Liberal and Loving It: President Bush's last chance

My lunch with...

Boulder Interviews

BVSD

My Blogs

« Funny - Can't Breathe Funny! | Main | When the flu pandemic hits - we're all dead »

President Bush's last chance

Ok, I'm a liberal & a Democrat so from that point of view I'd like to see Bush's rating continue to dwindle until they hit the single digits (he's got two years - he can do it).

But I'm also an American and from that point if view, I'd like to see him do something good for the country. Besides, it's not like Karl Rove is going to read this and say "ok, there's our plan."

So what can Bush do? Fixing Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security is a total non-starter. His original plan for Social Security not only would have cost more and made things worse, but was also shown to be a politically dead. The country won't let him near those.

Same for fixing the healthcare system. The drug plan cost more and made things worse and he therefore has no credibility with either the left or the right on healthcare.

Iraq? Even if he replaced Rumsfeld, Pace, and company with competent leaders, they have made things so bad there (do I detect a trend on things Bush touches?) that what they would be doing is making things less bad. Still a disaster.

Immigration? There is no moderate middle for this right now. Not one with a lot of support anyways. No win here with any proposal.

Which leaves energy. This is the policy of significant import where Bush can still have a major victory. And part of why is because as an oilman (a failed one granted, but an oilman) and as someone fully supported by the oil industry, he can use that background to do the right thing and push it through over the howling objections of the oil industry. Only Nixon could go to China, only Reagan could propose zero nukes, only Clinton could radically change welfare. By the same token Bush is uniquely positioned to bring us a sane energy policy.

So what is a sane energy policy? I think the ultimate goal should be unlimited cheap electricity generated in an environmentally friendly way. Electricity not only powers most everything except cars, but cheap electricity means hydrogen powered cars. So the trick is moving from an oil-based economy to a cheap-electricity-eco-friendly based economy.

We also need to realize that the rest of the world is not going to accept a sub-standard style of living for the sake of the environment and our energy usage. China and India are rushing to join the family of industrialized nations as quickly as they can. And this is a good thing - eliminating poverty & want throughout the world means a better life for more people.

The road to this goal should be market incentives. Don't have the government force specific actions. Instead, have the government subsidize desired goals and tax undesired effects. This is generally the most effective approach and it also is true to the Republican belief in the market (not the Republican practice of corporate welfare, but the ideal).

Create a tax on oil that starts in 5 years and ramps up for 10 years. This should take the post-tax price of oil up to several hundred dollars a barrel. With the 5 year warning and the 10 year ramp, that gives business an incentive to switch and the time to do so.
Open 25% of the reserves in America to oil drilling today - with the caveat that anything not drilled within 2 years is off limits. Let the congress determine which 25% (put them in the hot seat). This gives us significant additional oil within 2 years.
Encourage nuclear power. Hydro, solar, wind, & wave are nice, but they can't produce the power needed by the world. Nuclear can. And there have been significant improvements in Nuclear in the last 20 years. This single part is the crux of the grand compromise to be offered. The left accepts (there really isn't any alternative) that nuclear is the only eco-friendly solution to our energy needs and to reducing global warming. The right accepts that the government actively works on phasing out oil in favor of nuclear.
For eco-friendly energy such as nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, & wind, the government promises a minimum price per kilowatt hour purchased. If the price electricity is sold for drops below that price, the government makes up the difference. This guarantee is set for 10 years and then drops to nothing over an additional 10 years. This gives businesses a guaranteed minimum return on their investment making it a safe bet.
For nuclear plants the decommissioning is the biggest uncertainty. The government guarantees a maximum cost per ton for disposal from the plants - both of fuel and the plant itself. If industry does it cheaper, the subsidy is not needed. If more, the government pays the difference. This guarantee is for all plants that come online in the next 10 years providing a huge incentive to get plants built now.
Make up the difference for the cost of hydrogen, to keep it below a given value. This should be started in 5 years and run for 10 years. This guaranteed highest price at the pump will give people an incentive to switch to hydrogen powered cars.
Set new ongoing increases in the CAFÉ standards for automakers with increases over the next 10 years. Do not require that they be met, but set high taxes for each mpg they miss.
Set new additional taxes on carbon emissions starting in 5 years and then increasing over the next 10. This will encourage electrical generation to shift from coal (global warming and unhealthy emissions) to eco-friendly.
Work to bring in a system like Brazil's where cars run on oil or bio and both are available.
Remove requirements like the present requirement that ethanol be added to fuel (which is not an energy policy, it's a farm subsidy). If ethanol makes sense, a growing tax on petroleum will be all the help it needs. The trick is targeted guarantees and taxes, not specific requirements.

So there you have it. This is a policy that Bush/Cheney is uniquely capable of getting implemented. And in so doing, it would be a very good thing for the country. It would turn the President's fortunes around as a large success would make a gigantic difference. Finally it would leave him a legacy of "blew it in Iraq but moved the world past oil" rather than his present legacy of "third worst president."

But as I said at the top, Karl Rove doesn't read my blog. And it would require a greater man than the one we have in the White House today.

trackbacks: Mudville Gazette, DailyKos

May 03, 2006 | Permalink

Comments

Ok, I'm a liberal & a Democrat so from that point of view I'd like to see Bush's rating continue to dwindle until they hit the single digits (he's got two years - he can do it).

But I'm also an American and from that point if view, I'd like to see him do something good for the country. Besides, it's not like Karl Rove is going to read this and say "ok, there's our plan."

Same for fixing the healthcare system. The drug plan cost more and made things worse and he therefore has no credibility with either the left or the right on healthcare.

Immigration? There is no moderate middle for this right now. Not one with a lot of support anyways. No win here with any proposal.

Create a tax on oil that starts in 5 years and ramps up for 10 years. This should take the post-tax price of oil up to several hundred dollars a barrel. With the 5 year warning and the 10 year ramp, that gives business an incentive to switch and the time to do so.
Open 25% of the reserves in America to oil drilling today - with the caveat that anything not drilled within 2 years is off limits. Let the congress determine which 25% (put them in the hot seat). This gives us significant additional oil within 2 years.
Encourage nuclear power. Hydro, solar, wind, & wave are nice, but they can't produce the power needed by the world. Nuclear can. And there have been significant improvements in Nuclear in the last 20 years. This single part is the crux of the grand compromise to be offered. The left accepts (there really isn't any alternative) that nuclear is the only eco-friendly solution to our energy needs and to reducing global warming. The right accepts that the government actively works on phasing out oil in favor of nuclear.
For eco-friendly energy such as nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, & wind, the government promises a minimum price per kilowatt hour purchased. If the price electricity is sold for drops below that price, the government makes up the difference. This guarantee is set for 10 years and then drops to nothing over an additional 10 years. This gives businesses a guaranteed minimum return on their investment making it a safe bet.
For nuclear plants the decommissioning is the biggest uncertainty. The government guarantees a maximum cost per ton for disposal from the plants - both of fuel and the plant itself. If industry does it cheaper, the subsidy is not needed. If more, the government pays the difference. This guarantee is for all plants that come online in the next 10 years providing a huge incentive to get plants built now.
Make up the difference for the cost of hydrogen, to keep it below a given value. This should be started in 5 years and run for 10 years. This guaranteed highest price at the pump will give people an incentive to switch to hydrogen powered cars.
Set new ongoing increases in the CAFÉ standards for automakers with increases over the next 10 years. Do not require that they be met, but set high taxes for each mpg they miss.
Set new additional taxes on carbon emissions starting in 5 years and then increasing over the next 10. This will encourage electrical generation to shift from coal (global warming and unhealthy emissions) to eco-friendly.
Work to bring in a system like Brazil's where cars run on oil or bio and both are available.
Remove requirements like the present requirement that ethanol be added to fuel (which is not an energy policy, it's a farm subsidy). If ethanol makes sense, a growing tax on petroleum will be all the help it needs. The trick is targeted guarantees and taxes, not specific requirements.