Please Please Me

I just wanted to make it official: I want reader feedback and corrections.

At the bottom of each post there is a link that says "comments". If you click that, you can leave me corrections.

My favorite corrections are spelling and grammar. I am horrible at both! Please leave them in the comments.

Also, if I say something is a fact but it isn't, let me know! I am not perfect, and neither are my sources. I don't want to be inaccurate. Of course, I do stretch the truth and exaggerate sometimes. However, I try to make it obvious when I am doing so, so I don't think it fools anyone. But go ahead and call me on that, too!

I love it when people disagree with me. It is the best way for me to get an opposing perspective and learn something.

And for you, Sparky, I have an invitation. If you want to, you can write an entire blog post right here on my blog. My only condition is that right at the top of the blog post will be a disclaimer saying it is not written by me and linking to my response post (which will follow yours). Otherwise, you can have the floor uncensored. I'll even let you post flat out lies if you want to! Just don't expect my response to be forgiving...

Reader note: I don't even think Sparky reads this blog, but I will be notifying him in person of this invitation.

Arousing Housing Carousing

(Opinion alert)

Given the recent government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, I think it's finally time for me to blog on the housing crisis. I will be dispelling the myth that this crisis was created by Bush, or by any Republican.

In defense of those on the left

In the following paragraphs, I will explain to you why this housing crisis is the fault of liberals. I will use facts to prove it.

However, please take note: liberals are not evil. They accidentally caused this crisis, but they had the best intentions for America. The crisis they have now caused comes after years of good home-buying markets for millions of Americans, and we can thank the left for that.

That said, let's talk about how badly the left has screwed things up.

By now, everybody has heard that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the nations two largest mortgage brokers, have been taken over by the government in order to avert a sudden, drastic economic depression. When this happened, Sparky called me up and shoved it in my face. "You see!", he said, "This is the perfect proof that capitalism is evil, Andrew! This is why we need someone like Barack Obama--someone who will take control and stop letting these companies ruin lives!".

Of course, Sparky is an ignoramus. Actually, this incident gives the perfect argument for capitalism. Here is why.

(Fact time)

The Bad Seeds

First of all, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were created by the government--Mae in 1938 (as part of the New Deal) and Mac in 1970 (in order to help break Mae's monopoly and liquidate markets). The idea behind these and other government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) is to increase credit availability in the economy. Their GSE status has always given them an implicit involvement with the government and a false sense that they couldn't go under.

The first problem: The two FMs were created to promote the use of credit, not responsible savings practices.

The second problem: The two FMs promise money that they do not have. They operate by selling bonds to investors. These bonds are guaranteed. The FMs pay for these bonds by buying thousands of mortgages, assuming the credit risk, and hoping that the profit made off interest will cover the bonds they have given out.

Obviously, these two companies were doomed to failure from the beginning. There is nothing the government could have done (except for not creating them in the first place) to get out of this mess. The republicans did try, though...

Barney and Friends

As Michael Graham points out in a recent blog post, it was the democrats who kept building up this avalanche.

A recent Wall Street Journal article points out that in 2000, Rich Baker (a Republican) proposed a bill which would regulate the FMs' oversight and stop bad lending practices. The bill was shot down by democrats.

In fact, the largest opponent of lending regulation has been democratic congressman Barney Frank. As early as 1992, he opposed lending regulation. He was the strongest opponent of the 2000 bill, and even said that there is "no federal liability there whatsoever". In 2002 he said, "I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems". Well, they are a problem now. The federal government has now assumed their trillions of dollars of debt, $200 billion of which will be paid directly by the taxpayers. In the words of Mr. Frank, "good luck on that". Yeah.

Mr. Frank probably isn't worried. The two FMs have already been pouring $500 million per year into a trust fund that he set up, for use by politicians like him.

Wall Street Journal link
More WSJ Resources

Bill's Bills

In defense of Mr. Frank, Bill Clinton had a lot more to do with this crisis than he did.

There is little doubt amongst economists that two large factors contributing to today's subprime mortgage crisis were repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and enactment of the Community Reinvestment Act.

After lobbying with over $200 million, Citigroup and other financial leaders were able to motivate the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1998. In essence, this move reduced regulation of the trade of securities and debt. This repeal was signed by Bill Clinton.

Source: Editorial (1999-11-15), "Breaking Glass-Steagall", The Nation

The Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to give loans to those that they normally would not have. The idea was that this would boost housing sales. It did. And now those unworthy buyers are defaulting. Again, this act was signed by Bill Clinton.

White house link

Business Week link
Drexel University link

Learning from our mistakes

(Opinion alert)

• The new deal fixed lots of problems for a while, but it got America addicted to credit and eventually was one cause of today's housing crisis.
  
  
• The democrats gave in to lobbying and special interests and as a result, the crisis was not averted when it could have been.
  
  
• Bill Clinton chose to give credit to those who were not worthy of it, rather than forcing them to rightfully earn it.

From now on, let's keep the government small! Let's stop it from growing! Things like government-run health care will be great for a few years, but then in fifty more they will blow up just like these GSEs. Doy!

Makin' Stuff Up

NEWS FLASH! NEWS FLASH! Barack Obama has just uncovered countless Republican lies! Those republicans are "just making stuff up", according to Barack. Here are some of those made-up things:

"Maybe he's got Muslim connections"

His father and mother are Muslims.
New York Times link
Obama's Muslim faith (Oops!)


"He hangs out with radicals or he's not patriotic"

He launched his congressional campaign from the livingroom of Bill Ayers, an admitted terrorist.
Associated Press
New York Times (on Ayers)


"He's never gotten anything done"

He's voted 'present' almost 130 times in less than three years. He's never written any legislation. Oh, he has written two books, though, which make him $500,000 every year.
Obama 2006 tax return
Obama's legislation (no link, obviously)
Senate voting records (check for yourself!)


"He's going to take your guns away"

When surveyed, he supported banning hand guns.
Politico link (find at bottom)


"The guy hasn't been there that long in Washington"

Less than three years.


"He's got a funny name"

Barack Hussein Obama


Do I think any of these things matter or speak against Obama? Not really! Except that...remember that part when he said the Republicans just made stuff up? He was making that up.

Here is the audio link and the full text:

Audio link (Sorry, I am working on a better link than this. This radio host does play the whole clip eventually)

And that's what the Republicans--when they say this isn't about issues it's about personalities what they're really saying is we're going to try to scare people about Barack. So we're going to say that, you know, maybe he's got Muslim connections. Or we're going to say that you know he hangs out with radicals or he's not patriotic. Just making stuff up. Or that he's never gotten anything done. They'll make you, they're trying to make you unsure about me. Or he's going to take your guns away, that's a big one. Right? The temptation is to say you know what, I don't--the guy hasn't been there that long in Washington. He's got a funny name.
-Barack Obama

VP Heebee-Jeebees

Now that there are multiple readers of my blog (at least two), I have been asked my opinion on Sarah Palin. I think I've gone as long as I can without blogging this one up, so here it goes.

(Opinion alert)

My opinion: Sarah Palin will help John McCain win the presidency. As a vice president, she will work mainly on reform. If John McCain dies in office, she will sit on her hands and hope that we don't get attacked (or she will resign).

The experience question. I think the whole experience debate is ridiculous (in regards to both Sarah Palin and Barack Obama). I will blog on this later. And hey, if the New York Times is willing to admit that governer of Alaska is one of the toughest state-government jobs in the country, there's got to be some merit to her time served there.

McCain dying in office is not something I forecast. Look at his mother: she is 96! If the man can survive five years of torture I think he can handle some papers being thrown on his desk for four. And another thing: when your mother or grandmother turns 73, go ahead and tell her that you want to move into her nice house because she's bound to croak in four years anyways. Yeah, thought so.

Past policy. As far as I can tell, Palin has been a fairly good leader. She focuses on spending cuts and reform. Although her few falters from fiscal conservatism are disturbing, I ham it up to her being a rookie (or maybe making some comprimises?). Honestly, I need to look more deeply! That's what I like to do when I blog. Other than her terrible windfall profits tax I haven't examined her record at great length. Anyways, examining records isn't my favorite thing to do. I like to focus on the proposed platform, which is McCain's.

Last and least, the rumors. I just came upon a neat blog post which dispells most of the anti-Palin rumors. Although he doesn't list his sources for all of them, he does for many. It's an interesting read. Here are my favorite highlights:

• Palin never, ever supported Pat Buchanan. In fact, Buchanan now supports Obama*.
  
  
• No, she was never for Alaskan secession. Ever.
  
  
• No, she did not try to get books banned from a library. She got complaints from parents about some books, so she rhetorically asked the librarians what the policy was. They said they couldn't remove the books, so Palin said OK. Yes, Palin did try to fire the librarian a month later. No, she never did loose her job. (And no, it wasn't about the books, it was about administrative junk.) 1996 news source.
  
  
• No, she didn't cut funding for teenage mothers in need. She quadroupled it. No, she did not cut special needs funding. She trippled it.

Palin Rumors

*I really, really wish I could link to some proof of this one. I'll keep looking. In any case, there is proof that Palin never supported Buchanan. Buchanan claims she supported him, but at the time she was helping out Steve Forbes' campaign.

A note: I really, really don't feel like researching this for five hours and blogging on it, but many of these false rumors have been portrayed in The Boston Globe and on CNN as actual news(that's actual fact, not editorial). I'm sure of it myself because I remember reading/seeing some of them. I'll probably end up blogging it sometime anyways....even though it will probably kill me.

So, there you have it. I love her, I hate her. Sarah Palin.

(Final note. Hot librarian look: yes)

Taxin' Momma

I've been criticizing Barack Obama's proposed windfall profits tax. It is a horrible idea and only bad things could come from it. Now, I will criticize the windfall tax that was enacted in Alaska under governor Sarah Palin. It was a horrible idea and only bad things have come from it.

Seattle Times link

The above link explains it all. The tax had exactly the effect that I predicted it would even before learning of the failed 1970 windfall tax. History has proved it twice: windfall profits taxes are just a bad idea and that is that. Sarah Palin was wrong to enact it. I really, really hope there is some information out there which justifies her doing this stupid, stupid thing (but I won't keep my hopes up).

However, please note! Sarah Palin is not running for president. John McCain is. John McCain is sternly against the windfall profits tax!

Windfall Profits Tax

(Opinion alert)

This is a follow-up to my opinion-based post on Barack Obama's proposed Windfall Profits Tax entitled Commy Obammy. I brought up this proposed tax in a discussion forum and somebody mentioned the Windfall Profits Tax of the 1980's, which I hadn't heard about before. When I looked it up, I was horrified (yet not surprised) to find that the 1980 Windfall Profits Tax was a failure in exactly every single way I predict in my opinion post.

(Fact)

Jimmy Carter enacted the 1980 Windfall Profits Tax because he felt the oil companies made huge profits unfairly due to the OPEC oil embargo.

In 1988, Ronald Reagan repealed the tax. Here are some of the reasons why:

• The tax brought 80% less in taxes than was predicted. Almost $400 billion was predicted, but only about $80 million was taken in tax revenue.
  
  
• The tax reduced domestic oil production. Estimates are uncertain, but the amount of oil production lost because of the tax was between 1% and 5%.
  
  
• The tax increased America's dependence on foreign oil significantly. Estimates are uncertain, but oil imports increased by between 3% and 13% because of the tax.
  
  
• The tax caused incentive for the oil companies to focus less on research and more on reducing the cost of current practices.
  

Library of Congress Link

(Opinion alert)

This is simple logic! Obama supports a tax that is proven to fail!

See, Sparky? I told you! I am not (simply) a lunatic!

Jobs Slobs

(Opinion alert)

The media's coverage of the unemployment rate released this week has been sloppy. They mention that at 6.1% it is higher than it has been in five years. This is what they fail to mention:

(Facts)

• The yearly unemployment average during the Clinton years was 5.20%. The yearly unemployment average under Bush Jr. so far is 5.18%.
  
  
• The yearly unemployment average during the entire 90's was 5.75%. The yearly unemployment average so far in the new millennium is 5.03%.
  
  
• If you assume that the yearly unemployment average for 2008 is 6.1%, Bush's average still stands at only 5.30%, a mere 0.10% greater than Clinton's.

(Opinion alert)

Now, let's not pretend that George Bush is incredible when it comes to creating jobs. During the Clinton years, the rate fell and fell and fell steadily. Under Bush Jr. it has fluctuated tremendously.

I just thought that if we were going to blather about the numbers, we might as well blather about them all.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf


Funny note: I brought this to Sparky's attention and he dismissed it, claiming that since that table was published by the government, the Bush administration had probably simply made up the numbers. Strong argument, Sparky!

Copyright-free photos

I just wanted to post this so that I could find it easily later. This is where virtually all of my blog photos come from:

http://www.dotgovwatch.com/?/archives/8-The-Best-Copyright-Free-Photo-Libraries.html

Any photo posted on a government web site is copyright-free by law :D

Peace on Politics

I've been blogging a lot, but sometimes I don't know if my driving principals are made clear. I have some beliefs and principals that I stubbornly hold to, unlike Sparky who just believes what he sees on TV. So, here I will try to list my principals in the order of their importance to me.

1. Debate in hyperbole, act on reason. When I debate I make it sound like me not getting my way would destroy the planet. However, I hold myself and those I debate with to always being reasonable in the end.
   
   
2. Discuss only policy and only issues at hand. I think it is mostly a waste of time to talk about the people behind the policy, including their past voting records. I realize that all politicians are scum and I choose to discuss the policy they wish to enact. The only time non-policy issues are fair game is if the other side brings it up and a response is needed.
   
   
3. Change sides when needed. If I am proven wrong, I will admit it. If I support the wrong side and realize it, I will change to the right one. Government is not about sides, it is about policy that works.
   
   
4. Prove, verify, support. The best thing I ever learned in high school was taught to me in junior year AP U.S. history class: when you make an assertion, back it up. A bunch. And another thing: distrust all media.
   
   
5. Don't be nasty. There is nothing I dislike more than people who take things too personally. My best friend Sparky and I disagree on everything, but we are never nasty to each other. He and I are a rare breed, though. (Internet/blogging/forum people are the worst with this).
   
   
6. Keep the government small. The government should protect the people, enforce their rights, and do things that capitalism could never do on its own, such as maintain conservation lands.
   
   
7. Let the states decide. Whenever there is a controversial issue, the states should decide on their own until the country is ready as a whole to choose a side.

Notice how my stance on conservative government is last. The reason for that is simple. If there comes a day when it is clear to me that big government is the best way, my first five principals will allow me to support that belief fully.

A note: If you read my blog a lot, you will think I am being a hypocrite. So far, I have made at least two posts which may seem to contradict my principal #2 (Obama out of touch, Obama debate challenge). I say these posts may seem like they contradict this principal, but they don't. I use this blog as a long, drawn-out response to my debates with my friend Sparky. Any time I attack Obama it is to prove to Sparky that Obama is just as scummy as McCain, and therefore Sparky should debate policy (which he refuses to do). Don't be fooled into thinking that these petty attacks matter! They don't!

Commy Obammy

(Opinion alert)

My assertion: Barack Obama's presidential agenda includes the redistribution of wealth in the form of his proposed Windfall Profits Tax. This is a communist idea, not a democratic one.

The zinger: No, I am not talking about Barack Obama's Global Poverty Act.

The fact: Barack Obama wants to take money directly from the oil companies and give $1000 to every American family.

The proof: Barack Obama's energy plan, Barack Obama's energy plan in detail (these link to his own web site).


In Defense of Mr. Obama

In this blog post I will speak out against Barack Obama's planned Windfall Profits Tax, and I will speak strongly. But know this: Barack Obama has the best intentions for America. I am willing to give Mr. Obama the benifit of the doubt (though in a way, I hope you won't). I do not think that this tax alone will destroy the country, turn us into a communist nation, or ruin our energy sector. However, pay attention to my argument. Just because this tax won't immediately destroy the country doesn't mean it isn't wrong. The Windfall Profits Tax is a stupid idea, and it won't do any good for this country. You're about to see why.

Details of the Windfall Profits Tax

Barack Obama will require oil companies to take a reasonable share of their record-breaking windfall profits and use it to provide direct relief worth $500 for an individual and $1,000 for a married couple.
-BarackObama.com

Analysis of the Windfall Profits Tax: Benefits

• Each American will have $500 towards energy costs.

Analysis of the Windfall Profits Tax: Detriments

• Oil companies are forced to either take less profit, raise prices, or reduce spending, some of which goes toward alternative energy research.
• By giving Americans an easy way out, the government discourages middle- and lower-class Americans from investing in cheaper, cleaner, more fuel-efficient technologies.
  
• By taking company profits, the government discourages success and innovation.
• The government sets a dangerous precident: the government knows best and it can take money from whomever it chooses and give it to whomever it chooses.

Benefit #1 in Depth

Free money. Big whoop! I can't speak for everyone, but $500 doesn't pay for very much of my energy costs. In fact, I'm sure that would be gone in less than two months in my own case. Perhaps I am overlooking the largest benefit of this tax: middle-class votes for Barack Obama.

Detriment #1 in Depth

Here is a fact for you: last year Exonn Mobil made $1,500 per second in profit. They paid about three times that in taxes, or about $4,000 per second. In expenses, they paid $15,000 per second. Let's really crank our noggins and think about this one as hard as we can. If oil companies are taxed more, will they take it directly out of their profit margin? Take a wild guess. One thing they are likely to do instead is raise prices. Well, that will help things! Of course, they could also cut into expenses. Which will they cut into first? Transportation? Drilling? Of course not. First will be alternative energy research. Doy! See, Barack?? Common sense can be fun!

Detriments #2 and #3 in Depth

A few months ago, I decided to go out and spend about $15 on a few flourescent lightbulbs. They use 50 to 75 percent less electricity than incandescent lightbulbs, so I figured they would help with my electric bill. Now, let's get those thinking caps back on again. Would I have been so inclined to go buy those light bulbs if I knew the government would foot my electric bill for me? No, I would not. Neither would one of my friends have been inclined to sell their gas-guzzling Mercedes for a tiny sedan. Neither would I be inclined to buy a Toyota Prius as my first car, as I plan to someday! Hey, free money is great. But it's stupid. It can only cause the public to forget about going green.

In the same way, this tax will kill motivation on the part of companies and individuals working for companies. If I am a bright mind working at an oil company, why would I stay if I knew my pay raises were being forced down by the government? I'd probably rather go work in a more profitable industry, like fertilizers or nuclear weapons research.

Detriment #4 in Depth

In this country we are all about precidents. If the government gets away with something once without causing a large uprising, they know it's safe to do it again. We do not want a new precident that says the government can force the wealthy to give away their profits.

But forget about precidents. There is already a precident in place which says that everything the government does is moronic. Why does Barack Obama want to give these morons more power? Why does Barack Obama think that the government is wiser than its people? Why does Barack Obama think that the government has the right to say who is allowed to keep their money and who is not? To be honest, I do not know why Barack Obama thinks his Windfall Profits Tax will help anything at all.

A Note on Windfall Profits

Wouldn't it be horrible if the oil companies broke into our houses and stole money from our pockets? Or if we had to pay income tax that went directly to oil companies? Or if oil companies put a gun to our heads and told us we had to drive SUV's and never take public transportation to work? Yeah, that'd be horrible!

The only problem is, none of those things have ever happened.

Oil companies make windfall profits because we buy their gas in windfall amounts. I don't know about you, but the car I drive runs on gas. I stand at the station and pump it into my car a few times a month. Then I pay for it. People like Barack Obama have turned "oil company" and "profit" into swear words. They want you to feel guilty for being successful and making money.

Are the record-breaking oil profits a problem? Yes, I think so. But I respond to that problem on my own.

I reduce my usage of electricity. I use fuel-efficient vehicles. I walk and take public transportation. And so does the rest of America. Sales of the Toyota Prius are booming right now, and not because of a government regulation. They are booming because Americans are moving themselves in the right direction. For the same reason, American car companies like Ford and Chevrolet are creating hybrid models of their most popular cars--without being told by the government to do so.

Well fancy that. Maybe we don't need the government to figure things out for us.

McCain's Energy Plan

McCain: The Lexington Project

• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 66% by 2050
• Revolutionize the American transportation sector
• Focus on alternative, domestic energy

John McCain has a strong plan which will change the way Americans use energy. It will lower greenhouse gas emissions, it will transform transportation and create a strong green economy in America, and it will break America's dependence on foreign oil.

The enactment of John McCain's energy plan would represent the biggest change in American energy since the industrial revolution. The change would be drastic and it would be lasting. But at the same time, McCain's plan is built on strategies that are proven to work, including an aggressive cap and trade emissions system.

We need to support John McCain's energy plan. But before that, we need to take a good look at it and focus on its strengths--the ideas and plans that we can really look forward to.

Advanced Vehicles

John McCain plans to create a $300 million prize for the first individual or organization that comes up with a battery with the size, capacity, power, and a low enough price to make plugin hybrid or electric cars commercially feasable. The battery in question would have to be 70 percent cheaper than the current technology. This radical idea is based on simple logic: if companies are in competition, a better product will come faster. If the battery is available, unlimited numbers of new car technologies will be able to be developed around it and at a reasonable price to the average American. This plan will get hybrid or electric vehicles into the hands of average Americans.

Cap and Trade

Cap and trade systems are seen as one of the best solutions to lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Cap and trade worked for acid rain, and now McCain wants to make it work for energy. Under such a system, the government caps the amount that all companies collectively are allowed to emit. Then, each company is given a proportionate amount of credits. Companies can trade emission credits, so companies who are cleaner benefit because they can sell more of their emissions credits. This system is prooven, and it is exciting that McCain wants to implement it. This is how McCain plans to reduce emissions by 66% by 2050.

Domestic Oil, Natural Gas, and Alternative Energy

John McCain pledges that his administration would agressively pursue oil and natural gas drilling. John McCain believes in pursuing American oil as aggressively as possible so that we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil and our international trade deficit, 41% of which comes from oil. This oil plan includes offshore drilling and drilling in Alaska. He also believes in piplining natural gas across the country and making natural gas a greater part of America's energy profile. McCain's plan also includes aggressive tax cuts for companies who spend research and development money on alternative energy such as solar and wind.

Domestic Clean Coal

John McCain's plain includes $2 billion annually towards the research and advancement of clean coal technologies. Currently, scientists predict that clean coal technology is over 15 years away. McCain's plan focuses on fast-tracking this technology, since coal creates most of American energy. This will mean a drastic change in American emissions created during electricity production, and will give America a better option to make clean, domestic energy.

International Leadership

John McCain is committed to getting the global economy on track with clean, green energy. By fast-tracking green technology in America and then promoting the sale of those technologies to foreign nation, John McCain will turn America both into a global energy provider and a leader in climate reform. McCain stresses creating a healthy energy relationship with two of the world's fastest-growing economies: China and India. By cooperating on an global basis and promoting energy and climate reform internationally, John McCain's plan will set the stage for a new world of energy.

Obama's energy plan

Obama: New Energy for America

• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050
• Eliminate the need for Middle-Eastern and Venezuelan oil in ten years
• Get 25% of electricity from renewable sources by 2025

These are the goals of Democratic nominee for president Barack Obama. They are lofty and some say they are impossible. They forget, though, what can happen when a strong president commits his country to a goal. In 1961, John F. Kennedy announced that America would attempt to land on the moon in less than ten years. Just eight years later his impossible goal was realized.

Let's forget the loftyness of Senator Obama's energy goals. In America, anything is possible. Instead, let's focus on some of the most exciting parts of Obama's energy plan.

Advanced Vehicles

Obama's plan is very strong on advanced, fuel-efficient vehicles. As part of his goal to eliminate the need for foreign oil, Obama will attempt to make hybrid cars a reality for the typical American. He will create a $7,000 tax credit for purchasing advanced vehicles. The starting price for a Toyota prius is $21,500. After this tax credit, the effective price of a Prius would be $14,500. Undoubtedly, this will boost sales of advanced vehicles. He also plans to stimulate the development of plug-in hyrbrid cars by converting the entire White House car fleet to plug-in hybrids, as well as dedicating half of federal car purchases to plug-in hybrids. Obama also promises to increase fuel economy standards nationwide.

Cap and Trade

Cap and trade systems are seen as one of the best solutions to lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Cap and trade worked for acid rain, and now Obama wants to make it work for energy. Under such a system, the government caps the amount that all companies collectively are allowed to emit. Then, each company is given a proportionate amount of credits. Companies can trade emission credits, so companies who are cleaner benefit because they can sell more of their emissions credits. This system is prooven, and it is exciting that Obama wants to implement it. This is how Obama plans to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050.

Job Training Programs

If the economy is going to grow along with new technologies, our workers need to be trained in these technologies. Barack Obama will provide federal funding for programs which train workers in clean technologies. Not only this, the programs will also teach energy efficiency to youth.

Domestic Oil and Natural Gas

Barack Obama pledges that his administration would persue oil drilling in Montana and North Dakota. He also supports natural gas pipelines in Texas and Arkansas, as well as prioritizing construction of a natural gas pipeline in Alaska. Such a pipeline could provide up to seven percent of America's natural gas consumption.

Energy Efficiency

Barack Obama promises to make all new federal buildings zero-emissions by 2025. His plan is strong on energy efficiency throughout the country. He also wants to weatherize one million low-income homes every year, a move that would reduce the energy consumption of all those homes. He believes that investing in Americas infrastructure will also increase efficiency, such as investing in new grid technologies and fixing roads and bridges.