"Ruralization" as domestic policy...

Jambo's last made me think...

Look at what we've learned (and not just here at the Bund, but in general) since 2005... hell, you could take it as far back as you want! All the way back to the fall of Rome, if you choose... but we'll stick to 2005.

With the double-whammy of Katrina-Rita in '05 showing us just how painful it can be for large urban areas to adjust to zero infrastructure (New Orleans, Gulfort/Biloxi, and all areas in between) AND the 300% increase in crude oil prices just 3 years later, we have seen the value of "rural" infrastructure again in this nation.

Whether the infrastructure is simply slowed down by the market, or is removed entirely by a natural disaster, people can only walk so far to obtain the necessities of modern existence. Personally, I can state without hesitation that walking 8 blocks one-way to get my allotted 2-gallons of water per person is the absolute LIMIT of my capacity... even if the temperature isn't 96 degrees! Items like ice, water, bread, fresh produce, medicine, diapers, formula, etc. all may be something we need on a daily basis, and no functional public transportation or available fuel for personal vehicles could require us to have to walk to get it.

Far too much of America has become "automobile dependant" in this regard. Where I live now, we would have to travel no less than 6 miles one-way to gain even the most basic necessities, and as many as 11 miles for the less "basic" stuff. I am far enough out in the country to NEED to be self-sufficient for as much as 3 to 4 days between trips. How true is that for the MILLIONS of Americans that live amidst the urban sprawl of places like LA, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, and Miami? If there was no gasoline available for the average Joe, how far would they have to walk for water, ice and milk?

Without some means to produce electricity at home, my house is without water of any kind. that is the reason why I have considered many times paying the $600 to $1000 it would cost me to sink a second well on my property and have it hooked up to either an old-fashioned windmill or a hand-pump, so that in the event of power interruption, I could continue to draw water for the family and household.

Now, back to Jambo's point...

Do I think that the Federal Government should PAY to have this installed for me? No, I don't. First off, it would never happen... that kind of government spending program is beyond even the Democrat's ability to pass into law and still remain a functional program. Second of all... having the Fed's do it for me means that personal preferences that I may have are no longer applicable, and I want my preferences to remain foremost in the equation.

I DO think that this kind of "independence" should be promoted through the judicious application of tax relief and incentives, though. Let me deduct every dollar I spend on energy independence (on a personal level) from my taxes, and lower my State and county costs accordingly, and suddenly the prospect of spending $1000 of my hard-earned cash isn't so painful.

If a single 16'/sq solar panel can generate enough electricity to keep a fridge/freezer running all day and all night, and a "traditional" windmill can bring enough water out of a well to keep a house supplied with what it needs for the same period of time... that money should be 100% deductible because it keeps that house FUNCTIONAL in a time of crisis or emergency. As it stands now... my home is NON-FUNCTIONAL in the above stated emergency.

The PRIORITY as a nation should be energy independence... national and individual... and all means to gain that goal should be considered and discussed.