Liberal if and only if Rational

Diversifying our energy infrastructure is a matter of national defense that demands immediate action and reflects an imminent threat.  Current energy infrastructure is vulnerable to attack from foreign powers, or private individuals.  Computer worms can be placed in our energy infrastructure which can result in elements of the United States power grid being shut down or destroyed.  A proof-of-concept test has already been performed.  The United State energy infrastructure is vulnerable.  It is potentially possible for an individual hacker or a dangerous foreign-government to destroy our entire energy infrastructure.

In response to this imminent threat the US Navy and Air Force have both creating anti-hacking/computer-warfare divisions.  Currently the United States has the greatest computer-warfare capacity in the world.  This capacity was demonstrated in 2009 with the stuxnet worm that disabled Iranian nuclear-centrifuges which delayed Iranian nuclear ambitions by five years.  It is not enough.  The United States has to diversify our energy infrastructure because we are still vulnerable to electronic warfare and will be vulnerable for the foreseeable future.

Unfortunately the United States has the most to lose from an electronic infrastructure attack.  A diversified energy infrastructure has the benefit of protecting our country in case of attack.  If one element of the grid is destroyed another will be able to compensate.  Currently if the US power-grid is attacked, the United States military would be limited in their response because of a lack of electricity.  Adding a diversified power infrastructure would allow the military to defend the United States in the worst-case scenarios.

Every United States military base should be powered by conventional and renewable sources of electricity.  A renewable energy infrastructure should be added to allow each base to operate on renewable energy sources.  The United States needs to build solar-towers, solar-collectors, solar panels, wind-turbines, wave-power throughout our country to support military bases.  Research funds also need to go to developing future energy technologies such as controlled-fusion and orbital solar-collectors.

The United States also needs to construct an extra supply of electrical transformers (not the robots) in event of a power-grid attack.  Transformers are an essential element of the power-grid and are particularity vulnerable to attack.  A surplus of transformers can help the United States rebuild our economy faster following a power-grid attack.  New transformers can be 20% more efficient then old transformers which results in a 20% lower electrical bill.  That is extra money that is being wasted on excessive bills which would be better spent on new and varied military technologies.

States, local-economies, or private companies can and should build renewable energy for state, civilian and private purposes, but only the Federal Government can build it for military purposes.  Renewable technology is already being implemented on military bases in Afghanistan.  It makes Afghanistan bases more self-sufficient by reducing the reliance on supplies shipped through Pakistan.  This makes our troops safer, and improves our defensive positions in that country.

This project has many short and long-term benefits beyond the realm of national defense.  To put it succinctly: In the short-term it will create jobs, while in the long-term it would reduce costs and secure our military.  This type of spending has an economic multiplier effect.  Meaning it should be thought of as an investment in the future that will produce more tax dollars then it took to build.  This multiplier will grow our economy helping us get out of debt faster.

Major government funding of renewable technologies for military bases would also lower costs for these technologies in the private sector.  There would be more renewable-tech business, and more consumers upgrading their energy technology in the home, or business.  That means lower energy bills, which leads to more disposable income.  More disposable income leads to higher levels of consumption.  Increased consumption results in increased employment.  Business who add renewable technology will accordingly have more cash and be more disposed to hire.  It also means less US money going to the middle-east.

National security, jobs, cost savings, and a new renewable energy economy are all benefits of improving our power-grid.  It would support our military for the next century while securing the electric infrastructure of the United States military.  This will produce jobs during the construction phase of the project.  Electrical costs will decrease which saves the US taxpayer money.  This will improve renewable energy in the private sector which will create growth in the US economy for decades. Unless we improve our electric infrastructure, the economy and security of the United States will continue to falter, and the US Military is the place to start.

With the partisan rancor blocking any investment in our nations future, we must focus on politically viable infrastructure investments.  Republicans would have to vote yes, otherwise they would be forced to defend voting against the military in the next election.

Republicans and conservatives have done a job well done in labeling anything objective, fact-based, or logic-based as liberal.  As a liberal I take pride in that my assertions are objective, fact-based, and logic-based.  In turn anything liberal has been forced to take on different negative labels: pinko, commie, socialist, fascist, foreign, un-american, cowards, elite, etc.  The ability to think for one-selves has become a liability in American politics (how else do you explain Michele Bachman).  Conservatives policies have been renamed ultra-liberal by the conservative media conglomerate in order to drive the center ever-closer towards the corporatist/fascist agenda.

We saw a lot of these style of attacks during the media build-up prior to the invasion of Iraq.  Any criticism, even criticism made from individuals in favor of the invasion but against how the Bush administration conducted said invasion, was cast as unpatriotic.  The Bush administration even attacked Republican ambassador Joe Wilson by outing his wife CIA agent Valerie Plame.  They completely destroyed her career, while at the same time committing treason.  And why did they does this?  Because Wilson stated an unequivocal fact which countered the Bush administrations war propaganda.  In Republican politics, anything goes even treason.

They transformed any objective, fact-based, or logic-based argument into something that is un-america.  They have also done a successful job in labeling their arguments as truthful, fair and balanced, or the real side of the story.  They fight without shame, rules, or respect for the American people.  Many argue that we should fight fire with fire, but it is in fact water that defeats fire.  In this analogy water takes the place of overwhelming-truth.

The economy is in trouble, and the Republicans are going out of their way to destroy it further.  The Republicans are going to use the debt ceiling crisis in order to shut down the government.  They are not negotiating in good faith, and they believe that a bad economy will benefit their election chances in 2012.  There is very little legislatively that can be done to improve the economy.

There is one thing the Obama administration can do to improve the economy without the Republicans blocking it–institute a new made in America national campaign.  According to the AFL-CIO website “If every American spent $64 a year more on American-made products, we’d create 200,000 new jobs. Talk about a stimulus plan.”  Americans need to stop shopping at Walmart and make a concerted effort to buy American made products.  The more we spend on American products, the more jobs we will create.

The president needs to use the bully-pulpit to convince Americans to buy more American made goods.  Democrats need to be ubiquitous, repetitive and on message to convince the national media to pick up this story.  A year or more of this continuous effort will make a difference.  The unemployment rate will decrease, and the economy will improve.  Further it will instill a sense of national and personal pride along with a confidence in future success.

Politically, it will wrap the Democratic party in patriotic good will for the upcoming election cycle.  Democrats should create a super-pac with the sole focus of tying made in America with Democrats.  Republicans have for decades wrapped themselves in this pro-American rhetoric without actually having any policies to back up those assertions.  Republicans have been the party of the rich and corrupt.  The Democrats are supposed to be the party of the people.  Convincing Americans to help themselves is supposed to be apart of that.

A year long campaign would remind Americans of this simple truth–that we are in this together.  Buying Chinese will hurt your fellow Americans, while buying American creates jobs.

Recently Texas Governor Rick Perry had a conference with other state leaders describing how Texas has added jobs.  It has been argued that the conservative model followed by republican controlled states is superior to democrat controlled states.  This argument presented in the media suggests the reason blue states (Democrat controlled) have a higher unemployment rate then red states (Republican controlled) is specifically due to the implementation of liberal policies in those states.  While it is true that blue states on average have a higher unemployment rate then red states (8.78% vs 9.04%), there is correlation between the allocation of federal spending and unemployment that better explains these differences.

Conservative have argued that liberal policies in blue states results in a higher unemployment rate and economic stagnation, but they always fail to mention there is the correlation between federal spending and unemployment.  Those same red states which have lower unemployment also receives more federal tax dollars then blue states.  Red states are in effect “welfare states” while blue states are “donor states.”

A welfare state is a state that receives more federal tax dollars then it pays.  For example, the red state New Mexico receives $2.03 for every $1 it pays in federal taxes.  Likewise, a donor state is one that receives less federal tax dollars then it pays.  The blue state California receives $0.78 for every $1 it pays in federal income taxes.  Although there are a small number of exceptions, in generally red states are welfare states, while blue states are donor states.  See red state vs blue state federal spending

Federal spending has a direct impact on the unemployment rate, regardless of any fictitious republican argument claiming public jobs are worse then private jobs.  They are all jobs, and while waste needs to be minimized, public sector jobs do improve local, state, and federal economies.  Federal investment in infrastructure improves economies in both the short-term and long-term.  Education spending improves future economies.  Low-income and elderly spending increases the purchasing-power of those demographics, further improving the economy.  These differences in federal spending are a form of wealth redistribution.

This redistribution of wealth from blue states to red states has further consequences on blue state resources.  One prominent example of this unfair spending was the distribution of anti-terrorism funds following 9/11.  All fifty states received the same amount of money to implement anti-terrorism protections.  Many smaller states were given money, even though they did not have any terrorism targets, and ended up spending the money on a new fleet of police cars.  Larger states such as California and New York, who donated the most in federal tax dollars, were not given enough money to secure their own states terrorism targets.  This diverted state tax dollars away from economic supportive spending such as infrastructure to anti-terrorism.  Effectively they paid other states anti-terrorism funding, and then had to pay for their own.

Recently conservatives and red states elected officials have been advocating for the reduction of federal spending.  This is a hypocritical argument considering that they are the ones who already benefited from federal spending, and they now want federal spending in blue states to stop.  To paraphrase President Obama, “Spending always seems reasonable when it is in your own district.”  Red states want to continue this current trend of wealth redistribution, because it improves their local economies and employment figures while weakening rival blue states.

Blue states are forced to pay their taxes and then pay the taxes of red states.  This spending pattern represents a redistribution of wealth on political grounds, and this redistribution contributes directly to the difference in unemployment rates.  When Republicans tout the effectiveness of recent jobs growth in Texas, one just has to say that if blue states received most of their tax dollars back, they would also tout new job growth.

The United States budget, while not the most entertaining topic, is the most important for our long-term success.  The projected 2011 deficit is $1.645 trillion.  The deficit is the difference of what we spend vs how much we generate in revenues.  In effect, the deficit is how much we borrow a year.  Medicare efficiency, military efficiency, and tax increases are part of a three-pronged solution to reduce the deficit by $850 billion

Medicare efficiency programs can save US taxpayers $200 billion a year or more without actually affecting benefits through reducing end-of-life costs, cracking down on corruption, and leveraging the purchasing power of the federal government. This article covers many of the details.  By making medicare more efficient, we will save money without having to kill medicare.

Efficiency measures can cut military spending by $200 billion without affecting the United States military capacity.  The defense department has had a blank check in the last decade.  Pentagon spending has still been in a cold war mind set while congress sees the military industrial complex as a jobs program.  One example is the $300 billion dollar F-35 program.  It is essentially a job program that should be cut half.  Future R&D can produce a better plane in ten years meaning we do not need a full F-35 program.  Futher advancement of drone fighters has made the need for new fighters less necessary.

As the Afghanistan and Iraq wars wind down total military expenditures should also drop.  The 2011 costs in Afghanistan and Iraq are $160 billion.  Combined with military efficiency this could save the United States $350 billion a year, and if done correctly would not harm the United States military capacity.

The third and most difficult of these is raising taxes.  President Obama’s biggest mistake was not raising takes on millionaires in the first few months of his presidency when the Republicans could not filibusterer.  Republicans would rather our country died then raise taxes on the rich.  Right-wing radio has conditioned Republicans into thinking that tax-increases are the worst thing in the world.

Obama promised not to raise taxes on the middle class, but that is the incorrect position.  Everybody should contribute even if the amount varies.  A small symbolic increase of 1-2% is important as it signifies that we are in this together.  Total taxes should be increased by %2 of gdp, or approximately $300 billion a year.  The majority of these tax should be levied against the top 1%, but everyone should contribute.

All three measures (medicare efficiency, military cuts, tax increases) will save the United States about $850 billion a year.  That still leaves a deficit of around $800 billion.  The only way to cover that amount is to grow the economy.  The best way to do that is to build infrastructure, but that is another article.

A couple of quick thoughts.

Conservatives are cowards for being unable admit when they are wrong.  Anyone of intelligence is smart enough to know that they are flawed.  Conservatives are too stupid to know they are stupid.

Liberals need to stop trying to apply logic to the tea party.  They will not be able find any, because there is none to find.

Liberals have to pass any global warming legislation during August, so republicans can’t complain about it being cold in winter.

Conservatives can not accept president Obama, because it would mean that a black man was a better person.

Republicans in the US house of representatives voted recently for a budget that killed medicare by turning it into a voucher program.  The proposed changes are fundamentally flawed because they are based on the conservative overarching philosophy of limited government without relying on basic facts and practical thinking.  Conservatives need to learn that there is a difference between cutting a program and killing it.  Further they need to learn there is a difference between cutting with a scalpel versus cutting with a hacksaw.

It is potentially possible to reduce the economic costs facing medicare without reducing benefits.  To repeat, we can cut medicare costs without reducing benefits.

There are three major changes to medicare that would reduce expenses.  The first is to reduce corruption.  The second to is use the US governments purchasing power to reduce prices on pharmaceuticals.  The third is to reduce wasted costs during end-of-life care.

Corruption in medicare takes many forms.  From the yuppies living in a beach house in Miami, to the Russian mafia, to corrupt doctors, medicare corruption is wide-spread.  President Obama already created a new government agency (the stimulus legislation) to police medicare corruption.  The problem is that current medicare law requires automatic and complete reimbursement for any claimed cost.   A criminal simply requires a list of medicare patients to begin charging the federal government with fictional medical costs.  Changing the law to pre-approved medicare providers would stop many of these false claims.  Further increasing the criminal punishment for conviction could deter many false claims.  Increased agency funding would also decrease false medicare costs by being able to better police corruption.

The second problem with medicare concerns medicare part d which subsidizes pharmaceuticals.  The problem is that the federal government pays for these drugs without leveraging its purchasing power against the pharmaceutical industry.  The federal government should also press the use of generic drugs to save costs.  The pharmaceutical industry is making record profits by over-charging the federal government.

If they were using these added profits for R&D to develope better drugs there might be less concern.  Of course they are not spending these extra profits on new drugs.  In fact they spend more on advertising then on developing new and better drugs, and the research they are performing is already being subsidized by the tax-payer.  Forcing pharmaceutical companies to charge fair market value would dramatically reduce costs.

The third solution to medicare costs is the most controversial as it concerns end-of-life care.  It has been estimate that upwards of 90% of end-of-life costs are wasted.  A 60 minutes expose presented figures closer to 95%.  The wasted costs are not associated with their cause of death.

If someone is dying from kidney disease, medicare should and does pay for dialysis, along with other kidney treatments, including transplants.  Likewise, other ailments are treated similarly.  The waste is in performing needless exams, tests and procedures on patients that are unrelated to their illness.  There is potential for 40 different test being performed on a patient with everyone of them being unrelated to the reason they are dying.  Again take the example of the patient with the kidney disease.  That patient would then have up to 40 different tests unrelated to their kidney disease such as cat scans, cardiac exams, etc.  This results in hundreds of billions of dollars being wasted each year.

There are three reasons why there is so much waste in end-of-life care.  The first is that each extra procedure results in free and easy money for the doctors and hospitals who performed them.  The second reason is that doctors and hospitals are afraid of being sued for missing something.  The third reason is that patients near death are generally willing to take any test even if it is arguable that the physical stress of 30-40 extra tests would kill them faster.

The solution is straight forward and involves a combination of increased preventative care, reasonable tort reform, and streamlining standard procedures concerning an illness.  Of course it becomes a heated issue involving lots of legal speak, and charged political rhetoric (“DEATH PANELS”).  It is necessary as it could save the United States several hundred billion dollars a year without actually affecting patients health.

There are three major plans to fix the rising cost of oil.  The first plan is to drill.  This of course will only increase supply by at most 5% in 10 years.  That would lower the cost of a gallon of gas from $4.00 to $3.80.  Not exactly the best solution, but it is probably something that we should do as part of compressive energy plan.

The second plan is to develop alternative energy.  This has many potential upsides.  Just by increasing energy efficiency by 20%, gas costs would decrease from $4.00 to $3.20.  Potentially alternative energies and energy efficiency could decrease oil usage by 50% or more when the technologies become affordable by most Americans.  Personally, I am hoping to be able to purchase a Chevy Volt or a Tesla Model S in the near future because I want to minimize the amount of money I give to wall street and the oil companies.  The problem with most of these technologies is that they are currently prohibitively expensive, and they are not projected to become affordable for another ten years (which is why most liberals wanted to start developing these technologies ten or more years ago.)  Government subsidies for alternative energies should probably continue along with increased R&D.

The first two solutions will lower costs in the long-term future, but only banning wall street oil futures speculation would lower costs in the short-term and long-term.  Until 1991 wall street speculation on oil futures was illegal.  Meaning they could not artificially drive up the cost of oil to make short-term profits.

A future is an agreement to purchase a quantity of an object at a future date with a set price.  It is very important for companies, such as shipping and transportation, to be able to purchase consumables six months in advance.  The problem is when a company such as goldman-sachs purchases oil futures.  They have no desire to consume oil in their business.  Their only intention is to artificially decrease supply, which drives up costs.  Then they sale and make a giant profit at the direct expensive of the average citizen.  Along with oil futures they are buying oil tankers and parking them at sea for months at a time in order to increase the cost of oil.

In early 2009 after the market crash, wall street oil speculation dropped to zero because most of these firms sold-off all of their assets to meet other financial obligations/debts.  The price of gas dropped to $1.62.  Zero speculation equates to lower gas prices.  Banning speculation would drop prices quickly to a non-artificially increased cost.

Now many wall street executives would argue that gas prices are a result of supply problems due to the turmoil in the middle east.  Except that 90% of US oil comes from the United States, Mexico, and Canada and 0% from Libya, Egypt and Tunisia.  There is not a supply problem.  There is just a crooked wall street problem.

Futures speculation needs to be banned as soon as possible.  The last time wall street engaged in giant oil speculation was the summer of 2008 which precipitated the banking crisis, and the sub-prime crisis.  When people talk of a double-dip recession, this is what they mean.

President Obama is a paragon of American Exceptionalism.  He is a shining example of the great qualities that contribute to American Exceptionalism.  This last week has provided more evidence towards that statement.  He ran his 2008 election on the capture or killing of Osama Bin Laden.  This became the priority of his administrations war effort.  In a little over two years he kept his promise.  Bush failed after eight years, Obama succeeded in two.

The political right can not accept these basic facts because they directly contradict their preconceived and incorrect notions about the President.  Specific policy differences aside, if the right can not accept that President Obama did a great job in the operation to kill Bin Laden, they are cowards.  It is cowardly to be unable to admit when you were wrong.  Cowardliness is not a trait of the exceptional.

It is very reasonable to conclude that Pakistani government officials and/or military officers knew that Osama Bin Laden was hiding in their country. Their tacit support of Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda clearly demonstrates what they think of our two countries relationship. As a consequence American financial support for Pakistan needs to drop from 3.4 billion to zero.