Posts Tagged ‘ Environment ’

« Older Entries

How to Think About AEP v. Connecticut

Tuesday, April 19th, 2011
Lee Drutman


Lee Drutman is a senior fellow and the managing editor for the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Lee Drutman

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments in AEP v. Connecticut, a case that will decide whether eight states have the right to sue American Electric Power (AEP) Co. and several other utilities for greenhouse gas emissions. The states have argued that carbon dioxide emissions are a “public nuisance” because they contribute to climate change. They’re hoping to force the companies to reduce their emissions through litigation. The power companies have argued that because of the complexity of climate change, it’s impossible to draw a causal link between any specific emissions and any unwelcome changes in the weather.

For helpful background on the case, there’s no better place to turn than to a recent PPI memo entitled “Why Progressives Should Cool to ‘Global Warming’ Lawsuits.” In the memo, author Philip Goldberg argues that such litigation makes little sense:

Progressives should … not reflexively support climate change litigation, no matter how passionately one might favor emission reductions. We should adhere to our principles and protect due process rights of defendants, even when those defendants are large corporations. The David and Goliath analogy may score political points, but it only works in litigation when Goliath does something objectively wrong. Otherwise, any group that fails to get its way in the political arena will turn to the courts. Such an act would be an affront to democratic proceduralism that has long defined our progressive philosophy.

You can read the entire memo here.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Clean Energy and Modern Infrastructure, Daily Fix | No Comments »

Republicans for Environmental Progress: An Endangered Species

Friday, March 25th, 2011
Jason Scorse


Jason Scorse received his Ph.D. in Agricultural & Resource Economics from UC-Berkeley in 2005. He is currently Associate Professor and Chair of the International Environmental Policy (IEP) Program at the Monterey Institute (A graduate school of Middlebury College). Dr. Scorse has consulted for numerous environmental organizations, including the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club, and he is currently the Lead Non-Market Economist for the National Ocean Economics Program. He has published articles in American Economic Review, California Management Review, and has books published by the Brookings Institution and Routledge Press. His book, What Environmentalists Need to Know About Economics, was released in 2010. Dr. Scorse also sits on the board of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Research Activities Panel and The Otter Project.

by Jason Scorse

For most of modern American history, the two major political parties in America have largely agreed on the desired long-term environmental outcomes for the country: there was a consensus among Republicans and Democrats that it was a good thing to press for cleaner air and water, less toxins in the environment, biodiversity preservation, and mitigation strategies for clean energy and, mostly recently, climate change.

The disagreements were largely centered around how to achieve these outcomes, and to some extent the pace of change and the absolute targets. Democrats by and large preferred a heavier regulatory approach (i.e. “command and control”) that set specific firm-level emissions limits, prescribed permissible technologies, and set industry-wide energy and fuel efficiency standards. Republicans tended to support more market-oriented policies, with cap and trade foremost among them.

Nowadays, the arguments are no longer over the methods to achieve environmental progress, but whether we should support such progress in the first place. This situation is unprecedented. Those who believed that divided government would lead Republicans to take a more moderate and constructive role have so far been proven wrong. It is hard to imagine the situation being much worse for America’s environmental quality, which is directly linked to the quality of life for all Americans.

The modern Republican Party has absolutely no affirmative environmental agenda whatsoever, and goes so far as to contest the entire rationale for continued environmental progress. Ironically, this extremely reactionary environmental agenda is coming at a time when the ideas that Republicans once championed are now widely accepted as the best ways to structure environmental policy.

The cap and trade bill that died in the U.S. Congress in 2010 was based on market-oriented principles that were the centerpiece of George Bush Sr.’s cap and trade policy for sulfur dioxide, enacted in 1990. It permitted maximum flexibility in achieving its goals of greenhouse gas reductions over a long time horizon, giving businesses plenty of time to adjust and adapt. The bill’s intellectual foundations were so strongly rooted in conservative economics that then-presidential candidate John McCain was a huge supporter of the measure and included it in his presidential platform.

And yet today, the Republican-led House of Representatives has voted to deny the science of climate change and strip the EPA of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases, which was granted to the agency by a 5-4 decision in the very conservative-leaning Supreme Court. The GOP-led House has proposed gutting the EPA’s budget as well. And it gets worse.

The Republicans in the House have refused to end the subsidies for oil companies (as these firms continue to rake in record profits), and while they seek to reduce food stamps, they have made it clear that they will not touch the billions in agricultural subsidies that disproportionately benefit big agribusiness. Adding insult to injury, House Republicans even reintroduced Styrofoam into the House cafeteria after Democrats had removed it during the last Congress.

I have been involved in environmental policy for almost 20 years and have never seen anything like the current Republican assault on the environment. It is truly astounding. To be clear, the Republicans leading this charge against environmental progress are in no way following conservative principles ― they are doing the exact opposite. Those who profess to support conservative economics should be leading the charge against subsidies for big business and taking a firm stance in favor of the “polluter pays principle,” which states that those producers and consumers whose actions degrade the environment should pay for the damage. (You know we’re living in an upside down world when the one avowed socialist in the Senate, Bernie Sanders, has been the most vociferous opponent of oil company handouts.)

There is absolutely nothing “free market” about letting polluters trash the environment for free. In fact, this fits the definition of a market failure, not a well-functioning capitalist system. What the Republicans are currently practicing is crony capitalism of the worst kind: rewarding industry at the expense of the public interest and future generations.

It is the Republican rank and file who should be the most offended by these policies. Public opinion polls consistent show that both Democrats and Republicans care deeply about the environment, and support clean energy policies and strong environmental safeguards. Unfortunately, the once proud environmental ethic of the Republican Party has been snuffed out by a small group of radical Tea Party extremists who are deeply confused both about true conservative principles and the proper role of government in society. And once moderate Republicans who supported sensible environmental policies are nowhere to be seen. Until true conservatives retake the Republican Party we will be left doing little more than damage control, and the chances of a new comprehensive affirmative environmental agenda are slim to none.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Clean Energy and Modern Infrastructure, Daily Fix | 2 Comments »

Beware the “Japan Syndrome” Narrative

Monday, March 14th, 2011
Will Marshall


Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Will Marshall

Taking Rahm Emanuel’s advice to heart, U.S. anti-nuclear activists are using the emergency in Japan to stoke premature panic in the United States about atomic energy. While the rest of us might want to wait and see what actually happens with the Fukushima Daiichi plant before leaping to conclusions, it’s not too early to draw three conclusions that belie this fearful, “Japan Syndrome” narrative.

First, while Japan is the world’s most seismically active country, vast swaths of the United States aren’t active. We probably won’t be siting new reactors on the San Andreas Fault.

Second, what’s been most striking about the Daiichi plant isn’t its vulnerability, but its resilience. The 40-year-old facility plant has thus far withstood one of the biggest earthquakes in memory, followed by a tsunami and multiple interruptions in power. Scientists say hydrogen explosions have vented minor amounts of radiation into the air.

Third, the health and environmental risks of nuclear energy don’t seem any greater than those associated with other conventional power sources, and in fact are distinctly lower than those of coal-mining and offshore oil drilling.

Continue reading at The Arena on Politico

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Clean Energy and Modern Infrastructure, Daily Fix | No Comments »

How To Understand the Independents (and How To Win Them Back)

Tuesday, November 16th, 2010
Lee Drutman


Lee Drutman is a senior fellow and the managing editor for the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Lee Drutman

For Obama and the Democrats to win in 2012, they will clearly need to win back the “Independent” voters who they lost in 2010. As we know, Independents broke hard for Republicans this time, after breaking hard for Democrats in two previous elections. Clearly they hold the balance of power in American politics.

Figure 1: Independent Voter Preferences, 1998-2010

Source: Resurgent Republic

So who are these Independents? What do they want? And how can the Democrats win them back?

According to Nov 4-7 Gallup Poll, 41 percent of voters now identify themselves as Independents, as compared to 26 percent who identify themselves as Republicans and 31 percent as Democrats. This 41 percent marks a high point in Gallup’s polling results for the last six years. However, since the mid-1970s, the number of self-identified “Independents” as a percent of voters has remained steadily in the 30s, occasionally flirting with the 40 percent mark.

It is obviously difficult to generalize about Independents, since it turns out they are actually quite a heterogenous group. About two-thirds  lean to one party or the other, consistently voting for that party about 80 percent of the time. However, they are less partisan than strong partisans, and there are at least a few true independents in the mix: about 10 to 15 percent of the electorate, according to political scientists.

WHO ARE THE INDEPENDENTS?

Pew probably has the best typology of Independents, breaking them up into five categories: “Shadow Republicans” (26 percent of Independents); “Disaffected Republicans” (16 percent); “Shadow Democrats” (21 percent); “Doubting Democrats” (20 percent); and “Disengaged” (17 percent).  As the names suggest, the shadow partisans vote somewhat predictably as partisans, while the Disaffected/Doubting class are slightly less reliably partisan, and the “Disengaged”, while most likely to be “true” Independents, are also the least likely to vote – only 21 percent told Pew they were planning to vote this November.

In 2010, independents broke down as 41 percent conservative, 39 percent moderate, and 20 percent liberal, at least among those who voted. In 2008, independents were 43 percent moderate, 35 percent conservative, and 18 percent liberal, a breakdown that has been roughly consistent for the last 10 years.

Though many Independents may vote like partisans, choosing to identify as Independents rather than partisans is a conscious choice. For some, it may just be because they prefer to think of themselves as “Independent” because it sounds better. It probably also reflects a certain disenchantment with either of the two parties. Accordingly, 64 percent of Independent voters say that “both parties care more about special interests than about average Americans” and 53 percent say that “I don’t trust either party.”

Independents are also more likely than not to be conflicted between the two parties: 58 percent say that ”I agree with Republicans on some issues and Democrats on others.”

Generally, Independents (particularly “true” Independents) are more likely to be younger, more male, less well educated, less well off financially, have less political information, and be less engaged politically. In the past election, Just 31 percent of Independents said that it makes “a great deal of difference which party controls Congress” – as compared to 63 percent for Republicans and 53 percent for Democrats; accordingly, 37 percent of Independents think it makes no difference at all – as compared to only 13 percent of Republicans and 17 percent of Democrats.

Finally, it is worth noting that according to Senate exit polls, the five states with the highest percentage of Independent voters are New Hampshire (44 percent); Washington (42 percent); Colorado (39 percent); Oregon (38 percent); and Hawaii (38 percent). Note that none of these are rust belt states, where party loyalty actually seems to run deeper.  Only 28 percent of Ohio voters were Independents and only 23 percent of Pennsylvania voters were Independents.

WHY DID INDEPENDENTS SHIFT TO THE REPUBLICAN COLUMN IN 2010?

There are probably four reasons why Republicans won Independents in 2010, two of which are structural, one of which is performance-based, and one of which is policy-based.

On the structural side, it is very likely the case that the Independents who turned out in 2010 were somewhat different than Independents who turned out in 2006 and 2008.  First, as compared to 2008, turnout in midterms is consistently about two-thirds lower than it is in presidential elections. This means that the mid-term election electorate (including Independents) look older and whiter, and thus typically more Republican (young people, who as noted above are more likely to be Independents, just don’t vote as often.)

Moreover, since Independents in general tend to be less politically engaged, the enthusiasm gap is going to be the most pronounced among Independents. It seems highly plausible, then, that a lot of Independent-leaning Republicans sat out the 2006 and 2008 elections while a lot of Independent-leaning Democrats sat out the 2010 elections, and for similar reasons: their preferred party didn’t seem worth turning out to support.

The second structural reason is that Independents as a category have probably become a little bit more Republican because more registered Republicans have become Independents. Consider Table 1, which takes Gallup data for the last four elections. Between 2004, Republicans fell from 38 percent to 26 percent of the electorate, while Democrats dropped only slightly.

Table 1: Changing Party Identifications

Rep Ind. Dem.
Nov 2010 26% 41% 31%
Nov 2008 28% 37% 33%
Nov 2006 31% 32% 35%
Nov 2004 38% 27% 35%
’04-’10 change -12% +14% -4%

What happened to that 12 percent of the electorate who had previously called themselves Republicans? There is good evidence they started calling themselves Independents, making Independents more conservative on the whole. Now, these were Republicans who obviously felt poorly enough about Republicans in 2006 and 2008 to no longer align themselves, and may have even voted Democrat (or more likely stayed home). But by 2010, they were back to voting Republican, even if they now thought of themselves as Independents.

Of course, this can’t and probably shouldn’t completely explain the shift. Part of it has to do with the economy. When unemployment is near 10 percent, the weakest partisans and the true Independents, who are the most sensitive to economic conditions in their voting (since they have no ideology to base their decisions), are going to punish the incumbent party.

Consider the following:  In 2006, when asked which party can better “improve the job situation,” 43 percent of Independents picked Democrats; just 24 picked Republicans. In 2010, they picked Republicans 40-35. Similar reversals have taken place on “reducing the budget deficit” (44-18 for Democrats in 2006; 44-29 for Republicans in 2010), and “managing the federal government” (38-26 for Democrats in 2006; 42-31 for Republicans in 2010).

In short, Independent voters are performance-based, and when the party in power is not producing jobs, cutting the budget, or generally running things in a commanding way, Independent voters are quicker to turn against the party in power and assume the other party deserves a chance

And finally, on the policy: since almost half of Independents call themselves moderate, a number of them were probably uncomfortable with the liberal direction unified Democratic control was taking government. There were probably some number of genuinely moderate voters who saw Republicans as a correction to Democratic extremism, just as they had recently seen Democrats as a correction to Republican extremism. They might also want divided government.

WHAT DO INDEPENDENTS WANT?

Having noted the heterogeneity of Independents as a category, it is obviously a challenge to make generalizations about what Independents want.

First of all, their top priority, like all voters polled, is “economy and jobs.” More than half (52 percent) of Independents believe that Congress should focus on economy on jobs. Though, interestingly, both Republicans (59 percent) and Democrats (57 percent) put even slightly more emphasis on jobs.

They also want both parties to moderate and compromise. By a 63-26 margin, Independents want Democrats to move to the center, and by a 50-40 margin, they want Republicans to move to the center. By a 61-32 margin, they agree that “Governing is about compromise” more than “leadership is about taking principled stands.” That puts them a little closer to Democrats (who lean towards compromise 73-21, than Republicans, who are split 46-46 on the question.)

The bad news for Democrats is that Independents are skeptical of government. More than four-fifths (82 percent) say they trust government only sometimes or never (up from 71 percent in 2006), 57 percent agree that “the federal government controls too much of our daily lives,” and 55 percent say “government regulation of business usually does more harm than good.”

However, these last two categories are not as overwhelming majorities as one might expect, given the anti-government rhetoric swirling around. And, interestingly, Independents are actually trending downward on both of these questions. In 1995, 70 percent of Independents thought that “the federal government controls too much of our daily lives.”

The good news for the Democrats is that by a 49-32 margin, Independents think that the Democratic Party: “Is more concerned with the needs of people like me.” Independents also are even more secular than Democrats, are tend to look like Democrats on the social issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc.) as well. Like Democrats, they also favor a more balanced approach to national security.

Figure 2: Issues Where Independents Look Like Democrats

source: Pew, “Independents Take Center Stage in Obama Era”

Independents also look a little bit more like Democrats than Republicans on the environment (82 percent of Independents agree that “there needs to be stricter environmental laws and regulations to protect the environment” and 53 percent agree that “protecting the environment should be given priority, even if it causes slower economic growth and some job losses”) and immigration (61 percent say they “favor providing a way for illegal immigrants already in the U.S. to gain legal citizenship.”)

Finally, by a 50-to-41 margin, Independents say they are “optimistic about the next two years with Barack Obama as president.” So they still haven’t written him off.

A CAVEAT ON “CONSERVATIVES”

Much has been made of the fact that there has been a shift towards conservatism in the electorate, and that the number of Independents identifying themselves as conservatives has ticked up a few points in the last few years. This may partially be an artifact of more Republicans moving into the Independent column, as described above. But it’s also useful to keep in mind that voters pick the conservative label for symbolic as well as substantive reasons.

According to research by Chris Ellis and James Stimson, some people genuinely know what it means to a conservative in the current political debate, and indeed express matching preferences across all issues. But these “constrained conservatives” (as Ellis and Stimson call them) account for only 26 percent of all self-identified conservatives.

More common are the “moral conservatives” (34 percent), who think of themselves as conservative in terms of their own personal values, be they social or religious. And they are indeed right leaning on social, cultural, and religious issues. But they also like government spending on a variety of programs and generally approve of government interventions in the marketplace, hardly making them true conservatives.

And still others, “conflicted conservatives”  (30 percent), are not conservative at all on the issues. But they like identifying themselves as conservatives. To them, it somehow sounds better. Or at least, they like it better then their other choices in the traditional self-identification questionnaire: moderate and liberal.

Finally, a smaller group of self-identified “conservatives” (10 percent) could be classified as libertarian – conservative on economic issues, liberal on social issues.

In other words, just because people identify as conservatives doesn’t mean that they are actually true conservatives. There are numerous reasons why they might identify so. It has long been the case that that the American public, on average, is operationally liberal and symbolically conservative. That is, that when asked about specific “liberal” government programs – be they spending on education, environmental protections, regulation of business – the majority of voters consistently say they approve. But when asked to self-identify themselves as liberals, moderates, or conservatives , many of the same voters say they are “conservative.”

LESSONS AND TAKEAWAYS

How can Obama and the Democrats win back the lost Independents? Since the Independent voters most likely to swing back into the Democratic column are also those who are the most performance-based and the least ideological, it makes sense for Obama to keep focused on economic recovery and let Republicans go pursue an extremist agenda. If Obama and the Democrats can pitch themselves as the hard-working, economy-focused force of moderation while Republicans engage in partisan bomb-throwing, many of the true swing voters who went Republican will surely have a bit of buyer’s remorse. Additionally, many younger Independents, who presumably stayed home in 2010, should come back out in 2012, helping Democrats again.

It is conventional wisdom by now that if the economy is recovering by 2012, Obama will benefit, and Democrats along with him, and this is surely true (assuming nothing else happens to overwhelm that effect). However, there is only so much the president can do to influence the economy, though he can certainly look like he is doing more.

Certainly, to the extent that Independents are distrustful of politics and parties and view both as too extreme, Obama and the Democrats will benefit by showing a willingness to compromise and moving to the political center, which Republicans are increasingly abandoning. A fundamentally moderate public will respond, especially if the economy is improving and it becomes less of an issue, meaning that something else will have to take its place in people’s minds.

If Democrats are willing to take a riskier strategy, they might goad Republicans into a few battles on issues like “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” or even immigration, battles that will draw out the crazy side of the Republican coalition while showing the public and generally socially-liberal Independents that Democrats are on the side of social progress.

PPI EVENT: The Restless Independents: Can Obama Win Them Back?
Register here

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Daily Fix, Fixing Our Broken Politics, Issues, Political Memo | 4 Comments »

Why Post-Election Soul-Searching Is Overrated

Wednesday, November 3rd, 2010
Elbert Ventura


Elbert Ventura is the managing editor of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas. He formerly served as the managing editor of the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Elbert Ventura

The smoke has cleared; only the maimed and the dead remain on the battlefield. They are, for the most part, Democrats. The job of carting them off will take weeks; the post-mortems will take even longer. And yet progressives — we with our fetish for soul-searching — should reject a new, indulgent round of autocritique, or at least recognize that there is only so much to reflect on. The electorate’s rejection of Democrats is a lot of things, but a referendum on the quality of our ideas it isn’t.

How can that be? Isn’t a rebuke of this magnitude by definition a rejection of a party’s ideas? Well, it is if the ideas were carefully inspected and considered by an informed electorate. But sobriety has been hard to come by this election season. And what we tend to forget is that, before our discourse got sucked into the Fox-powered Tea Party vortex, our ideas were actually popular across the spectrum. Far from dogmatic and divisive, the policies that progressives have pushed in recent years have been sane, sensible fixes that have drawn support from left, right, and center.

Take cap-and-trade. Only the truly delusional still think that climate change and our voracious consumption of fossil-based fuels are nothing to worry about. Cap-and-trade was an innovative solution to the problem, harnessing the market — and eschewing command-and-control regulation — to bring about a reduction in carbon emissions.

Or take health care reform. Despite cries from left and right, the Obama administration got reform generally correct, setting us on a path to cutting costs and increasing access, all while leaving a system that Americans had grown accustomed to intact.

Or infrastructure. Economists of all stripes believe that we need more stimulus to spur economic activity. Every American who uses our roads, bridges, and water supply knows that our infrastructure is crumbling. In light of those needs, President Obama pushed through billions in infrastructure spending and just recently proposed a new $50 billion infrastructure bill.

All of these are good ideas that have achieved a certain degree of consensus, or at least support from moderates. An original version of cap-and-trade was co-sponsored by John McCain and was backed by moderate Republicans in the prelapsarian days before the Tea Party’s rousing. Health-care reform: As Jonathan Cohn noted, “Obama’s plan closely mirrors three proposals that have attracted the support of Republicans who reside within the party’s mainstream” — the most prominent of whom is Mitt Romney, whose health-care legislation in Massachusetts is a fairly close sibling of the national reform passed this year. As for infrastructure, money for more spending on the nation’s backbone was supported by Republican senators like Kit Bond and George Voinovich (both retiring – no coincidence) in an earlier jobs bill vote.

In all these cases, an urgent public problem was identified, and sensible, pragmatic solutions were proposed. But we no longer have politics that can accommodate the sensible and the pragmatic. The same John McCain who co-sponsored cap-and-trade now rails against it. Romney and Republicans who supported previous iterations of the Obama health plan have nothing but calumny for reform. Meanwhile, the only news of conservatives dealing with infrastructure is when they shrink from the challenge, like Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey backing away from a proposed, and badly needed, tunnel to New York.

Over and over again, progressives have come up with solutions to our problems that can be embraced by the moderate middle. But in these last two years, we’ve seen that no matter how good and moderate the ideas are, it doesn’t seem to matter.

In this dilemma lies the priority for the pragmatic progressive in these next two years. The fact is our ideas are good. They are sound. Progressives of the Obama era have brought an innovative, reformist sensibility to government that prizes empiricism and problem-solving above all. Yet the party across the table has pulled back and shown little interest in engaging. They want us to keep coming to the table with more concessions — while hardly offering any concessions of their own. If we keep whittling down our ideas to meet their whims, our ideas will be hardly worth enacting at all.

We must, of course, never slow our indefatigable search for new ideas – it is what defines progressivism. But the paramount challenge, for these next two years at any rate, is finding a new politics. The calls for a new radical center are all well and good, but we need to remember that that’s where our ideas already are. It’s the right that has abandoned that center. The consensus ideas of yesterday have become the Marxist plots of their 2010 campaign. And sensible ideas have little chance of growing in political soil parched of sense. Will the part of the conservative movement that still cares about fiscal responsibility, fact-based argument, and good-faith dialogue resurface? Will they make their voices heard against the know-nothings and the ideologues who have taken over their party?

No doubt progressives should continue to be on the lookout for all who are sober and serious about solving our nation’s problems. Challenges must be issued and coalitions of the willing must be sought. But we shouldn’t allow the emergent faction of hysteria and irresponsibility to sway us from a core conviction: that when one already occupies the reasonable center, standing one’s ground is the reasonable thing to do.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Daily Fix, Fixing Our Broken Politics, Issues | 1 Comment »

Do Republicans Actually Want Government to Do More?

Monday, October 18th, 2010
Lee Drutman


Lee Drutman is a senior fellow and the managing editor for the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Lee Drutman

How much anti-government feeling is really out there?  Perhaps less than you might think.

Consider a fascinating new poll in which Gallup listed 11 functions of government and asked respondents how much responsibility they think government have for each, one a scale of one to five. For five of the 11 functions, at least 48 percent of Republicans said the government should have more responsibility (giving these functions a four or five on the five-point scale).

“Protecting Americans from foreign threats” not surprisingly got strong support from 96 percent of Republicans. But “Protecting consumers from unsafe products” (66 percent), “Preventing discrimination” (54 percent), “Developing and maintaining the nation’s transportation systems” (52 percent),  and “Protecting the environment from human actions that can harm it” (48 percent) also did better than you might expect from all the government-bashing rhetoric dominating the airwaves.

Even 37 percent of Republicans think the government should have more responsibility for “making sure all those who want jobs have them.” And perhaps shockingly, a third (32 percent) think government should have more responsibility for “making sure that all Americans have adequate healthcare.” As one would expect, Democrats rate the responsibility of government 20 to 30 percentage points higher on all of these issues.

The lessons from this poll are simple, but important. While Republicans keep bashing “big government” as a general concept, it’s different when it they are asked about specific government functions.  Even as trust in government is at all-time lows, it’s not the case that this means that most voters – even supposed government-hating Republicans – don’t want government to do anything.

Rather, it’s more likely that the anti-government feeling is more about voters not trusting the current leaders in Washington to do what’s right.

To understand this better, consider another recent Gallup poll asking respondents “Do you think the federal government poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens?” Fully 66 percent of Republicans say it does pose a threat, while only 21 percent of Democrats do. But four years ago, when Republicans controlled Washington, the numbers were nearly reversed: 57 percent of Democrats were afraid of the federal government, compared to just 21 percent of Republicans. In other words, this has more to do with who is in power than about the federal government per se.

What this means is that all this anti-government rhetoric needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Most voters (even Republicans) still want the federal government to take responsibility for major things like protecting consumers, the environment, maintaining transit, preventing discrimination, and even ensuring adequate healthcare and making jobs available.

It’s easy for Republicans as the party out of power to bash big government in the abstract and to demonize Democrats for running government poorly.  But in the end, the supposed anti-government frame is probably more about personally frustrated voters looking for something and someone to blame. The vast majority voters don’t want government to go away anytime soon – they just want it to operate better and solve public problems intelligently. Though it’s easy to confuse the two, this is an important distinction. Elected leaders, especially extremist government-bashing Republicans, ignore this at their peril.

Photo credit: Scott Ableman

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Daily Fix, Fixing Our Broken Politics, Issues | 1 Comment »

Retooling the American Economy for Jobs, Innovation, and Competitiveness

Monday, October 4th, 2010
Lee Drutman


Lee Drutman is a senior fellow and the managing editor for the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Lee Drutman

America is adrift and needs leadership to modernize and build a foundation for 21st century competitiveness. And while it’s a long hard to travel, there are at least a few signs of optimism.

Such were the key takeaway points from Friday morning’s panel on the question of “Retooling the American Economy,” which was part of the Progressive Policy Institute’s Second Annual North American Strategic Leadership Infrastructure Leadership Forum in Washington, DC.

The panelists were : Tom Friedman, New York Times Columnist, Pulitzer-Prize Winning Author; Jason Furman, Deputy Director, National Economic Council, White House; Roderick Bennett, Advisor to the General President of the Laborers’ International Union of North America; and John Woolard, CEO, Brightsource Energy. David Wessel, economics editor of the Wall Street Journal moderated.

In general, the panelists agreed that we’re in a difficult spot. We’re falling behind China on infrastructure, on energy, on basic research and development –  just about every measure of investing in a 21st century economy. As Friedman put it, “We can only go so long with a philosophy of dumb as we want to be.”

Part of that dumb-as-we-want-to-be philosophy is an unwillingness on the part of many to admit that government has a key role to play in creating an environment where innovation can thrive, both by making big investments and putting the right incentives in place. The solution to this, of course, is leadership.

“We have an epic lack of faith in government with a capital G, but we have an unchanging love for government at the local level when it means bridge projects and energy projects and broadband projects,” said Furman. “And that’s something you see at the bipartisan level. Some of this means we have a messaging problem, and some of that is bottom-up, pointing out what it all tangibly means.”

“But how you get the snake through the python is a big challenge,” Furman added. “You have to pass the thing through Congress, and the debate will be framed in big government terms.”

Friedman, who was openly critical of the administration’s salesmanship efforts, argued that what was needed was big-picture leadership.

“We need to make it aspirational,” said Friedman.  “That’s what the moon shot was all about. People want nation-building at home. You fly from Shanghai to JFK, and you go from the Jetsons to the Flinstones. People sense that. And the President has never made that the lodestar. He’s never leveraged all that energy.”

Woolard, who heads a large solar energy company, offered a dose of optimism. “We have a lot more projects here in the U.S. than abroad,” he said. “There are good projects, and there’s a lot moving forward.”

“But,” he added, “The thing that scares me most is the longer-term issue. Not enough students are going into engineering. We need to encourage people to go into those disciplines.”

Woolard also described the challenge at hand: In order to stabilize carbon emissions at 450 parts per million by 2050 (a commonly-agreed on target to stem global warming), “we’ve gotta build between 12,000 and 20,000 gigawatts of carbon-free power. That’s a power plant per day. We’ve built gigawatts a week before, but we don’t have the rules yet to get to this objective. We need policy.”

The consensus was that there would need to be a price on carbon. “Capital works itself out with the right rules,” Woolard said. But given the politics of energy, would the political will ever exist?

Here Friedman was an optimist: “We’re absolutely going to have a gas tax and a carbon tax,” he told the audience. “Because we’re going to run out of money, and we will need revenue and when we run into that wall, people will look around and say, what’s the best source? The sad thing is there are 535 members of Congress, and not one will propose this when it is so manifestly in the strategic and economic interest of the country.”

Bennett, whose union represents construction workers, also registered support for a gasoline tax, which he called “the elephant in the room.”

Friedman also offered a “killer app” for economic competitiveness: “An ecosystem of a national renewable standard, a price on carbon, a gasoline tax, higher building efficiency standards,” he said. “Put that ecoystem in place and you get 10,000 green garages trying 10,000 different things. Two of those will be the next green Google and Microsoft. The killer app is the enabling system.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Daily Fix, Issues | 3 Comments »

Stop Playing Favorites in the Biofuels Market!

Thursday, August 5th, 2010
Megan Milligan


Megan Milligan is an intern at the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Megan Milligan

In discussions of the energy bill this summer, talk focused on a price for carbon. This is a vital component in any legislation that would force companies to reduce emissions, either by becoming more efficient or substituting cleaner fuels. But that’s only realistic if cleaner alternatives, like biofuels, are available to replace dirty fossil fuels. Whether or not cap-and-trade passes this year, biofuels should play a key role in our new energy economy, but we need to reassess federal support to allow for more diverse and higher performing biofuels.

The biofuels industry today continues to rely on significant federal assistance to encourage investment and innovation. In the recent past, federal support has focused on pre-approved types of fuel, most prominently corn ethanol. This policy has aided the boom and bust cycle in today’s biofuels market. The government paid all its subsidies and tax credits to corn ethanol, causing the industry to expand at a faster rate than the market could accommodate. Choosing corn as the favorite resulted in a crash in ethanol prices once it became clear that supply had been propped up by federal support (rather than realistic market demand). These government policies that focus solely on corn ethanol have created both a bias in the market and a situation where investors are not willing to support alternative fuels because of federal support in favor of corn ethanol.

The biofuels market began with alternative fuel mandates in the Energy Policy Act of 1992, but these were mostly filled by conventional biofuels (ethanol derived from cornstarch). Since they were the most developed form of biofuel at the time, they received the bulk of individual tax credits (like the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax). Since then, Congress has adopted mandates for advanced biofuels (fuels other than cornstarch ethanol, derived from renewable biomass) and tax credits for cellulosic biofuels (a type of advanced biofuel derived from grasses, woodchips and other non-food sources). But other potential advanced biofuels (such as algae biofuel) still receive no support beyond general R&D funding. Corn ethanol’s stranglehold of the market through congressional subsidies can be seen in what would happen if current tax credits were extended through 2014: ethanol would receive more than 75 percent of the credits, while cellulosic biofuels would get less than 11 percent.

Corn ethanol production in the United States has more than tripled in the last five years, a boom that has caused other problems: diversion of corn away from food production, increased erosion, higher inputs of chemicals and water, and changes in cropping patterns and land use. Worse, these have serious repercussions, including the exhaustion of groundwater supplies, the destruction of native prairies, and the expansion of the Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico.

Some advocates for clean energy have pointed to these problems as reasons to stop supporting biofuel development. However, these negative consequences and the recent public backlash against ethanol mean we need a second generation of biofuels that is more diverse and market-based. Business Insights found that biofuels are estimated to account for 5-10 percent of global fuel production by 2017. It is unrealistic to think that our reliance on fuels for combustion engines will decrease anytime soon. Even if electric cars become economically feasible in the near future, it will take time to phase out existing cars. Concerns about energy security, rising oil prices and climate change will increasingly force us to change the energy mix to rely on cleaner fuels. For biofuels, this translates into a very real and growing market demand for at least the next several decades.

That’s why instead of continuing to use biofuel credits to help political constituencies like corn farmers, Congress needs to focus on forms of support that will increase performance and long-term viability for all types of biofuels. A good step toward diversifying the biofuels market is the Advanced Biofuel Investment Act of 2010, proposed by Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD), which would create a new 30 percent Investment Tax Credit for investing in advanced biorefineries. This would build on existing tax credits, continuing America’s commitment to the biofuels industry.

Futhermore, if we really want to move beyond a market dominated by ethanol, Congress should approve a tax credit like the Biofuels Performance Tax Credit proposed by the Union of Concerned Scientists. All types of biofuels would be eligible for this tax credit and would receive support in proportion to their emissions reduction, rewarding performance, and fostering competition and innovation. The maximum tax credit would be $1.15 for every gallon of gasoline replaced, but to qualify for the full credit, the biofuel must have zero emissions over its lifetime. Thus, the tax credit incentivizes performance both for replacing oil and reducing global warming pollution. It would build on the current Renewable Fuel Standard by supporting producers that go beyond the Standard’s requirement of emissions reductions of at least 20 percent. This would keep incentives technology and feedstock neutral, so we wouldn’t fall into the same trap of placing overwhelming support on one fuel. It is also critical that any tax credit encourage innovation by setting a high standard for emissions reductions and allowing all companies to compete. This should lead to greater innovation and ultimately cleaner fuels.

Adopting the tax credit would be an important step towards a more even distribution of federal subsidies in the biofuels market. This would allow advanced biofuels to receive significantly more than the paltry 11 percent of tax credits that they are currently getting, which would be crucial in building a new energy economy.

The federal government has played a role in creating the ethanol market and it now it must play a stronger role in convincing investors of the potential of the biofuels market. Considerable federal support is needed to get the biofuels industry off the ground. It is essential to create policies that do not limit the market but instead allow for new developments and innovations.

Photo Credit: Kiwi Shooter’s Photostream

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Clean Energy and Modern Infrastructure, Daily Fix | No Comments »

Congress and Climate: The Long View

Wednesday, July 28th, 2010
Nathan Richardson


Nathan Richardson is a visiting scholar at Resources for the Future. The views expressed here are his own.

by Nathan Richardson

As you know by now, no climate bill will emerge from this Congress. Most have picked up Lindsey Graham’s metaphor — “cap and trade is dead” — though I prefer to think of a bill as “mathematically eliminated”. In other words, the right reaction is not permanent loss of hope but “wait til next year.” That hope is faint, however, given the likely makeup of the next Congress.

It has not taken long for the process of taking stock and assigning blame to begin. Will Marshall here at Progressive Fix has written on Congress’ failure (and I agree with everything he writes). The New York Times op-ed page has been dominated by pieces on why the bill failed, and who is to blame. Grist  summarizes reactions. I don’t have much to add to what has already been said. I’m disappointed, but not surprised, and I think there is plenty of blame to go around. That said, I’m still very optimistic about the prospects for action on climate – and by that I mean specifically a national, comprehensive carbon price – in the relatively near future. I think failure in 2010 is a setback, but will be viewed in retrospect as a minor one. This is little different from the way I felt weeks or months ago, but events of last week seem to have suddenly made me a contrarian. Climate pessimism is the new zeitgeist. So why the optimism? Because changes are coming that make climate action inevitable. The world is moving, with or without the Senate.

Some of these changes are structural. Above all, climate policy has to face physical reality, not just social and political preferences. The science of climate change is clear on the big issues, is constantly improving its predictions, and is deepening our understanding of the climate system. The longer we wait, the more we will know — and the warmer the planet will get. Those skeptical of climate science have played almost no role in the failure of climate legislation this year; they were marginal from the beginning. Better knowledge, and tangible evidence of the consequences of climate change, will make the case for action steadily stronger. Physics, as much as politics, will move the “centrist” position on climate towards action. I hope this will be by way of clear but remote physical evidence, such as melting icecaps, rather than by way of weather disasters or droughts. Demographics point in the right direction as well. Young people tend to be more strongly in favor of limiting carbon emissions (though not all polls agree). As today’s youth start to vote and gain power and influence, legislators will have to respond or choose another career.

Another more or less structural change on the way is pressing need for deficit reduction. As both Tyler Cowen and Nate Silver have pointed out in the last couple of days, this, too, will increase the chances of a price on carbon. Higher taxes are almost a certainty given our debt burden and the plausible range of spending cuts. As Cowen puts it, a price on carbon is the “least bad tax” in the sense that it discourages harmful actions (emitting carbon) rather than productive activity.

Other changes come from policies already in the pipeline. Existing state and federal laws provide some authority for regulating carbon emissions, though results will be more modest and costs higher than they would be with a uniform national carbon price. This is my area of expertise, and we’ve written a lot on the issue at Resources for the Future. The summary is this – the EPA can get modest but meaningful carbon reductions with the tools it has, likely at modest cost. EPA regulations on “traditional” pollutants like sulfur dioxide, which are emitted primarily by fossil fuel (and above all coal) plants will also have co-benefits for carbon emissions. These incidental reductions in carbon emissions will make the goals we need to reach with an eventual carbon price more modest. In the past, health benefits from reduction in pollution from coal has been cited as a secondary reason to price carbon. Now, the tables are turned – moves to reduce these pollutants using existing Clean Air Act authority will have climate benefits. Put it this way – in the long or even medium-term, climate action isn’t dead, but coal is, at least unless carbon capture and storage technology becomes available at modest cost. David Roberts at Grist makes this point, with the added irony that coal will likely be begging for cap-and-trade before long, since it would probably give the industry a handout in the form of allowances that could be sold as plants are shut down.

Finally, there’s the economy. Whether out of opportunism or genuine fear, concerns over the economic impact of climate policy fueled opposition this year. If 2010 politics could be matched with the 2007 economy, I have no doubt that a climate bill (of some kind) would have passed the Senate. The politics will get rosier for climate action, for the reasons I explained above. The economy will strengthen as well, and “jobs” will not dominate politics to the extent that they are the only acceptable justification for policy, and the rhetorical foundation of all opposition to policy. Those that agree with Ross Douthat that “sometimes it makes sense to wait, get richer, and then try to muddle through” will be more prepared to muddle through as we get richer. If the economy does not improve, we have bigger problems – though the one small benefit of our economic troubles is that it has likely bought us a little time on climate. Carbon emissions are down sharply over the last few years. In fact it will be an interesting question to look back once we have some perspective and ask whether the economic crisis was beneficial or harmful in climate terms.

These changes are all inevitable or at least very likely. Together, they will make a carbon price ever more politically possible, and eventually politically necessary. As most people who have considered the climate problem seriously have known for a long time, pricing carbon is the only workable solution. Eventually, it will come.

Of course, whether climate action will happen is easier to predict than how long it will take. I don’t have an solid answer for the latter question. Some of the shifts I mention will take longer than others. Structural changes, like global warming itself and demographic shifts, may take a long time to affect politics. Policies in the pipeline are more well-understood, but many are in the planning stage and could be held up, possibly by litigation. Meaningful EPA regulations on carbon could be in place by late 2011, or might not be effective until near the end of the decade. Economic improvement should, I hope, come more quickly – but there are of course no guarantees, and the “joblessness” of the recovery to date may mean the economy will dominate politics for longer than growth figures would indicate. So I don’t  know when we’ll have real climate legislation. My best guess would be 2013 -  another presidential & congressional election, presumably a stronger economy, fossil industries under pressure from the EPA and states, and, plausibly, palpable evidence of climate change could all converge to make a comprehensive climate bill politically possible. But that’s only a guess.

A critical look at last week’s events and, indeed, the last few years of congressional inertia is warranted. Pushing for action on climate – whether at the grassroots or in the Capitol – is still desperately needed. The longer we wait, the greater the risk and the higher the cost. But these events are just minor scenes in a story whose end we already know. Climate action may come sooner, or it may come later, but it will come.

Photo Credit: Casino Jones’ Photostream

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Clean Energy and Modern Infrastructure, Daily Fix | No Comments »

Among Industry, Surprising Support for a Carbon Price

Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010
Mike Signer


Mike Signer is a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Mike Signer

In meetings I’ve had recently with folks representing industries from automobiles to energy to private equity, I’ve heard it over and over again. They want a price on carbon.

They want it because they want to make money through alternative energy. For that, they need predictability in supporting the companies that take risks and need capital to design and develop alternative fuel technologies.

They want it because they, their children, their grandchildren, their employees and their shareholders, like everyone on the planet, will suffer the externalities of a carbon-dependent economy.

And they want it because they’re good corporate citizens, and they want to do their part in easing the nation toward a lower-carbon future.

The question is whether carbon pricing will get any traction in the coming weeks from a White House that seems more intent on political calibration than on shaping the landscape itself.

Given the dynamism of the carbon-pricing movement, the twin mysteries today are, first, why the president didn’t press harder for what seems to be the consensus, industry-friendly position on carbon — a simple pricing mechanism — in his Oval Office speech last week, and second, whether he will do so in the coming weeks.

The politics of carbon have changed dramatically in recent weeks, as the nation continues to watch the spill billow in the Gulf. (If you haven’t yet done it yourself on your computer, click here for BP’s own mesmerizing and terrifying live feed). A recent, post-BP poll found that 63 percent of Americans support a bill with a carbon price, while only 29 percent oppose it. The environment has also improved for proposals like the “cap-and-dividend” bill recently offered by Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) (and explained here on P-Fix by Danny Morris), which would price carbon with a net-neutral return to the taxpayers in the form of checks.

Meanwhile, the nation’s leading corporations continue to support a price on carbon. In April, before the spill, three of the nation’s largest oil companies — Shell, ConocoPhillips, and BP (this is even pre-oil spill) — as well as the Edison Electric Institute, a consortium of utilities whose members provide the bulk of the nation’s electricity, all announced their support for the Kerry-Lieberman legislation with a “hard price collar” for the price of carbon (including both a floor and a ceiling).

The fact is that many private corporations want a price on carbon. They want it because they believe the future is headed in a direction where carbon-producing technologies will simply have to be reduced, and they’d rather build their businesses around that future quickly rather than slowly.

However, there was no such leadership last week from the Oval Office. Of the transition from carbon, the president said:

There are costs associated with this transition. And some believe we can’t afford those costs right now. I say we can’t afford not to change how we produce and use energy — because the long-term costs to our economy, our national security and our environment are far greater. So I am happy to look at other ideas and approaches from either party — as long they seriously tackle our addiction to fossil fuels.

This clinical framing scarcely captures the urgency of the task. There is a golden opportunity now finally to get business and clean energy on the same page. The question is whether it will billow by and disperse, like the oil we’re all watching in the Gulf.

Photo credit: Michael Caven’s Photostream

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Clean Energy and Modern Infrastructure, Daily Fix | No Comments »

So Much for Market Mechanisms

Friday, June 18th, 2010
Ed Kilgore


Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

If, as appears likely, cap-and-trade legislation is not going to be enacted this year or any other time soon, it represents more than a setback for the Obama administration (or for the environment). It’s also another blow to the high concept of using market mechanisms rather than direct government control to address major public policy challenges.

Cap-and-trade was originally designed, after all, as an alternative to command-and-control environmental regulations, which is why it was once championed by Republicans, particularly during and after its successful use in reducing acid rain in the 1990s.

But as the New York Times‘ David Leonhardt (with an exclamation point from Jonathan Chait) explained this week, Republicans have abandoned cap-and-trade just when it might be most useful, with some former advocates, ironically, embracing command-and-control:

[T]he great economic strength of market systems like cap and trade also happens to be their political weakness. They set prices and allow people to react. In the process, market systems acknowledge that reducing pollution may actually cost a little bit of money.Politicians don’t like to admit this, because voters don’t like it. Accepting higher costs is especially hard when the economy is weak. So Congressional Democrats have been repackaging their energy bills to make them look less and less market-oriented. Senator John McCain, who supported a permit system for carbon as the Republican presidential nominee, no longer does. Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican, has reversed his position as well.

What does Mr. Graham now favor? A series of command-and-control regulations. He has introduced a bill with Senator Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican, that would mandate specific standards for cars, trucks, homes and offices. It would also give the energy secretary the power to award loans to companies he thought could do a good job of setting up programs to retrofit buildings. State officials would do the same for factories. The bill, in short, puts more faith in government than the market.

Leonhardt clearly believes that the transparency of cap-and-trade when it comes to costs is its major political flaw. That’s definitely a factor, but I’d argue that something more fundamental is going on. Once Democrats embraced cap-and-trade, Republicans began retreating from it as a simple matter of politics. And this distancing effort has been immensely reinforced by the rightward trend in the GOP during the last few years, in which leaders who simply denied there was any climate change problem, and/or that government had any useful role to play on the issue, have been in the ascendancy. So “cap-and-tax” was demonized and essentially placed off-limits for Republican politicians, to the point where those like Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) and Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) who weren’t quite in the “denialist” camp found it easier to just support direct federal regulation.

We saw a similar dynamic play out on health reform, where a market-based managed competition model long supported by Republicans, and championed quite recently by Mitt Romney, became toxic the moment it was fully advanced by Barack Obama. And even as they savaged ObamaCare as “socialized medicine,” Republicans saw little irony in posing as last-ditch defenders of Medicare, a relic of an earlier Democratic drive for a government-run single-payer system.

On both health care and climate change, it’s not surprising that many progressives are impatient with Obama’s determination to promote market-based approaches that the supposed party of market-based policy, the GOP, will no longer support. But nobody should for a moment mistake the identity of the prime mover in shifting the political ground away from the once-promising “centrist” convergence on using market mechanisms to address public sector challenges. The GOP could have declared partial victory and celebrated the Democratic Party’s abandonment of big government solutions, and then fought it out over the details. Instead, Republicans have burned down every structure on the potential common ground that Americans seem to crave. They may be able to succeed for a while in opportunistically deploring the inability of Democrats to get anything done. But if and when Republicans regain power, they may well discover that the GOP policy arsenal has been emptied by their own hands.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

Photo credit: Magnera

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Clean Energy and Modern Infrastructure, Daily Fix, Fixing Our Broken Politics | 23 Comments »

What’s a President To Do?

Thursday, June 17th, 2010
Ed Kilgore


Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

As President Obama struggles though a host of problems, from the Gulf oil spill to the refusal of the Senate to support a new jobs bill or a cap-and-trade system, you can hear Republicans repeating a strange refrain that first became prominent in their rhetoric during the health reform fight: this president is arrogant and perhaps even tyrannical for trying to enact the policy agenda that he campaigned on in 2008 in the teeth of Republican and (in some cases) popular opposition.

Jay Cost of RealClearPolitics has been particularly insistent on this line of argument, with “bully” being the latest unlikely epithet employed to attack this embattled president:

For somebody who seems detached from the details of policy and largely uninterested in legislative wrangling, Barack Obama sure does come across sometimes like a political bully. But this is not bullying some obstinate backbench legislator. Instead, this is bullying the American people. With health care reform, he basically told the country that he didn’t care what it thought. The fact that people opposed the bill was proof they didn’t know what they were talking about. Now, apparently, the evolving strategy on energy is the same. Don’t like cap-and-trade? That’s your problem, not his. Plan to vote out Democrats in favor of the idea? Like he cares. He’ll pass it anyway….

Instead of passing unpopular bills through questionable methods over the opposition of the people, maybe the President should get behind proposals that can actually sustain popular support.

Okay, fine, let’s say that Obama should ignore the fact that he was elected on a platform to do all these outrageous things that Jay Cost objects to, and go with the polls which make 2010 “likely voters” the arbiters of what he should do right now. What are those “proposals” the president should “get behind” that “can actually sustain popular support?”

Should he, as he has often been urged by Republicans, forget about “irrelevant” issues like health care costs or climate change and focus strictly on the economy? Let’s say he should; what, specifically, can he do that Republicans in Congress won’t fight tooth and nail? Best I can tell, the GOP’s “strategy” for improving the economy is to slash upper-end taxes while eliminating deficits and debts. This cannot, unfortunately, be done without radical reductions in defense spending, which Republicans do not, by and large, support, or alternatively, big changes in Social Security and Medicare that the public is certain to reject by much bigger margins than health reform or cap-and-trade.

The dirty little secret of Washington right now is that the policies Republicans would follow if they were running things are considerably less popular than those being promoted by Democrats, and as the events of the last year have graphically demonstrated, there is no “half-loaf” compromise approach on major issues that Obama can take that Republicans will accept. So Obama can do what he’s doing, or do nothing. If he’s a “bully” for rejecting complete inaction, then bully for him.

Photo credit: Jurvetson’s Photostream

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Daily Fix, Fixing Our Broken Politics | No Comments »

« Older Entries