I imagine that if you took just a little time to educate yourself on both sides of the proposal, as I have, you'll understand the benefits outweigh the cons.

I'm going to assume you mean increase income tax rates. Historically, the US has a revenue of about 19% of GDP regardless of what the marginal tax rate is. So, increasing the marginal tax rate isn't a solution for over spending. That's one of many reasons why I support the proposal called "the fair tax" which would replace all existing payroll and income taxes with a consumption tax.

I'd say that's pretty well spelled out in Article 1, section 8 of the constitution. It's unfortunate that the general welfare clause and regulating trade among the states clause have been so badly abused. They were never intended to give the federal government unlimited power.

You left out the reasonable people who read both sides of the argument and have yet to be convinced that global climate change is man made.

I would love to see a 10-20 year plan to phase out "clean" coal and replace it with nukes. I think it would provide jobs for the displaced coal plant workers without making the utility bills sky rocket. It would give us a nice bridge for the next 50 years when the tech behind solar, wind and tidal energy sources becomes viable in the market place.

The problem comes from people. An individual is generally reasonable and open ideas, people as a whole are not. For example, the same country that elected Obama also elected Bush. Twice.

You have an excellent point. I offer evidence of this with the movie "The Man From Earth". I don't recall this excellent movie ever being in theaters, and when the producer found it was being shared online, asked for a small donation if you downloaded it and enjoyed it. I kicked in a couple of bucks because I want to encourage this sort of marketing.

I've been in that airport and the first impression I had was the guards smoking under the "No Smoking" sign, with an ashtray there. My last impression (as we were getting ready to come home) was that they had a little old lady cleaning the men's room. Not only was it open, no one seemed bothered by it.

I can't think of a single government that has extra money. If they found that the necessities of government cost less than they collected in taxes they should give it back to the people who they got it from. I know that's crazy talk, but I'm not a socialist.

Wait... what? There are articles?

I think the new energy technologies are wicked cool. Geothermal, solar, wind (really solar in disguise), tidal, etc. Even nuclear and hydroelectric are cooler than "clean" coal technology. I look forward to the day when these technologies can compete with the cheap energy produced by burning coal without government subsidies. Having a hydrogen powered car will be a blast!

As we see from this quiet time in solar activity, the sun has a far greater impact on global climate than the 0.00117% of man made CO2 in the atmosphere. So, unless we're planning on regulating the sun, I'm not ready to transfer wealth via taxes and subsidies, cap and trade or any other drastic regulation that will harm our slowly recovering economy. You disagree, and that's fine. I won't ask you to believe what I do, just understand that I see the facts differently than you do.

I would assume that if you have the technology to convert energy into mass, that you'd also have the technology to convert mass into energy. So, you'd only need 1KG of mass (assuming a 100% conversion rate) to produce 1Kg of mass.

Good link, even better that I used to live in Ft. Collins :-)

profit, as it has the market forces to help keep it in check. What keeps politicians in check? More politicians.

I stand corrected that these are state mandates on insurance. I think you're backwards there on your logic. If I don't want the fed being involved in something that is broken, then it's a state's issue, right? Then how am I wanting to limit that state's rights by keeping the fed out of it? Help me see where you're coming from.

I'm pretty sure stating an opinion or point of view that you like doesn't magically turn it from FUD into fact. Sorry.

I would also add removing the mandates on insurance companies that prevents them from being sold across state lines. The more open a market is, the more the market will force the price down.

I would consider tort reform for medical malpractice in our (your) list as well. If the cost of the insurance for real medical malpractice goes down, the rates of the doctors providing the services will go down as well.

Congress had a chance to do all these things, and yet decided to go down the route that gives the most power to the federal government possible. I wonder why.