Retrophisch

But the US already has the strongest military and finest intelligence services in the world (despite the failures that came to light after 9-11).

What's so wrong about wanting a national health plan that helps *everyone* instead of just the well-off?

And while Republicans continue to criticize the Federal government for "propping up the stock market", I certainly don't hear any complaints as it continues to subsidize the cost of a barrel of oil, which only increases our country's dependance on fossil-fuels by not encouraging alternate fuel sources.

Enlisted members of our military are on food stamps in some cases, thanks to the many defense cuts ramrodded through Congress during the Clinton administration. That doesn't make for a strong fighting force when soldiers and sailors have to worry about how their wives/husbands and children are going to eat.

Our intelligence services were likewise cut off at the knees by seeing their budgets shrink during the Clinton administration. Not to mention that the government of Sudan was willing to hand Osama bin Laden over to the Clinton administration, and made several offers between 1996 and 2000, all of which were rejected by an administration whose legacy lies in rubble in lower Manhatten, a repaired Pentagon, and a crater in Pennsylvania.

As far as health care goes, if you want affordable health care, then let's start by reforming the insurance industry, which has managed to strip physicians of a lot of their decision-making power, as well as their once high income. Believe it or not, doctors are not all running around in Beemers and Porsches these days; as interns and residents, most physicians are barely within the boundaries of the middle class. Cut the stranglehold of insurance on health care, as well as tort reform on frivolous malpractice lawsuits, and you'll see the cost of health care decline.

And where do you see the government subsidizing oil? According to the Washington Times, oil prices are soft because the U.S. market is adequately supplied with crude. Speaking of which, the Bush administration is stockpiling crude as part of the National Reserve in case of a war in Iraq, so that oil prices will remain low. Why would a government that is subsidizing crude essentially buy from itself? September and October OPEC production was the highest it has been all year. If the gov't is subsidizing oil, it's no different from the farm subsidies that should end as well.

I will agree that the government, whether Republican or Democrat, hasn't done enough to pursue greater fuel efficiency. The market in this case has been slow to drive the manufacturers to adopt more fuel-efficient technologies. MIT Technology Review recently had a good article on technologies under development that could be melded onto the existing combustion engine as we know it, but make an SUV or full-size pickup truck a 40-mile per gallon vehicle.

As for alternate fuel sources, none of them are ready for prime time. None offer the convenience for consumers that gasoline currently does, and convenience and price is what drives wide-spread adoption. Solar-powered vehicle batteries cannot hold the capacities most drivers require. Fully electric vehicles take too long to recharge. Natural gas-powered vehicles are probably the closest to their oil-powered counterparts, but most of these are fleet vehicles used by municipalities and the natural gas companies themselves. The best option for fuel efficiency right now are the hybrid vehicles that Honda and Toyota have rolled out, but those hybrids cannot produce the power required in a minivan, SUV, or truck.