[charlie22]

Since I waited too long to edit my prior post, I'll repost with what I want my edited post to be:

Thanks Hoot. Time will somewhat limit my posting in this forum. And when I do, some of them may surprise you. For example, while I'm not in support of the federal govt's investment in Solyndra and the other related companies, I'm very much supportive of the federal govt investing in alternative energy. I believe that the federal govt should be creating a Manhattan Project type federally ran and operated organization, hiring directly the best and brightest scientists, and pouring tons of federal dollars in alternative energy R and D.

My reasons for thinking that way: the sooner we stop sending billions overseas to buy oil (and often funding regimes covertly or overtly hostile to us) the more secure our national interests will be and the better it will be for our trade balance.

I also believe that if it can be reasonably concluded that we have the natural gas supply (and from what I know, I think it has), I think the federal govt should fund the construction of a natural gas distribution pipeline up and down the interstates to stimulate the conversion of semis (and eventually pedestrian vehicles) to natural gas. Charge the natural gas companies that will profit for their use of the distribution system, but go ahead and federally fund the installation/construction of the distribution system.

I do think that in tough economic times, the federal govt should have increased spending on projects that are well thought out and are long lasting (for example replacing the failing bridges throughout the US). Rather than simply hand out money in the form of prolonged unemployment benefits (where people get money for doing nothing) they should be doing some work for the money they receive from the govt. I'd prefer the work to be on something beneficial to the country, but doing anything for a paycheck (even if it's just picking up trash, painting school buildings, doing work in national parks, etc) beats giving a person money for doing nothing.

Perhaps this downturn in the economy snuck up on the federal govt and caught it unprepared to wisely invest in projects, which limited the shovel ready jobs available to be funded quickly to stimulate the economy. Then again, the military spends considerable time and money war planning for the unexpected and regulaly updates their plans. Why can't the federal govt have a standing commission war planning for projects that it will invest in when needed so that it is not so unprepared in the future? Prioritize the projects. Some will get funded in the normal course, but as they are completed and taken off the list, new ones come on. When the economy goes to hell, the federal govt is ready to go. The problem was not having qualified construction companies available to bid on and complete the projects; the problem was that the federal govt was not ready to quickly pull the trigger on enough impactful and meaningful projects to make enough of a difference.

This may sound like heresy, but I do admire some aspects of the centralized planning and thinking of the Chinese govt. They have well thought out, long range plans for improving their country. We fly by the seat of our pants and are reactive instead of proactive.