Platforms continues, Energy and Economic Development

ENERGY

I am going to straight to the point. We need new energy development for a variety of reasons and we need to get off gasoline.

Gasoline is poison to the human body. Look up the chemical compound of gasoline; nothing is compatible with the human body. Yes I know we have lived with gasoline for over a century now. It is time to move on. This is common sense. We need to quit breathing the exhaust from it and it is seeping into the water supply every time it rains.

Unfortunately gasoline is not going away over night. Even with a concerted effort it will probably take up to two generations for us to move onto something more clean in our daily lives. And we will probably never get rid of fuels completely. I don’t see air travel (commercial and military) with out it for now, NASCAR will continue to be a popular sport, and there are a few other industries that rely on it I cannot think of right now. The goal is to move on to cleaner energy where we can. And this is possible.

And if we move on, we also benefit our economy. One of the biggest concerns for the middle class is the lack of new jobs. Diversifying our energy creates new opportunities for our country to become an economic leader again. If we take the time to develop new energies, expand on products to be used, and help other countries move forward we will create new jobs and create a better balance of trade.

And there may not be one source of energy in the future for transportation. We already have electric cars and natural gas powered cars. We need to develop further the affordability of new energy. It will not happen overnight either. And this is one reason gasoline can not be eliminated immediately. And it does not matter who moves us forward, if big oil makes the change and continues to be the dominant player in energy, so be it. If new people come along and are the innovators, more power to them. There will be opportunity for people to make money in energy and that is good. We live in a free market society and in most cases that should be the driving force in the market, however, society has a right to determine if one product is causing more harm than good or if there are other products that can accomplish the same goal without creating secondary issues. We are not hurting the market place or the economy to protect ourselves.

Energy policy going forward is based on three goals. A healthy transition away from gasoline, and as said before it will probably take two generations so jobs will not be lost, but moved. We let the market decide which clean energy(ies) work the best for employment and trade. And to help us make the transition tax breaks to current companies or new companies both in the short and long run so industry is encouraged to follow through on the transition. The tax breaks can benefit the producers of the new energy, the industries that turn to new energies to help them with their production, and of course the daily consumer.

The benefits will include cleaner environment, new jobs including manufacturing jobs and if we plan well, our new products can be exported to countries we help to make the same transition. An example of where we can expand our trade is India. Since they are not overly reliant on the oil industry as some other countries we can help them develop solar power and then export electric cars. Encouraging and helping their transition will help our transition faster as we have faster returns on the investments made into this new development.


ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Reading through the energy policy you see some problems left on the table. How does government policy play into the free market without becoming the driver of the market or worse creating socialist policy? The end goal of government in developing some economic policy is to benefit the public at large in a few areas that affects the whole. The government should do no more than determine if there is a need for certain industries or development and then only establish the guidelines for the development to encourage what will benefit the whole country or if a locality then that locality.

Or government can have a hand in the development of projects that benefit the whole. The best modern example is the interstate highway system. The government’s goal was to create a system of transportation that the defense department could use in case we were attacked, but this system was also available to the public in normal times for their use. Finally it created a whole new industry that competes and compliments the railroad industry and that is trucking. An older example is the St Lawrence Seaway where the government created the system to benefit exports and the shipping industry.

These projects were paid for by taxpayers and even though taxpayers did benefit, they did not benefit as much as the industries that used these projects. Going forward we should shift some of the burden away from tax payers and spread the cost back to the industries that benefit the most. Yes there are some taxes the companies pay that use the development, but in a less proportionate manner to their benefit vs. the cost to the government and the general taxpayer. What is the balance we would like to achieve?

To try and find this balance I am going to propose one project that with the ongoing explanation hopefully exhibits this balance. There are other ideas I have to help move our country forward, but this example also touches on some other problems we are facing so it becomes an idea to try and alleviate a few issues our country faces. Also this proposal benefits the whole of society from individuals to the largest corporations.

Water management is probably even more important than the highway system of the 1950’s. Since water is essential to life, it is the responsibility of our government under the need to protect the people. The government should not own the water supply. The government needs to create policy that industry, municipalities, and the consumer can all abide by to the benefit of the whole country.

Our goal would be to create a large canal system maybe parallel with the interstate highways to move water around as needed.

The players are the federal government, local governments, industry (including agriculture), investment banking, social security administration (based on an independent agency), and of course the public. The federal government is involved by helping to map out the project, supplying some of the funding through tax dollars, and making sure there are no abuses in the system. Local governments are involved through their water supply whether they are responsible or if there is another local entity involved. Industry is involved because they would help build the project be an end user, and along with investment banking and the social security administration would help fund it. The public is involved as the tax payer and consumer making their costs two fold.

The project is multi-layered. First the federal government manages the big picture, sets the guidelines, and monitors the movement of water from one area to another. Local municipalities and local water boards are responsible for developing the coordination between their current water supply with receiving or sharing water with other local entities. Industry helps to build the system and is also a consumer along with the general public. Investment banking and the SSA are possible investors(bonds). If you read the earlier sections of this platform, I talked about SSA becoming a stand alone agency, but would also need to find alternate sources of income beyond payroll taxes. I am not a fan of wall street controlling the investments for SSA money, too much conflict of interest, but we could use projects like this since monitored by the federal government to let the SSA invest. The public being an investor by tax dollar has a say through their elected officials and their elected officials need to protect the interests of the consumer by making sure the water supply is clean, safe, and available. And finally the public helps fund it at the consumer end.

An example of why we need this large of a project other than the obvious need that we need water to maintain life. Throughout history with a country as geographically diverse and large as the United States there are different water needs in different locales at different times. We experience droughts in one are and floods in another. Some towns are destroyed by floods and some areas have economic catastrophes when agricultural or other industries are devoid of water. Finding a way to move transport water effectively allows us to protect where needed and supply where needed.

So lets say most weather models suggest an area is about to get a higher amount of rainfall than would normally be able to absorb. With these series of canals you could start draining local rivers etc in advance of the rain event by dispersing the current river levels to a variety of other locales or holding areas maybe even hundreds of miles away. By the time the rain hits the current levels are lower than normal so the run off into the rivers is lessened so downstream there would be less property damage. The water moved from an area with excess then can be routed to areas where it is needed.

The management of this would take much time to develop, but just starting would have a positive impact on the whole country. How many times in the past five years alone were there headlines either about flooding or drought impacts? Would we completely eradicate these types of problems, probably not, Mother Nature still has a say in everything, but with careful thought out planning we can use Mother Nature to our advantage. We can’t try to control it, but rather manage. Will every year be the same, no, so we learn as we go.

There are many logistic endeavors for this project, yet something we should begin immediately. One is cost, cost of the project, cost of the water. Water is already a commodity, but the actual price of the water should be less market driven, but more reasonably priced by the need to recoup the investment and day to day expenses. This would be one product that the government probably does need to regulate the price without taking away the ability of the players to make a reasonable profit so they can continue to build and improve on the project as needed. Investors should not expect to make outsize billions, rather a reasonable return on water itself, and higher expectations on secondary industries developed because of the project. Another words the government would need to step in when exploitation of the price of water becomes a problem.

The benefits are enormous. Water management and water cleanliness are the first major benefit. Controlling run off allows us to move flood water from cities to certain holding areas to be cleaned up before using elsewhere. Lowering damage from floods saves on insurance costs to the insurance industry so hopefully to the insurance consumer. We will create new technologies just to better manage and create the project itself. The amount of jobs created at all levels is a huge plus. We could use more of our country for agriculture as we move and store water from areas with excess rain etc. More agriculture products allows us to export more. We can export our advances in technology to other countries. The consumer is protected by having cleaner and regular sources of water. Social Security has a positive secondary source of income to help its solvency. I read an article a few years ago where there was a conflict between two industries (fracking and agriculture) in Kansas because of a drought. The impact of these types of conflicts are diminished. The ideas of benefits could go on. And overall we let Mother Nature have its way because in the end most water will end up in our oceans as it should. We just better manage the flow of it as it makes this route.

This is just one example and probably a pressing one to show how the federal government should not be the major player, but the coordinator of the whole picture and let everyone that has a stake both build and benefit. And the government has no business being in all projects. An example of an idea I had that maybe goes to far.

As I mentioned I think we need to get off gasoline, so I thought wouldn’t it be great if we got the city council of three tourist cities such as Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and Orlando to vote in an ordinance that says all rental car companies must use electric cars. Definitely helps to move electric car development forward, but is this an example of too much government interference? It may or may not be. This is something we as the public need to study to help determine what works best by our government and what works best in the marketplace by itself which is just as important.

Economic development by government is something we need to have. It is up to us as the public to help curb it so our government is only in the business of protecting the people and helping the people decide what works best in the market place. It is not the government’s responsibility to tell us how the market place should work.