Bush (and all other politicians) dissemble about everything. As far as healthcare costs go, consider the following: my 30 year old daughter retired to be a full time mother to her two sons. She lost her health insurance, and to get onto her husbands it would cost them $250 a month for a low deductible standard plan. I told her to investigate Health Savings Accounts (which Dems and other pseudo-socialists deplore). She got a $3000 deductible major med for $75 a month, and the ability to save $2500 tax free. The reason the Dems hate HSA's is that many insurance plans are controlled by unions. Relatives and cronies of the union leaders "manage" these plans. A lot of the money goes to Democrat politicians. I detest Bush as much as anyone, and the reason he likes HSA's is that it removes a lot money from the Dems. But HSA's are a good idea for 80% of the population. The other 20% need some social help, but that is no reason to punish the 80%. Since 100% coverage above the $3000 deductible costs only $75 a month, that is an indication that most health care money is for small things that we should pay for ourselves. I am on SS and I would love to have an HSA. My wife has a "low deductible" policy that cost us $4000 last year after all the copays and exclusions were factored in. In an HSA the deductible is the deductible. The amount you pay has been negotiated by your major med carrier, so you don't get screwed as the Dems would like you believe. They all dissemble and we get screwed, but what else is new?

Kempthorne is our governor, and although he is fully Republican (has to be to get elected in Idaho), he will probably not be an extremeist. He prides himself for his ability to bring various sides to the table and work out compromises. He is probably as good as we can get in a Bush administration. Despite the Bush administration's attempts, fewer snowmobiles are entering Yellowstone than are allowed. High fuel costs might have something to do with it. Four to five dollar gas will end motorized off-roading.

To hedgerowteacher et al who dismiss nuclear energy. The biggest opponents of nuclear power for the last 40 years have been the fossil fuel industry. Their profits would have been threatened. They coopted a bunch of non-technical greenies into buying their propaganda. I live within 40 miles of a site where over 50 nulcear reactors have operated. Even the liberals around here love nuclear power. For all intents and purposes there is an infinite supply of nuclear fuel in the world. It will not be expensive if lots of nukes built to standardized designs are built. The first nuclear power plant to produce "commercial" nuclear power was EBR-1 (experimental breeder reactor 1). It is now a national historic landmark 50 miles west of here. It produced power for the town of Arco Idaho 50 years ago. From concept to operating reactor took 26 engineers and technicians 18 months. All this talk of time and expense is crap. As fossil fuel goes up in cost other sources will come into place. Peak oil means that over the next hundred years energy will go up in price. As prices go up other forms of energy will become economic. We will probably never again have energy as cheap as we have had it. But we will learn to use less. For example, as soon as the present housing boom collapses I am going to add two inches of foam and stucco to the outside of my house, and install high efficiency windows. I will cut my Btu use in half. I'll probably still spend more, but not as much as I would have. My biggest concern is will I be able to afford to tow my sailboat to the lakes? It weighs 2500 lbs so a Prius won't cut it. OTOH I use less than 5 gallons of gas a year for the auxiliary outboard on it. Or I'll get a lighter boat that can be towed by an efficient hybrid. I believe that this type of concern will be more prevalent than the doomsday scenarios, at least for the next hundred years.

In the middle of the 6th century a million people lived in Rome. The Goths had conquered it, but it was still operational. However, the German tribes decided to do away with Rome, so they cut the aquaducts. Among those million people there was no one who could fix the aquaducts. Ten years later, the population was 10,000. What they really needed was a few good engineers and technicians, but all they had a bunch of religious fanatics and bureaucrats. Sound familiar? Rome also had gotten used to using paid mercenaries to staff their legions, instead of a citizen army. Sound familiar?

There are many ways to make liquid fuel from readily available raw materials. The common denominator is electricity. Fischer-Tropsch can make coal into CO and H2. These raw materials can be upgraded into long chain hydrocarbons. With lots of nuclear energy we can have lots of gasoline. It will be pricey, but available. Coal can also made into calcium carbide in an electric furnace. When calcium carbide reacts with water it makes acetylene. Acetylene, which has a triply unsaturated bond between the two carbons is easily polymerized into long chain hydrocarbons. So all you doomsayers are, as usual, full of it. We will have (pricey) liquid fuel for several more generations. at least. Germany was able to run its WW2 war machine on synthetic gasoline. Under far more benign circumstances we can do at least as well. However, SUV's and recreational use of fuel will probably go away.