Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Simple ideas from a brilliant man

And he's a pretty good hoopster to boot. Bill Bradley had a nice piece in the Washington Post
a few months back that is worth revisiting. His argument is simple - tax the things we want less of (oil imports) and reduce taxes on things we want more of (jobs). In case you weren't aware, Dollar Bill ran for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2000. He served in the US Senate for 18 years, played for the Knicks for about a decade ( I saw him play when I was 4), went to Princeton and Oxford. The ideas he talks about in the article are just a sampling of the kind of things he thinks about - I guess that's why I voted for him in 2000 and wish he would run again.

The General

7 comments:

noel keith - uncw said...

Many good points. Only problem that occurs to me is an issue with price increases to follow the energy tax (b/c of OTR trucks, heating oil...). Are the economic effects pervasive/fast enough to keep as many people warm, fed, and fueled without additional subsidies/welfare/EBT? Note: even if the answer is 'no' this may be worth the trouble.

Anonymous said...

Wow, I'd have to agree with you, and the 2008 elections are right around the corner! Bradley for president! Finally, someone who isn't afraid to come up with solutions to multiple and intertwined problems at once. I definitely agree with raising mileage on cars and the free rebate system. It's such an easy solution, we just need a catalyst.

6271

Anonymous said...

This Bill Bradley seems to be on the right path. One issue that rates high on every American's list is the reduction on our dependence on the Middle East. While I do not want to appear hateful for the Persian people and there culture, they do not have the best track record when it comes to stability. When is the last time there was peace in the middle east... during the 6th century? We can not leave our energy needs in the hands of people who can't supply us safely. The risk is to much and the whole thing doesn't make economic sense. If this man Bradley truly has a plan for oil reduction, then he has my vote in '08.

3385

Anonymous said...

I am thankful to see what other students have posted. Also, I hope that we do see some change. If not the furture may be bleak for us of all. In high school, I knew that wars could be fought other ways than with guns. Thomas Freedman, In the World is Flat, touched on many of the topics covered in this essay. In particular, oil consumption, if we were able to curve our consumption, which we can, the price of oil would drop. OPEC's option would be to pratically give us the oil. I know that in other regions the Pacific Northwest and Europe this transition has been underway for sometime.

Sean Keneipp

Bobby Thomas said...

All sounds so simple in the article, but the reality is that it just does not happen as simple as he put it. My biggest question is what happens to all the big rig trucks out there, he is talking about taxing the non-fuel effficent vehicles and giving that money to the more fuel-efficient ones. That just does not seem right to me. I understand that something has to be done, but america as whole is not whole at all.

Anonymous said...

I agree with a lot of what Bradley has to say. It seems that when it comes to environmental issues, incentives like taxing are about the only way to get results. One of the main points that I agree on is that of a mandatory increase in fuel efficiency in vehicles. As much as Americans drive that would make a huge difference in our oil consumption. Its crazy how much more efficient European cars are, it makes me wonder if it is the technology or just the size of vehicles that they drive, whatever it is we need to pick up and join in.

7271 G.R.

Jorrdan Combs said...

I really enjoyed this post. It truly does make so much sense. Just by changing the way in which, not how much, our country drives, we could reduce oil consumption to the point where we wouldn't have to import. How amazing would that be? Then, we would not have to depend on foreign sources for our oil. I know that I love my car that gets between 35 and 42 mpg probably more than I would an SUV, thanks to the savings at the pump and how long a tank lasts. Why can't everyone drive more fuel-efficient vehicles?