I will admit that McCain was not my choice in the primary.  And to show just how "right wing" I really am, Alan Keyes has been my choice for the last five presidential primaries.  But given that a third-party candidate just can`t win yet, I still have to go with McCain over Obama. 

Now, if you have a poll where the choices are "none of the above" or "Obama" then my choice would be "none of the above." I simply do not trust the man for anything.

I guess there really isn`t much of the 3rd party option.  We seem to have a situation where the major parties have so mesmerized the populace that they have turned on each other with a vengeance. 

It got so bad in the Obama/McCain thread with the name-calling and ignoring facts, direct questions and civility, that I had to opt out.   I wish I could for this election.

The fear, anger, distrust, contempt and sheer ignorance are more than I can take.

Anyone have a nice place to hide for the next term?

It`s not time to hide.  It`s time to stand up and make yourself heard.

Agreed, and if you don`t like what`s happening with the two major parties, there are twelve other tickets that have ballot access in enough states that they could theoretically take the office (source:wikipedia).  Additionally, there are some fantastic candidates this year that resonate with more people than know it.

The worst thing we could do right now is to decide that we can`t make a difference and resign ourselves to whatever comes.  I for one will have no part of either of the major party candidates, as they stand for very little of what I believe in or what I know to be right for my country, family, and business.

Bravo!  You have the kind of courage it took to build our country.  I just can`t take that chance right now with Obama running.  He`s simply too dangerous on too many levels.

In a move to attain absolute American energy independence in 5 years, reverse our current economic situation AND regain/maintain international dominance in renewable energy production, would you favor a Constitutional amendment permanently exempting ALL forms of taxation on the research/production/distribution and consumption of such energy and on any earnings gained from such activities, be it profits, dividends or salaries. 

The motives behind this are:
1) Get us totally off of foreign oil
2) Get rid of the strangle-hold that big oil has on our country and government
3) Ensure enough power for ourselves and our future
4) Curtail pollution that is causing all kinds of problems.
5) Eliminate the tax burden created by our current system of "encouraging" alternative energy production, i.e. bait and switch.  Grants to the producers, taxes on that energy to the consumers.
6) Eliminate the twisted way that government research grants are awarded to mostly big companies (more corporate welfare)
7) Create the mythical "green collar" jobs. 

By doing this, there will be so much money thrown at alternative energy research, will excellerate production, discover new sources and build the infrastructure needed. 

By taking away the knee-jerk reactions of a government whip-sawed by the changing of political party, America will be put on a solid footing to ensure her freedoms, her way of life and her future as a leader in a more productive, cleaner world.

In addition, energy can become the basis of value behind our money.  Instead of backing our dollars with the "good faith and credit" of the government of the United States, (which is taking a sore beating in the world markets), we can have a measureable way to value our currency.

Honestly, the first country that catches on to this idea will dominate.  We can do this.
Your comments are encouraged/appreciated.

Many years ago, particularly with the furor over 18-yearold voting rights, I was interested in the process of Constitutional amendments. At the time, I thought they were a fairly simple thing, made sense, and were helpful in modifying the overall legal system.

I no longer think that.

A Constitutional amendment begins as a statement, but then requires a so-called convention. In order to amend the entire document, 2/3 of the the states in the union must approve, using a special election process.

When that begins, politicians consider the convention to be a major platform to add in all sorts of new rules, laws, regulations, and every other short-sighted, short-term agenda items they can come up with.

The difference is that an amendment is a conceptual change to the foundation of the United States, where a law (Act) is part of the legal support system for the daily operations.

In other words, a Constitutional amendment is structural, where a law is procedural---process.

To that end, I think we have too many people and far too many politicians who would like to actually remove whole sections of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. President Obama has written in the past that he believes the Constitution didn`t go far enough in "equitable redistribution of wealth."

We can accomplish all the above by Acts of Congress (laws). We don`t need to amend the fundamental structure of the United States. We don`t need it for gay marriage "rights" either.

The only amendment I`d like to see would be the repeal of the 16th amendment allowing for graduated personal income tax. With that gone, we clear the way for a VAT (value-added tax), without double taxation. But again, with such a convention in our times, we likely would end up overturning major sections of the actual Constitution.

Wow.  Didn`t see that coming. 

Thanks for the vote.  It seems that you`ve added a lot of "experiential" baggage around the process of making an amendment and chose not to address the overall concept.  I appreciate your views on the process.  Seems you have as much faith in politicians as I do.

The reason I propose an amendment instead of more laws is due in large part to the games that get played by the flavor-of-the-day politicians that are in office.  A constitutional amendment is not like a bill.  It doesn`t get tweaked, added to or the like.  I agree, the process is cumbersome, but we, the people, need to take our livelyhood out of the hands of politicians.  We`ve seen what that gets us.

So, to boil down your explanation, you`re saying no because you`re afraid that once Pandora`s box is opened, everything else in the Constitution could/would be trashed?

As Craig said, changing the constitution is a long and drawn out process that takes years to complete a single change.  It also takes years to repeal an amendment if the amendment does not produce the desired results.

Take the 18th Amendment as an example.  It was first proposed in congressional committee in 1916.  Congress passed the amendment in December of 1917.  The amendment was ratified by 36 states in January of 1919 and the amendment became law in January of 1920.  Roughly four years from start to finish.  It took almost as much time to repeal the 18th Amendment.  In the interim, the new amendment created more problems than is solved.

California has a similar problem with Proposition 13.  It sounded like a good idea, reduce ever increasing property taxes.  But, years later, small communities throughout California are suffering.  They can`t generate enough tax revenues now to fill ever increasing service needs in their communities.

But, California communities are now stuck with the problem.  Just like the our country would by stuck with a constitutional amendment to grant the special tax exemption.  Small communities would shoulder the burden of such a tax initiative.

Seems there`s more fear of the process than the concept.

As to losing revenue, that`s a false argument.  Since we don`t have this in place now generating revenues, how will this "take" any revenue from something that doesn`t exist?  In fact, it will help with the revenue situation by creating jobs, reducing the burden on government support programs.  More people with real, sustainable jobs (not "you want fries with that?") will create more revenues due to increased economic activity.

In addition, think about why small towns are "hurting".  Its because of government mandated socialized services that we used to not have and were much better off without.   Now, we are required to provide such services, consequences and costs be damned.   The direction and rate at which things are going now, we`ll all be on the government take.  Then who`ll they go to for their socialized funding?

Yes, given today`s political and social climate.

Frankly, I`m not interested in the concept. I believe there`s a basic flaw in all these concepts, which is that somehow the government is supposed to be in charge of any of it.

No. The government is NOT in charge of any of these kinds of things whatsoever. They should be removed entirely from the funding and development of the solutions. Instead, government should only be an oversight system, to ensure that whatever does get developed won`t injure or harm the general public.

Additionally, the government "may" (possibly) provide certain incentives for private industry to move in certain ways. But I really doubt it.

If there`s money in sustainable energy, green this or that, and different forms of energy, then let private developers get involved. Nuclear energy, clean(er) coal, plasma fusion, and so forth, all will naturally develop as the market demands.

The key problem right now is that government regulation against private development, along with massive restrictions relative to very badly developed "science" has crashed the entire private market.

Nuclear energy is clean and safe, but we have no new power plants. Why? Because of both public ignorance and superstition, as well as political restrictions. Same with coal. It`s the same with the health care system, and everything else that the government over-regulates.

So no, I have no interest in a Constitutional amendment that`s so narrow as to be limited only to energy. It`s not applicable. An energy policy is a legal process. Instead, I`d like to see a Constitutional amendment to define clear and certain term limits.

Craig,

Thanks again for your input.  What I find interesting is your comment about getting the government out of ALL of our business.    That is what this proposal is about: getting government COMPLETELY out of energy policy/production.  This approach is using what the libs have been doing for years.  Get them to swallow a little of it now and then they`ll eat the whole thing over time.   Only do it in reverse.  Get them out of our business in this area and then build on that success.

This is one hot topic that I think could be the unifying concept to catch the country`s imagination.  "We choose to go to the moon in this decade . . . "  ==> "American energy independence in 5 years".   The has the power to change the direction of this country in so many ways. 

I agree with your observation that this would normally be a legal process.  The problem is the mindset in power doesn`t play by the rules.

So, having cast your vote, do you have any suggestions as to how to get this to go forward and keep it out of the hands and whims of our elected officials?

One of the biggest problems we face as a society is the actual necessity for some sort of government and global regulation. On the one hand, we have the rights of the individual. On the other, we have the countless examples of abuse by individuals who gain a great deal of power.

When the US began, a common morality lay at the foundation. Individuals not only were more important (Bill of Rights), but many values weren`t specified in the Constitution. They were considered "obvious."

200 years later, with common values having been under assault, we`re in trouble. In fact, only a decade after the Constitution was ratified, the Supreme Court decided that it had the power and authority to interpret the "intent" of the language.

We have a basic flaw in the representative process. How does each individual representative truly understand the "will of the people?" We see lobbies and vast sums of money influencing decisions. We also see the power system within state and federal senates and houses of representatives.

It seems to me that before we look into the future and how the overall country should proceed, we need to put in some term limits. We also need a better system to control regulation by unelected bureaucracies.

To the energy issue: How is it that a tiny group of people can totally prevent ALL offshore drilling, nuclear power plants, and such things as Alaskan oil? Where do they get that power and authority? It`s derived from the flaws in process defining how an Act of Congress becomes a practical regulatory system.

The problem we have rests on unlimited government, with the society continually playing catch-up. We continually try to pass or repeal laws, and introduce limits on what regulatory agencies put into place.

It ought to be the other way around. Regulatory agencies ought to be severely limited at the start, with *slow* additions to their authorities.

That`s where a Constitutional convention might help. But any time we consider re-writing the Constitution, we open the doorway to just voting it out of existence. And that`s the main danger, especially with so many of today`s legislators wanting to do exactly that.

Just to clarify, there are companies already involved in producing renewable energy products.  Therefore, you do have a revenue source that would be lost.  Also, any constitutional amendment would likely contain a tax break on the land for such facilities.  Again, a revenue source that currently exist that would be lost.

Maybe so, but not by even 5% of what is needed.  The loss, if any would be negligible.

We`ve seen, by experience of the last 60+ years, regardless of political party in power, that this way of running a country isn`t working.  Obama was right, we need change.   However, not the kind that he and his party advocate and are trying to cram down everyone`s throat.

Let the American people do what we do best, innovate and produce.  Regulation and taxation are not improving our overall situation. 

Your kidding right.  The state of Nevada for instance, would be slammed tax wise if such a tax break were granted.

So, once again the stupidity of the system works for its own benefit.  "Not in MY backyard".  Screw the country and the citizens.  The government is what matters.

No, not kidding.  Deadly serious.

Nevada,
Your argument is a bit misleading. We all know about the massive amounts of total waste, corruption, and over-spending by governments. ALL governments, including local townships and cities.

To use tax incentives (i.e., breaks and no taxes) for sustainable or alternative energy products won`t be a problem. IF, and it`s a fairly big "if," these new companies have a salable product, then they`ll be generating revenue themselves.

A tax incentive would be for the purpose of subsidizing the startups, with perhaps breaks on research and development. But as revenues increase to profit levels, then the companies would pay regular income taxes.

The major problem isn`t about tax breaks, tax incentives or any kind of Constitutional amendment. It`s the completely irrational and probably corrupt government system we`re all having to deal with these days. There`s plenty of money pouring into the governments. The question is how it`s all being spent.

Nevadascul and Craig,

I am fully aware of the importance of tax revenues for governmental uses.  As Craig points out, its the government abuse of the management of those funds that has disqualified them as a fiduciary of those funds.

In fact, if the civil/legal fiduciary standards that are demanded in the private sector were applied to the government at all levels, they`d all be dis-accredited, banned from practice and charged with criminal mismanagement.  $700Bn bailout come to mind? 

Craig, only in the screwed up world of government-think could you ever get the concept of removing a tax burden and calling it a subsidy.  All they`ve done is take they`re hand out of your pocket.   When we as citizens of the US buy into that idea, then we are truly all servants of the machine.

Case in point:  Part of Obama`s "spending cuts" over the next 10 years come from reductions in military expenditures by reducing troop strength in the middle east, a policy that had already been adopted by the previous administration.  It wasn`t a new initiative on Obama`s part at all. 
The only twist Obama added was to project current expendures at the same level over the next 10 years, thereby inflating the "savings".  Money out of thin air. 

But in this "brave new world", doesn`t the emperor`s new clothes look fabulous.

This is a bit more background to the orignal proposal, but is illustrative of why I propose an amendment.  Put it out of the reach of incompetants.

:-) All I`m trying to do is use the insanity of "government-think" to work out a possible compromise.

In the real world, where people actually are educated and have a sense of reality, we would have a far better and comprehensive understanding of capitalism. Ayn Rand wrote an excellent book, "Capitalism---the Unknown Ideal," in which she layed out the basic philosophy.

Sadly, none of that`s taken place.

Nowadays, if you start a business you`re a criminal. If you make money you`re a criminal. It`s only if you break the law and actually are a criminal that you`re not a criminal. Yeesh! Talk about backward speaking!

Either way, look at how the US Supreme Court, along with the entire administration is basically ignoring the Constitution. I see no reason why they wouldn`t equally ignore any new amendments.

Nevada,

I think the point is that I can indeed cite countless examples of government over-spending, inefficiencies, and outright fraud. I make an allegation that the government is the least successful way to spend money, then can back up the allegation with those examples.

Your post suggests that you can make allegations that the government is simply misunderstood, and that it actually is a very efficient system for distributing money and managing society. But I`ve never seen or heard of any examples, ever, that support those allegations.

Hi Craig,

You obviously didn`t read my post.  My point in my last post is that local governments are tied to the tax dollars generated within their jurisdictions.  If you reduce tax dollars collected, you also reduce services that can be provided by local governments.  People in California have been dealing with this problem ever since Prop 13 passed.   Sure Prop 13 reduced property taxes, but it also reduced tax revenues local governments needed to provide services to their communities.

I make no statement or point about the efficiency of government entities.  Nor do I suffer from phobias about the way our country functions.

Where`d that come from, "phobias"?  The only one mentioning fear was me, and that was in regard to the process of adopting an amendment and the impact it would have on existing governmental operations.  As far as not having any phobias about the way our country functions, regardless of political stripe, you`re probably the only one.  Left, right or middle, everyone seems to have a problem with the way our country (dis-)functions.

I believe that once again this interchange has shown the communication problems in this country that lead to absolute polarization.  No one is denying how the government at all levels needs funds to operate.  The point that has been made is that the way the government currently handles those funds is poor, at best.  One of the problems with scarcity of funds is not a lack of money, its due to overextension of government responsibility.  The government is taking over more and more areas of everyone`s life and claiming authority and responsibility to interfere, citing "safety" or "for the public good".  BTW, to illustrate the point and support my case for amendments: Pelosy has said that illegals would be covered in any new health-care overhaul.  Take that power out of the hands of politicians.  They`re selling our birth-right for a bowl of votes.

Things that once were legal and totally beyond the reach of government interference are now outlawed and considered extreme.  Things that once were absolutely criminal, obscene or profane are now not only tolerated, but the practitioners are protected by law. 

There seems to be two major camps in this country.  Those that think the government should control ever-growing areas of our lives, that everyone should go along without question, and those who think that we all ought to be left alone to pursue the lives we choose to live, opportunities, consquences and all.  To live and let live. 

This has taken an interesting rabbit-hole.  One new idea to get us out of the ditch were in because what has been done up until this time has put us here.  And see where it has led. Fear that the government can`t function well. 

Newsflash: It hasn`t been functioning very well for quite a few decades. 

A popular definition of insanity:  To keep doing what you`ve been doing and expect different results.

I appreciate open, honest debate.  You`ve both raised concerns about what an amendment might do.  My point is I don`t believe it can hurt, and has an outstanding opportunity to help, immensely.  If not by amendment, then by other means.  However, left in the whimsical hands of elected officials, there won`t be much hope of getting done what really needs to be done.   Look at what they`re up to now.

BurninGreen states clearly that all of us know (or should know) that government needs funds in order to function. That`s why the 16th amendment was put in place, and that`s how the government can charge us income taxes.

The problem isn`t about getting money. The problem is about spending the money.

My argument with Nevada is about a seeming assumption that ALL current decisions about spending are valid. ALL spending therefore is useful, helpful or important. NO spending is frivolous or corrupt.

That, to me, is a ridiculous assumption and flies in the face of reality and all reports. Not to mention the countless indictments for corruption taking place relative to many politicians.

I have a house and a family, and I earn an income. I decide that the family should eat at a restaurant 5 nights a week. If my income goes down, or prices go up, then I have a problem. I have too little money to pay for the restaurant that many nights per week.

Would we say that my family has to eat, dinner and food are necessary, therefore I should be subsidized to pay for the food each night?

Or would we examine the practicalities of eating at a restaurant 5 nights out of 7?

If, on the other hand, my family can barely afford spaghetti and milk, and we eat at home all the time, never eating at restaurants, then what?

It`s true that people need food to survive. The question is under what conditions and in what form that food should be purchased. Making the argument on the basis of ONLY the necessity of food, discounts the rest of the proposition and removes all context.

Before we start talking about how local governments MUST have some amounts of money, therefore we can`t reduce that amount, let`s examine how that money`s being spent.

Craig,

Here I thought I was talking about one simple amendment, now we`re talking about your family`s eating habits.  Da*n this IS complicated. 

LOL! The bottom line is food. The entire universe revolves around food. EVERYone knows that!

No Craig, the bottom line is whether we need an amendment to grant special tax privilages to green companies in the same way churches are tax exempt.  I don`t believe we do.  Now stop being cheep and take your family out to Burger King for dinner.

Well, alright we`re part of that schism in society. I totally disagree that we need a Constitutional amendment having anything to do with any kinds of business. I`m not particularly thrilled with the tax-exempt status of churches, but at least that`s not in the Constitution itself.

For 100 years we`ve had the tax codes to micro-manage the economy, to give incentives or disincentives to various business and social behaviors. If "green" is viable, countless businesses will rise up to make money from the concept. If not, then no amount of legal mandates (i.e., Constitutional amendment) will make the slightest difference.

Like everything today, "green" means two entirely different things, depending on ideology. For many people it`s tied up with the so-called environmental movement, which has been co-opted by political ideologues.

For many others, sustainable energy and environmental conservation has been in place for decades.

Another problem with an amendment is that it almost completely ignores the interaction of technology with costs. 100 years ago, the air and water, generally speaking, was horrible in most urban centers. Today, it`s very clean. Yes, there are exceptions, but on the whole, we have far better air and water today than in the past.

That`s because of the combination of technology and prices. It includes an ongoing social awareness that we don`t want filthy water because it kills people. Nor do we want filthy air, for the same reasons. But we didn`t clean up the air and water entirely because of legal mandates! We cleaned them up because of rational self-interest, market demands, and lowering prices.

Any federal, state or local oversight can be done within the legal system. All anyone needs is a massive lawsuit proving that something is killing and injuring people, and that`ll put a business out of business and shut down the cause. So we need a legal system, and some regulatory oversight. But we don`t need these kinds of item-specific details in the basic charter of the United States.

To make it more clear, we can reverse this whole proposition. Let`s have a Constitutional amendment that specifically denies all further drilling for oil anywhere within the legal borders of the United States and all territories. Does that make any sense? Of course not, but it`s the same logical foundation.

Such a denial would then eliminate all further drilling forever! That`s the purpose of the Constitution. The only way to allow drilling, someday, if circumstances change, would be yet another Constitutional convention to overturn and repeal the entire amendment!

Craig, gotta luv ya.

You`re making my case.

I`m not advocating an amendment to push any particular agenda in the green-tech world.  In fact, that is exactly what I would want to see, is the total removal of government interference via laws, tax-codes, political views, etc. as to what should be pursued.  This one thing I do know.  Get the government out of any particular realm of business and it will thrive. 

As you pointed out, "green" has been hijacked by political idealogues, and as a result, I personally detest the term in this context.

Your point about reversing the concept and banning drilling is not on the same logical foundation.  I`m advocating a total freedom to operate in this arena, your argument would have the removal of an individual`s (or company`s) right to choose.

What I`m advocating is allowing absolute freedom of choice in an area that the government should not be in in the first place. (Along with about 85% of the rest of government involvements, but that`s another spirited debate).   Its not pushing any specific technology, ideology, methodology in pursuit of energy independence.  

On second thought, maybe it is pushing an ideology.  If allowing freedom of choice by the citizens of this country is considered an ideology, then I guess that is what I`m pushing.  But at one point in our nation`s history, freedom of choice was considered a God-given right.

In fact, the entire Constitution and the Bill of Rights are an ideology.  And it is based on that ideology that I make my case.  Sadly, there is a lot of ignorance, political expediency and apathy that has to be overcome.