During the past few years most of us Americans have seen and felt the costs of energy skyrocket. This is a major issue for our country and one the next president will have to seriously address. In the Statesman editorial, "McCain, Obama offer no-pain, all-gain energy promise," the author lists the different plans the candidates are proposing and some if the problems with these plans.
In the article the author points out that both candidates recognize the need to reduce energy consumption and reduce our need for foreign oil. Although their plans differ, there seems to be holes in both of them. When the candidates speak about their plans they make is sound almost as easy as flipping a switch. Senator McCain leads towards nuclear power and offshore drilling, while Senator Obama is pushing for fuel efficient vehicles and a windfall profits tax on oil companies. Both candidates feel there is a need for more wind and solar energy production. The author points out that some of the problems with Senator McCain's plan is nuclear waste storage and the cost of offshore drilling, with very delayed results. Although the author failed to point out any problems with Senator Obama's plan I believe that helping car manufacturers to build the efficient hybrid/gas or electric vehicles is great, but can the average American afford these pricey vehicles? Offering a tax credit to individuals who buy them is great, but buying a hybrid/gas vehicle cost upwards of $5000.00 more then buying the equivalent non-hybrid model. Taking into account the tax rebate it will still take years for the fuel saving to catch up to the price jump. The author points out that we have already uncovered the solution to reducing our independence on foreign oil. The solution is higher fuel/gasoline prices, possibly combined with a higher gasoline tax. Just recently when gasoline reached 4.00 per gallon, Americans reduced driving, took more public transportation, and even traded in their trucks and SUV's for more fuel efficient vehicles.
This article was geared towards any American with energy concerns. It is a problem that all of us face and will to continue to face for quite some time. Since the article was listed in the Statesman I expected it to left leaning and sure enough it was. It was obvious that the author favored Senator Obama and his plan. This was made clear more then one time, but most importantly in the final paragraph when the author stated, "an Obama administration."
I believe the author has made a fair argument for a successful solution. It was truly amazing how I changed my own life when gasoline reached 4.00 per gallon. My wife and I reduced additional errands and tried to consolidate them into our drives to and from work. To get some relief at the pump we traded in one of our SUV's for a fuel efficient car. We also felt the crunch when we opened our utility bills, so we made a conscious effort to reduce those resources as well.
I believe that we all play a part in reducing our need for foreign oil and conserving resources. We have proven that we can cut back on energy usage and should continue to do so. I believe that with responsible citizens and smart energy programs we can solve this problem. I think we need to take full advantage of solar and wind energy and do everything in our power to keep American dollars in America.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Friday, October 3, 2008
Let's Try It Again
Currently our country is headed into a financial crisis like most of us have never seen and Congress shoots down a Bailout plan because it is not sweet enough. How much irrelevant content will be added to the new bill and how much extra is it going to cost the taxpayers? The USA Today Opinion article titled, Bailout: Good, Bad and Ugly is a well written mostly non-biased writeup of what has happened and what needs to happen.
The author of this article breaks up his opinion of the bailout in three pieces, classifying them the Good, Bad, and Ugly. The Good section highlights the FDIC raising account insurance from $100,000.00 to $250,000.00 giving account holders assurance that there money is safe. The Bad section highlights the Market to Market accounting rules that are used to value assets. With the bailout, regulators will be able to waive these rules, possibly placing unrealistic values on the purchased assets. The Ugly section highlights what it will take to give the bailout a popular or passing vote. Some of these additions have nothing to do with the economic crisis we are facing.
When I read this article I felt that the author was addressing for the most part the general public. He lsits what he belives are the good, bad, and ugly parts of the bailout and states that the bailout should be passed for the good of the economy. Normally the passing of this type of legislature would be considered somewhat left wing, but in this case it almost seemed like a necessity. There were Rebublicans and Democrats alike stepping up to the table to create this piece of legislature to hopefully give our economy a positive spin.
I believe the author is just you average American who is concerned with the state of the economy. He wants something done, but wants a fix that will work and not harm the taxpayers.
Like most Americans I think something has to be done. I'm not sure if throwing $700 billion at a problem will make it go away, but it is a start. I think Congress should have the ability to review and change the bill with the needs of the country. We have to set some sort of regulations on the financial sector. If we don't I belive we will be back in the same position in the future. I am in agreence with the author and believe something needs to be done, but lets cut away some of the fat and just address the problem at hand. It is already a shame that taxpayer dollers are being used to fund this bailout and we need to be certain that the dollars are used wisely and not squandered.
The author of this article breaks up his opinion of the bailout in three pieces, classifying them the Good, Bad, and Ugly. The Good section highlights the FDIC raising account insurance from $100,000.00 to $250,000.00 giving account holders assurance that there money is safe. The Bad section highlights the Market to Market accounting rules that are used to value assets. With the bailout, regulators will be able to waive these rules, possibly placing unrealistic values on the purchased assets. The Ugly section highlights what it will take to give the bailout a popular or passing vote. Some of these additions have nothing to do with the economic crisis we are facing.
When I read this article I felt that the author was addressing for the most part the general public. He lsits what he belives are the good, bad, and ugly parts of the bailout and states that the bailout should be passed for the good of the economy. Normally the passing of this type of legislature would be considered somewhat left wing, but in this case it almost seemed like a necessity. There were Rebublicans and Democrats alike stepping up to the table to create this piece of legislature to hopefully give our economy a positive spin.
I believe the author is just you average American who is concerned with the state of the economy. He wants something done, but wants a fix that will work and not harm the taxpayers.
Like most Americans I think something has to be done. I'm not sure if throwing $700 billion at a problem will make it go away, but it is a start. I think Congress should have the ability to review and change the bill with the needs of the country. We have to set some sort of regulations on the financial sector. If we don't I belive we will be back in the same position in the future. I am in agreence with the author and believe something needs to be done, but lets cut away some of the fat and just address the problem at hand. It is already a shame that taxpayer dollers are being used to fund this bailout and we need to be certain that the dollars are used wisely and not squandered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
