The greatest stimulus package that would create millions of new jobs, revitalize the economy, and provide a more secure national security is for the government to concentrate its efforts on making the U.S. more energy independent.

Energy independent does not just mean cutting down on our dependency on foreign fossil fuel. It means cutting our reliance on fossil fuel dramatically and eventually altogether.

The oil spill in the Gulf is just one example of a growing number of examples of how our dependency on fossil fuels is destroying our global environment.

Drilling for more oil whether on shore or off shore or squeezing more oil out of rocks only puts off the job that needs to be done. First step is to diversifythis planet’s energy portfolio, phase out fossil fuels and hopefully enjoy a more healthier planet. The only limiting factor is the lack of imagination and the lack of will to change the present deadly status quo of harming the environment.

According to Growth Energy, a coalition of U.S. ethanol supporters, a  new energy bill introduced by Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) will add to the beginning of that process of  realizing energy independence as it includes stronger vehicle fuel standards and a mandate for Flex Fuel Vehicles.

“An energy bill that supports the expanded production and use of Flex Fuel Vehicles is the only way that our nation will be able to kick our addiction to oil and decrease the impact it has on our economy, our environment and our national security,” said Growth Energy CEO Tom Buis.

According to Growth Energy, almost eight million vehicles on U.S. highways are flexible fuel vehicles, out of over 246 million vehicles on the road. The Lugar bill requires that up to 90 percent of all new vehicles sold in the United States be flex-fuel capable. This commitment will help ensure that we meet Congress’ goal of 36 billion gallons of biofuel production by 2022 as enacted in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, Buis said.

“If we are truly going to meet our nation’s renewable fuel goals and substantially reduce our dependence on foreign oil, we need to invest in policies like these that will bring our entire vehicle fleet up to modern engine standards, and open the market to more ethanol,” Buis said.

.

The USDA reported  in its Expenditures on Children by Families annul report that a middle-income family with a child born in 2009 can expect to spend about $222,360 ($286,050 if inflation is factored in) for food, shelter, and other necessities to raise that child over the next 17 years.

But after their raise look what those young ones have to look forward to paying off the national debt which now stands at more than $13 trillion.

According to the National Debt Clock, the estimated population of the United States is 308,529,76 so each citizen’s share of this debt is $42,328.70.The National Debt has continued to increase an average of $4.11 billion per day since September 28, 2007, according to the website.

The USDA’s report goes on to say that the increase is less than a 1 percentfrom 2008, the smallest increase this decade, which likely reflects the state of the economy.

According to the report:

* Expenses for child care, education, and health care saw the largest percentage increases related to child rearing from 2008, whereas expenses on transportation actually declined. This decline in transportation expenses on a child mitigated the increases in the other expenses.

 The report by USDA’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion said that family income affects child rearing costs. A family earning less than $56,670 per year can expect to spend a total of $160,410 (in 2009 dollars) on a child from birth through high school. Parents with an income between $56,670 and $98,120 can expect to spend $222,360 and a family earning more than $98,120 can expect to spend $369,360. In 1960, a middle-income family could have expected to spend $25,230 ($182,860 in 2009 dollars) to raise a child through age 17.

Housing costs are the single largest expenditure on a child, averaging $70,020 or 31 percent of the total cost over 17 years, according to the report. Child care and education (for those with the expense) and food were the next two largest expenses, accounting for 17 and 16 percent of the total expenditure. The estimates do not include the costs associated with pregnancy or the cost of a college education. In addition, some current-day costs, such as child care, were negligible in 1960.

The report said thatexpenses per child decrease as a family has more children. Families with three or more children spend 22 percent less per child than families with two children. As families have more children, the children can share a bedroom, clothing and toys can be handed down to younger children, food can be purchased in larger and more economical packages, and private schools or child care centers may offer sibling discounts.
 The full report, Expenditures on Children by Families (2009), is available on the web at www.cnpp.usda.gov.

With the U.S. Senate prepares to vote this week on a resolution to block the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant and the natural disaster taking place in the Gulf of Mexico with million of gallons of oil destroying the environment, the public is demanding action that the government take a more hard line regulatory stand on man-made environmental pollution.

Researchers at Yale and George Mason Universities has released a recent poll showing that 61 percent of the American public believing that global warming is happening, while belief that it is caused mostly by human activities rising  three points, to 50 percent. The number of Americans who worry about global warming rose three points, to 53 percent. And the number of Americans who said that the issue is personally important to them rose five points, to 63 percent.

“The stabilization and slight rebound in public opinion is occurring amid signs the economy is starting to recover, along with consumer confidence, and as memories of unusual snowstorms and scientific scandals recede,” said Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. “The BP oil disaster is also reminding the public of the dark side of dependence on fossil fuels, which may be increasing support for clean energy policies.”

Americans who said President Obama and Congress should make developing sources of clean energy a high priority increased 11 points, to 71 percent, while those who said that global warming should be a high priority rose six points, to 44 percent. In a seven-point increase since January, 69 percent of Americans said that the United States should make a large or medium effort to reduce global warming even if it incurs large or moderate economic costs.

Current public support for specific policy options (and changes since January, 2010) include:

• 77 percent support regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant (+6)
• 87 percent support funding more research into renewable energy sources (+2)
• 83 percent support tax rebates for people who buy fuel-efficient vehicles and solar panels (+1)
• 65 percent support signing an international treaty that requires the United States to cut its emissions of carbon dioxide 90 percent by the year 2050 (+4)
• 61 percent support requiring electric utilities to produce at least 20 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources, even if it cost the average household an extra $100 per year (+2)
• Support for expanding offshore drilling for oil and natural gas off the U.S. coast fell to 62 percent (-5)

“More than seven out of 10 Americans say the United States should take action to power our nation with clean energy,” said Edward Maibach, director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. “Even more Americans support regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant, including 64 percent of Republicans.”

FACT: One tomato travels over 1,500 miles to end up in the produce aisle at your nearest grocery store; on the other hand, if you buy from local farmers that tomato only has to travel about 60 miles.

Small- and medium-size Nebraska farms are ripe to be major fruit and vegetable producers, especially with the access to good groundwater sources. On Tuesday, a panel of farmers told a Senate Agriculture Committee that mid-sized farms connected to local and regional marketing chains “offer a tremendous engine for economic growth in rural communities.”

That could literally save billions of dollars in fuel and transportation costs annually, along with adding value to local rural economies by keeping those dollars local.

“Mid-sized farms can produce at a scale and with an agility that is attractive to institutional and wholesale markets particularly when those markets are differentiating their products as local, organic, grass fed or family farm raised,” said Ferd Hoefner Policy Director at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) one of the sponsors of the briefing.  “These value based supply chains provide much better income opportunities for mid-sized farmers than the raw commodity market.”

While the number of very small farms and very large farms and ranches has increased over the last decade, Hoefher said mid –sized farms continue to disappear.