The old economy of gimmicks

Cross-posted from my burgeoning business: SocialSustenance.org. Image by net_efekt

Why would we trust in the "fundamentals" of the old economy? Filled with gimmicks like unfunded mandates, employer-paid health care, and tax breaks for corporate offshoring, why should we believe that a familiar budget will be the solution to these problems? When jobs are being lost, smart loans turned down, and families choosing between heat and gasoline, isn't it time to acknowledge that the old economy of gimmicks isn't working?
The new federal budget brings forward some bold ideas for improving the transparency of the market, but some criticize it as being anti-capitalism and spending too much. Obama says his budget accounts for things that were being left off the books by the Bush administration, and isn't one of government's roles is to make sure the free market's invisible hand can make decisions with access to all of the data? After all, without transparent accounting, creating long-term economic prosperity just isn't possible.
A recent example: Trends in energy supply and demand suggested CAFE standards would partially mitigate energy costs and maintain the health of US automakers. If the old guard in Washington had removed its nationalist blinders and observed the world market, our leaders would have recognized that the free market was already choosing its cars based on efficiency. It's the same with health care and energy policy. (One also has to wonder, if US automakers hadn't been forced to pay health care for their employees, would they still be around? Foreign automakers don't have to pay for health insurance; their governments do.)
It's not just the data, our own anecdotes bear out the analysis. Passing CAFE standards years ago would have been a saving grace.
Let's not make the same mistake
Here's a bold move, and a winner: a carbon cap. Besides nixing earmarks and eliminating other gimmicks, Obama's plan accounts for how much it will cost us to stop relying on finite energy resources.
There are many policy options to put a cap on carbon, and Obama prefers a cap-and-trade based on: 1) the latest science and 2) leapfrogging Europe's "learning experience." Europe's cap-and-trade has drawn criticism for adversely affecting the poor, but the US can learn from Europe's mistakes to make sure the poor do not suffer increased energy prices.
A bold carbon cap will embolden the market to eliminate waste from our energy system. We currently waste more than 30% of the energy we produce, but businesses are reluctant to enter the efficiency sector because financial mechanisms to recover their investment over time are still in their infancy. A carbon cap isn't a complete solution, but it helps close that gap, and unlike the gimmicks of the past, it will produce jobs within months of being passed (talk about justice!). Like institutional acupuncture, these green jobs will go to work at the heart of the matter: improving energy efficiency and lowering utility costs for everyone, focusing on low-income homes first.
Along with a few other representatives, Arkansas Senators don't want the budget process to be used to pass a climate bill. They're excusing themselves by saying they need more deliberation, but they've already been deliberating and delaying for months. Besides, shouldn't the budget process account for energy trends?
Call the Senate Switchboard. An operator will connect you directly with the Senate office you request. Voice your opinion. Let's pass a climate bill. (202) 224-3121