Compromise needed
"As much as 90% of oil reserves are controlled by foreign governments. And a supply interruption could have devastating consequences for millions of Americans. In an age of instability, America cannot afford this risk."
This was the opening salvo in a five minute segment on "energy security" tonight on Fox' Special Report. (I can't find any links.)
The basic story was about business leaders (eg - Frederick Smith, Fedex, CEO), former military leaders (eg - Gen. PX Kelley, USMC Ret) and financial experts who gathered in Washington today to discuss their disgust with 25 years of inaction on energy security. Following terrorists and WMDs, they feel our dependence on foreign oil is our top national security threat.
Gen. Kelley was concerned "to hear that a mere 4% reduction in our daily oil supply could rapidly propel the price of oil to more than $120 per barrel." (I believe oil is trading around $57/barrel right now. And with gas at $2.35/gallon today, a straight line analysis would put gas near $5/gallon. OK... that's pure speculation. But is a 4% reduction impossible?)
They went on to state that if oil production were cut by 20%, the world economy would collapse. (Coincidentally, I think Saudi Arabia produces 20% of the world's oil.)
So what's their solution?
1) conservation - increased CAFE standards to reduce consumption
2) alternative fuels - increased use of biofuels, such as ethanol & biodiesel
3) exploration - increased exploration on the continental shelf, (although it didn't seem to include ANWR).
OK. I'm sure exploration will get blasted as being "anti-environment." And "conservation" will get derided by Detroit. And "alternative fuels" will get ripped as more spending. But we need to act. We need to act now. This is a national security issue.
I hope that someone in Congress will have the courage and ability to take on all the various factions (Rs vs. Ds, Michigan Dems vs. California Dems, Texas Rs vs. Maine Rs), bring bills to the floors of the House and Senate, negotiate the compromise, take action and protect America.
Tim White
Town Council, 4th District
6 comments:
Once again Ebinizer Schrumm votes against the programs to help underage drinking. What is this man thinking. How can he be voting in the best interest of the citizens of Cheshire, and the money is coming from the state.
"help underage drinking"
ummm... are you saying that I, along with 7 other council members, voted to help minors drink??
haha... just kidding. I know what you're talking about.
So answer me one question, how would you have voted if you were asked to spend $42k a year of the town's money for the same purpose?
8:40... I'm assuming that question is for me about the underage drinking prevention program?
Short answer: I'm not sure.
Add'l considerations: The state money is available... and... in accepting the grant, I don't believe it increased the taxes or spending of CT in anyway.... If we paid for this through property tax dollars, it would have increased both the taxes and spending of Cheshire.
and more considerations: Is it appropriate to simply create a whole new staff position mid-year? Why not do this within the scope of the operating budget? And if this were done within the operating budget, then I would've had a lot of other considerations beyond just this item.
I'm sure other thoughts would come to mind. But I hope that's enough to answer your question.
Anon 5:30
I believe what Mr. Schrumm was thinking was that we already have several programs in place to deal with underage drinking (ie the Dare program, programs in our schools that deal with the problem, etc). We should be evaluating our current programs and changing them. Creating a new program with 42K of State funds won't necessarily fix the problem.
And I don't know how anyone can say the 42k isn't taxpayers' money.
Face the real issue...a large part of the problem of underage drinking can be attributed to the parents who allow it to happen, sometimes provide the alcohol, and look the other way when they knowingly are aware of drinking parties that their kids are going to. Is 42k going to change anything? I doubt it.
"a large part of the problem of underage drinking can be attributed to the parents who allow it to happen, sometimes provide the alcohol, and look the other way when they knowingly are aware of drinking parties that their kids are going to."
I agree 100%.
Post a Comment