Dear Mr. Obama - Suggestions for Change

The Experts are ALL Wrong about Climate Change. Let's Move On.

Moderator — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:15:00 GMT

Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a finding that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases pose a danger to the public. No doubt the Sunday news programs will feature representatives from all sides of the issue. Yesterday the respected scientific journal Nature reported some shocking research that indicates sea levels could rise 6 to 10 feet in just 50 years. Other eminent scientists immediately said the research was flawed and therefore "the paper did not prove its case." I enjoy watching a vigorous debate between the opposing sides of this and other politically-charged issues, and some of the actual science coming out of this debate is truly useful. However, the climate debate seems to have gotten our policy-makers stuck waiting for an answer that isn't about to come down from the mountain any time soon.

All of the so-called experts advising our political leaders don't have a very good track record anyway. Remember the “facts” about WMD in Iraq? How about the "experts" that designed a financial house of cards that resulted in the current global recession? Or the "experts" that drove the US auto industry off a cliff in just one generation? And regarding climate specifically, the TV weather isn't accurate more than two days out. Do we really have to put off big decisions until the experts all agree?

The opposing sides in the climate change debate sound like religious “experts” debating the existence of God, and who's God is actually The One. That debate has gone on for a long time, cost millions of lives and isn't any closer to being resolved, yet most people have come to realize that it doesn't matter which side wins - it's just good personal and public policy to treat others as you would like to be treated. Let the experts continue shouting at each other and when some real evidence shows up we'll deal with it. In the meantime, we all take practical steps every single day to make our world a better place.

It's time for reasonable people and politicians to agree to disagree on climate change theory and come together on something far more practical. Regardless of who is right, there is no doubt that we need more investment in alternative power sources, new transportation methods, and to lower our dependence on fossil fuels. Here are a few indisputable reasons:

Americans buy a huge amount of oil every month from countries that don't like us very much. Their governments invest OUR money to repress their own people, and actively work against democracy and everything else America stands for. Nobody really believes we can “drill, baby, drill” our way out of this so it's time for some new thinking and investment in new technologies. Old thinking, like debating a small increase in CAFE standards for years has resulted in nothing but a failing US auto industry. It's not about climate change - it's about jobs and security. We need to invest public funds in new transportation ideas, not bankrupt companies.
My family enjoys our computers, wide screen television, air conditioning, and all the other comforts of modern life. We all want more of that, not less, and more is going to require more electricity. We've had 30 years to consider the implications of Three Mile Island and the growing stockpile of nuclear waste, but our addiction to cheap oil, and endless debates about inconvenient “truths” have tied our hands. We need to be inventing and testing more diverse sources of power. And the inventors today will make sure that their ideas are clean and sustainable or nobody will want to buy it.
We should all be applauding India and China for lifting many millions of their citizens out of poverty in a relatively short period of time. Our goal should be to encourage and support that trend in Africa and the Middle East as well. But guess what? A billion new middle class citizens of the world will all want air conditioning, cars, computers, TV, and reliable electricity. Should we let them build thousands of their own coal-fired power plants, or purchase French nuclear plants? Should we give up on autos as well and let Honda, Toyota and Hyundai sell them a hundred million cars? Of course not, but those people are not going to be purchasing Pontiac's, or Town & Country's, or the expensive nuclear plants installed in the US today. We need to reinvest in these industries and reimagine their products, not for the benefit to the environment (although that would be a nice collateral benefit) but because it is the only road that leads to viable domestic industries with profitable international markets.

The high speed rail project announced this week is a good step in the right direction. It could put people to work quickly, and when completed will reduce pressure on our overburdened air transport network and highways in congested areas. But this is technology from the 90's where the US is far behind Japan, France and other countries. The US will probably be forced to purchase high speed rail cars and other components from overseas manufacturers.

If we don't invent the products and industries that will power the future we will have to be content with buying everything from overseas. I for one do not want the US to transition from an oil-based economy dominated by petro-dictators, to some new energy technology dominated by China. As a country we have the talent, determination, and a track record of innovation to invent a bright future. All we need is the political leadership to create tax policies and investment opportunities that will unleash the entrepreneurs across this country.

The next decade could be the most innovative and exciting time in the history of the world. Or we can continue debating the unknowable and sink further into mental and financial depression.

Congratulations

Moderator — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 23:23:00 GMT

What an amazing day America had yesterday. No matter what happens next, yesterday will go down in history as the day everything America stands for was proudly on display. A great deal of work is ahead of you, and all of us, but for today at least it feels like we are all working together for a change.

McPalin Embarassing America

Moderator — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:03:00 GMT

We all knew that race would eventually become an issue, but it's still shocking to hear the crowds at McPalin events this week. Is that really how John McCain wants to get into office? Does Sarah Palin expect that kind of performance to keep her on the national stage as anything other than a late night joke? Their desperation is embarassing, particularly coming from someone like John McCain who should be above those tactics and playing the role of serious elder statesman at this point in his career.

The country needs to come together, now more than ever, and fortunately there are many Republicans that are disgusted at the turn this campaign has taken. They certainly don't want the world to think that Republican campaign rallies represent anything but a small, vocal group of ignorant bigots.

Please Mr. Obama stay focused on the real issues facing the country. We need new ideas and leadership to get out of this mess.

The Debate Should Go On as Planned Friday Night

Moderator — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:04:00 GMT

When I first heard about Senator McCain "suspending" his campaign yesterday I assumed it was due to a health crisis, or perhaps Sarah Palin had changed her mind about the whole deal. Those would be valid reasons to temporarily cancel his campaign events, including this week's first debate. But his true justification for putting his campaign on hold makes no sense. If Senator McCain is so important to the Senate debate about the economy maybe he should stay in the Senate for another term.

There has never been a better, or more important time for this debate. A prime time debate between the two people who want to preside over our economic recovery is exactly what Americans need to hear right now. The topic of the debate should be changed from foreign policy to the economy, but the public should be given the opportunity to hear from the candidates. That is more important than committee hearings and back room horse trading.

This country is going to elect a new president in a few short weeks whether the banks get their bail out or not. For better or worse, McCain threw his hat into this race and it's irresponsible for him to back out of the debate now. As The Wall Street Journal said "When one of them becomes President, he won't have the luxury of pressing the "pause" button at the next crisis."

Please, please no Clinton VP

Moderator — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:46:00 GMT

Congratulations on the big win this week. Now please make sure that Saturday is the last day we have to hear about a "dream" ticket with Mrs. Clinton as the VP. It would only be a dream for John McCain, for the rest of us it's a nightmare.

Adding Hillary Clinton, and all her baggage to your campaign is a bad idea on so many levels, but here are the highlights:

1) You don't need her - let her take her 18 million marbles and go home tomorrow. The majority of her votes would never go to McCain, and many would come your way just to keep McCain out of the White House.

2) Every day that the speculation about a Clinton VP spot is allowed to continue is another day that your real message isn't getting out there. The Clinton circus has a way of sucking up all available media space so you need to get the focus back on you quickly.

3) Dragging Hillary Clinton into your campaign would be an admission that your message of change isn't very serious, or you never believed it in the first place. Your campaign was, and should be again, about sweeping out the old (mostly white, mostly guys) and bringing in new people and new thinking.

You could lock this thing up, or close to it, this weekend by doing two things: 1) put an emphatic end to the Clinton story; and, 2) have a few meetings with VP candidates that would get Republicans interested (and give John McCain some fits while you're at it). Have lunch with some people like Sam Nunn and Jim Webb. Even if they're not really interested, it would be fun.

This election should be about exciting new ideas and opportunities. That will take exciting new people to make it happen, not someone that's going to remind most voters of their doddering grandparents.

Don't Run From The NRA

Moderator — Wed, 21 May 2008 17:10:00 GMT

Dear Senator Obama,

A few days ago, Senator McCain made a campaign stop at the NRA Annual Convention. He took a few potshots at you, getting easy laughs and applause. The video is available here. But overall, the impression he gave was summed up in this live blogcast which concludes "The theme seems to be 'I suck a little, but my opponents suck more.'"

Rather than give up on millions voters, why not reach out and hear what they have to say. After all, they have been very focused on issues related to firearms for a long time - it's hard to imagine any of your advisors have a comparable level of real expertise. A high profile meeting at NRA headquarters with President John Sigler, Executive Vice President Wayne La Pierre and Executive Director Chris Cox, if not simply done as a stunt, might actually reveal some common ground and allow both parties to accomplish something useful in the next few years.

Agree to disagree on many (most) issues, but here are several areas you can probably agree on:

1) Bad guys shouldn't have guns. Nobody can argue with that, but gun control advocates think the solution is more laws, while NRA says we should simply enforce existing laws. There's probably some truth in both positions - with thousands of federal, state and local laws there are bound to be gaps, overlap, and conflicts. Get some advisors to work with NRA on legislative proposals to streamline and strengthen the nation's firearm laws in ways that are acceptable to the affected citizens, firearm owners.

2) Education is a good thing. The gun control crowd clings to an abstinence-only approach that hasn't worked so well for sex, alcohol or drugs, while the NRA has educational programs that have reached thousands of schools around the US each year. Learn about their program and see if you can endorse/promote it.

3) Gangs are responsible for most of the "gun violence." Identifying the problem is easy, solving it is going to take a long time and I'm not sure how NRA can help, but it can't hurt to get their millions of members behind a program you endorse. I hope the next president can find a way to get everyone focused on the underlying problems causing much of the violence in this country.

Reaching out to your enemies to find common ground, if done properly (please see Senator Joseph Lieberman's comments), strikes me as a good idea - one element of the "change" you talk about that could attract lots of voters, new and old. Reach out to some of those enemies close to home.

Dear Mr. Obama, No "Gas tax holiday" - Increase the tax and use the money wisely

Moderator — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:54:00 GMT

Everyone agrees that there's a problem, but the solutions being proposed by our political leaders don't make any sense to an average guy like me.

President Bush wants to tear up the countryside drilling for more oil, but all the easy (inexpensive) oil has already been found so whatever comes up next will certainly be expensive. And even if he brings in a gusher the refineries are running at capacity and nobody wants to build a new one in their own backyard.

Senators McCain and Clinton want to grant everyone a "gas tax holiday." That has to be the most illogical idea to come out of Washington in years. In the April 30 issue of the New York Times Thomas Friedman says "It is great to see that we finally have some national unity on energy policy. Unfortunately, the unifying idea is so ridiculous, so unworthy of the people aspiring to lead our nation, it takes your breath away." Besides the fact that lowering prices usually leads to increased demand (how can we possibly consume our way out of this problem?) those federal taxes go toward desperately needed highway and bridge construction projects. Hundreds of economists have signed a letter in opposition to this idea.

The rest of Congress wants to subsidize more corn for ethanol production; helping to disrupt global food supplies in the process, without addressing either the energy or environmental problems. The Wall Street Journal on May 7, 2008 had an editorial saying in part "The record 30 million acres the U.S. will devote to ethanol production this year will consume almost a third of America's corn crop while yielding fuel amounting to less than 3% of petroleum consumption. In December the Congressional Research Service warned that even devoting every last ear of American-grown corn to ethanol would not create enough 'renewable fuel' to meet federal mandates."

The Obama '08 Web site has a plan to "Make America a Global Energy Leader." But that achievement is put out into the future by 20 or more years. Making demands, wishful thinking, or even passing laws that "Require 25 Percent of Electricity to Come from Renewable Sources by 2025" won't make it happen. That document sounds like it was written for the Obama campaign by someone that's been in Washington for way too long.

Are we as a nation willing to admit that those are the best ideas we can come up with? Have we just decided to wait and let Japan, India, or Israel come up with solutions?

I certainly don't want to give up, so here's my idea for Senator Obama to change the course of the debate, and get a lot of people involved in talking about actual solutions. Raise the federal gas tax and use every cent of that increase to solve the nation's energy problem.

First let's look at how much money we could raise. The USA consumes about 9 million barrels of gas each day. That's about 388 million gallons. A new 20 cent/gallon Energy Investment Surcharge could raise about $78 million per day, or almost $30 billion/year. Not enough? Then double it, or triple it. I would be happy to pay the extra IF the investment seemed worthwhile.

Now, what would I do with that money? I don't know exactly, but I wouldn't let anyone in Washington touch it. The last thing we need is Congress, in its infinite wisdom, picking the "best" energy investments for the country. What I suggest is dividing that money up evenly and giving each of the 50 states an equal share. I would feel comfortable empowering 50 governors to invest that money for me. They won't all hit home runs, but even a few would be a huge win for the country, and the planet. Pennsylvania and other coal producing states might want to fund clean coal research. Michigan might invest in GM's electric car project. California might invest in the Bay Area biofuels startup company called Amyris, or the electric car company Tesla Motors. Other states might pool their resources to collaborate on really big projects. The guarantee of receiving that funding for, say 10 years, would allow the states to multiply the federal funds many times over through other public and private investments.

Imagine the enthusiasm generated by the (friendly) competition between states as thousands of entrepreneurs join this historic battle.

Imagine the tens of thousands of new jobs that would be created.

Imagine the new industries that would rise up from this research.

Imagine the positive impact on the environment if the resulting technology (developed at taxpayer expense) was open sourced, like software, so that China and India could benefit from new, clean energy sources.

Imagine the US really being put on a track to become a global energy leader.

That is the kind of thing I want to hear our next president talking about. Something that really fires up the imagination, not just vague talk of "change."

Really bad ideas from Nancy Pelosi and John McCain

Moderator — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:38:00 GMT

Last week Senator John McCain suggested a "tax holiday" - eliminating the federal gas tax from Memorial Day through Labor Day. Then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said the government should stop adding to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Even worse, there were reports that Speaker Pelosi wanted to draw from the reserve as a way to increase supply and thereby lower prices at the pump.

I'm no economist, but several things strike me as being really, really wrong with these proposals:

1) Does Nancy Pelosi think this is as bad as things can get? Does the current situation demand using our only rainy day fund? The whole delivery and processing system for oil is running close to its limits and any disruption from terrorists, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. could make $4/gallon gas seem very reasonable. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is all we've got to fall back on, and we should continue building our cushion. Too bad nobody wanted to fill up the reserve in a hurry while oil was only $60/barrel.

2) About 70,000 barrels per day are being deposited in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That sounds like a lot, until you realize that the US consumes about 20 MILLION barrels per day. The deposit being made into the reserve is such a small fraction that eliminating it wouldn't make a dent in prices.

3) Eliminating the federal gas tax is bad policy on several fronts, but mostly because it would have little impact on the price at the pump. Prices are going up so fast that an immediate reduction of 20 cents would be a barely noticeable blip, if that.

4) Eliminating the federal gas tax would also take money away from desperately needed infrastructure projects. Roads and bridges are crumbling, sometimes with deadly results. Senator McCain would make up the shortfall with general revenue funds, as if nobody will notice that taxpayers provide that money as well.

What I don't understand is why anyone would be looking for schemes to increase demand (by reducing prices) for gas. We, as a country, should be trying to reduce consumption. But even $120/barrel oil doesn't seem to be reducing our demand yet.

Dear Mr. Obama

Moderator — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:25:00 GMT

I am one of those people - middle age, catholic, white guy - you desperately need to convince that you have some substance behind your talk of change, and you need to do it quickly before we give up hope and mentally move into the relative safety of the John McCain column. A lot of us are getting tired of the never-ending campaign and will make our decision soon, if it hasn't been made already.

Six months ago I started telling everyone that you were going all the way: your broad message of hope and change was exciting; you were bringing new and younger voters into the political process; the media was on your side; John McCain is too old; Hillary Clinton is unelectable; the country, for the most part, seemed ready for big changes. Deteriorating economic conditions and the oil price surge make the need for change even more urgent today. But suddenly your talk of "change" sounds like more of the same old Washington politics. Where are the bold, inspirational initiatives that will grab the public's attention?

My own political experience is limited to the voting booth, so my opinions may be worth less than the cost of hosting this blog. But I do know about launching new businesses and competing successfully in the high tech field for the past 25 years. So I'm going to use this little blog to send you my ideas for disruptive innovations, and whatever else catches my attention. Best case, someone close to you notices something interesting and I have a minor impact. Otherwise I just learn about blogging and give my friends and family another place to criticize my ideas. Either way I get to express my opinion, and that's always fun.

Best of luck to you.