I know the subject I'm about to discuss borders on Heinlein/Niven/Asimov far-out science fiction, but I'm being totally serious here, so let's all play devil's advocate.
Would you support a federally-funded project, comparable to the Apollo program, with the goal of creating a reactor that produces more energy than it consumes in operation, by the process of nuclear fusion?
Further, if you would support it, would you allow the project to be funded by diverting money from the budget for research into military technology?
Personally, I would like to see both, and justify my opinion on the latter question because I believe that achieving a feasible method of fusion power would reduce conflict over oil, natural gas, and uranium.
Why divert the money from the military?
The military is already doing this one:
<a href="http://iecfusiontech.blogspot.com/2009/01/easy-low-cost-no-radiation-fusion.html">Bussard's IEC Fusion Technology (Polywell Fusion) Explained</a>
<b>Why hasn't Polywell Fusion been fully funded by the Obama administration?</b>
First you produce the energy. Then you lower your shield and sheath your sword. Otherwise you may not have the resources to complete the project.
http://iecfusiontech.blogspot.com/2009/01/easy-low-cost-no-radiation-fusion.htm