax revenue is to invest it in alternative energies. More money needs to be put into these types of programs, and in my next post I will explain a basic idea of how to help the United States out of it's economic slump.

Dealing with Abortion

Abortion is a very touchy subject in American society. On both sides of the argument, for and against, people are very staunch in their positions. I'll do my best to present some ideas without insulting anyone. Hopefully, there will be enough people that agree so we can all move on together in peace.

The basis of the argument for the "right" to have an abortion is that the mother should be able to choose what to do with her body. The basis for the argument against abortion is that it is murder. I regret to say that I have been both pro-choice and pro-life at times in my life. Surely, this has happened to other people as well, and it is not easy with this subject.

When I was a young adult, I was pro-choice. This was easy for me because I did not think very deeply about this. The unborn child was a fetus and not an unborn child. My thinking was also swayed by my first serious girlfriend. As I grew older and wiser, I learned more about the whole situation. While watching a show about how the Star Wars movies were made more palatable to young people is that most of the people that died were purposely made to not appear "human". The Stormtroopers were "dehumanized" so it did not appear that real people were dying. A more shocking revelation came when watching a show about the master minds of the Holocaust. They made the Jewish people and other "undesirables" to be sub-human, and therefore they were easier to kill. The Nazis felt like they were killing animals instead of human beings. Sadly, proponents of abortion have done the same thing. They refuse to say they are killing an unborn human child. They would rather call it a fetus or a zygote. It's also always aborting the fetus or terminating the pregnancy. Never terminating the baby. The concept of dehumanization has worked well here.

When I came back to God, I truly knew in my heart that there were much better alternatives than abortion. With personally going through the adoption process, this also made me realize that there are a lot of other couples in the world who desperately want a child, but can't. We also have the opposite problem of people who want to get rid of a child. This situation can be handled simultaneously.

Here is what I propose the government should do:

• Promote sexual responsibility so people who do not want to have babies are smarter about the consequences. Abortion is being used to clean up "mistakes", when prevention is a much better answer. Of course, accidents will still happen, and nothing can be done about pregnancy caused by rape.
• Increase programs that allow mothers to give up their children during the first week after the child is born. These programs need to be promoted more heavily as well. This will also help save the lives of many children.
• Create a federally funded program that pairs up people who truly do not want a child with people who definitely want children. Cut out a lot of the red-tape and the cost of adoption. Speed up background checks as well.

It is very sad that people do not want their children, but it is even worse when people would rather have the child killed. If you are considering abortion, please consider putting your child up for adoption instead. The guilt of giving up a child versus ending your child's life is a world of difference. A chance at life is better than no chance at life at all.

Missile Defence System for Europe

On the forum www.uspoliticsonline.com, forum member "Imperator" started a thread about the proposed missile defence system for Europe to protect against a potential Iranian attack, and how the Russian government feels about it. I felt it was worth re-posting my comments here. My response is below:

"This tiny missile defence system is pretty pointless, and for us (the United States) pushing so hard to put it in is ridiculous. We of course know that ten missiles would do nothing against the sheer numbers of a Russian missile attack. If Medvedev does not want this anti-missile system there then we should listen and not try to push to hard on this. The main thing that I think is ridiculous is that we are pushing for this at all. This is for the protection of Europe, and if they want it then they should be pushing for this. I don't want bad blood rising again between Russia and the United States.

On a different note, I see the reason for not putting the radar station in Azerbaijan. It's too close to Iran, and could possibly be taken out with a commando strike. Plus it would be in easy range of cruise missiles that the proposed radar station probably could not pick up.

The other strange thing is that the country that truly needs to worry about Iran is Israel. It's probably 100 times more likely that missiles would get launched against Israel instead of Europe."

Please leave your comments about this situation. Hopefully someone will see some sense and stop causing unnecessary tension.