The man who wants to be Speaker of the House, John Boehner, spoke out against Democratic leadership earlier this week. A string of cheap attacks and tired one-liners, Boehner’s diatribe was pure substance-free political posturing. He called for President Obama to fire his economic team, extend tax cuts for the wealthy and to put the brakes on spending. Lacking any shame, the congressman actually had the temerity to suggest the nation needs a “fresh start,” with “people willing to accept responsibility” in charge — as if he or any of his big-business Republican cronies have accepted one iota of blame for crashing the economy and killing millions of jobs, or for doing everything within their power to stall recovery.

The would-be Speaker, obviously intent upon leveraging public concern over jobs, used every opportunity to label the administration’s programs as “job-killing.”  Weaving the term into every topic, “job-killing tax hikes,” “job-killing regulations,” “job-killing agenda,” Boehner evoked the reaper 12 times in all. Condemning the recent $26 billion stimulus bill, Boehner stated that it, “funnels money to state governments in order to protect government jobs.” Of course, he was referring to 161,000 teacher jobs, as well as 158,000 jobs for police, firefighters and healthcare workers. But those jobs weren’t worth saving to John Boehner. He continued his criticism with, “Even worse, the bill is funded by a new tax hike that makes it more expensive to create jobs in the United States and less expensive to create jobs overseas,” which would be alarming — if it were true, which it’s not. His “job-killing tax hike” was actually the closing of a loophole that encouraged corporations to ship jobs overseas.

What Boehner did reveal of the Republican plan for creating jobs appeared to be vintage Bush. It’s the same old recipe that drove the nation off a cliff the last time around — more tax cuts for the rich and less regulation. Conveniently ignoring the fact that President Obama wants to extend the Bush cuts for everyone making under $250,000, Boehner told the crowd that, “Raising taxes on families and small businesses during a recession is a recipe for disaster — both for our economy and for the deficit. Period. End of story.” He’s right, so if he truly believes what he says, he should stop fighting for cuts for the top 2% and join the Democrats in providing relief to everyone else — including all but 2-3% of small businesses.

Boehner is truly a master at the art of double-talk. He claims to advocate for small business, stating that expiring the cuts for the top 2% would, “affect half of small business income.” But he fails to mention that the “half” he wants to protect are “small business” only in terms of the number of employees. Boehner’s half makes 50% of the money, but consists of the wealthiest hedge funds, law firms and lobbying outlets, and comprise no more than 3% of the actual small businesses.

Amongst the newly formed ranks of Republican deficit hawks, Boehner also called upon President Obama to, “submit to Congress for its immediate consideration an aggressive spending reduction package.”  Of course, being a good Republican, Boehner did specify that the freeze should only be for non-defense spending.  But that’s just the tip of his forked tongue. Avoiding the disproven claim that tax cuts pay for themselves, Boehner is left with no explanation for his logical inconsistency in demanding spending cuts to fight the deficit, yet supporting $678 billion in millionaire tax cuts to choke revenue.

One lie after another, Boehner’s critique of the Obama Administration was as fact-free as his economic plan for the future. But possibly his most egregious distortion was regarding the stimulus. A critic from the beginning, according to Boehner, the program, “has gotten us nowhere.” Sadly, many voters will believe this whopper, even though it has absolutely no basis in reality.

Perhaps Boehner had not yet read the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on the stimulus. The CBO analysis found that the stimulus had raised the GDP by 1.7% to 4.5% and increased the number of people employed by 1.4 to 3.3 million. In response to Boehner’s fallacious claim, Mark Zandi, former economic advisor to John McCain, took issue and stated that, “Without the stimulus spending, instead of a 9.5 percent unemployment rate, we’d have an 11.5 percent unemployment rate.”

But, the facts regarding jobs and unemployment really only scratch the surface. The real impact of the stimulus is still in process. It is creating jobs in the present, but it promises to create far more in the future. The program is investing in research and infrastructure, providing seed money to jump start alternative energy, modernize transportation, fund ground-breaking medical advancements and enhance technologies such as broadband and smart grids. And in so doing, the program is also transforming the way government works.

Ever the champion of the status quo, it’s easy to see why John Boehner doesn’t appreciate the progress funded by the stimulus. When Boehner says it, “has gotten us nowhere,” what he means is that it has prevented the huge drop in wages his corporate cronies so desperately desire, and that it’s also paving the road away from dependence on fossil fuels. A green America with well-paid Americans working in new industries is Boehner’s worst nightmare. He and his Republican brethren are just fine with things the way they are.

In Boehner’s own words, “It’s time to put grown-ups in charge,” and since it’s obvious that the congressman never even learned the most basic rules of adulthood, like telling the truth and practicing what you preach, he must not be referring to himself. So, let’s all hope he gets his way and voters make the intelligent choice in November —  they put the grown-ups in charge and vote Democrat.

Late last week, Presidents Obama’s panel to review the use of “clean coal” technology called for an active U.S. government role in promoting carbon capture and storage, or CCS. The panel, comprised of fourteen federal agencies/departments and other stakeholders, recommended that the federal government provide both financial and technical support to forward the use of CCS. Their report did identify issues with the technology, but advised to move forward with federal assistance, including the potential “transfer of liability to the federal government after site closure.”

But news for the coal industry isn’t all good. Oddly enough, while Washington seems to be convinced that the nation can effectively establish a “clean coal” infrastructure, Wall Street is working to curb the use of coal, or at least a large component of its mining.  According to Huffington Post, Wells Fargo recently became the “sixth major bank to curb its financial relationship with coal operators that practice mountaintop removal (MTR) mining.”

So, while the Obama administration is pushing for 10 “clean coal” projects to be built, Wall Street is effectively limiting the spread of environmentally damaging coal mining operations. It’s an odd mix to say the least. It’s certainly important to stop mountain top removal, but the issues surrounding the use of coal go far beyond just its mining. Coal is by far the dirtiest source of energy we have. EPA estimates put average carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions for coal at 2,249 lbs/MWh, which is nearly twice that of natural gas and even a third more than oil.

But, of course, coal also happens to be the least expensive fossil fuel, which is why it accounts for 56% of US electricity generation. So, in its “dirty” form, coal is a cost competitive source of energy, but when harm to the environment is considered, the scale starts tipping in the other direction.

The “solution” advertised for the dichotomy between the two faces of coal, the dirtiest and the cheapest source of energy, is purported to be “clean coal.” This oxymoronic nirvana is supposed to be reached through carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). It’s a great idea: we’ll just pump all that nasty C02 that’s emitted back under ground where it can’t do any harm . . . unless it leaks into the atmosphere, or contaminates the water supply, or causes geological instability. But at least it would be a way to effectively use our cheapest source of energy, right?

No, not really. The problem is that CCS technology is very expensive. In fact, coal power generation using CCS is, quite likely, the MOST EXPENSIVE alternative we have. The CCS technology actually makes the coal-based generation of electricity nearly half-again as expensive as solar. So, a nonrenewable energy source that’s very expensive and carries with it long term storage liabilities so serious that the private sector is unwilling to accept them — why would we even contemplate such an illusory solution?

Because that’s the way we do it in the good old U.S. of A, where protecting vested interests is job #1. In 21^st Century America, corporate profits are what drive the engines of government. And the 48-company, American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) is not about to give up its profits. The $57 billion they pocketed in 2007 may not be enough to fund CCS research, but it sure pays for a heap of advertising and lobbying.

Our nation does need to take into account the thousands of jobs provided by the coal industry across the 27 coal-mining states, but investment in CCS is not the path to take. The U.S. is at an energy crossroads, and investment in alternative sources is needed. That investment can either be directed toward extending the use of environmentally harmful sources or into the creation of renewable green technologies. Existing corporate profits aside, the choice is clear. It’s time to retrain America’s energy job force, redirect our energy investment and spending, and forge a path to energy independence and a clean energy economy.

“This BP oil spill is typical” of what happens when private industry is allowed to draw revenue on what should be a public good, Stone said.

“We shouldn’t make this kind of profit on oil or on health or on war or on prisons. All these industries should be public industries.”

Raphael G. Slatter, Huffington Post

I share Oliver Stone’s general sentiment. He’s right that, “We shouldn’t make this kind of profit on oil or on health or on war or on prisons. All these industries should be public industries.” In fact, the general rule should be that all non-discretionary industries are held publicly.

The free market does work, but its central thesis is based on the balance of supply and demand. And this “natural” balance is obviously lost when consumers have no real choice. Industries that are required for life in the modern age are ripe for abuse on the supply side, because demand is essentially fixed. Energy, healthcare, defense, and law enforcement all fit this paradigm, as does education.

Though it may sound corny, whenever I contemplate this situation, one of the Governator’s movies comes to mind — Total Recall. In that movie, business operatives run a colony on Mars, where they’ve constructed domed cities and they control the supply of air. It begs the question: what would be the market price for the oxygen we breathe?

Of course, Stone’s idea to nationalize oil is about far fetched as my Mars example (maybe more so). But there is another path that might actually be doable: don’t try to nationalize oil — make it obsolete. This could be accomplished through massive public investment in alternative energy. And oddly enough, it’s the right path for The People and the planet — imagine that!