Author: Sarah Riordan

Each bill put before Congress has a preferred title.  It’s part of the “marketing” that goes into passing legislation.  For example, if I were to write a bill about how to provide healthcare to the poor, I would suggest in the bill that it be referred to as the “Health Care for the Poor, 2009 Act.”  In theory, the title of the bill summarizes the bill’s content.  Typically, though, Congress is not that creative and most of the titles are unimaginative and boring. 

Then you have the bill Harry Reid is sponsoring, S.5. With a sophistication in the English language that  only our most influential law makers have, Reid requests that S.5 be known as the, “Cleaner, Greener, and Smarter Act of 2009.”  Perhaps this is being nitpicky, but in comparison to all the other titles out there that summarize a bill’s meaning, this one sounds a tad bit more like Sesame Street than a potential United State’s law.  I don’t know about you but it kind of makes me want to put a crown made of flowers on my head, hold hands with strangers, and dance around in circles to the Beatles “All You Need is Love.”

Okay, enough of that, let’s get to the bill.  There are a few problems with S.5. To begin with, the bill addresses a number of issues but presents them all under the umbrella of being environmentally friendly. 

Here are the three main issues that are presented in the bill.

1. Energy Dependency
2. Global Warming
3. Living Green

Unfortunately, the short list above is about as substantial as Reid’s bill gets. The hardly two-paged bill briefly touches on all the issues mentioned above, but leaves the bill so short and open that anyone can interpret it to mean anything they want it to. 

For example, section four of the bill states the following about what the bill legislates:

“…requires reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases in the United States and achieving reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases abroad,”

What does that mean?  If this bill is made law with such broad language, does it mean Congress could make it illegal for all U.S. citizens to drive and say this bills permits them to make such a law?  Who knows?

Yet another example of the vague language appears in the first section of the bill where Reid states what this piece of legislation hopes to accomplish. 

“To make and encourage significant investments in green job creation and clean energy across the economy,”

Again, what does that mean?  How much money does he want to invest?  What makes a green job a green job?  I don’t really know, because that’s all Reid says about green jobs in the bill.  It is almost that he assumes everyone knows what a so-called “green job” is.  In the end, each person can interpret it as they choose.

And in the above statement is where the main problem lays.  Legislation needs to be clear and defined. If something is going to become law, it needs to leave no room for false interpretation and loop holes.  It begs the question, why doesn’t Reid just tell us exactly what he wants?  The reason, I believe, is that voters would revolt against his agenda.

Judging purely by the bill’s text, no one could ever tell what Senator Reid is pushing for.  So in the end, it’s best to not have a bill so broad that you could fly a 747 through it.  Then again, a 747 isn’t very environmentally friendly, so if S.5 is passed, it will probably be outlawed in the near future. 

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

For the constitutionally challenged, the above paragraph is the 1st Amendment of The United States Constitution. Now, it’s pretty straight forward, but for some members of Congress like Harry Reid the 1st Amendment is apparently a little hazy.

It’s no secret that conservative radio personalities are far more successful than their liberal competitors. According to Rush Limbaugh.com, Limbaugh rakes in 20 million viewers weekly. Air America, one of the few liberal radio stations available failed due to financial difficulties and lack of listenership. Now, Air America is giving it a second shot, and conveniently enough, just in time for liberal members of Congress to push for a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. 

The Fairness Doctrine was enforced by the FCC when radio first came into existence. The Reagan administration found the doctrine to be a violation of the 1st Amendment, and abolished the act.

In a post Fairness Doctrine world, talk radio has become predominantly conservative. It’s not because the air waves have a strong bias, but because there is simply no audience for liberal radio. The world may never know why, but that’s just the case.

A Preemptive Fairness Doctrine Initiative

Republican Congressmen and women have joined together to present a bill that will prevent anything similar to the Fairness Doctrine from being instated. The bill, H.R. 2905, is short and to the point. It simply says in one extended paragraph that under no condition should the Fairness Doctrine or anything that sounds similar make it as law.

Reasons for opposing the bill go beyond freedom of speech (Though that alone should be enough). Reinstating the doctrine would also cause a virtual accounting nightmare. Imagine radio stations having to hire people simply to track how many hours, minutes and seconds are dedicated to a specific political party. The notion is ridiculous beyond comprehension. The fact that the government would be monitoring what a radio station is allowed to put on the air screams a word hated by all Americans, “Censorship!”

That’s why H.R. 2905 is an extremely important bill. It’s all about the slippery slope. If we give Congress the power to monitor what goes on radio and television stations, Congress should also be able to monitor and control the editorial sections of all newspapers. For that matter, why shouldn’t Congress be able to control everyone’s opinion? I better stop writing now before I’m cuffed and taken away. This is just another example of the government becoming entirely too large, and sticking its hand in places where it doesn’t belong.

So, the Conservatives are attempting to slap that hand away, and pass a bill that will protect our first amendment rights. This bill goes back to the founding fathers who hoped to prevent a future where citizens were unable to speak openly. The fact that anyone could even consider promoting such a direct violation of the most treasured Amendment to the United States Constitution is simply devastating.

The bill S.3297 should go down in history books as one of the most comprehensively vague bills ever proposed. The bill’s official description alone should raise red flags around the nation: “A bill to advance America’s priorities”. The bill was first proposed by Harry Reid and currently has 7 co-sponsors, including the heavy hitters Edward Kennedy, Joseph Lieberman, and Joe Biden. The sheer amount of topics covered by this bill should be enough for months of debate on end and yet the bills progress is moving quite rapidly despite the fact that it was introduced only two months ago.

Topics covered in the staggering 400 page proposal include increased Lou Gehrig’s Disease research and funding, the establishment of national paralysis programs, increased Secretary of Health and Human Service controls for vision care for children, Homeless Youth Act reforms, increased jurisdiction for the DOJ’s authority for child pornography investigation and prosecution, the establishment of the Star-Spangled Banner and War of 1812 commemoration, amendments to the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 (waterway regulation), increased funding for various Appalachian regional development programs, amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the authorization of funding over a 10-year period for “capital and prevent maintenance projects for the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area Transit Authority”…..the list goes ON and ON, and no bill to “Advance America’s priorities” should ever go without the establishment of a national ocean exploration and underseas research program with the NOAA. In order to truly appreciate the depth and breadth of this proposal you’ve got to see it for yourself.

Proposals like this are so power-packed with so many big supporters that one must question how many favors and friends are being satisfied in only 400 pages – these legislators truly are good friends to have. There is no implication here that any of these legislators are necessarily trying to propose all of these reforms unnoticed, but why does more transparency not exist? Chances are you’ve never heard of this proposal before reading this posting, but if you have ever heard of the Smithsonian, the Holocaust, the Great Lakes, the Department of Justice, the Star-Spangled Banner or debates on child pornography, this bill might be for you. Also, one of the upsides about this bill is if you have any other interests or hobbies not affected by the text above chances are you can find it here. Don’t take this posting’s word for it, please do check the proposal out for yourself and truly grasp the close relationship of vagueness and politics.

Author: Jared Fallon

On August 27 South Korea’s President Lee Myung Bak announced a bold plan to “significantly reduce the nation’s dependency on fossil fuels” and at the minimum, quadruple the use of renewable energy by the year 2030. In this paradigm shift, South Korea’s plans include increasing the use of renewable energy sources by an average of 38 times the current level, the construction of 10 new nuclear power plants, a massive increase in the nation’s oil self-sufficiency, a boost in the development and production of fuel-cell cars, and improved energy efficiency grading systems for both the public and private sectors. Specific highlights of the new program include increases in:

- The amount of solar energy use by 44 times above the current level, biofuels by 19, and geothermal power by 51

- The nation’s self-sufficiency in oil and gas from 4.2 to 40 percent

- The amount of nuclear power used from the current 15 percent to 28 percent of the total expected energy consumption by the year 2030

In addition to the obvious benefits achieved by achieving significantly greater energy independence, the South Korean government expects the renewable and alternative energy sector to see the creation of 950,00 new jobs by the target date.

How does the US measure up?

While the current energy policy plans outlined by Congress are not even close to being temerarious enough, several legislatures as of late have been quite active in proposing legislation. Even though the current proposals do not rival South Korea’s most current policy in intensity, if such bills are indeed passed they would help form large waves of change in America, helping to pave the road to a more grounded energy policy. One such bill, S.3044, aims to provide energy price relief and hold oil companies and other entities accountable for their actions with regard to high energy prices. The bill is being sponsored by one of the most highly rated legislators (Harry Reid; D-NV) and is currently cosponsored by 23 other state senators.

Other pending bills of interest include H.R.6545 – a bill that would require the Director of National Intelligence to conduct a national intelligence assessment on national security and energy security issues and Norm Coleman’s (R-MN) S.3126 – a bill that would encourage the development of alternative energy sources.

Whether or not such bills are passed, it is irrefutable that the US does need a renewed sense of passion – a desire to achieve groundbreaking milestones of entrepreneurship, innovation, and excitement in regards to energy policies. As of late, amidst all of the increasing complaints of rising oil prices, politicians have pulled the “green card”- utilizing alternative and renewable energy topics at the forefront of their platforms. Will these long winded speeches ever equate to policies with substantial reforms? They need to, and they need to quickly if we are to have any hope for keeping up with other countries’ developments in the energy sector.