Obama's Moon Shot?
It was interesting for a while. But now that the stimulus bill has reached the Senate, where in some form or another it seems certain to pass, I've stopped trying to figure out legislative tactics and moved on to meatier issues.
I'm with Krugman. Even assuming the best-case projection of 4 million jobs, $800 billion and change ain't gonna pull us out of this tailspin. The way it's looking, four million new jobs will just about replace what was lost over the past few months. It doesn't even begin to generate the real employment growth that will be needed to drive a sustainable recovery.
So I'm assuming the President will be back on the Hill before long, asking for more. And when he does, I think he should go a moon shot.
If I were asked to come up with something really audacious, I'd take Schwarzenegger's greenhouse gas reduction plan and go national.
It would be wickedly expensive. It would be way ahead of public opinion. It would be reviled by every Republican in Washington, and some Democrats too. But it's the right thing to do. And I think it might just work.
A massive commitment to renewables, rebuilding the energy grid, and upgrading and retrofitting private and public structures would tens of millions of jobs, from unskilled knowledge-based. It would be a boon for education, particularly tech colleges.
A huge public commitment would unlock venture money and turn entrepreneurs loose on everything from batteries and solar panels to fans and ceiling tiles. And it would put additional momentum behind public and private sector R&D.
I'd put a lot more effort into this if I could count on a robust but reasoned debate in the TPM community. I'm neither a scientist nor an economist. Anything I know about energy policy, I got from the New York Times.
I am, however, open to constructive criticism, starting now.
Mark8 and Golden are on this issue.
I could be way off but I think the New prez is going to come back for more.
What if he can show some movement, some success and then ask for more in the programs that are working?
We shall see. But I am for infrastructure, cut on taxes for middle class and R&D for sure.
January 29, 2009 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm hoping we can get a good discussion on what the elements might be. Opportunities for public-private partnership. Tax credits vs. direct investment. The whole nine yards.
California's plan is extremely progressive but dollars are the issue, especially with the state staring down a $40 billion budget hole.
January 29, 2009 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two additions to your proposal:
First, I would suggest raising the price of gasoline to a minimum $4/gal at the pump for reasons outlined here
Secondly, I would also consider passing single payer universal health care, in tandem with this energy project if you dare or otherwise as an alternative. As documented in the Duck Pond, this initiative would create a great number of jobs while solving a social dilemma as well.
I heard one economist say that we will know when the problem within the economy is being understood and the proposed stimulus plan is large enough - when the price tag quoted is large enough to take your breath away, and then grows a bit larger than that.
I'm beginning to think he wasn't too far off.
January 29, 2009 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign on putting a floor under gas prices.
If we were somehow to emerge from this god-awful mess with single payer I could go to my grave a happy Meanie. I just don't think it's going to happen. At least not now.
The economist quote reminds me of Paulson when asked where he came up with the original $700 billion. But that's probably as close as you can come to pricing it accurately.
January 29, 2009 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, god, remember when a billion dollars was alot of money? Remember, what, six months ago when that young trader working for a French Bank lost them something like $2 billion and we thought that was an unbelievable amount? Hell, it turns out he wouldn't make a good pimple on a Wall Street banker's ass if he couldn't do better than that!
January 29, 2009 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, the good old days. The poor sap got run through the meatgrinder for about what Thain spent to remodel his office.
Used to be you could through the zeros away as long as they were to the right of the decimal point.
January 30, 2009 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
It makes all kinds of sense for the government to impose a large, even huge gas tax now and similar taxes on all oil. Otherwise, the moment they feel they can, big oil will send the price skyrocketing again. If we grab a large chunk of that prior to the inevitable return of much higher prices, then the oil companies will essentially have to split some of the money they ad a monopoly on with the government. Those funds can then be used to help us break our dependence on oil which is poisoning the planet and threatening life on earth.
January 30, 2009 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
A great deal of this money would in fact be best sent back to the middle and lower class in tax relief targeted at addressing the consumer's increase in price. The primary objective for the price floor is not to penalize the consumer, after all, but rather to remove the subsidy that oil enjoys and thus make it compete with renewables on an even playing field.
Your other point about taking away most of big oil's ability to manipulate the market pricing is very legitimate.
January 30, 2009 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd think that part of the justification for establishing a price floor would be to encourage people to buy fuel efficient cars. It would make sense (and be more politically palatable) to establish some offset, like a reduction in payroll taxes for people making less than a certain amount. But I'd make that temporary by establishing, say, a 5-year phaseout.
January 30, 2009 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this conservation efficiency can be accomplished without unduly punishing the consumer who doesn't need any increase in living expenses, particularly in our present condition. See my response to oleeb farther down in the thread to see what I mean.
January 30, 2009 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I got a trucker asking for $4.00 gasoline?
Two dollar Fed tax on each gallon as long as truckers are not stuck coasting down hills. hahahahhaahhaha
If you are for it Sleepin with help for truckers, I am too!!!!
January 30, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Georgia Overdrive! WooHooo!
I'm not only a trucker. I was founder/investor in a failed $60 million biodiesel project. Worked a very hard three plus years to get it off the ground. Gained $30 million in equity funding from over 900 investors. Had everything set, ready to commence building, when the bank financing fell apart - right at the beginning of this banking crisis. Investors got most of their money back, but I was pretty much all in in the seed round. Probably won't be retiring anytime soon!
It's probably just as well. If we were in production now (likely), we could not compete against $40/bbl oil. And so I know of what I speak when I talk about the need for a floor price on oil if we are ever to get serious about investing in alternative fuels/energy.
January 30, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
...pretty much my story in the metal supply business. I put everything ($) I had into it 5 years ago just to have the bank crawl into a hole and tell me I was on my own right after the volatile metal prices of the prior 12 months crashed. I lost, the bank lost, as did the investors.
I'm now neo-retired. Neo-retirement means that I have a lot of time on my hands to reeducate and then find work in the environmental industry maybe.
January 30, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear ya, but I also believe that until gas and oil generally are no longer cheap enough to waste and take for granted we will be unable to make much progress on reducing emissions and our dependence on oil. Perhaps we could do both?
January 30, 2009 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you would find that a $4/gal retail price coupled with tax breaks designed to cushion this impact on the consumer provides enough disconnect between price and rebate to actually encourage conservation. The tax rebate can be structured in such a way that it is leveraged in accordance to how efficient you burn the fuel. Tax rebate paid according to mileage accrued; more mpg results in a larger per gallon rebate.
Difficult to explain, but it makes sense to me! :O)
January 30, 2009 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Understood, but in that scheme you lose much, if not all, of the benefit of creating a pool of money to help us convert away from oil and toward clean fuels depending upon how you design it don't you? If we don't create a pool dedicated to that purpose it will be chronically underfunded if left to Congressional processes and there won't be any means to push the nation toward that goal other than higher prices at the pump. The only time we ever see public or governmental interest in actually doing anything about our oil addiction is via high prices. If we make the higher prices more affordable without creating a pool of money to move us down the road toward clean or cleaner fuels we haven't made much progress have we?
January 30, 2009 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. The price shocks this summer did cause economic hardship, but people reacted by changing their behavior. They eliminated unnecessary trips. Some actually tried keeping their tires inflated. Carpools became serious options instead of watercooler jokes. And folks who were the market for a new vehicle started looking for more fuel-efficient options.
I think effectively doubling the price of gasoline in the middle of a depressionary recession is inhumane in addition to being bad policy. But the ultimate objective should be to change behavior and generate revenue to support next-generation energy solutions and infrastructure.
January 30, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I think my reasoning is nicely contained in meanie's second paragraph.
I absolutely agree that the retail price should be high enough to create the change in behavior we witnessed in this most recent run-up in price. Raising thos prices during a recession, however, would be inhumane AND foolishly contributing to the recession.
Ultimnately, I agree precisely with Oleeb's concern/methods. The only caveat would be some kind of relief for the truly low-income worker for which a rise in price of anything is cruelly punitive.
January 30, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your overall concept of helping to offset the cost for those who can't afford to pay more, but I'd separate it completely from driving. After all, we also want to encourage mass transit and carpooling, not to mention working from home where possible. As for those wanting to ship supplies (with trucking being one way to do so), don't confine them to merely having more fuel efficient trucks, especially as measured in mpg. Not too much more imaginative, but better, is product-pound-miles-per-gallon (which would encourage better packaging, for example), but also just consider producing the goods closer to source, etc.
We definitely don't want to reward driving further, even if it's with more fuel-efficient vehicles.
January 30, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
absolute agrement here!
January 30, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're absolute right. In the long run, it will be impossible to significant change without addressing the underlying cultural issues.
Too often that point gets swept under the rug. You can't throw money at it and solve it.
January 30, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Testing the waters here, if gingerly: what is wrong with shipping by rail? There used to be several railroads whose primary business was freight. Has that much track been torn up for jogging paths?
January 31, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing that I'm aware of. The only reason I didn't include it was that I'm not sure of the costs involved—not that I'm really aware of the costs involved in the other, either.
February 2, 2009 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
It wouldn't surprise me if this $800B bill is just a warm up, seeing how the Repos and press handle things.
January 30, 2009 4:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can only pray the administration takes the advise of you people and begins squandering untold billions on fanciful things like solar panels, 'green house gasses' and 'upgrading' a power grid which is functioning just fine. The problem for me is, although the administration is Marxist, they're not fools.
I want to let you in on a little secret. You people's thinking constitutes the very innermost core of the left wing lunatic democrat base. If you are deceiving yourselves into thinking the administration would ever care a whit what you think, you're wrong.
They realize they've got you in their pockets, it doesn't matter what they do. They pay more attention to the far right than they do to you. Honestly, they live in the real world and look upon you with amusement.
January 30, 2009 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your comment. Let's move on.
January 30, 2009 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another remark that is so for outside the bounds of reality, I question whether you even believe it. A republican governor is one of the leading proponents of these ideas (in case you missed it) as is a former republican oilman by the unlikely name of T. Boone Pickens. This blog is far from describing a Marxist wonderland and instead is something that conservatives and liberals alike have been talking about in more urgent tones as the data becomes more solid.
The national strategy being discussed is sound: Oil is running out and we need to rebuild our entire energy system to no longer rely on it. Further carbon-based energy production is killing us (even if you disagree that it is killing the planet as well) so see point number one. Now is the time for conservatives to talk tactics, as Arnold is doing, and not strategy, like the Limbots, so either get on board or get left behind.
I suspect it will be the latter.
January 30, 2009 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
T Boone Pickens is trying to make a buck. The value of his little windmill project free fell with the price of oil.
But he has salvation in the form of house speaker Pelosi. She invested a bunch of money with him on the windmill fantasy.
She larded the 'stimulus' with plenty of earmarks to protect her investment with taxpayer money. Nothing but open thieves.
January 30, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are simply not credible as a critic, so this must be a joke.
I know a lot of republicans in real life and you don't sound like any of them. You sound more like a stereotype of a republican, which is automatically suspect as being an agent provocateur trying to spin up the natives.
Of course, Pickens is out to make a buck. Just like Lockheed Martin is sure to build our next generation of photovoltaic power cells. Just like General Dynamics will be manufacturing and deploying tidal generators on our extensive coastlines.
Get on-board or get left behind, but the change this country needs has already started and won't be stopped by simple-minded robots who can't see fit to form their own opinions.
January 30, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was going to try to say this without pushing ideological hot buttons, but I don't have the time so I won't try. I'm not sure in this case it's even possible.
Define it any way you like, but at the end of the day the national interest determines market demand. The rule applies whether the interest is in Hummers and Navigators or wind turbines and photo-v's.
What separates "national interest" from the normal meanderings of the free market is that in this case, the people are backing their action. I don't think anyone can argue that money isn't a motivator.
January 30, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good addition. I totally agree. I would also add that you are one of the least ideological democrats at TPM, but avoiding renaye's "hot buttons" would be like trying to avoid the sand while walking at the beach.
January 30, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I were the type that used smileyface emoticons, you would get one.
January 30, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
what a ranting lunatic this renaye character is!!!!!
January 30, 2009 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good discussion you've generated here, bluemeanie!
Kudos!
January 30, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
With the usual distractions. But I guess that comes with the territory.
What I'd like to do is outline California's plan and see if folks think there is a way to achieve it on a national level.
It does seem like there may be enough interest to make the effort worthwhile.
January 30, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually I see the so-called distractions as proof positive that you are on the right track!
January 30, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. It doesn't take long to understand why your presence is so highly valued in this community.
January 30, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Blue. By all means, I'd encourage you to charge ahead on the economic impacts of this stuff - green jobs, green infrastructure, energy & environment, GHG's, etc. That said, energy & greening ON ITS OWN isn't enough to handle the situation we're in. Believe me, I'm all for it - and have worked on it steady for 20 years - but we're got lots else we have to do. Health, military, education, etc.
Here's a link to two (long!) comments I put down on another blog today - rather than waste your time by reiterating them here. Here.
But would be happy to dive in, in more detail, as the debates rise. Cheers & Rec'd, q
January 30, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. Read your comment and appreciate your perspective. I'm counting on you to tell me when I'm full of crap.
I'm not trying to suggest this will be the silver bullet. I do think that for some of the reasons you mention it's a good way to create domestic jobs -- a lot of them -- for semi-skilled and low-skilled labor that has been kicked out of the manufacturing sector.
Cheers.
January 30, 2009 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but, right now, it's a start. Replacing what has been lost may be the only thing we can do for the present and immediate future. Hopefully, with a volume - any number, really - of new jobs created, we can start pushing the snowball back up the hill. We must regain the impetus, somehow. It's getting very, very grim out here. The elephant gets eaten one bite at a time: Let's worry about staving off social breakdown now, sustainable growth tomorrow.
January 30, 2009 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink