verum planto vos solvo

Unicorn farts and our energy policy








Some day in the future, we'll have an as-of-yet discovered source of energy that will allow us to provide all the power necessary to run our homes. And that clean, renewable, as-of-yet discovered energy source will probably be about the size of a Coke can. Oh what a wonderful day that will be... someday. But it wont be in my lifetime. I don't say that pessimistically but realistically. Since I was a kid I heard that the salvation of renewable energy was going to be either solar or wind. Over half a century later, it's clear that neither one of those alternatives is able to create enough electricity to power an 18th century economy much less a 21st century economy. That doesn't mean that solar and wind should be dismissed. But they should be placed in the category of "to be used as auxiliary energy sources". Not primary. It isn't sunny everyday and it isn't windy everyday but we need energy everyday. Some of the biggest opponents to wind power is the extreme political left. Yeah, I know I was surprised too. But I checked and currently 32 wind turbine projects are on "hold" or being objective to in the courts because of environmental concerns by numerous eco-groups. Mostly they are concerned about the impact such wind turbines will have upon the migratory patterns of certain birds. Well, birds do fly and it's not inconceivable that more than a few will fly into a spinning wind turbine from time to time... assuming it's a windy day. Others object to wind turbines that will be anchored miles off the coast. The most notable were the plans to install wind turbines off the well-to-do vacation playground of Marthas Vineyard. Apparently the Kennedys, Kerrys and others objected to the idea because the towers would disrupt their view of the Atlantic from their estates. Especially interesting since the towers were to be installed 11 miles out at sea.

Solar power may be great for powering up backyard patio light but not so great for illuminating  a major city. There simply isn't enough land mass to lay out enough photovoltaic cells to provide sufficient electricity unless you want to turn Michigan into one giant solar panel. Solar technology may well advance in the next 50 years. But based upon the limited solar technology advancements of the last 50 years, I doubt it. And not surprisingly, there are ecological objections to solar farms just as there are to wind farms.

Then there's oil - the big bad meany on the block. Everyone hates oil until they want to drive their car. Depending who you talk to, peak oil production has already occurred though this is in dispute. New technology allows oil to be extracted in areas never before thought possible. That technology will allow us access to additional reservoirs of oil in land and beneath the sea and with a much smaller footprint. Again, environmentalists bemoan the potential damage. And they're right. The damage done to the Gulf region last year was substantial. And those responsible must be held accountable. But removing drilling platforms from the Gulf region further damaged an already fragile economy. The response should not be to shut down offshore drilling but find ways to make it safer and more productive. Remember, this was a single oil platform's blowout preventer failure - not a systematic one. Hurricanes & typhoons have toppled platforms globally without oil spillage. The safety record is actually quite good although you'd never know it by the news reports. It's not news if everything works as designed, I guess. No one stops driving their car because an accident is possible. The space program didn't halt because of the Apollo 1, Challenger and Columbia accidents. Nor should we stop trying to extract oil from regions where we know it lies because something might go wrong. Learn from the mistakes and move on. Until our cars run on Leprechaun smiles and Unicorn farts, oil is going to be the energy currency of the realm. Get used to it.

So what's a country to do?

Again, I have no doubts that one day future generations will look back upon the age of fossil fuels as the dark ages of modern energy. But that's a criticism to be made by our great-great-grandchildren. Not our children or grandchildren. And until that glorious day of enlightenment occurs, we'll have to rely upon oil, nuclear, natural gas and the other equally evil sources of energy. Technology can make them safer and cleaner. But they will never be 100% safe or 100% clean. America has not built a nuclear power plant in over 30 years, yet France derives 80% of their electricity from nuclear power. The US about 20%. The French are on their way to energy independence or at least far ahead of the United States. We're still using oil and coal fired electrical plants. Yes, I know. Japan isn't having a love affair with nuclear power right now. But how many earthquakes & tsunamis are going to damage the world's nuclear power plants annually? The Chernobyl nuclear reactor was not encased in concrete as nearly every other reactor is. Had it been, the damage would have been very limited. (The former Soviet Union wasn't very concerned with safety issues) Even the father of nuclear disasters, Three Mile Island was ultimately a result of human error- not a malfunction of a particular system and produced no deaths or calculable health issues per the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's final report. Currently there are 440 nuclear power plants worldwide. They produce as much electricity as all other combined sources of power in 1960. Still they only produce only 14% of our energy supply. Meanwhile coal accounts for 40% of electrical generation worldwide. And we know how Al Gore feels about that.

Energy will always be expensive, risky to produce and potentially damaging. And until that day when that new, clean, nearly free, yet-to-be-named energy source is announced, we're all going to have to come to terms with fact that our current sources of energy are in here to stay. Denying this fact wont make energy any cleaner or less expensive. Besides, Unicorn farts are in such short supply as it is.

THE DEBT. "What I know. What I don't know."


Math was never my strong suit. Some would argue neither is speaking clearly or walking upright for prolonged periods of time. But the grasp of math I do possess causes me great concern when I think about the crushing debt of the United States.


First, I'll talk about what I know.


As I write this, the two party's are trying to hash out an agreement that will either cut federal spending by $30 billion dollars or $60 billion dollars for the remainder of the current fiscal year and keep a government shutdown from happening. The feds spend about $36 billion a day. The current federal budget is $3.7 TRILLION. The cuts that are being discussed in Washington are like a cup of water out of the ocean. Or approximately a 2 ounce weight loss from Rosie O'Donnell. And yet to hear the Democrats talk you'd think that the republic is going to end because we may not fund a cowboy poetry festival in Senator Reids home state of Nevada.


At the beginning of the fiscal year 2000 we had a national debt of $5.6 trillion. As of March 31, 2011 it stands at $14.2 trillion. Now I may not be real good at math, but I can see where this is going. Since the dawn of Roosevelt's New Deal we have set this nation on a path of inevitable debt. Social Security for example, was never intended to fund a persons retirement. It was meant to be a safety net to supplement a retirement nest egg that you were suppose to provide yourself. While the benefits became more generous, the amount of people contributing to a single retiree dwindled. At the beginning of the program, the average life expectancy of a man was 65. It was thought that the average person might collect benefits for 3 to 4 years. My father has been collecting for 24 years. My Mother, for 22. And they're not untypical. In the beginning there were 18 workers for every retiree receiving benefits. That number is now 2.3 workers. As babyboomers advance into retirement age, the number of workers to retirees ration will narrow even more. We will then have a nightmare - the largest amount of Social Security recipients financed by the smallest percentage of workers in the history of the program. Social Security may have been well intentioned. But it was a well intentioned pyramid scheme. And yet Social Security is not our biggest problem.



Medicare requires even more attention. In 1966 it was estimated that Medicare would cost $5 billion by 1990. When 1990 rolled around the real price tag was $95 billion. Ooops! Clearly, this was before the age of calculators. Government always over promises and usually at a far lower price than initially quoted. They just can't help themselves. In that respect, they're like home contractors. Supplying seniors with a voucher type system that would allow them to choose a policy of their own, would drastically reduce cost to the program. Especially when you consider that another 100 million people in the national medical pool would create competition among health insurance companies for those dollars. Allowing medical insurance companies to sell policies across state lines would create significant competition. I can buy my house , life and car insurance from a company in Kansas, but not my health insurance. In what universe does that make sense? But those options were not even considered when ObamaCare was shoved up us like a colonoscopy.


So what are the answers to our problems? Well, we could tax the rich more. But consider that the top 1% earn 19% of income but pay 37% of taxes. And the top 10% pay 68% of taxes. The bottom 50% pay 3%. So much for shared sacrifice. Besides do you really want to raise taxes on the job producers? That never worked before. Go ask Jimmy Carter. So maybe raising taxes isn't a real solution to our problems.



If the average Joe finds himself in a financial bind, he usually cuts back on spending. Especially things he can't afford and may not really need. (Like a cowboy poetry festival) The last thing he'll do is go on a spending spree. Yet that's exactly what we did with that charming little stimulus package. $800 billion. $1.3 trillion when you add interest. And yes, we have to pay interest. Suddenly the $60 billion in cuts the GOP is asking for doesn't seem so big, does it. The stimulus package was meant to keep unemployment under 8%. The current rate is higher than that even now two years after it passed. When you factor in the true unemployment rate - people whos benefits have expired and are no long registered as unemployed and those who have given up looking for work, the rate is well into double digits.


What I don't know.


I don't know when we're going to have politicians with enough backbone to tell us what we don't want to hear. There are some voices of reason out there. But they are drowned out by those who employ class warfare and claim reformers want to to starve Grandma so fat cats can buy new Mercedes. It's popular in some circles to say "Raise taxes on those who have too much money"! Well, how much is too much? And who gets to decide? People of all economic strata earn their money. The government isn't entitled (there's that word again) to one dime. So they confiscate some with a tax code and redistribute it as they see fit - usually to curry favor with one group or another. Another reason why a flat tax makes the most sense and will be almost impossible to implement. Besides if incomes over $250,000 were taxed at a cartoonish 80% rate, it's impact on the debt would be negligible. That's right. Negligible. I understand we need revenue and taxes are necessary. But more necessary is fiscal restraint. You see, we don't have a tax revenue problem. We have a spending problem. And until the powers in control of doling out cash to their favored constituents are really ready to address that issue - the $14.2 trillion debt we have now will seem like chump change 10 years from now when it's approaches $40 trillion.