RSS Feed MenuEarly 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.
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
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
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
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
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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!!