what's it gonna take, part 3
many things are happening on the national scene. too many for any individual to follow. and sources of news are too numerous to be beneficial, though it is hard to argue against the freedom of the press and availability of publishing opportunities, (yes, the internet). the ubiquitous of the whole thing renders it almost worthless. is that irony or what?
in politics, the party currently on the outs needs to build a little
credibility as a working entity. those members of that party who
manage to win and/or stay in office are usually held in some regard by their immediate constituents, (more than simply the lesser of two evils, the corner that the last national campaign painted itself into). the party needs to start standing for something and making some difficult choices. most people know that they are going to get shafted economically speaking over the rest of their lives, they want to see plans that will justify the sacrifices that are coming, (plan or no).
social security is a big issue. the party in opposition needs a
viable plan to stabilize the system, and it also needs to define its
vision for the future of the program, rather than hobbling it with so
much baggage that it will simply wither and die. one potential solution to a large part of the Social Security crisis actually combines the attractive elements of both competing plans.
rather than private savings accounts, why not commit the federal
government to setting the money aside in protected accounts, rather than frittering it away as has been the case for lo these many years.
the option has the solid logic of private accounts, (the money is
actually there, invested in something) as well as the benefit of the
"pay as you go" philosophy. the large pool of money, entrusted to an agency devoted to the well being of its constituents, has a great deal of market pull in terms of securing favorable returns and security for the investors.
something needs to be done. the lame plan put forth by the party in opposition buys us only a real nice shovel with which we will bury our heads in the sand. the plan espoused by the party in power is nothing more than a plan to eventually make the pesky system go away, while preserving a modicum of "not my fault" for those who are the advocates of the dismantling.
energy is another major issue. tough choices need to be made. the cost of remaining hooked to the 21st century version of the French Connection (petroleum) is seen daily in our newspapers and on our TV sets. American lives are being lost because of the significance of that commodity to our economy.
what would the mideast political landscape look like in 5 years if we did not need them or their mineral resources? more to the point, who would care?
the time for change is upon us, and there are no good choices. there are technologies to develop, but they will not be ready in time. there are no bright sunshiney options, but there is a choice. nuclear power. the dangers and drawbacks are well documented, but that is as much a strength as a weakness.
the situation we are in today seems to be slipping by the hour.
first, let's take care of the loose ends that we have. a national
policy on the storage of nuclear waste, and more importantly, let's
implement the plan that we have. remove the waste that lies almost unprotected around the country and transport it to the Nevada desert for disposition. yes, that is a hazardous proposition, but much less so than doing nothing, (which is simply a strategy to impede the growth of this particular industry...). like I said, tough choices.
second, let's start to ween our economy away from petroleum as a source of electricity and locomotion. we need to replace oil fired power plants with nuclear plants, (no, not coal, that comes with a set of problems all its own). tax gasoline a bit heavier to encourage conservation and the development of alternate transit systems. tax gas powered automobiles to encourage the development of alternative means of powering them.
expensive? hell yes. it is the cost of freedom, and particularly, the cost of rendering certain realities irrelevant.
in politics, the party currently on the outs needs to build a little
credibility as a working entity. those members of that party who
manage to win and/or stay in office are usually held in some regard by their immediate constituents, (more than simply the lesser of two evils, the corner that the last national campaign painted itself into). the party needs to start standing for something and making some difficult choices. most people know that they are going to get shafted economically speaking over the rest of their lives, they want to see plans that will justify the sacrifices that are coming, (plan or no).
social security is a big issue. the party in opposition needs a
viable plan to stabilize the system, and it also needs to define its
vision for the future of the program, rather than hobbling it with so
much baggage that it will simply wither and die. one potential solution to a large part of the Social Security crisis actually combines the attractive elements of both competing plans.
rather than private savings accounts, why not commit the federal
government to setting the money aside in protected accounts, rather than frittering it away as has been the case for lo these many years.
the option has the solid logic of private accounts, (the money is
actually there, invested in something) as well as the benefit of the
"pay as you go" philosophy. the large pool of money, entrusted to an agency devoted to the well being of its constituents, has a great deal of market pull in terms of securing favorable returns and security for the investors.
something needs to be done. the lame plan put forth by the party in opposition buys us only a real nice shovel with which we will bury our heads in the sand. the plan espoused by the party in power is nothing more than a plan to eventually make the pesky system go away, while preserving a modicum of "not my fault" for those who are the advocates of the dismantling.
energy is another major issue. tough choices need to be made. the cost of remaining hooked to the 21st century version of the French Connection (petroleum) is seen daily in our newspapers and on our TV sets. American lives are being lost because of the significance of that commodity to our economy.
what would the mideast political landscape look like in 5 years if we did not need them or their mineral resources? more to the point, who would care?
the time for change is upon us, and there are no good choices. there are technologies to develop, but they will not be ready in time. there are no bright sunshiney options, but there is a choice. nuclear power. the dangers and drawbacks are well documented, but that is as much a strength as a weakness.
the situation we are in today seems to be slipping by the hour.
first, let's take care of the loose ends that we have. a national
policy on the storage of nuclear waste, and more importantly, let's
implement the plan that we have. remove the waste that lies almost unprotected around the country and transport it to the Nevada desert for disposition. yes, that is a hazardous proposition, but much less so than doing nothing, (which is simply a strategy to impede the growth of this particular industry...). like I said, tough choices.
second, let's start to ween our economy away from petroleum as a source of electricity and locomotion. we need to replace oil fired power plants with nuclear plants, (no, not coal, that comes with a set of problems all its own). tax gasoline a bit heavier to encourage conservation and the development of alternate transit systems. tax gas powered automobiles to encourage the development of alternative means of powering them.
expensive? hell yes. it is the cost of freedom, and particularly, the cost of rendering certain realities irrelevant.
posted by eccentric recluse at 9:39 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home