‘Cap and Trade’ Loses Its Standing as Energy Policy of Choice

Less than a year ago, cap and trade was the policy of choice for tackling climate change.
Environmental groups and their foes in industry joined hands to embrace the approach, a market-driven system that sets a ceiling on global warming pollution while allowing companies to trade permits to meet it. President Obama praised it by name in his first budget, and the authors of the House climate and energy bill passed last June largely built their measure around it.

Today, the concept is in wide disrepute, with opponents effectively branding it “cap and tax,” and Tea Party followers using it as a symbol of much of what they say is wrong with Washington.

Mr. Obama dropped all mention of cap and trade from his current budget. And the sponsors of a Senate climate bill likely to be introduced in April, now that Congress is moving past health care, dare not speak its name.

"I don’t know what ‘cap and trade’ means,” Senator John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, said last fall in introducing his original climate change plan.

Mr. Kerry’s partner in promoting global warming legislation, Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, pronounced economywide cap and trade dead last month and has since been working with Mr. Kerry to try to patch together a bill that satisfies the diverse economic, regional and ideological interests of the Senate.
That plan, still being written, will include a cap on greenhouse gas emissions only for utilities, at least at first, with other industries phased in perhaps years later. It is also said to include a modest tax on gasoline, diesel fuel and aviation fuel, accompanied by new incentives for oil and gas drilling, nuclear power plant construction, carbon capture and storage, and renewable energy sources like wind and solar.

Why did cap and trade die? The short answer is that it was done in by the weak economy, the Wall Street meltdown, determined industry opposition and its own complexity.

The New York Times

Congressman Harper's Military Academy Day to be at Madison Central Saturday

U.S. Representative Gregg Harper will hold his annual Third Congressional District Military Academy Day at Madison Central High School on Saturday, March 27, 2010 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

Military Academy Day is an opportunity for students and parents to learn more about our nation’s military academies, requirements for admission and the appointment process. Harper will be joined by area midshipmen, cadets, alumni and representatives from the five service academies: U.S. Air Force Academy, U.S. Coast Guard Academy, U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, U.S. Military Academy (West Point) and U.S. Naval Academy. The representatives will be present to help answer questions the participants may have about each prestigious institution.

“I encourage all students seeking guidance on obtaining a service academy appointment to take part in this informative informational seminar,” said Congressman Gregg Harper. “I look forward to visiting with the bright young men and women from across the Third Congressional District considering service to our country.”

High school students preparing for college in the approaching years and considering the service academies option should participate. Junior high students are also welcome to attend.

Fervent Republican's overshooting the mark?

In his latest installment Rothenberg writes that Republican's need to tone down the rhetoric and conserve their outrage until November:

calling for repeal of the law moments after the bill’s passage is a statement of ideological faith, a rallying cry for conservatives who never liked the bill and wish it had never passed.


OK. We get it. They didn’t like the bill and don’t like the law. And they voted against it. Fine.

But trying to refight the last war, on the same battlefield and with the same forces, isn’t dedication; it’s political stupidity.

Obviously, repeal is not possible now with Democrats controlling both chambers of Congress and the White House, and by demanding repeal, Republicans look like a bunch of spoiled children who didn’t get their way rather than adults focused on fixing a problem. Voters won’t like that.

From a political point of view, it’s an amateurish mistake. In fact, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has been goading Republican candidates into taking a stand on repeal for months, understanding the damage that Republicans could do to themselves by making the midterm elections a referendum on themselves, instead of on the president and Congress.

That doesn’t mean Republicans should forget about health care, of course.

Polling has long shown that the public isn’t crazy about the law (forget the quick post-passage polls that reflect short-term events), and as long as Republicans don’t make their quest for repeal into this cycle’s version of the Clinton impeachment zoo, the GOP stands to benefit from the issue in many states and districts this fall.

By demanding repeal immediately after passage, Republicans resemble unsuccessful candidates who keep challenging election results and refuse to concede. Voters don’t like candidates who sound like sour grapes, and they won’t like a party that sounds that way either.

Read the entire article at Rothenberg Political Report

MBJ: Barbour maneuvering for healthcare lawsuit

Gov. Haley Barbour has reaffirmed his commitment to have Mississippi join the multi-state lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the healthcare reform legislation approved by the U.S. Congress. Barbour made the announcement after Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, a Democrat, declined to file a lawsuit by noon, March 25, as asked by Barbour, a Republican.
And, Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) has made public his “no” vote on the Senate healthcare “fix.”

“I’m trying to save the people of Mississippi from an enormous amount of taxes that would be caused by the Obama Administration’s healthcare plan,” Barbour said. “There is a pivotal constitutional argument that needs to be addressed: Does the federal government have the constitutional authority to force American citizens to buy insurance and then tell them what they can buy and at what price?

Hood notified Barbour March 25 that he needed more time to understand the complexities of a possible legal challenge. Fourteen states already have joined in a lawsuit seeking to stop the administration’s healthcare plan.

Barbour had said that if Hood refused to file the lawsuit, he would do it himself. However, in his March 25 response to Barbour, Hood said the case is under review, and the governor could not file a lawsuit as long as the review continued. Hood did not say how long that review might take.

Mississippi Business Journal

The Guv then let it be known with this Press Release that he had no intention of waiting despite Hood's insistance that the governor must wait on the Attorney General.

Throwing bad money after good

U.S. Plans Big Expansion in Effort to Aid Homeowners



The Obama administration on Friday will announce broad new initiatives to help troubled homeowners, potentially refinancing several million of them into fresh government-backed mortgages with lower payments.

Another element of the new program is meant to temporarily reduce the payments of borrowers who are unemployed and seeking a job. Additionally, the government will encourage lenders to write down the value of loans held by borrowers in modification programs.

The escalation in aid comes as the administration is under rising pressure from Congress to resolve the foreclosure crisis, which is straining the economy and putting millions of Americans at risk of losing their homes. But the new initiatives could well spur protests among those who have kept up their payments and are not in trouble.

The administration’s earlier efforts to stem foreclosures have largely been directed at borrowers who were experiencing financial hardship. But the biggest new initiative, which is also likely to be the most controversial, will involve the government, through the Federal Housing Administration, refinancing loans for borrowers who simply owe more than their houses are worth.

Read the article at The New York Times

McClatchy also has a story on it this morning:

The administration already has such a program in place for second liens, but will be doubling what it offers to lenders in this category to help get them out of the way when modifying a mortgage.

Some of the White House thinking is similar to proposals offered by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. He was briefed on the plan Thursday.

Frank has proposed making loans from the TARP program to unemployed homeowners with good credit histories. He also shepherded legislation through Congress several years ago to pay banks that were willing to write off large portions of underwater mortgages, or those that exceed the home's underlying value. Lenders showed little interest in taking such losses, however.

Since then, the housing crisis has deepened as the recession piled foreclosures from job losses on top of the foreclosures tied to weak loans, often made to borrowers with the weakest credit.