Kevin Drum - February 2009

Carbon Financing

| Thu Feb. 26, 2009 3:00 AM EST
The Washington Post reports on Barack Obama's plan for the revenue from his climate change plan:

As for cap-and-trade, the official said the administration believes it will generate enough money to fund a variety of priorities, including investments in renewable energy and rebates for vulnerable consumers who may struggle to pay higher energy bills if utilities pass along the cost to consumers. Obama also wants to use the money to cover the cost of extending his signature Making Work Pay tax credit, worth up to $800 a year for working families. That credit, which will cost $66 billion next year, was enacted in the stimulus package, but is set to expire at the end of 2010.

Hmmm.  That sounds like roughly $100 billion per year.  Is that reasonable?  The United States produces about 7 billion tons of CO2 equivalent a year right now, which means that Obama expects his cap-and-trade plan to generate a price of about $14 per ton in its first year — assuming it covers every single molecule of carbon emitted in the U.S.  If only half of all emissions are covered at first, it means a price closer to $28 per ton.

For comparison, the European ETS cap-and-trade plan currently prices CO2 at about 10 euros per ton.  That's roughly $13.  And that price has dropped considerably over the past few months thanks to the recession.  By 2012 it's likely to be back up in the range of $20 or more.

So at a glance, it looks like Obama's estimates are defensible.  My guess is that they're on the high side, since the initial cap will probably be fairly generous and will therefore generate a relatively low carbon price.  But as the cap goes down, the permit price should go up fairly quickly.  These numbers are at least in the right ballpark.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Generics in the Budget

| Thu Feb. 26, 2009 2:20 AM EST
This seems like good news:

Makers of generic drugs hailed a proposal in President Barack Obama's budget to set up a faster pathway for generic versions of biologic drugs, the fastest-growing segment of the pharmaceutical industry.

The budget included other steps friendly to generics makers. The administration said it wants to end "evergreening," in which brand-name makers reformulate existing products and extend the life of their market exclusivity.

The proposals on generic drugs are part of a series of spending curbs that the president is proposing, all aimed at helping to reduce costs in the health care system overall and to pay for his effort to expand coverage to all Americans.

This is a small-bore initiative.  But put enough small-bore initiatives together, and eventually you can have something pretty big.

Teh Google

| Wed Feb. 25, 2009 7:33 PM EST
In his column today, Michael Gerson tells us that at a recent meeting of conservative activists, Bobby Jindal didn't talk much about personal history or social hot button issues:

Instead, he uncorked a fluent, substantive rush of policy proposals and achievements, covering workforce development, biodiesel refineries, quality assurance centers, digital media, Medicare parts C and D, and state waivers to the CMS (whatever that is).

Italics mine.  Brad DeLong snarks, "At the very least, a columnist for the Post should hide his ignorance rather than be proud of it."

But what Gerson is actually doing here is using the time honored rhetorical trope of feigned ignorance to suggest to his audience that Jindal must be some kind of rocket scientist.  This is something that I used to do occasionally too, but it's really not possible anymore and Gerson should know that.  Why?  Because the web makes research too easy.  If you Google "CMS" the very first hit is Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.  It takes five seconds.  Outside of things like live panels, it's a very 20th century affectation to showily pretend not to know this kind of stuff anymore.

Core Principles

| Wed Feb. 25, 2009 3:54 PM EST
AP reports on Barack Obama's plans for financial regulation:

In remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday afternoon, the president offers no specific regulatory framework, but calls for "core principles." Among them are consumer protections, accountability for executives and a regulatory plan that covers a broad series of financial transactions that have escaped regulation in the past.

Atrios says Obama is "making the right noises" here, but I'm not quite so sure.  Consumer protections are fine, but frankly, not really central to what caused the financial meltdown.  "Accountability" for executives is mush.  They're already accountable in most meaningful senses of the word.

That leaves a "regulatory plan that covers a broad series of financial transactions that have escaped regulation in the past" — which is fine but could mean pretty much anything.  What's the core principle here?

I know everyone is probably tired of hearing me say this, but I wish Obama would talk more about a real core principle: regulating leverage more effectively, and doing it everywhere and for all types of securities.  This isn't easy, especially when you need to get practically the entire world on board, but more than any other single change it would force financial institutions to be more responsible; it would make future asset bubbles less destructive; and it would fundamentally put a stop to the casino atmosphere and outlandish paydays that have permeated Wall Street over the past decade.  If we really wanted to get ambitious, we might even try to set up a countercyclical regime that increased capital requirements in good times and lowered them during bad times.  But regardless of how the details turn out, if our new regs are driven by a core concern for regulating leverage, they'll do some good.  If not, it's likely to be a repeat of Sarbanes-Oxley: lots of good intentions, but not much bang for the buck.

The First Dog

| Wed Feb. 25, 2009 2:35 PM EST
The Obama family has apparently settled on the type of dog they want:

First Lady Michelle Obama told People Magazine that the the family wants to find a rescue Portuguese Water dog.

....But the name is still a source of familial tension in the White House."Oh, the names are really bad. I don't even want to mention it, because there are names floating around and they're bad," Mrs. Obama said. "I think, Frank was one of them. Frank! Moose was another one of them. Moose. I said, well, what if the dog isn't a moose?"

As I recall, my mother pretty much let us kids name the cats when we were young.  This produced inspired names like Meow (my sister's doing, I think), Tippy (white tip on her tail — at least until the day I slammed a door on it accidentally) and Butterfly (a huge black cat who may have been the least butterflyish animal ever born).  But you know, they all seemed like pretty good names to us.  So if the Obama kids want to name their dog Moose, I say let 'em.

Democracy in the Middle East

| Wed Feb. 25, 2009 1:15 PM EST
PIPA's latest survey of attitudes in Muslim countries is out, and for the most part there are few surprises.  Long story short, most respondents don't approve of attacks on American civilians (though they largely do approve of attacks on soldiers), but that's about it for the good news.  Broadly speaking, they don't like the U.S., don't like our presence in the Middle East, and think al-Qaeda's goals (if not its methods) are admirable.

The chart on the right demonstrates the depth of our problem.  Virtually no one believes that the United States truly supports democracy in Muslim countries, and who can blame them?  We don't — and all the airy talk in the world won't change that.  Only genuine change will.  Marc Lynch:

The most important starting point is to recognise that American policy is the most critical issue. No amount of public diplomacy will convince Arabs or Muslims to embrace American actions they detest. The Bush administration’s conception of public diplomacy generally involved putting lipstick on a pig — attempting to sell policies formulated in isolation from their likely reception. Even when public diplomacy officials had a seat at the table, they have had little influence on shaping decisions.

Improved public diplomacy from Obama — including his still unscheduled big speech in a Muslim capital — will be valuable, but only if it's accompanied by policy changes as well.  Getting out of Iraq will help.  Seriously engaging in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process will help.  And supporting democracy more consistently will help.  But if the PIPA poll is accurate, it's going to be a long, hard slog.  There's a helluva lot of ground to be made up.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Coleman vs. Coleman

| Wed Feb. 25, 2009 12:32 PM EST
I haven't been following the Minnesota Senate recount very closely, but apparently Norm Coleman still has no intention of abandoning his Ahab-like quest to retain his seat even though he lost the election:

Republican Norm Coleman on Tuesday refused to rule out an appeal if a three-judge panel rules against his challenge in what he called “the race that never ends.”

....Coleman said his lawyers will wrap up their arguments by the end of the week, and he expected a ruling to come down in a “couple weeks.” If he loses, he would not say whether he would try to appeal a ruling with the state Supreme Court.

“I’m not ruling it in or ruling it out, let’s see what the court does and hopefully they’ll do the right thing,” Coleman said. He added: “This process already is Tolstoy-esque.”

Considering that Coleman is the guy primarily responsible for this Tolstoy-esque state of affairs, his complaint here is a little rich.  Still, as much as I'd like to blame him for this whole mess, I'm not entirely sure I can.  Speaking purely as a layman, what really appalls me about all this is how slowly the courts are moving.  Are the issues really so complex that things can't be expedited a wee bit?  Are Minnesotans really bound and determined to make Florida look like a model of efficiency and dispatch?  What's going on with these guys?

Obama and the Banks

| Wed Feb. 25, 2009 11:49 AM EST
I mentioned this briefly last night, but I want to highlight this short passage from Obama's speech again:

I intend to hold these banks fully accountable for the assistance they receive, and this time, they will have to clearly demonstrate how taxpayer dollars result in more lending for the American taxpayer. This time, CEOs won't be able to use taxpayer money to pad their paychecks or buy fancy drapes or disappear on a private jet. Those days are over.

Still, this plan will require significant resources from the federal government — and yes, probably more than we've already set aside. But while the cost of action will be great, I can assure you that the cost of inaction will be far greater, for it could result in an economy that sputters along for not months or years, but perhaps a decade.

The first paragraph starts us off with some excellent populist banker bashing.  You can almost feel the pitchforks and torches in the air.  But it's just a carnival barker's trick designed to misdirect.  In the second paragraph, delivered so quickly you could be forgiven for missing it, we get the substance: "This plan will require significant resources from the federal government — and yes, probably more than we've already set aside."

Bottom line: we intend to keep shoveling money into America's big banks.  But we don't really intend to get anything for it.

Here's the best interpretation I can put on this.  Obama knows that he's very likely going to have to nationalize one or more banks over the next few months.  But he also knows that talking about it openly is disastrous.  Like it or not, it just is.  So the only way for it to work is to deny, deny, deny right up until the day you stop denying.  Then you make a clean sweep: you take over whichever banks you need to and give the rest a firm, credible clean bill of health.  And everyone can get on with business.

Maybe this is wishful thinking on my part.  But I hope this is what's going on.

Jindal's Jaw Jaw

| Wed Feb. 25, 2009 11:07 AM EST
Greg Veis on the political world's Mission Impossible:

Is there a more dangerous assignment for a rising party star to accept than a State of the Union rebuttal?....In all the heated discussions last summer about who Obama’s running mate should be, whenever Kathleen Sebelius’s name came up, people would talk about how impressive it is that she’s a strong Democratic voice in a conservative state and that she has true policy credentials--and then they’d say, But did you see her rebuttal? Similar deal with Tim Kaine, who was plagued by his dead fish performance in ’06. Gary Locke, Obama’s likely next pick for Commerce, gave such a bad speech six years ago that it’s a breathtaking act of charity that he’s been allowed to talk in public, in front of other people, with cameras around, again.

And it's not just rising stars who bomb at this assignment.  Remember Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in 2005?

This was why I didn't bother listening to Jindal's speech last night.  I figured he was doomed no matter what, so why bother.  But I've since watched it and — well, holy cow.  What a train wreck.  Aside from the bizarre decision to follow one of America's most sophisticated speechmakers with an address that sounded like it was meant for a class of third graders, it didn't even make sense.  It wasn't the government that restored New Orleans after Katrina?  Tell that to the taxpayers who forked over $200 billion.  We need to spend less during a massive recession?  You betcha.  Republicans stand for universal access to affordable healthcare coverage?  Huh?  Now is not the time to dismantle our defenses?  Who's proposing that?  And the usual lie about the stimulus bill funding a train from LA to Las Vegas got even more baroque in Jindal's telling, morphing into a mag lev train.  Is that supposed to make it sound even worse?  Or what?

Yeesh.  Even the Fox News bobbleheads couldn't stomach this stale repetition of Club for Growth talking points.  Who can blame them?

And as long as I'm picking on Jindal, who picked out his tie, anyway?  Was it supposed to kinda sorta match the stripes on the American flag next to him?  Or was it just a colorful candy cane?  Or what?

Out of Iraq

| Wed Feb. 25, 2009 2:56 AM EST
AP reports that Barack Obama has settled on a withdrawal schedule for Iraq:

President Barack Obama plans to remove all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by August 2010, administration officials said Tuesday, ending the war three months later than he had promised during his presidential campaign.

The withdrawal plan — an announcement could come as early as this week — calls for leaving a large contingent of troops behind, between 30,000 and 50,000 troops, to advise and train Iraqi security forces and to protect U.S. interests.

Reuters is slightly less positive about this, quoting an official saying only, "That's the way the wind's blowing."  And MSNBC's report adds a caveat from another official: "The 19-month withdrawal is based on assumptions — (on improved security) — and if those assumptions don’t hold up, all bets are off, and we'd have to adjust."

Still, put this together with Obama's flat statement in Tuesday's speech that "I will soon announce a way forward in Iraq that leaves Iraq to its people and responsibly ends this war," and it sounds like we're finally getting out.  Not completely out, but then, Obama never promised otherwise.  For better or worse, we'll probably be living with his "residual force" for quite a while.