Don't You Make This Difficult For Me, Jon Huntsman

It's early, and my feelings are confused right now, but I think I'm starting to really like Jon Huntsman.  I mean, I liked him a lot when he was governor because we just never had governors like him in Utah.  He supported cap-and-trade legislation, he moved us forward on civil rights by supporting gay rights and civil unions, he supported immigrant rights, he called out those ridiculous congressional Republicans for being useless (his word was "inconsequential"), and he generally talked and acted like a moderate in a state where Republican politicians are almost universally crazies.  I even started to like that weird thing he does with his eyebrows.  He wasn't perfect, but he was pretty good.

Then he praised Obama and Clinton and went to work as the ambassador to China in the Obama administration, even when everyone knew he had national aspirations.

Now it is clear that he's running for president and he continues to talk like a moderate, reasonable conservative and, frankly, it's jarring.  Take a look at this article by the Deseret News and in particular the transcript of the interview he did with CNN's John King.

 When asked about the praise he has given Pres. Obama and Sec. Clinton he said:

"Well, occasionally you write thank you notes, which I think is, for a lot of people, an important tradition. I also believe in civility. I believe that we ought to have a civil discourse in this country. You're -- and you're not going to agree with people 100 percent of the time, but when they succeed and do things that are good, you can compliment them on it. I think we need to come together more on the issues that really do matter. I believe in civility and I believe in complimenting people when they do a good job."

When asked about his support for gay rights he said:

"Well, I'm for civil unions. I believe in traditional marriage. But I think subordinate to that, we don't do an adequate job when it comes to equality and fairness. And I'm going to say take a look at my total record. And like every person who's been elected to office and tried to do things, some things you'll like, some things you won't.  On balance, we hope you like us. But if you don't, there are always other alternatives."

When asked about his support for cap-and-trade and whether climate change is human-caused he said:

"Well, I think the science of the community would -- would suggest that to be the case. And I think in a world like we have, we should be deferring to the scientific community and not the political community to make decisions that are best left in the hands of scientists. . . . So by the time that, you know, in the years to come, people want to have this conversation in a serious way, because people care about their environment, they care about air quality, I think we're going to face a whole lot more in the way of options other than just a tax on carbon and a cap and trade proposal."

He also opposed sending our military to Libya.  He likes the idea of privatizing Medicare, which I think is a disastrous idea, but that's not ever going to happen anyway (knock on wood) so I'll overlook it.

These are not the types of things Republican nominees for POTUS say, though.  They typically stick with catchy soundbites and heated rhetoric (also, some Democrats, but we're talking about the current Republican field here).  They don't praise Pres. Obama for his successes, they call him a communist, anti-American, Muslim outsider who is hell-bent on destroying our nation (note: not exaggerations at all . . . for real).  They don't support civil unions and say we aren't doing a good job with equity and fairness (socialist buzzwords, people!), they say that gays are destroying traditional marriage and the very moral fiber of America and will bring our downfall as a Christian nation.  They don't admit that climate change is human caused and leave the door open to cap-and-trade and talk about love for our environment, they apologize profusely for ever admitting something so awful and talk about how scientists are just in a power grab to drag us down in a socialist plot.

But here is Huntsman being a mature, thoughtful adult addressing issues seriously and acknowledging that the other side has good ideas.  Which raises some conflicting feelings within me.

First, I don't consider myself particularly moderate in a lot of areas.  I'm pretty well fully liberal.  So your average moderate conservative isn't all that appealing to me in normal circumstances.

But second, I'm not particularly enamored with Pres. Obama, as I have written a few times before, for the reason that I'm fully liberal and the president doesn't seem interested in sticking his neck out for liberal positions.  I like that he plays the adult and compromises and gets things done, but I also want him to make strong cases for liberal causes along the way, which he doesn't seem to want to do.  If you're a Democratic president, you have to do both to impress me.

So, third, if you are going to have a president that is moderate and practical that isn't really interested in being a strong voice for liberal issues, what does it matter if she or he is a Democrat or Republican?  And who knows, Huntsman may well be even better than Pres. Obama on some key issues, in particular civil rights.  Maybe he'll support repealing the Patriot Act, ending indefinite imprisonment of detainees without a civil trial, and getting us out of wars we have no business fighting.

Finally, Jon Huntsman is Mormon.  I know he's been a little evasive about his Mormonism, but he is Mormon, saying "I believe in God. I'm a good Christian. I'm very proud of my Mormon heritage. I am Mormon."  I like how he describes the religion as "a very diverse and heterogeneous cross-section of people," which I believe is absolutely true.

Now, I'm on record as saying that I would never vote for a person just because of religion.  That is a very, very poor way to choose political leaders.  But at a time when the Democratic president isn't scratching my liberal itch, and when there is a very good Republican candidate who is somewhat iconoclastic and says some things I agree with on issues I think are important, I find that Huntsman being a Mormon I can be proud of adds a little extra luster.  It's a point, a single point, in his favor.  Tipping the scales, if I may mix my metaphors, in his direction just a bit.

But my potential enthusiasm is tempered by the fact that there used to be this other Mormon Republican ex-governor who took decidedly moderate or liberal stands on issues like gay rights and health care who all of the sudden when he wanted to become president started changing his positions and pandering to the please-don't-compare-yourselves-to-the-real-Tea-Party and became as unlikeable as possible.  His name, of course, is Mitt Romney.

So, if you want me to love you, Jon Huntsman, and I'm vulnerable right now and just might be able to, don't become another Mitt Romney.

Ugly Cap-and-Trade Logic

I think the worst argument against a cap-and-trade system to lower greenhouse gas emissions is the China-India argument. It goes like this: Since China and India are not going to do anything in the near term to reduce their GHG emissions, it would be a waste of time for us to do anything. Unless everyone does, nobody should do it.

Think if we used this (non) logic in other areas of our lives. Unless everyone at my place of employment starts working hard all day long, I'm going to slack because my effort is worthless on its own. Until every other nation on earth ends human rights violations, we are going to keep oppressing our citizens because we are just a drop in the bucket. Unless all the other people around this child at the ballpark stop swearing and cussing, I'm going to keep on doing it because it won't really make a difference if I stop.

I find it absurd. We don't do the right thing only when it is popular or common, we do the right thing because it is intrinsically good. And yet conservatives accuse liberals of moral relativism.

Conservatives want the U.S. to be the shining beacon of democracy and justice and fairness, to lead the way in creating democracies. I and other liberals agree with them. But they don't want to be the leaders global warming reduction and other environmental causes which are just as important, or maybe more important, than democracy building. In that case they want to be the followers, the last person through the door after everyone else ensures it is safe. I say we should lead out on the issue and, if so, China and India will come along too.

And we shouldn't be deluding ourselves that our emissions are just a drop in the bucket, or that our reduction of GHG emissions alone is too small to make a difference. The US emits more GHG by total emissions and per capita than any other nation in the world. We account for almost one-fourth of the total GHG emissions worldwide. We are the big fish.

Lets not wait around for everyone else to do the right thing before we act, lets be the world leaders that we are expected to be.

A Piece of Budget Pie

There are so many facets to President Obama's proposed budget that we will have to focus on each independently. First out of the gate is what common vernacular has deemed "cap and trade."

The motivation behind "cap and trade" is to reduce US emissions from carbon to well below the level set in 2005. To be precise, the goal is to drop the pollutions to 14% below former levels. As altruism is to often only the stuff of fairy tales, a more effective means of motivating businesses to reduce carbon emissions is by a system of taxation. Essentially, the government will auction off the chance to pollute. A business can purchase pollution access for some dollar amount per ton of CO2 to be released into our atmosphere. The government will limit the amount of pollution allowed (the cap part), and in the event that a company has leftover, unused pollution units, then can sell these to another company (the trade part).

The first, and most obvious, upside is the limit of CO2 pumped into Mother Nature. I don't honestly know how much of a difference this is going to make on her at this point, but everything we can do to ameliorate the disease, we must do. The second upside is what happens to the revenue. Conservative (as in cautious, not Republican) estimates suggest that the system will bring in 645 billion dollars over the next 10 years. A significant portion of this money will be used to fund research in alternative sources of energy, while some of the money will be given back to the consumer in the form of tax credits and refunds for transitioning to energy efficiency.

Oops. You caught me. I said it - "given back" to the consumer. The reality of the situation is that it is very likely that electricity, gas, and other utility costs will increase to offset the taxation of pollution. One report claims that the energy bills will jump by as much as 7%, and that the average tax will jump from 1,100 to 1,437 by 2015.

While I do concede that there will be an increase in the price of energy in the future, I want to break down these numbers to show just how dramatic they really are.

7% increase on energy bills. If you pay $50 per month throughout the year, then the bill will increase by $3.50 each month for a grand total of $42 per year.

Average tax to jump to $1,437 in 2015. Considering that inflation is hovering around 3% and will get the "average" up to $1,313, the additional $124 doesn't seem as significant. The other confounding factor that dramatic effect always omits from these kind of statements, is the definition of "average." Mathematically speaking, one takes all of the numbers in a set, adds the value together, and then divides it by the total number in the set. This analysis is great when the values are distributed equally above and below the average. For example, let's say that 10 different people pay taxes. Seven of them pay $20, one pays nothing, one pays $45 dollars, and one pays $2000. The average of the set is $218.50, but the majority of people pay $20.

The same it is with averages so often cited in reporting (by both factions). In the case of the increase in the average amount of tax is that there will be a return to the pre-Bush tax rate for the most wealthy from 33% to 36%. More later, but this return to 36% was decided on by the people that initially came up with the break. It was meant to be temporary, and thankfully it will be.

So back to the main issue. You will pay more for coal derived power in the future. Your money will be invested in developing alternative forms of energy production, and more efficient consumption of energy. The increase in rates is therefore a transient event - as alternative sources of energy become available, and as our ridiculously inefficient machines become more efficient, the cost of energy will come down. Minimal sacrifice now, maximum return later.

The alternative is to not have a cap and trade, not to invest in alternative energy, not to stop polluting, not to become more efficient, and not to save anything.