EnviroHumanImpact

It’s about two months until the presidential election, and there is a lot of wasted breath from pundits and politicians alike regarding offenses from the other side, really bad campaign ads that outright lie (I won’t go into specifically which ones, but let’s just say they’re perverted ads saying that the other candidate, whose legislation tried to help protect youngsters from pedofiles is being accused , if not insinuated of being perverted).

Enough is enough!  If they are not discussing pork barrel spending, then they’re discussing how if you put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig — an old adage.  But John McCain’s own campaign manager has said, this campaign is not about the issues.  But we all know it should be.  

This, “lipstick on a pig,” phrase offers rhetorical message, just to say that people will try to dress up to distort who they really are, but that the identity still shows through and the true identity persists.  John McCain said it months ago about Hillary Clinton.  This week, Barack Obama said it about McCain and has since been pounced on by McCain and others that he was saying it about McCain’s running mate, Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin.  Oh the irony of McCain calling Obama sexist; but they know it’s not true, it’s feigned outrage just to distract from the issues.

Sorry, my slant is coming out and you did not come here to see me grind a political axe (though I must say, these apologies that Obama could offer McCain are pretty funny!).   But I have a tie-in to all of the pork being talked about.  Though they’ve had no trouble being in favor of pork in the past (Palin was for  the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” before she was against it), McCain-Palin now say they’re against porkbarrel spending.  McCain will refer to the his plan of cutting approximately $50 billion in pork barrel spending as a way to balance the budget.  Yeah, because the other hundreds of billions will materialize when he further cuts taxes for the rich?  Whatever you feel about the Iraq War, Bush and the Iraqi government (and the people of Iraq) have all said it’s time to set and follow a timetable for withdrawal (read: an end to the war).  That’s $10 billion per month right there — or $120 billion per year — saved.  So how about ending that before we cut the pork?

That’s right, I’m in favor of pork barrel spending.  We ought to be spending five to ten times as much as we are now on pork barrel spending.  And we’ll generate the tax revenue by having a truly progressive tax system, where those who make the most money pay the highest percentage of their income compared to other taxpayers.  After all, they’re the group that benefits the most from the systems, the security, government provides (their right to make so much money is protected because of such government functions as the military and transportation, which are subsidized by the government).  They should therefore pay for it.

We’re in both an energy crisis and climate crisis.  Our energy crisis is exacerbated by our main sources of energy being controlled in large part by rogue states, forcing our military to cowtow (let’s bring another farm animal reference into the mix!) to regimes that treat their citizens horribly (think how our government treats Guantanamo Bay prisoners — on a larger scale).  We need pork barrel projects not only to keep levees and bridges functioning well (as well as all of our other essential infrastructure) but also for green projects.

Green Eggs and Ham

Need a catchy title?  Since, “green pork barrel spending” lacks pizazz, let’s go with, “green eggs and ham” for all of the increased spending in a smart grid that will allow transmission of green energy, followed by actually implenting green energy projects (the government does not have to wait for private companies here — green energy is about as important as the highways we subsidize) as well as recycling and composting programs nationwide (but let’s check with the owners of Dr. Seuss’s Green Eggs and Ham for permission).  Start in urban areas to achieve scale and then move outward to cover every town in America.  

Failing to care for the environment is a moral issue. Failing to tend to the climate and energy crises is irresponsible.  I admit it, the “green eggs and ham” moniker needs some work; it’s obviously cheesy, but the point is that we need a heaping pile of green eggs and ham spending to get this jump-started before it’s too late.  Obama’s $150 billion over ten years in federal dollars is a good start, but The United States needs to lead on these issues and the world will take our cue.  We need a President who understands that and is willing to put the U.S. tax dollars money where his mouth is.  

Stumble It

Subscribe via Email

Subscribe via RSS