Electric Cars Are Here

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2011/mar/04/electric-cars-travel-and-transport#/?picture=372279313&index=11


source: http://www.nextenergysolar.com/html/energy_efficiency.html

We just cut taxes – 25 percent of the tax cuts went to the top 1 percent (or 3 million people). Those tax cuts will cost roughly $800 billion in lost revenue. So now, the logical step is…we gotta cut $800 billion in spending? I suppose. How about we eliminate federal subsidies to BIG OIL companies for offshore drilling? Yeah, that sounds about right.

* Remember, we can have a solar-electric system on every available roof and a plug-in electric car in every garage. We can have solar-electric structures in every parking lot and in place of gas stations along the freeway, as well. We can use some federal money to fund the building of a renewable energy infrastructure…that means jobs! jobs! jobs! By using Solar Electricity, we also limit the need to “War 4 Oil” – and by using less oil we help our environment at the same time. In addition, when every building makes its own energy, We, the People, can take control of the cost of running our lives again with clean, green, CO2-free energy…instead of being shackled to the spigot metered by the fossil-fuel corporations.


Illustration by Matt Clark


source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html

“The flow of revenues to oil companies is like the gusher at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico: heavy and constant,” said Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, who has worked alongside the Obama administration on a bill that would cut $20 billion in oil industry tax breaks [or “subsidies”] over the next decade. “There is no reason for these corporations to shortchange the American taxpayer.”


Or we could cut our gargantuan military budget down to a reasonable size, instead of spending more money on Defense than the rest of the world combined.

source: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/01/18/2022135/five-myths-about-defense-spending.html


“The $720 billion [United States] defense budget is a very large share of federal discretionary spending — more than half in 2010. We can no longer separate national security from fiscal imperatives. Unfortunately, several myths keep us from a more disciplined defense budget….

This country has remained secure in eras of declining defense budgets, such as the postwar period of the Eisenhower presidency and the early post-Cold War years. Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton reduced active-duty forces by 700,000, Pentagon civilians by 300,000, defense procurement dollars by 53 percent and overall national defense spending by 28 percent — and we were still able to carry out one of the Pentagon’s top planning scenarios: occupying Iraq in 2003. (The wisdom of that decision is a different matter.)…

They’re a small step in the right direction, but the proposed cuts would still leave the level of defense spending far above what we need. The United States spent more on national defense last year, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than in any year during the Cold War, even though we no longer face an existential Soviet-style threat.

Our security situation permits us to spend in a more-disciplined way, and our fiscal circumstances require it. Publicly held federal debt takes up a greater share of the U.S. economy — roughly 64 percent, according to the Office of Management and Budget – than any time since 1951. Failing to control this debt means that interest payments will consume future budgets and limit our spending, even for defense.

As we detail in an essay in the latest Foreign Affairs, the national defense budget proposals could be lower by an aggregate of roughly $1 trillion through 2020, still leaving us to spend $6.3 trillion on defense over that period. This can be done while retaining our military dominance and building a more-effective and -efficient force.

Gordon Adams is a professor of international relations at American University and a distinguished fellow at the Stimson Center, a global security think tank. Matthew Leatherman is a research associate at the Stimson Center.


  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: