Early in 2008, economist Lawrence Lindsey published a book titled What a President Should Know … But Most Learn Too Late. Though Lindsey, along with coauthor Marc Summerlin, had worked in the George W. Bush White House, the book sought to give advice that could be useful to a president of either party, on matters of policy and management alike. I wrote a positive review for the New York Post, which appeared in truncated form.
Overall, though, What a President Should Know didn’t get too much attention, and I think it’s a safe bet that Barack Obama never read it. And that’s too bad, because some of Lindsey’s advice would’ve spared Obama, and the American public, from some needless, counterproductive aggravation.
In particular, Obama would’ve benefited from a memo from Lindsey (much of the book is in the form of memos) titled “Unsolvable Problems: Pick One and Solve It.” Lindsey advised the incoming president that certain problem areas — such as energy, health care and education — have been intractable because they are loaded with unavoidable tradeoffs (cheap energy versus clean energy, for example).
The memo explained: “You have a fundamental choice between conserving your political capital by doing something small in a variety of areas to make it look like you are addressing problems or actually making one big step toward solving one of these unsolvable problems.” Lindsey recommended the latter: “picking one key problem that you care a lot about and throwing all your energies into it.”
Obama, by contrast, has been trying to bring about major change in both energy policy (with the cap-and-trade proposal, now languishing in the Senate) and healthcare policy (with Obamacare , now being shouted down in town halls), on top of his massive stimulus spending (which the public seems to want stopped). In so doing, Obama has spread his political capital thin, let his energies dissipate and largely left it to Congress to figure out what’s going to be in all this landmark legislation.
Lindsey offered no opinion as to which problem area to prioritize, but his most compelling policy suggestion was on energy: impose a straightforward carbon tax, rather than the inefficient and hidden tax that is a cap-and-trade system. A carbon tax has merit on environmental, national-security and fiscal grounds, plus the benefit that it’s harder for special interests to manipulate than cap-and-trade. But since it’s clearly a tax, it would require some heavy spending of political capital to get enacted.
Being an idea backed by various free-market conservatives, a carbon tax would’ve gotten Obama some diverse ideological support. Or perhaps he might have focused on healthcare, but with some emphasis on trying to clear away regulatory burdens and perverse tax incentives rather than just expanding government. If Obama had focused on one big thing, rather than multiple big things, he would have alleviated fears that his overarching aim is to build up big government. On the other hand, Republicans can count themselves fortunate that Obama evidently did not read What a President Should Know.
62 responses so far
1 ottovbvs // Aug 17, 2009 at 2:11 pm
….Of course if Obama had written the healthcare bill which it would have been easy to do then Silber would have been screaming about him ramming it down the throat of congress……..perhaps he’ll give us that tune in October when the bill comes out conference looking awfully like the bill Obama would have written…….It would have been much tidier for Obama to write the healthcare bill but he’s taken the strategically right course in leaving it to congress……this analysis is basically for far right conservatives and 15 year olds
2 kensilber // Aug 17, 2009 at 2:23 pm
this analysis is basically for far right conservatives and 15 year olds
If there is clamor among far right conservatives for a carbon tax, I have missed it. As for 15 year olds, I welcome their support.
Ken Silber
3 balconesfault // Aug 17, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Well, the problem is that Obama considers all these issues critical to an overriding economic policy. Cap-and-trade or carbon tax or whatever is viewed as critical not only for long-term environmental concerns, but also for helping develop energy production means which will reduce the level of dependence on foreign oil (and increasingly, gas) and insulate us somewhat from global oil price fluctuations … and in addition Obama clearly favors cap-and-trade over a carbon tax because it has greater promise for stimulating innovative technologies which may not simply help compliance, but also end up being globally marketable (and thus promote future economic development).
Similarly, Obama clearly stated during the campaign that he considered healthcare reform to be a critical portion of any economic plan.
Four years from now, we will have some benefit from the targeted spending in the stimulus package that helps our global competitiveness. But healthcare costs will still be taking a greater and greater portion of people’s paychecks, and we’ll be dealing with an increasingly worse trajectory for climate change. At that point, I’m personally not going to be blaming Obama for having tried to get Congress off their asses to deal with all those issues at once.
4 barker13 // Aug 17, 2009 at 3:41 pm
“…on energy: impose a straightforward carbon tax, rather than the inefficient and hidden tax that is a cap-and-trade system. A carbon tax has merit on environmental, national-security and fiscal grounds, plus the benefit that it’s harder for special interests to manipulate than cap-and-trade. But since it’s clearly a tax, it would require some heavy spending of political capital to get enacted.”
Yes. You’re right in terms of pragmatic politics. You’re right on policy too – to the extent that we’re talking “either/or.”
I’ve got a better idea, though! How’bout… NO CARBON TAX…??? Period! No carbon tax period!
Anyway… that’s my position.
What’s your position on the policy specific itself, Ken?
BILL
5 Rodak // Aug 17, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Some on the right want to brand Obama as a dictator, while simultaneously chiding him for weak leadership. There’s no there there; it’s pure partisanship.
6 balconesfault // Aug 17, 2009 at 3:50 pm
rodak – spot on. It’s like complaining one day that he hasn’t actually proposed his own healthcare bill … while standing poised to attack for him for dictating to Congress if he did.
Hell, Limbaugh accuses Obama of “rul(ing) by dictate” like “Hitler” even when he’s just telling Congress to bring a bill to him.
All I can say is that we produce some fairly milquetoast Hitlers over here. Just one more place where German engineering seems to produce a more powerful product.
7 kensilber // Aug 17, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Bill — I’m in favor of a carbon tax.
Rodak and Balconesfault — you’re right; claims that Obama is a dictator are ludicrous.
Ken S.
8 ottovbvs // Aug 17, 2009 at 4:01 pm
kensilber // Aug 17, 2009 at 2:23 pm
………As must have been fairly obvious from the content of the comment I was addressing the issue of the healthcare bill……to be honest I’m not really much of an expert on the cap and trade bill so would hesitate to engage on it…..as for the 15 year olds I wouldn’t count them judging by way the youth vote is going!!
Ottovbvs
9 ottovbvs // Aug 17, 2009 at 4:10 pm
balconesfault // Aug 17, 2009 at 3:50 pm
” All I can say is that we produce some fairly milquetoast Hitlers over here. Just one more place where German engineering seems to produce a more powerful product.”
………There’s a whole discussion to be had on why Hitler exercises such a fascination……after all in the murder stakes he’s behind Stalin……I put it down to three factors: the fairy tale nature of his ascent; his responsibility for launching the most murderous war in history; and most important of all the theatricality of his regime…….It had a sort of showbiz quality about it that Stalin’s just didn’t possess……..any other theories?
10 barker13 // Aug 17, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Re: Kensilber // Aug 17, 2009 at 3:55 pm (#7) –
“Bill — I’m in favor of a carbon tax.”
Thanks for promptly and honestly answering the question.
So far this thread hasn’t taken off. I’m hopeful though! (Hey, Rodak! Great to see you here!)
So… assuming we can get some more of the regulars (as well as newbies) to give a straight yes or no…
Well folks…??? Who’s in favor of a carbon tax and who’s opposed.
So far we have Ken in favor… me opposed.
Just a simple “yea” or “nay.” Com’on folks… let’s get your votes recorded!
BILL
11 balconesfault // Aug 17, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Otto – Cap and Trade is a more subjective control methodology … but as such, it is one capable of producing both much greater carbon reductions, and much greater economic efficiencies in reaching those reductions. In addition, it creates much greater incentives for stimulating innovative energy production and emissions control technologies.
The reason is because the marginal costs of reducing CO2 emissions varies by industry … and the amount of CO2 produced versus overall company economics varies greatly by industry … and global competition decides how much of the cost can be passed through to competitors.
12 balconesfault // Aug 17, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Carbon tax, good. Cap and trade, better.
Otto – remember that Hitler was expansionist in a way that Stalin never envisioned. Sure, Stalin was happy to gobble up Eastern Europe after WWII settled, but he never incorporated those into the USSR. The Russians, arguable, just want security – there was a goal of exporting communism globally because there is a theory in communism that no communist country is going to be stable (and thus able to dismantle the state military and security apparatus) until capitalism is eliminated – but really they’d been run over by Napoleon in the 1800’s and trounced soundly in WWI and invaded again by Germany in WWII – the first and last causing massive loss of life and destruction of Russian property – and they just wanted a nice buffer that they could control around their borders.
Hitler, on the other hand, wanted an empire, a Reich. No pretense or ideology of just controlling enough territory to ensure Germany’s security – but expansion projected as far as possible. Hitler was more a threat to others (in which he included native born Jews and gypsies) … while Stalin was more a threat to Russians.
13 ottovbvs // Aug 17, 2009 at 4:45 pm
balconesfault // Aug 17, 2009 at 4:23 pm
…….So the argument is that it’s a more efficient market based solution(I take the point about marginal cost)…….so why are Republicans opposed to it apart from the fact they’re opposed to everything…..why would Silber prefer a straightforward tax……..On the hedgehog/Fox principle that I’d rather know quite a bit about one thing I’ve never taken much interest in this issue
14 ottovbvs // Aug 17, 2009 at 4:51 pm
balconesfault // Aug 17, 2009 at 4:30 pm
“remember that Hitler was expansionist in a way that Stalin never envisioned.”
…………Well Stalin didn’t need to be did he…..he was already sitting on the largest country in the world and couldn’t really develop it…….Expansionism per se couldn’t really have been it…..the Japanese were just as expansionist as Hitler but don’t exercise the same hold on the imagination
15 kensilber // Aug 17, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Balconesfault and Ottovbvs (and anyone else) –
No, I don’t agree that cap and trade is a more efficient solution. Neither did the CBO in its report “Policy Options for Reducing Co2 Emissions , and nor do most economists focused on the issue, as far as I can tell. Some of the arguments pro and con are here.
Cap and trade has numerous problems, including that it creates opportunities for special interests to negotiate favors behind the scenes (like getting the allowances for free!) and that it creates uncertainties as to what the price of carbon will be over time, muddying the incentives.
Ken S.
16 ottovbvs // Aug 17, 2009 at 5:10 pm
balconesfault // Aug 17, 2009 at 4:30 pm
“Carbon tax, good. Cap and trade, better”
………Btw in the broader strategic sense I don’t think Silber could not be more wrong…..If you want to tick off Obama’s broad strategic priorities he’s either winning or has buttressed the situation so he can come back to it later….in order of priority
1. Stabilize the financial system and rebuild business confidence…..done
2. Return real economy to sustainable growth path……done
3. Stabilize and expedite withdrawal from Iraq……underway
4. Prevent Afghanistan from spiralling out of control…..buttressed
5. Mend fences with major allies………done
6. Pass major healthcare reform bill…….underway 90% chance of success
7. Mend fences with other major powers notably Russia/China…..buttressed
8. Prevent Arab/Israeli conflict from spiralling out of control…..buttressed
9. Pass cap and trade bill on emissions……..underway 70% chance of success
10. Contain Iranian and N. Korean situations……buttressed
11. Mend fences with UN and other lesser muslim states…..done
12. Confirm he has capacity and temperament to govern…..done
17 ottovbvs // Aug 17, 2009 at 5:18 pm
kensilber // Aug 17, 2009 at 4:58 pm
“Some of the arguments pro and con are here”
……….I’ll read your link…….you know I was in the oil business until about 20 years ago……..production, logistics and mainly marketing (never refining) but this was not really on my radar 20 years ago except in a very general sense ……..other environmental issues yes but not this……funny isn’t it
18 sinz54 // Aug 17, 2009 at 5:18 pm
ottovbvs sez: “It had a sort of showbiz quality about it that Stalin’s just didn’t possess……..any other theories?”
Yes. Though we don’t like to admit it to ourselves, Hitler’s regime speaks to something deep in our hearts:
The ability to lift up a dispirited nation. The ability to set a course and get everyone behind it, all happily united toward a common goal. The ability to crush our enemies without mercy (whoever your particular enemies happen to be).
Don’t you find that viscerally appealing, at the very deepest level of your soul? I do. I’m not ashamed to admit it. Intellectually, I know what’s wrong with it, so I would NEVER consciously choose that course–but it speaks to the beast within all of us. It strikes a chord that we all know is there, but don’t like to admit is there.
It’s the same reason why films like “Conan the Barbarian” were so popular.
And it’s the same reason why theologians of all major religions have constantly warned against temptation by Satan–because Satan is tempting.
BTW: Since Obama has hung back in the rear and refused to commit himself to ANY specifics such as the public option, he’ll take credit for whatever gets passed by Congress, even if it’s co-ops instead of the public option, even if it’s neither. No matter what they pass, as long as it’s something, he’ll NEVER go before the American people and admit he fell short.
But we’ll all know.
19 sinz54 // Aug 17, 2009 at 5:23 pm
I’ve always supported a carbon tax.
Even liberals admit that Obama’s decision to give away cap-and-trade permits to various industries was blatant corporate welfare and political pork, to avoid losing the Midwest (which is heavily dependent on coal) in future elections.
20 sinz54 // Aug 17, 2009 at 5:28 pm
ottovbvs: The website PolitiFact.com (a service of the Congressional Quarterly) has been keeping score on Obama’s promises, how he’s done on fulfilling them. He made a couple hundred promises, so I don’t want to post the full list here. Anyone who’s interested can go here:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
I’m not really interested, since to most Americans, they don’t have equal weight. Whether Obama has improved relations with Lower Slobbovia is insignificant compared to the whether he’s reduced the unemployment rate to acceptable levels by 2010.
21 ottovbvs // Aug 17, 2009 at 5:35 pm
sinz54 // Aug 17, 2009 at 5:18 pm
“Don’t you find that viscerally appealing, at the very deepest level of your soul? ”
………..I entirely see the appeal of Hitler to the Germans in the late 20’s early thirties……always have……and I’m not ashamed to admit it…….given the experiences Germany had between 1914 and 1924 and then again after 1929 I might have been cheering Hitler too…….Of course he never got more than about 42% of the vote in a free election but once he was in power with the collusion of the army and the right no one could really do anything outside of the army…… and once in power he put Germany back to work……who cared what you were doing you had a job…….and then came triumph after triumph all supported by massive propaganda…….tearing up the treaty of Versailles…..re-occupation of the Rhineland……the anschluss with Austria…….the reduction of Czecho…..all the color, bands excitement…….parades…..battleships sliding down the slipways…..who wouldn’t think he was a god?…….and if you didn’t you kept it to yourself because someone might inform on you……who was going to be a hero and help that Jewish family down the street……and anyway the Fueher had said they were the author of Germany’s problems.
22 ottovbvs // Aug 17, 2009 at 5:37 pm
sinz54 // Aug 17, 2009 at 5:28 pm
” I’m not really interested, since to most Americans, they don’t have equal weight. ”
……..Really?…….So why the hell do you think I posted them in order of priority ….duh!
23 sinz54 // Aug 17, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Ottovbs: Your personal priorities are your own personal opinions.
Just asking folks what their own priorities on issues would be would spark a whole discussion in itself.
Or check the polls.
24 ottovbvs // Aug 17, 2009 at 5:55 pm
sinz54 // Aug 17, 2009 at 5:44 pm
“Ottovbs: Your personal priorities are your own personal opinions.’
………What is wrong with you Sinz…..you correctly said not all issues are of the same importance….I AGREE WITH YOU……that’s why I assigned them an order of priority which is judgmental but as you said fixing the economy is more important than relations with lower Svobodia…..that’s why the economy was 1 and 2 and Svobodia is 11 ……you can’t stand being made to look a fool can you……it’s a hell of weakness you know
25 barker13 // Aug 17, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Re: Balconesfault // Aug 17, 2009 at 4:30 pm (#12) –
“Carbon tax, good. Cap and trade, better.”
Although you’re of course wrong on both points (*SMILE*) I appreciate the straight answer.
Re: Sinz54 // Aug 17, 2009 at 5:23 pm (#19) –
“I’ve always supported a carbon tax.”
Figures. (*SMILE*) But as with Balc, I congratulate and thank you for giving a straight answer to a straight question.
Unless someone cross posts with me, this post is #25. Of these 25 comments, 10 are Otto’s.
I find it troubling that threads like this one which actually focus on policy and try to come up with solutions – actual policy prescriptions – fair so poorly here at NM.
BILL
26 ottovbvs // Aug 17, 2009 at 6:19 pm
barker13 // Aug 17, 2009 at 6:10 pm
“Unless someone cross posts with me, this post is #25. Of these 25 comments, 10 are Otto’s’
………Glad to see you’re still reading me so assiduously Baarking…..this makes it 11..bada booom
27 midcon // Aug 17, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Cap and trade has the advantage of promoting the reduction of emissions. A carbon tax may or may not do the same. It’s somewhat like a carrot and stick with cap and trade the carrot and a carbon tax the stick. I am in favor of using the carrot approach while holding the stick in my hand in case I need to use it. I would also specify a period within which we must see results and could be talked into an automatic stick (carbon tax) if the results are not demonstrated.
So, cap and trade for me – but, I’m not letting go of the stick either.
28 barker13 // Aug 17, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Re: Midcon // Aug 17, 2009 at 6:53 pm (#27) –
Interesting.
Hmm… so far I’m alone. A bit disconcerting on a site that claims to be “Republican,” but these are indeed strange times. (*GRIN*) (*WINK*)
BILL
29 sdspringy // Aug 17, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Otto’s dream:
1. Stabilize the financial system and rebuild business confidence (no new regulations, only 16% of stimulus spent, only stabilization is the ownership of the auto industry)
2. Return real economy to sustainable growth path ( bet you are not invested in stocks yet, because I know You know this economy will drop farther)
3. Stabilize and expedite withdrawal from Iraq(Everything for Iraq in place under Bush, Obama made NO signification change)
4. Prevent Afghanistan from spiralling out of control(troop casualties starting to climb, lets talk 3 years from now, and see if you are not pulling a Reid, “We can’t win this war”.)
5. Mend fences with major allies( I seriously doubt that the apology tour accomplished anything)
6. Pass major healthcare reform bill ( I agree the Dems will pass something that will kill them in 2010)
7. Mend fences with other major powers notably Russia/China( I am sorry, oh so sorry)
8. Prevent Arab/Israeli conflict from spiralling out of control( Israeli hates Obama, doubt he will say he is sorry)
9. Pass cap and trade bill on emissions( this bill will not pass the senate)
10. Contain Iranian and N. Korean situations(both nuclear, both firing missiles as fast as they make em, great job)
11. Mend fences with UN and other lesser muslim states(OOHH the UN, be still my beating heart, the UN is a pathetic joke)
12. Confirm he has capacity and temperament to govern( Cuts a back room deal with Pharma, refuses to release closed door meeting minutes, the left is comparing Obama to Cheney, Obama can lie to you face, “You will be able to keep your current Insurance and Doctor” and keep smiling. Perfect temperament)
As for Cap&Trade, it is a rigged game for the money boys. When enacted as a result of Koyto Accords in Germany and Britian the result was NO drop in CO2 emissions and a 50% increase in utility expense in each country.
I work in the power industry. Wind and solar will never, as currently designed, keep up with even the grow of electricity demand. Let alone supply the base requirement. Currently coal and nuclear plants supply the vast majority demand. Unles you are willing to live without lights or cell phone chargers you better hope more coal or nuke plants are built, especially if you live on either of the coasts.
30 Carbon Tax Center » Obama Getting Big Things (Including Cap-Trade) Wrong // Aug 17, 2009 at 10:18 pm
[...] Getting Big Things (Including Cap-Trade) Wrong (Ken Silber on David Frum’s blog) Filed under Cap-and-Trade, Carbon Tax, News, [...]
31 Rodak // Aug 18, 2009 at 5:10 am
I have long had a liberal, knee-jerk, “China Syndrome” objection to nuclear energy. That position seems no longer to be sustainable. With coal, however (even though more coal burning would go a long way toward constituting an economic fix for the region of the country in which I’m currently exiled), there are multiple problems over and above that of carbon emissions. Those would need to be carefully addressed before taking that route for economic reasons. Money isn’t everything.
32 balconesfault // Aug 18, 2009 at 6:24 am
sdspringy: As for Cap&Trade, it is a rigged game for the money boys. When enacted as a result of Koyto Accords in Germany and Britian the result was NO drop in CO2 emissions and a 50% increase in utility expense in each country.
Really? You’re in the utility industry, and you’re surprised that Great Britain – which passed their cap and trade bill less than a year ago – has been spending money on GHG reductions, and hasn’t yet seen significant results? Exactly how long do you believe it takes for major capital investment projects to be completed?
And three years ago, Germany decided to exempt their coal industry from GHG regulations. It’s pretty well known that coal is one of the worst actors in terms of CO2 per BTU.
I understand why there are concerns with Cap and Trade – it does end up requiring additional government rulemaking in the allocation of caps between various industries, and that has the potential to cause distortions in the marketplace (although various tax cut/tax credit schemes I see floated by Republicans all the time that favor one industrial sector or another do exactly the same thing).
The problem with a carbon tax is that most Americans will immediately see a big jump in the pump price as soon as it is implemented. I’m actually ok with that, because the only way a majority of Americans will ever make lifestyle decisions to conserve oil will be if they have direct reinforcement a few times a week when they fill up. But politicians are always going to be undisciplined … and to a significant degree, economically illiterate … on gas taxes. Hell, look at a year ago when oil prices spiked, and you had McCain AND Hillary both trying to garner votes by calling for a repeal of our very low gas tax. Even though it’s most likely the reality that keeping the tax in place was a factor in getting Americans to cut gas consumption by about 5% last year, which has significantly driven down the price of global oil.
33 joedee1969 // Aug 18, 2009 at 7:48 am
We have to watch when we speak out against “The One”, some people might not like it:
http://americaspeaksink.com/2009/08/i-disagree-therefore-i-am-a-racist/
34 ottovbvs // Aug 18, 2009 at 8:11 am
sdspringy // Aug 17, 2009 at 8:02 pm
“no new regulations, only 16% of stimulus spent, only stabilization is the ownership of the auto industry)”
……..Anyone who thinks the banking system isn’t stabilized need to read a newspaper
“( bet you are not invested in stocks yet, because I know You know this economy will drop farther)”
……..On the contrary I jumped back in big time when the Dow was a whisker below 7000 so I’ve made a lot of money …..it’s now at around 9000 and my expectation is we’re going to see maybe at worst a mild correction or at best tread water until end of September and then it goes to 10,0000!!!
” Everything for Iraq in place under Bush, Obama made NO signification change)”
………..this is and always was a fiasco…….current bombing deaths are running at around 200 a month….you can’t make a silk purse out a sows ear……Bush had not committed to 100% withdrawal
“troop casualties starting to climb, lets talk 3 years from now, and see if you are not pulling a Reid, “We can’t win this war”.)”
……..yes another Bush fiasco to be cleaned up……..we can’t win this but the situation has been stabilized because it was showing signs of going completely off the road last year….it’s the best you can hope for……we’ll be out of there in three years time
……….Since the rest of your stuff is veering off into silliness I’ll leave it there
35 barker13 // Aug 18, 2009 at 8:15 am
Re: Sdspringy // Aug 17, 2009 at 8:02 pm (#29) –
So is that a “no” on both Cap & Trade and on a carbon tax?
(And yes… of COURSE Cap & Trade is a “game” – a rigged game by the very nature of these things. This is why I’m admittedly surprised that Mid would favor it.)
Re: Rodak // Aug 18, 2009 at 5:10 am (#31) –
Rodak. Should I take it that if it’s a tax you’re for it and leave it at that? (*GRIN*) Seriously… “yea” on Cap & Tade, “yea” on a carbon tax – or would you oppose either.
* Back to SD –
“Unles you are willing to live without lights or cell phone chargers you better hope more coal or nuke plants are built, especially if you live on either of the coasts.”
Yep. That’s what I’ve been saying. Government makes it very hard for private utilities (heavily regulated of course) to provide more power generation and/or provide more delivery infrastructure. We’re heading for regular brownouts here in the Northeast – of that I have no doubt.
All I can say is… bad things tend to happen when the power goes out – particularly in urban settings.
We’re setting ourselves up for huge future problems. (*SIGH*)
I believe Republicans should be keeping alive the “Drill Here, Drill Now” mantra as well as positioning themselves as the Party of Safe, Clean Nuclear Power.
Sure, boost wind and solar… but be HONEST about where they fit in to to “the big picture.” Bottom line, Americans of course reject pollution and environmental destruction… up to a point; what they really would object to however is the loss of their way of life.
Bottom line… the GOP needs to be able to say “We Told You So” as the $hit hits the fan and they’ve also got to be the Party offering viable solutions – or at least fixes.
BILL
36 ottovbvs // Aug 18, 2009 at 8:17 am
sdspringy // Aug 17, 2009 at 8:02 pm
…….btw Springy you might want read this comparison of the clinical differences between the rational and the paranoid thinker……..several of your comments above definitely fit in the Paranoid column I’m afraid
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/Rational_thinker_versus_paranoid.html
37 ottovbvs // Aug 18, 2009 at 8:19 am
joedee1969 // Aug 18, 2009 at 7:48 am
…….you might want to take a look at that rational v paranoid list too
38 Rodak // Aug 18, 2009 at 10:48 am
“Should I take it that if it’s a tax you’re for it and leave it at that? (*GRIN*) Seriously… “yea” on Cap & Tade, “yea” on a carbon tax – or would you oppose either.”
I wouldn’t necessarily oppose either, assuming that they would reduce our dependence on foreign ya-da, ya-da, ya-da… But my focus would be on alternative energy sources, and on thus avoiding the issue to that extent. And I am, at this point in history, ready to go nuclear, big-time, if that’s what it takes, and if that is supplemented by solar, wind, geo-thermal, etc., where feasible.
39 ottovbvs // Aug 18, 2009 at 10:52 am
rodak // Aug 18, 2009 at 10:48 am
“And I am, at this point in history, ready to go nuclear, big-time, if that’s what it takes, and if that is supplemented by solar, wind, geo-thermal, etc., where feasible.”
………my position exactly……..windmills have their place as does geothermal but nuclear is probably going to be at the core of any future attempt to reduce emissions…….I also think it is in a general sense less environmentally polluting than windmills……this is a jigsaw
40 midcon // Aug 18, 2009 at 11:46 am
28 barker13 // Aug 17, 2009 at 7:54 pm Midcon – Interesting. Hmm… so far I’m alone. A bit disconcerting on a site that claims to be “Republican,” but these are indeed strange times. (*GRIN*) (*WINK*)
Wait a minute Bill, I said cap and trade. But in my true non-absolutist nature, I would not rule out a carbon tax just because it is a tax. I’m not anti tax, I am for tax equality. Of course that’s why I look favorably on things like VATs on goods because it is a tax by choice. It’s not imposed on me and each of us has the ability to not spend and avoid the tax.
41 Daily Forecast: Today’s Online Buzz on Environmental Issues « Climate Task Force // Aug 18, 2009 at 11:51 am
[...] Obama Getting Big Things Wrong Kenneth Silber – New Majority.com [...]
42 barker13 // Aug 18, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Re: Midcon // Aug 18, 2009 at 11:46 am (#40) –
“Wait a minute Bill, I said cap and trade. But in my true non-absolutist nature, I would not rule out a carbon tax just because it is a tax.”
No need to “wait a minute,” Mid… you’re simply repeating yourself. You’re in favor of new additional taxes. Your preference is a Cap & Trade tax (and it IS a tax regardless of what they call it) with a straight carbon tax your second option out of the two.
Hey… that’s your position.
My position: No Cap & Trade. No carbon taxes. Start building nuclear power plants like crazy. Drill here, drill now. In short… create more energy.
BILL
43 ottovbvs // Aug 18, 2009 at 12:30 pm
barker13 // Aug 18, 2009 at 12:03 pm
“Start building nuclear power plants like crazy. Drill here, drill now. In short… create more energy.”
………..Unfortunately Baarking with his usual acute knowledge of economics doesn’t realize that nuclear safety issues aside the reason more nuclear power stations haven’t been built is economic…….they are much more expensive per kilowatt hour than coal fired stations…….and the amount of oil estimated to be economically accessible in the US?….to be honest I can’t remember the exact figure but’s it’s puny….something like 2% of proven world reserves…..ever the one for the simplistic solution
44 kensilber // Aug 18, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Bill, if you want more nuclear power plants, a carbon tax would help make that happen (or at least more likely). It would reduce or eliminate the cost discrepancies between nuclear and fossil fuels.
There are other ways to promote nuclear, of course, but they typically involve government giving special favors and subsidies to the nuclear industry. A good thing about a carbon tax is it doesn’t involve government micromanagers figuring out exactly which energy sources to favor; it just says anything but carbon.
45 ottovbvs // Aug 18, 2009 at 1:21 pm
kensilber // Aug 18, 2009 at 1:14 pm
” There are other ways to promote nuclear, of course, but they typically involve government giving special favors and subsidies to the nuclear industry. A good thing about a carbon tax is it doesn’t involve government micromanagers figuring out exactly which energy sources to favor; it just says anything but carbon.”
………….Entirely correct……a nuclear station costs more than twice as much to build as a fossil fuel one…..the French nuclear program would not have happened without govt sponsorship…..however cap and trade would also have the effect of levelling the playing field wouldn’t it?…….that said nuclear programs don’t happen withouth active govt intervention
46 CTF // Aug 18, 2009 at 1:21 pm
I believe wholeheartedly that a more transparent and straightforward carbon tax would be superior to a cap and trade system. A revenue-neutral carbon tax would not only avoid the evasion and market manipulation inherent to cap and trade, it would also incentivize green R&D and recycle the revenue back to the people. It’s a win for the environment and a win for the economy.
47 kensilber // Aug 18, 2009 at 1:29 pm
however cap and trade would also have the effect of levelling the playing field wouldn’t it?
Yes, but I think less so. If the carbon allowances are handed out free (as they have been) or on some generous basis, incentives are less to develop any non-carbon energy. Also, since the price of the allowances may fluctuate widely, it’s harder to calculate long-term investments in nuclear etc.
48 ottovbvs // Aug 18, 2009 at 1:48 pm
kensilber // Aug 18, 2009 at 1:29 pm
“Also, since the price of the allowances may fluctuate widely, it’s harder to calculate long-term investments in nuclear etc.”
………..I do see that although it’s very hard to predict where CT takes you…….either way it really reinforces my point that if you want nuclear there has to be a govt preference…….from the 60’s thru 80’s I worked in oil business and back in the late 60’s early 70’s when nuclear was hot the oil industry was very nervous and I worked on a research paper looking at all the issues
49 midcon // Aug 18, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Bill, read your post (#4) 4 barker13 // Aug 17, 2009 at 3:41 pm
You are pretty emphatic about the no carbon tax but were silence on Cap and Trade – so I incorrectly assumed you favored C&T – my bad!
Nukes power plants cost money – I know for a fact – I mean a real honest to goodness fact – that industry will charge off to build nuke power plants unless they get government financial guaranttees, some form of indemnification, and a clear path to licencing. Unfortunately that is going to take some government money – which has to come from somewhere. Industry wants to pass the costs for power plants to the consumers who do not want to pay the cost (even if they like the idea of the plant). In order to reduce opposition the government will have to provide those assurance I stated above. Some of the financial wherewithwal could come from Capt and Trade taxes, unless you would be willing to pass it all to the consumers, which of course increase opposition to nuclear power. Sometimes the government has to spend money and revenues are the only source.
50 midcon // Aug 18, 2009 at 2:17 pm
I meant that industry “will not” charge off to build nuclear power plants, unless…
51 ottovbvs // Aug 18, 2009 at 4:27 pm
midcon // Aug 18, 2009 at 2:16 pm
“Nukes power plants cost money – I know for a fact – I mean a real honest to goodness fact ”
……..The trouble here is that most posters have no context…….back in the late sixties and early 70’s the oil states were getting really antsy……remember sheikh Yamani?…..this culminated in the crisis of ‘73 when crude went from about 3 bucks a barrel to (shock horror) 5.50 a barrel about a 75% increase and nuclear was THE future and I know the big oil companies were wetting themselves because I was worked for one …….then 1979 happened…..and we all broke out the champagne…..much of the world apart from the French panicked…..particularly the US because we’re prone to panicking……..most of the rest of the world got over it to varying degrees but not the US and because government action (ie. political action) is required to pursue a nuclear program it’s been in limbo here ever since
52 barker13 // Aug 18, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Re: Kensilber // Aug 18, 2009 at 1:14 pm (#44) –
“Bill, if you want more nuclear power plants, a carbon tax would help make that happen (or at least more likely).”
Ken. (*CHUCKLE*) I get it. You like taxes. You like adding taxes. You believe in using the tax system for social engineering, picking winners and losers. I get it.
Nope. The way I’d get nuclear power plants would be to simply cut through – using whatever federal “emergency authority” I could get away with – to cut all the red tape and simply get the construction, completion, and utilization of new plants up and running asap – I’d give it 5-7 years.
The federal government would be at minimum a “stakeholder” and the legal/political vehicle for private utilities getting the jobs done, and if necessary, government would be an initial shareholder with the clear understanding that government would sell its ownership share asap after each project was up and running.
Yep. I’m a guy who prides himself on intellectual consistency and upon being a constitutionalist, and yeah, I’m talking full borne federalist trampling on “states rights” and if need be a healthy dose of “socialistic” short term financing. So be it. I just want to get the damn power plants up before it’s too late.
“There are other ways to promote nuclear, of course, but they typically involve government giving special favors and subsidies to the nuclear industry.”
Then that’s what we’ll do. As I keep stressing, Ken… my priority is keeping the damn power on.
Re: Midcon // Aug 18, 2009 at 2:16 pm (#49) –
“You are pretty emphatic about the no carbon tax but were silence on Cap and Trade – so I incorrectly assumed you favored C&T – my bad!”
AHH…!!! My bad, too, Mid! I see your point and acknowledge it. I could have – I should have – added that I was opposed to Cap & Trade as well. (*WINK*)
“Nukes power plants cost money – I know for a fact – I mean a real honest to goodness fact – that industry will charge off to build nuke power plants unless they get government financial guarantees, some form of indemnification, and a clear path to licensing.”
Yep. Acknowledged! And as previously noted, I’m fine with all that. I’m willing to do whatever it takes to keep the damn power on and at affordable prices. If this means downright government subsidy for a time than so be it. It’s like the Manhattan Project, Mid… damn the cost, just get it done.
“Industry wants to pass the costs for power plants to the consumers who do not want to pay the cost…”
Well too frigg’n bad. We need the damn plants and that’s all there is to it. The Utilities should be allowed to REASONABLY raise rates to pay for costs and if and when we’re talking “unreasonable” for whatever reason… well… if government needs to subsidize the costs for a period of time then so be it. We need this done!!!
“Some of the financial wherewithal could come from Capt and Trade taxes, unless you would be willing to pass it all to the consumers, which of course increase opposition to nuclear power.”
Yes. As I say. We pass the cost on to consumers as much as possible while subsidizing where and when necessary. As to where government gets the money… well… obviously from taxes and borrowing – but no NEW taxes – and no NEW borrowing. Where the numbers don’t work… government will have to cut elsewhere to make up the difference.
My God, Mid… the way you talk about Cap & Trade it’s like you think NO ONE will pay for it. If you’re assessing the utilities or any other business then that utility or business is going to pass on THEIR Cap & Trade expenses to consumers. There’s no free lunch. You know this. NO NEW TAXES. No new “fees” which amount to new taxes either.
BILL
53 barker13 // Aug 18, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Oh… by the way, Ken and Mid…
If necessary I’d simply make nuclear power generation a direct governmental function – a governmental agency. A nuclear plant would be like a military base – it would be government property, government owned, government run. It would sell energy to the utilities.
Basically I’m open to anything other than new taxes. We have ENOUGH taxes.
BILL
54 ottovbvs // Aug 18, 2009 at 5:53 pm
barker13 // Aug 18, 2009 at 5:43 pm
“Yep. I’m a guy who prides himself on intellectual consistency and upon being a constitutionalist, and yeah, I’m talking full borne federalist trampling on “states rights” and if need be a healthy dose of “socialistic” short term financing. So be it. I just want to get the damn power plants up before it’s too late”
……you’re about as intellectually consistent as Donald Duck
55 kensilber // Aug 18, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Basically I’m open to anything other than new taxes. We have ENOUGH taxes.
A carbon tax could be revenue-neutral. In other words, tax carbon and reduce taxes by an equivalent amount on something else (income, perhaps). Perhaps that would bring you around?
56 midcon // Aug 18, 2009 at 6:51 pm
barker, I recognize that C&T amounts to a pass along tax. Remember I am not anti tax; I am anti-unequal tax (like the Earned Income Credit hogwash). I am willing to pay taxes as long as it goes to necessary things and if everyone else is paying for the necessary things.
57 midcon // Aug 18, 2009 at 6:56 pm
barker,
Because of the environmental, safety, and security concerns, I would support a Department of Nuclear Power Generation (Ok, let’s say its the DOE) if you would agree that you and I and everyone else would have to pay for at least the startup costs and maybe then some. If you do not want to be taxed, then you can simply send in a check for your share but you have to pay your share because I’m not doing it. Second condition – power generation is not an “inherently governmental” (that’s a real term by the way from the Federal Acquisition Regulation) function and so, after a certain early point I would want the function to be privatized.
58 barker13 // Aug 18, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Re: Kensilber // Aug 18, 2009 at 6:01 pm (#55) –
“A carbon tax could be revenue-neutral.”
(*ROLLING MY EYES*)
A carbon tax would be a TAX. Period.
And btw… WHY in heaven’s name would I want a “revenue-neutral” tax? WHEN and IF I support taxes I expect these taxes to lead to a GAIN in government revenue.
(*HEADACHE*)
Sorry, Ken… nice try though! (*HUGE FRIGG’N GRIN*)
Re: Midcon // Aug 18, 2009 at 6:51 pm (#56) –
“I recognize that C&T amounts to a pass along tax.”
I’m sure you do.
“Remember I am not anti tax; I am anti-unequal tax (like the Earned Income Credit hogwash). I am willing to pay taxes as long as it goes to necessary things and if everyone else is paying for the necessary things.”
We’re simpatico! At least as far as the above paragraph is concerned. Where we part ways is your apparent belief that C&T is necessary. I don’t. I don’t think it’s necessary. I don’t think it’s desirable.
Re: Midcon // Aug 18, 2009 at 6:56 pm (#57) –
“Because of the environmental, safety, and security concerns, I would support a Department of Nuclear Power Generation (Ok, let’s say its the DOE) if you would agree that you and I and everyone else would have to pay for at least the startup costs and maybe then some.”
(*HANDSHAKE*) Deal!
“…power generation is not an “inherently governmental” (that’s a real term by the way from the Federal Acquisition Regulation) function and so, after a certain early point I would want the function to be privatized.”
(*HANDSHAKE*) Done!
See, Mid… I knew between us you and I could save the world!
(*WHISTLING THE THEME FROM “THE HIGH AND THE MIGHTY” AS I HEAD TO MY BAR TO POUR MYSELF A FINE SINGLE MALT SCOTCH*)
BILL
59 sdspringy // Aug 18, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Well Otto, the so called bank stabilization occured when? When TARP was passed, under Bush. Obama passed no legislation stabilizing banks. Plain fact without the liberal sneer.
Obama has made no change in handling either war. First complaining about Predator strikes, and now using them more than Bush. Complains about a troop surge in Iraq, now using the same tactic in Afghan. Only signifcant change now than under Bush, no media generated body count in Afghan. No constant count, no faces of the fallen on the 6 oclock news. Someone deserves the famous Otto handle of HYPOCRITE, unfortunately for Otto no handy Rep to hang it on.
And to those who would tax carbon, in all its forms, are taxing heavist the working class. Not the rich or wealthy, who will still drive the power cars and jets, but the guys driving to work every day and heating their homes in the winter.
And for what. Some myth of climat change, no increase in so called temperature for 10 years and you guys still have sweaty palms. It would be alot simpler if you people would grow a set.
Wind and solar power generation is a joke. It cannot supply demand. This may sound difficult to believe but the wind does not blow all the time. What then? The base stat of a wind farm is less than 40%. Meaning if rated at 100 megawatts, the wind farm will only produce this power less than 40% of the time. Because the wind is not blowing, or not blowing strong enough, or blowing too hard, or as in the case of the UpperMidwest too cold. Guess what determines how a coal plant operates, none of the above. They produce the same power 95% of the time, excluding maintenance and trouble with the boilers. No comparison.
If not coal, it better be nukes, either way nothing will happen if the libs tax carbon.
60 midcon // Aug 19, 2009 at 8:43 am
58 barker13 // Aug 18, 2009 at 7:42 pm We’re simpatico! At least as far as the above paragraph is concerned. Where we part ways is your apparent belief that C&T is necessary. I don’t. I don’t think it’s necessary. I don’t think it’s desirable.
I don’t necessarily believe (in fact I don’t have an opinion really) that C&T is necessary. The question posed (by you) was an either or. (actually it was stated as yea or nay)
10 barker13 // Aug 17, 2009 at 4:16 pm Well folks…??? Who’s in favor of a carbon tax and who’s opposed….Just a simple “yea” or “nay.”
But I read it as an “either” “or”, so if I had to choose I would choose C&T.
To me it begs the larger question of whether taxes have a limited purpose (provide revenue to the government) or can and should be used as a tool to help meet specific goals and objectives. Tobacco taxes are used for purposes related to stop smoking campaigns and heath programs. Tariffs (a form of tax) are used to affect economic health by controlling imports, etc. Are these legitimate purposes and legitimate taxes? I left off gas taxes because ostensibly they are used for tranportation purposes and consequently have some legitimacy.
61 barker13 // Aug 19, 2009 at 9:01 am
Re: Midcon // Aug 19, 2009 at 8:43 am (#60) –
Again, I see where the confusion crept in. You’re right, Mid, I could have been clearer.
Not to make excuses, but as you know we have a couple “energy” threads going at the same time. It must be on the other thread that I have made it clear several times that when it comes to either a straight carbon tax or a Cap & Trade scheme, my opposition is to both.
Within this framework of being opposed to both, I’m more opposed to Cap and Trade.
(*Still opposed to BOTH proposals… but would rather a straight carbon tax if my only two choices were one or the other.)
Are we perfectly 100% clear for now and forever…??? (*SMILE*)
“…whether taxes have a limited purpose (provide revenue to the government) or can and should be used as a tool to help meet specific goals and objectives. Tobacco taxes are used for purposes related to stop smoking campaigns and heath programs.”
Philosophically… I’m opposed to using the tax code for social engineering. In short, my answer is “no,” the purpose of taxing your own people is to gain necessary revenue to run government – the less government the better in my view.
“Tariffs (a form of tax) are used to affect economic health by controlling imports, etc. Are these legitimate purposes and legitimate taxes?”
Tariffs fall into a separate category – thus the separate term “tariff.” (*WINK*) Tariffs are a national security tool as much as (and perhaps more than) a revenue generator.
“…gas taxes…”
Again… if limited to the original purpose… gas taxes are a fee for usage – a dedicated tax. This strikes me as reasonable.
BILL
62 ottovbvs // Aug 19, 2009 at 9:13 am
sdspringy // Aug 18, 2009 at 8:06 pm
“Well Otto, the so called bank stabilization occured when? When TARP was passed, under Bush. Obama passed no legislation stabilizing banks.”
……….True but Geithner, Summers and Bernanke are “managing” the bank stabilization program (which is any case is just one part of a huge jigsaw) and doing a far better job of it than Paulson was who was somewhat erratic and made some awful decisions along the way and whose cred was in tatters when Bush left office……not that I want to diss Paulson too much because he did a great job in uncharted waters despite the fact most Republicans had turned on him…..the financial system didn’t really emerge from the woods until about late May……and btw the TARP bill was passed in the teeth of fierce resistance from Republicans and with the support of democrats.
” Wind and solar power generation is a joke. It cannot supply demand. ”
………Of course it can’t on its own but then no one is proposing it does……it’s part of a menu of power sources……..my personal view stated above is that ultimately this country is going to have to go nuclear……there are political and economic obstacles to that as again I pointed out
…….On the broader issue of my original list……you can pick pepper out of fly poop but at the end of the day I think this is a valid list of the president’s strategic priorities and where he is on them…….anyone who doesn’t think the financial system and broad economy(Obama’s top priorities) aren’t in infinitely better shape than they were in mid January has his head up his backside……..when the economy is in full recover mode in the late summer of 2010 in the run up to the mid terms I’m going to enjoy all those ad clips of Republicans arguing and voting against the recovery act and hoping it fails!!
You must log in to post a comment.