A previous column advocated eliminating bureaucracies to cut down on government spending and waste. This column will suggest abolishing the Department of Energy as another bureaucracy to be eliminated because it has yet to produce a single BTU and has been hindering the production of alternate sources of energy.

We have broken the $4 per gallon threshold for gasoline and it is continuing to spiral upward. The Department has advocated the production of ethanol as a solution for the high gasoline prices. Not only has the price of gas increased, but the price of food is heading to be less affordable because of this decision.

We still don’t have answers to what should be solvable problems because of these political policies and the politicians themselves. They refuse to address the problems in a positive way and actually hinder solutions. We should be exploring for more oil and ANWAR is a good place to start. Polar bears are good travelers and should be able to walk away from drilling sites and still be able to hunt seals.

The “pristine” area has never been a popular site for Americans to vacation and we desperately need more oil in our country. The site is close to the Alaskan pipeline and should take minimal effort and expense to drill and send to the US mainland. Those who object are the same ones who said the pipeline would destroy the migratory routes for caribou, but at the last wildlife census, the caribou were doing well and were not disturbed or even inconvenienced.

Other countries are drilling offshore and getting millions of barrels of oil and so should we. Shale drilling is now cost effective and should be utilized. The “greens” are shouting panic slogans and history has shown that most of their fears to be just that — fears. There are safe ways to produce energy — even nuclear energy — to generate electricity.

Of course, renewable sources of clean energy are available. We have yet to really tap into the great energy generators of sunlight and wind. We also should be getting more energy from geothermal sources. How much effort does it take to drill a hole through the core of the earth close to molten rock? We then pump water down the hole and it comes up as steam to run turbines. The steam is then condensed back to water and pumped back down. Iceland gets about ninety percent of its energy that way.

One of the most renewable sources that isn’t being used to the extent it should be is creating methane out of sewage. Farms are being run by anaerobic generators using cow or other animal manure. The technology is not complex and the by-products of the solid waste can be used as fertilizer. Talk about recycling at its finest!

With municipal sewage, the end product after the extraction of methane can be used as fertilizer for landscaping, fruit trees and tree farms. It can’t be used for ground vegetables, but it does allow the necessary fertilizers for that type of food to be used less which also can drive down farming costs.

Then there is another source of energy that needs to be thoroughly developed, which is hydrogen. Experiments so far are very promising and should not be far down the energy alley as a viable source. Water is two molecules of hydrogen and one molecule of oxygen. Hydrogen is very flammable (remember the Hindenburg disaster) and oxygen is necessary for combustion. What a great renewable source of energy.

So far, the Department of Energy has not been very productive in producing these energy sources, and if they have, they keep it a big secret. Politicians have also put road blocks in the way of development. Therefore, we advocate eliminating the Department of Energy and perhaps a bunch of politicians and get some worthwhile results for a change. However, the people have to demand these changes and make the demands know. The voting booth is a good place to start.

With all due respect to the very wonderful Carpenters, we are going to borrow their beautiful Close to you and give it to the BO campaign.

From now on, BO’s foreign policy is to get close to our enemies, specially despicable leaders like those of terrorist Iran and murderers like Raul Castro.

(Another great cartoon from The American Thinker)

Speaking of Cuba, this is an amazing audio of a Cuban political prisoner near GITMO….wonder if BO will call on Castro to close that prison in Guantanamo!

BO is either very misinformed and totally naive or just telling the “yes we can” screamers a lot of nonsense.

Today, I read Obama’s Growing Gaffe By Charles Krauthammer:

Obama pretends that while he is for such “engagement,” the cowboy Republicans oppose it. Another absurdity.

No one is debating the need for contacts.

The debate is over the stupidity of elevating rogue states and their tyrants, easing their isolation and increasing their leverage by granting them unconditional meetings with the president of the world’s superpower.

In fact, meetings with heads of state can often backfire, as Pres. Kennedy learned after his ill fated meeting with Soviet Premier Khrushchev in 1961. (A lesson for Obama)

We are not against meetings. We just don’t think that US presidents should be having “chats” without specific pre-conditions.

P.S. Unfortunately, BO has never taken the time to meet with our military leaders in Iraq. Wonder why? Is he afraid to find out that we are winning? Does BO have the courage to tell the “yes we can” screamers that he is lying to them about getting out of Iraq?

See this video from a US veteran:

It is well established that in order to balance governmental budgets, the most logical way to do it is to cut spending. The problem is that suggesting that the politicians cut back on spending is almost like political heresy. That is one of the things politicians do best and they believe it is in their best interests when it comes to being re-elected.

The question is whether the voters will agree with spending cuts and will vote for those who propose them. One of the biggest wastes of tax money is the “member’s items” and “earmarks” which are synonyms for plain old pork. Politicians like to brag about how much money they bring back to their districts, and since much of the pork is based on the seniority of the politicians, this is another link in the incumbent protection plan so loved by both parties.

They make it sound like they are giving their constituents something for nothing and who doesn’t like the sound of that? But, the political skill comes when the politician convinces the voters in his district that it is “other people’s money” that funds these pork projects. The reality is that it is taxpayer money coming out of their pockets now or it will be money borrowed and will only be repaid later, probably by the descendents of the voters

The question then is what should be cut from the budget to lower taxes. We suggest another option along with the former suggestion. Get rid of useless bureaucracies. For openers, the Department of Education and Department of Energy would be a good place to start.

The Department of Education is a huge money-sucking bunch of paper pushers who have not contributed to improving education. Their usual solution to the problem is “we need to spend more money.” That is definitely not the problem. Americans spend more than enough money on education, but it goes to the wrong places in the education system.

Most knowledgeable people will agree that the education system is top heavy in administration and more money is spent on directors, assistants, and other paper pushers than is spent in the classrooms for student benefits. By getting rid of the Department of Education there would be far less paper to push and more effort in providing educational help at the student level.

We remember long ago, in the hamlet of Blossom, NY there was a one-room school where one teacher taught first to fifth grades. The teacher had about two dozens students who were mostly farm kids. They could hardly be called advantaged.. Upon graduation they were bussed to the “big school” in East Aurora to complete grammar school and then go on to high school.

By the time they reached sixth grade, they could read, write complete sentences, knew how to add, subtract, multiply and divide, and they knew the history of the United States along with geography. They were prepared to enter junior high with these basic skills. The teacher was not a highly paid person, but overpaid bureaucrats telling her how to do her job did not hinder her.

Presently some junior college teachers can justifiably complain that some freshmen, who have high school diplomas, do not have those skills and have to be placed in remedial classes. This is a big criticism along with the recent revelation that in the City of Buffalo School System, 65 percent of the students can’t read at grade level. Most will agree that reading is the most necessary skill in the education process.

Therefore, would it not be prudent to get rid of a bunch of administrators and spend the money on good teachers to correct that problem? It isn’t that taxpayers don’t spend enough money on education, but rather that too much of the money is spent outside of the classroom where it is needed.

Education should be concentrated in the individual schools. Perhaps standards such as standardized regents exams should be considered, but that doesn’t take a bloated bureaucracy to achieve. Our students and the taxpayers deserve better than thy are getting and they will get better education on the local level rather than to be subjected to the whims of bureaucrats.

This is too important to neglect and too expensive to continue. We need politicians who will work to correct this underperforming bureaucracy.

A week ago, McCain gave a speech about judges. He said that he would appoint judges to interpret laws rather than make new ones:

This is not a new position for John McCain. He has long held it. It is reflected in his consistent opposition to the agenda of liberal judicial activists who have usurped the role of state legislatures in such matters as dealing with abortion and the definition of marriage.

It is reflected in his longstanding opposition to liberal opinions that have adopted a stance of active hostility toward religion, rather than neutrality. It is reflected in his firm support for the personal rights secured in the Second Amendment.

What do you know? The California Supreme Court makes his point.

Four judges in California decide that their view of marriage is better than that of 60% of the citizens who banned same sex marriage in their state.

I agree with California’s Gift to McCain? by John McCormack.

My guess is that the November vote will bring out lots of voters.

Also, McCain will benefit from the Hispanic vote, which is very culturally conservative.

A recent Gallup poll showed that voters oppose same sex marriage by 56 to 40.

Beyond same sex marriage, what bothers me is the judges’ arrogance. What gives the judiciary the right to change marriage traditions that go back to the Old Testament.

Ed Whelan has a great review of this awful decision:

“Is there anything in the court’s concocted “right to marry” that would prevent it from being invoked by, say, practitioners of adult incest or plural marriage?

On the latter: Oh, sure, the court repeatedly speaks of “couples”, but that’s because no plural marriage was at issue.

What in the court’s reasoning, what in its principles will prevent the extension of the right to marry to those whose own sense of “personal autonomy” and of “family” calls for plural marriage?”

By the way, this is already happening in some European countries that have legalized same sex marriage. See Here Come the Brides by Stanley Kurtz!

The California judges have made McCain’s point! Also, take a look at Unwise Haste on Gay Marriage By Steve Chapman.

Every time we watch the news or pick up the newspaper it seems we are faced with a disturbing concept. We have government by crisis and panic. It is mostly reactive and if a law is passed proactively, it usually costs us money or takes away a previous freedom or right of honest people.

The decisions can be a bit difficult to comprehend. A few years back, our politicians decided the answer to the rising fuel prices was to mandate production of ethanol. They insisted that farmers grow more corn or similar crops to produce the product and that businesses must build processing plants to increase production.

That happened. However, the price of gasoline increased and so did the price of food. It was a welcome boon to farmers and at last they were making a profit with their labor. Still, the Department of Agriculture continued giving subsidies to farmers and Congress passed a bill to keep the subsidies going. They “limited” the subsidies to the poor farmers who made less than $1.5 million a year.

With the production of corn going to make ethanol, farmers naturally used their acreage to maximize their yields and reduced production of wheat and other food products. As a marketplace would dictate, with less wheat being grown, flour prices increased and the effect is being seen drastically in the cost of food. The price of gasoline is heading rapidly to $4 a gallon, and the cost of a loaf of bread may soon hit the same price. Brilliant moves by our politicians!

With the elections looming closer, the politicians are again feeling the discomfort of voter rebellion. Their answer, as usual, is to throw money at the problem. We can expect to get a “rebate” on our taxes to “stimulate the economy.”

If the people who get the checks are smart, they will use the money to pay down their debt. But, the politicians are urging people to spend the money, even if it is on stuff they don’t need. Some politicians are approaching the gasoline price crisis by advocating that the state and/or federal taxes be lifted for the summer months.

They still haven’t figured out the old adage: “There ain’t no free lunch.” And those tax monies are supposed to pay for building and maintaining the roads, bridges and highways. It isn’t difficult to analyze their reasoning. If the voters can save a few bucks before the election, this is good for the incumbents. Our legislators and executives can deal with the real problems once they are safely re-elected.

It seems few, if any, of the politicians are interested in getting to the source of the problems. One of the real problems they refuse to discuss is where is the money going that comes from the oil in Iraq? The war has not dried up the supply, but there may be a problem protecting the oil fields and refineries. Still, there is a supply that is being sold. Why doesn’t Iraq use that money to defray the cost of our military protecting them? Doesn’t Halliburton want to share?

As the campaigns start in earnest, wouldn’t these be good questions to ask the incumbents running for re-election? Why should the American people go broke protecting another nation? Why can’t trade agreements be more favorable to American businesses? Why should the incumbents be re-elected? Those questions could make debates very interesting. We get the government we deserve.