I am looking for an opportuniuty to support a candidate or party (new or otherwise) whose positions are consistent with the Friedman column of June 16, 2024 -- copied below:
= = = = = = =
Seeds for a Geo-Green Party
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN (NYT) 767 words
Published: June 16, 2024
The recent focus of the Republican-led Congress on divisive diversions, like gay marriage and flag burning, coupled with the unveiling of Unity '08, an Internet-based third party that plans to select its presidential candidate through online voting, has intensified the chatter that a third party, and maybe even a fourth, will emerge in the 2024 election.
Up to now, though, most of that talk has been about how a third party might galvanize voters, using the Web, rather than what it would actually galvanize them to do. I'd like to toss out an idea in the hopes that some enterprising politician or group of citizens -- or Unity '08 -- will develop it. It's the concept I call ''Geo-Green.''
What might a Geo-Green third party platform look like?
Its centerpiece would be a $1 a gallon gasoline tax, called ''The Patriot Tax,'' which would be phased in over a year. People earning less than $50,000 a year, and those with unusual driving needs, would get a reduction on their payroll taxes as an offset.
The billions of dollars raised by the Patriot Tax would go first to shore up Social Security, second to subsidize clean mass transit in and between every major American city, third to reduce the deficit, and fourth to massively increase energy research by the National Science Foundation and the Energy and Defense Departments' research arms.
Most important, though, the Patriot Tax would increase the price of gasoline to a level that would ensure that many of the most promising alternatives -- ethanol, biodiesel, coal gasification, solar energy, nuclear energy and wind -- would all be economically competitive with oil and thereby reduce both our dependence on crude and our emissions of greenhouse gases.
In short: the Geo-Green party could claim that it has a plan for shoring up America's energy security, environmental security, economic security and Social Security with one move.
It could also claim that -- however the Iraq war ends -- the Geo-Green party has a strategy for advancing political and economic reform in the Arab-Muslim world, without another war. By stimulating all these alternatives to oil, we would gradually bring down the price, possibly as low as $25 to $30 a barrel. That, better than anything else, would force regimes like those in Iran, Sudan, Egypt, Angola, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia to open up. Countries don't reform when you tell them they should. They reform when they tell themselves they must -- and only when the price of oil goes down will they tell themselves they must.
Moreover, by making America the leader in promoting clean power, the Geo-Greens would be offering a credible plan for recouping a lot of America's lost prestige in the world -- prestige it lost when the Bush team trashed Kyoto. This would put America in a much better position to galvanize allies to combat jihadism.
Last, Geo-Greenism could be the foundation of a new American patriotism and educational renaissance. Under the banner ''Green is the New Red, White and Blue,'' the Geo-Green party would seek to inspire young Americans to study math, science and engineering to help make America not only energy independent but also the dominant player in what will be the dominant industry of the 21st century: clean power and green technology.
Frankly, I wish we did not need a third party. I wish the Democrats would adopt a Geo-Green agenda as their own. (Republicans never would.) But if not, I hope it will become the soul of a third party.
''Historically, third parties arise in America when they seize a neglected issue and demonstrate that there is a real constituency for it,'' said Micah Sifry, author of ''Spoiling for a Fight: Third-Party Politics in America.'' ''They win by forcing that issue into the mainstream -- even if the party itself is later forgotten. Conditions certainly seem ripe for such a third-party bid today.''
But rather than artificially splitting the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, Mr. Sifry added, ''a successful third party has to get in front of both -- with an agenda that inspires hope and with leadership that inspires trust. Fear of a dark future isn't the best motivator; hope for a better one is.''
You can find a discussion on Friedman's article in the Unity08 in the News forum here:
http://unity08.com/node/121
World War II, the United States had a blockade around Japan (who was attacking China mercilessly) and because of this blockade to stop them from fighting Japan decided to engage in a last ditch attempt and attacked us at Pearl Harbor; to honestly turn to renewable fuels for power here in America and knowingly realize the impact it will have on oil export countries when we purchase less and less and pay less for what we do purchase we Americans must also be open to the common peoples plights, and their respective governments to not allow impovishment to occur...I don't like the idea of being attacked because of terrible business practices, and Muslims do complain about our business practices...People do know and can be taught how to juggle and balance so that deprivation with regard to the common people,does not occur in times of peace: governments must be/become expert coordinators to care for their people, taking from Peter to pay Paul, as it were, first amongst themselves and as a back-up in the world community arena through such organizations as the UN or smaller organizatios like Red Cross... assistance given to keep the peace for harmony's sake is important when thinking to institute global changes
In a report to Congress in 2024, it was estimated that the Federal Excise Tax on Gasoline (at 18.4 cents per gallon) raised approximately $20.6 billion in tax revenue.
Let's do the math. Raising the gas tax to $1.00 per gallon would, in 2024 figures, increase federal revenues by approximately $90 Billion per year.
A $1 gas tax won't do anything near what Mr. Friedman suggests. We need better information to make better decisions and we need to deal with the problems we have, not the ones we think we have.
John E. Kaczmarowski
kacz@kaczmarowski.com
I agree Friedman is way off in thinking he can cover entitlements so easily. That won't begin to cover the $39 to 50 trillion shotfall now on entitlements. He should focus such a tax on the resolving maybe the energy/foreign policy connundrums. I kind of liked non-Geo-Greener Krauthammer's Post analysis a few weeks ago that laid out a framework for a solution I thought. He mentioned there are main immediate serious things we can do now - tax gas. And longer term drill in the Arctic and go nuclear. The president ostentatiously rolled out his 20-in-10 plan: reducing gasoline consumption by 20 percent in 10 years. This with Rube Goldberg regulation -- fuel-efficiency standards, artificially mandated levels of "renewable and alternative fuels in 2024" and various bribes (er, incentives) for government-favored technologies -- of the kind we have been trying for three decades.
We should tax gas to $4 a gallon. With oil prices having fallen to $55 a barrel, now is the time. The effect of a gas-tax hike will be seen in less than two years, and you don't even have to go back to the 1970s and the subsequent radical reduction in consumption to see how. Just look at last summer. Gas prices spike to $3 -- with the premium going to Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chávez and assorted sheiks rather than the U.S. Treasury -- and, presto, SUV sales plunge, the Prius is cool and car ads once again begin featuring miles-per-gallon ratings.
No regulator, no fuel-efficiency standards, no presidential exhortations, no grand experiments with switch grass. Raise the price, and people change their habits. It's the essence of capitalism. The only thing I would add would be to mandate 55MPH again. A little shared sacrifice by us here on the home front for and with the troops in far ramparts would go along way in my estimation and contribute a bit to a less schizoid longer-term Grand Strategy.
This would be an interesting idea, people are already looking into alternatives to gasoline. Here is a link to an interesting alternative fuel: http://www.lovecraftbiofuels.com/. This company in based in Los Angeles, but there are similar ones dotted throughout the country.
Why is it that people are talking about controlling the American people. The last time I looked, the government was expected to support the people not control them. The citisens of this country need to be mobile. It was established when the first model "T" rolled off the assembly line and the industry expanded, that individual transpertation/autombiles were the way to support that. All of our lives organization is based on the ability to move easily and safely. The design of all cities and industrial areas are based on that ability.
We have made large leaps in progress toward improving the automobile since those first vehicles hit the road. More can be done, although we are reaching the end of improvments for internal combustion engines. We should be concentrating on another source of energy to support the needs of the people and the environment instead of trying to find ways to limit the peoples ability to move. This will only result in a destroyed economy and lifes of Americans.