Some States are windy, others sunny, yet others can harvest energy from ocean waves. Most states can drill for geothermal energy. Others may want to capitalize irrigation to switch to switch grass from corn for biofuel.
All these technologies and business plans have known and well defined payback periods.
The cost of borrowing money has, and will never again be, this cheap.
It is folly not to grab this opportunity for everyone to share in the profit and risks of becoming energy sufficient—sustainably for the environment and the country.
The Federal Government is too big and inefficient to administer anything other than the lending facility to initiate such a wide sweeping endeavor.
The States can best choose the efficient and just distribution of funding. This will create millions of jobs that cannot be outsourced and bring American pride back to our communities. All communities.
[Editor Note: The CAUSE Panel for Competitive Commerce is a greater model for States to follow to spread the risk and profit opportunities from this sensible Federal largesse.]
Please bring up points that were missed, elaborate on issues not fleshed out, add ways to make the idea/bill better, suggest a companion for GREATER Raters to consider. Please check your facts, grammar, syntax, punctuation, credit sources and quotes, and keep it under 500 words unless you absolutely cannot—then never more than 700 words. Please keep your criticism constructive. We will likely not print destructive criticism although a well written partisan rant bringing up new issues in the idea/bill or previous Op-eds may be accepted if it ends on a constructive note—especially if it offers an alternative idea/bill.
Shorter "letters" are encouraged that bring a new facet to the subject. The intent of the Op-eds is to fully cover the issue for the kind reader to consider before rating, and not waste their time with redundancy or the dreaded—"people-screaming-at-one-another-while-wearing-earplugs-syndrome." Think of the idea/bill as the base with the Op-eds stacked on top to form a structurally sound argument. The goal here is to have a GREATER US for the greatest number of citizens/neighbors. We may publish your piece without notice—so please only submit completed articles. We may, also, contact you for a rewrite or edit. We might even offer suggestions. It is our intention to fairly present the views of fiscal conservatives, independents, and social liberals—to find the overlap of whole-hearted support (nonpartisan) plus the commonality of the "I-can-live-with-that" (bipartisan).