Euro News: 'EU Unveils New Energy Strategy to End Gas Cuts'

Source:Euro News- Gunther Oettinger: EU Commissioner For Energy.

"Euronews is a pan-European pay television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and aimed to cover world news from a pan-European perspective.

It is jointly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations, and is currently majority-owned (88%) by Media Globe Networks, led by Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris, who is the chairman of the supervisory board. It is also a provider of live streaming world news, which can be viewed via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players." 

From Wikipedia 

"The EU has unveiled a new energy strategy it says will help it avoid possible shortages arising from gas disputes between Russia and Ukraine.  Europe imports more than 60 percent its gas, most of it from Russia.  

Brussels has long recognised the need to diversify sources after some EU countries suffered supply cuts during price rows between Moscow and Kiev. The Commission's energy chief Günther Oettinger said the new strategy would make the bloc's gas stocks less vulnerable to interruptions beyond its control. Euro News" 

From Euro News

I'm glad that the European Union has come out with their own energy policy which will be a big help for them and their economy as far as them being able to produce their only energy sources and creating jobs in Europe and putting Europeans to work. Which will also benefit their foreign policy and environmental policy as well, as fiscal policy, because it would get them off of foreign oil and gas or at least non- European oil and gas. 

The European Union is not technically a country, yet and it would also help their environmental policy, because it would allow them to use renewable energy sources creating an alternative energy industry in Europe. 

This would also help Europe's fiscal policy and allow them to pay down their debts and deficits, because this would be a boost to their economy with all of the jobs that they would create. This all sounds great right, but how is this great for America? 

I'm talking here about a European energy policy, not an American energy policy. The same benefits that could come to Europe because of this, could come to America as well. How long as a country have we've been talking about the need for a national energy policy: forty years. Ut goes back to the Nixon Administration with the 1973 Middle Eastern Oil Embargo. 

President Ford took up energy to a certain extent. President Carter had some success at getting some reforms in on conservation. And things like solar and wind. And President W. Bush managed to get an energy policy through Congress in 2005. That was mostly about oil and gas, at least it was American oil and gas, but mostly subsidy's to these company's that are already doing very well. 

But six years later we are still in this debate about having a national energy policy because we still don't have one. What we need is a comprehensive energy policy that moves America towards energy independence. We have the most natural resources in the world or we only trail Russia, but yet we aren't energy independent. Because we don't have a national energy policy, which is why we import oil and natural gas from other countries. Even though we have plenty of both to help move us towards energy independence. Not by themselves but part of a broader energy package. 

We have a whole menu of energy sources that we don't use that could also help move us towards energy independence. To go along with oil and gas but natural gas, clean coal, solar wind, nuclear, electricity, water. But we haven't developed these resources, which is why we are still dependent on foreign nations, because we don't have a national energy policy. 

And we also need to conserve more, use less of wasteful and dirty energy by taxing, perhaps taxing low mileage autos like SUV's. And perhaps subsidizing at least in the short-term clean energy that America has a market for and can help move us towards energy independence. 

An energy policy that moves you towards energy independence is just as beneficial in Europe as it's in America, as long as both have their own energy policy's. And develop their own energy sources. And if Europe can do this, then so can America which has a lot more natural resources.

American News Project: 'HUD's Affordable Housing Project'

Source:American News Project- public housing in America.

"As the Obama Administration plans to implement their recently signed $787 billion rescue plan, one of the areas they will immediately be forced to confront is the ongoing housing crisis.  The stimulus gives the Department of Housing and Urban Development $13.6 billion to address the needs of low-income families across the country. Experts say it's a good start, but new HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan is facing an enormous task, as he attempts to overhaul an agency that is facing years of neglect and mounting debt." 

From the American News Project

To me people living in public housing is just one step away from what I would call at least being level 4 Poverty. Level 4 poverty to me would be homeless people, people who can't afford a place to live and live on the streets or sometimes stay in a homeless shelter. Level 4 to me would be the worst level in poverty, the best being low-income workers. 

Some low-income workers live in public housing, others live in low-rent apartments in rough neighborhoods. A woman in this video said that she basically has lived most of her life in public housing. To me that just evidence of how much the War on Poverty has failed in America. That we would allow as a country for this to happen and not do anything or anything that would actually move these people out of poverty and into private affordable housing. 

To actually reduce poverty in America, that gets to things like  education and job placement so these people can get the skills that they need in order to get a good job and become self-sufficient. What we could've been doing the last forty plus years in public housing is helping these people get the skills that they need in order to get a good job, whether they are already working or not. Because a lot of these people are low-skilled. They either only have high school diploma's, but not college or vocational or didn't even finish high school. And we should've been sending these people back to school, including community college so they can get the skills that they need in order to get a good job and be self- sufficient. 

But thats just one failure in public housing which was part of the so-called Great Society legislation of the mid and late 1960s. The main failure gets to how it was designed and is very fundamental. The Federal Government figured that they could take essentially a community of low-income, low-skilled people and basically force them to live together in these run down public housing projects in rough neighborhoods. And left them there in these bad neighborhoods to raise their kids and send them to bad schools. Where they remained low-income and low-skilled. 

What we should've been doing all along and what we should be doing today is reforming public housing not only in a way that would empower the residents of public housing to finish school and further their education. So they can get a job that can support themselves and their families and become self- sufficient. And be able to pay for their own home or pay for the rent of their home on their own. 

But instead of creating more ghettos through government of all things, what we should be doing is integrate public housing residents into middle class communities. So these people can live in better communities and send their kids to better schools and find better jobs, etc, s well as living in safer communities. 

And then we need to get the Federal Government as well as state and local governments out of the business of public housing. And let them be there to regulate, but give the power to the people and let them run public housing. Turn it into a semi-private, non-profit community housing service. With each state and local government having their own chapters, but where private sector to an extent would run them. 

And these public housing projects could be paid for by the residents up to a point and then by their employers for the people who work. And Unemployment or Welfare or Disability Insurance for the people who don't work. 

Public Housing has succeeded in the sense that its prevented millions of people from having to be homeless. And perhaps all that it was designed for and to that extent it's been a success. But if the goal is to actually move people out of poverty and not just sustain them, then we need some serious reforms in public housing and are other public assistance programs.