My Solution To The Energy Crisis and Social Security Funding

Discussion in 'Politics' started by AAAintheBeltway, Jun 25, 2008.

  1. I previously advised the White House how to sort out the Iraqi mess, but the fools ignored me. Now Bush has the lowest approval ratings in history. Belatedly, they adopted minor elements of my plan(partnering with local sunni militias), which proved wildly successful. Now we face a different crisis, how to supply our need for oil.

    Democrats are deadset against any drilling whatsoever. They are held hostage by the environmentalist wacko fringe of their party, who value bugs and weeds more than humans. Or they are paralyzed by fears of global warming or other nonsense. Thank goodness they weren't around when it was time to build the Hoover Dam or the Panama Canal. Democrats do love Social Security however, America's first socialist program. Unfortunately, at least the few sane democrats realize paying for the promised benefits will bankrupt the system in a decade or two.

    Republicans are all for drilling everywhere, except off the coasts of their home state. The idea that perhaps it won't be the worst thing in the world to have saved our oil when the world starts running out is not part of their plan. As for Social Security, they see it as the classic third rail of politics. Touch it and die instantly. Their plan is to let someone else deal with it later.

    My plan. Set aside all the oil resources in ANWR, offshore and on other government land as assets to pay for Social Security benefits. That oil is only going to get more valuable, unlike any paper assets the plan could be invested in. If, as democrats maintain, Social Security is sound and will not be broke, then we need never touch that oil. If the plan founders however, all we have to do is start drilling to pay benefits. Since the SS assets will be locked in the ground, they will be unavailable to divert to other spending. Democrats will not be tempted to do so anyway, since they hate drilling so much. Everyone wins.

    Someone wake John McCain up from his nap and explain this to him. Then he can go on the news and attack me and denounce the idea, like he seems to do with anyone who voices support for him.
  2. The plan to put a valuation on all government land holdings has been around a long time. Some of the superspending politico's have even said that the US would not have a deficit if we counted all this at market value. Only problem is with selling of resources, is who do we sell them to? I'm not real strong either way on Anwar, but I think I would rather limit it's use to US citizens vs. selling on the open market. The actual numbers are not known, barrels, percentage of US usage and all that, so both sides make up wildly diverse numbers to suit their side of the project. I would like to know how much, how long to get it, and how the hell we can really benefit from Anwar, if at all.

  3. The difference is that instead of merely valuing it as a balance sheet asset, I would put these areas in trust for SS. The ultimate lock box if you will.

    As for reserving them for American's use, oil is a commodity. Sell it, use it, what's the difference? Certainly I don't think we should sell the drilling rights to Citgo or PTR.
  4. Do what any smart corporation does - downsize. It may be painful at first, but cutting size is the most effective way to reduce the costs. Just get it done.
  5. Thanks for letting me know at what point to stop reading your post. It's quite the time saver.
  6. Ah, the Al Gore famous lock box. A bit ironic I would say.

  7. What a coincidence. I have thought the same thing about you.
  9. For many days in the sumertime my city is under a smog alert and it is hard to breathe some days. Burning sensation is sometimes present. And I'm under 30 years old.

    This concerns me about how many years it will knock off my life.

    Does this make me an environmental wacko?

    I would not even think of drinking from any lake or river! They are all toxic soups.