Obama's Big-Government Energy Policy

June 25, 2008 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (9)

Corrected on 6/26/08: An earlier version of this post incorrectly reported the size of the prize in John McCain's Clean Car Challenge. It is $300 million.

So Barack Obama doesn't think much of John McCain's $300 million Clean Car Challenge, treating it as if it's some new reality show on the Discovery Channel masquerading as energy policy:

When John F. Kennedy decided that we were going to put a man on the moon, he didn't put a bounty out for some rocket scientist to win—he put the full resources of the United States government behind the project and called on the ingenuity and innovation of the American people—not just in the private sector but also in the public sector.

My take: Actually, this idea is exactly the sort of thing Mr. Change should have proposed himself. (BTW, Hillary Clinton was in favor of such prizes when she was still running.) Innovation prizes are a very 21st-century, open-source method of solving problems. The Ansari X-Prize has accelerated the space tourism industry, and Google has created a similar prize for a private moon mission. (I bet an innovation prize in the 1960s would have put more than 12 men on the moon for way less than the $100 billion than that effort cost.)

The government's own top thinkers at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency are using innovation prizes to create smarter robots. Private companies are using them internally to generate new approaches and ideas. It is a way for government to actively try to solve a big problem without creating a massive bureaucracy or favoring companies with good lobbying efforts. Instead, Obama is having a '70s flashback by offering a windfall profits tax to help fund a command-and-control research effort by government.

Obama's knee-jerk opposition to the McCain plan really reflects what an old-fashioned agenda he's been proposing. I can't find anything in it that either goes against decades of Democratic orthodoxy (fix Social Security? Raise taxes!) or reflects any of the novel policy ideas put out by liberal think tanks, much less conservative ones.

It's like a warmed-over version of Bill Clinton's "putting people first" agenda (Obama even resurrects Clinton's high-speed rail idea) infused with a healthy dose of Carternomics. (Since he's been hiring economists lately, Obama might want to give Hillary's top guy, Gene Sperling, a call.) Obama must believe those polls that show him up by double digits over McCain because that's how he's running his campaign right now, like a guy with a big lead trying to run out the clock and not make any mistakes.

Tags:
corporate taxes,
energy,
energy policy and climate change,
Barack Obama

Reader Comments Read all comments (9)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Someone has to want to ride te public transit for it to be viable.

The Dirty Mac of NJ 9:22PM June 28, 2008

A bounty was used by the British government to solve the Longitude problem (i.e., a way to enable ships to know how far east or west they were). The solution was, in essence, a watertight, motion proof clock set at London time. By comparing the position of the sun to the London time, ships could establish their longitude (See the Dava Sobel book, Longitude, for a fascinating description).

The key here is that the use of a mechanical time piece was highly disfavored by the well connected elites at the Royal Academy, who believed that the problem was an astrnomical one rather than a mechanical one to be solved by a mere tradesman. Had the British government used some sort of program of government funding the research rather than paying for the result to anyone who found it, it likely would have funded these highly connected elites and not the alternative that ultimately prevailed.

DCLawyer of DC 2:30PM June 27, 2008

All right, I did a little more looking things up and I agree that there were technology reasons that would favor automobiles over trolleys on rails...but still it is true that GM was convicted of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act and was buying the railcars to sell their buses after which public transit usefulness was degraded. They are still an example of how large companies are powerful and can use their power in possibly illegal ways to look after their interests.

Also I don't know why we can't have better public transit. I've visited Seoul and Tokyo and they have metros that span very large areas, in Seoul the end to end ride on a line was more than an hour and a half, that's at least comparable to the LA area Santa Monica to South Bay. You wouldn't need a car to live in the nearby semi-suburbs and commute to the city. I don't know if the current CA public transit is subsidized by the state, or run at a loss, but why can't they work on making it actually useful and even profitable to run. If you want to use it now, you have to drive anyway to get to the station. http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/03/hong-kong-subwa.html

Susie Q of CA 5:13PM June 26, 2008

Capital Commerce

U.S. News business reporter Matthew Bandyk examines the issues, people, and debates that shape the nexus of political and economic life in the nation's capital.

advertisement

advertisement