The biofuels from algae produce oil, not alcohol, just like the process that produced the fossil oil. Those algae grew/grow in water, and salt water at that, so biofuel from algae can be probably be adapted to the vast tropical mid oceans. The Pacific was called that because much the time it's peaceful, and is so vast that we know almost nothing about it. It was only recently that scientists even had a hint that there is a vast circulating basin in the middle which is sweeping up plastic debris and slowly breaking it up into fine particles that are becoming a plastic "blanket" which seems to be having an impact on the sea life that crosses that region. Who knows, that region might be a place where algae can be promoted to grown and then harvested for processing while capturing the plastics as well. Together they can be processed to extract the hydrocarbons to produce oil.

That biofuels are based on the crops used for foods is driven by the command economy driven more by conservatives than liberals to pick the winners that conservatives prefer. How many liberals think that ADM should profit from the biofuel emphasis on grain based ethanol? Let's use a fossil carbon tax to make alternatives like conservation, biofuels from non-food crops, wind, solar, etc more competitive, rather than having the conservatives working with moderates deciding who the winning corporations will be.

Or can you provide a justification for the boomers taking all the cheap to extract oil and then leaving all the very expensive to extract oil to their children and grandchildren? Are boomer so much more entitled to the cheap oil than future generations that the future cost of oil shouldn't be transferred to the present day so the boomers pay their fair share?

Well, oil doesn't count as new energy sources. Even if ANWR and every resort beach and every vacation destination national park were opened to unrestricted drilling, in a max of thirty years we would be exactly back where we are today, except there would be no wilderness left to claim will solve the energy crisis. And my guess is that the success of capitalism around the world, tapping ANWR and the prime Florida beaches would only spur increased consumption of oil in China, India, the rest of Asia, and Africa while doing little to reduce the price of gas.

Think of it, worldwide demand is increasing even at a world oil price that drives the US price of gas to $4 and the European price to $10, and what little reduction in oil consumption in the US and Europe has occurred is more than offset by increased consumption elsewhere even at $125 a barrel.

If I called for subsidizing the price of oil in China, India, and Africa, you would call me some sort of evil socialist or something, but you are calling for doing just exactly that, by having the American people give away whatever oil is under the remaining American owned land that hasn't been already opened up to the oil companies.

ANWR was bought by the American people, a long time ago, so either the oil under it doesn't belong to us because we didn't pay for it, or it belongs to us as much as it belongs to the American people of a century from now. With 90% of the lands of the American people already open to oil drilling, why do you think that the remaining 10% should be opened up today and denied to future generations?

I've added another, regressive tax that Is bumping SS down to number 2 spot. However it is probably more of a 1A, 1B thing.

I've been doing some analysis on Social Security. While I've been a critic in the past of the privatization I've come across a few ideas that you may agree with although they are more of ideas you'd think the Republicans are presenting.

First, name the most regressive of our tax methods....

property taxes with homestead protections(flat with cap)
social security, (flat with cap)
property taxes, (flat no cap)
sales tax, (flat no cap)
medicare, (flat no cap)
income(progressive)

lets say a hard working American who makes 90k a year working for Boeing has a stay at home wife and 2kids. He might actually get ahead of SS tax system but all of a sudden, bang, it is raised to 200K, like Clinton and Obama want. Now that guy has a long way to go to get ahead of that 6.2% flat tax, not to mention businesses will have to match that. I'm glad they want to "save" social security, BUTTTTTTT, who are they really helping. Think about it. I mean why not turn it upside down if they really wanted to help the little guy. For example don't start collecting until you've reached 100K, 200K?
See the point. Social Security, in its present form is the most regressive tax system we have. Saving it by raising the hurdle from 90 to 200K just locks in the regressive system for the better part of our working lives, thus ensuring the 6.2% you've been paying to some rich old retired person to keep collecting for the next 25 years of your working life. That is not helping you and I, the little guys of this world is it?

I guarantee you'll never hear a politician come out and say. Social Security is the most regressive tax system we have and we've got to change it for that reason.