TPMDC
« TPMDC Sunday Roundup | Home | Pawlenty's Statement That He'll Certify Franken Doesn't Really Change Much »

TPMDC Morning Roundup

Obama Opposes Trade Penalties In Climate Bill
President Obama has come out against a provision of the climate-change bill that passed the House on Friday, which would impose tariffs on other countries that don't accept limits on pollution. "At a time when the economy worldwide is still deep in recession and we've seen a significant drop in global trade," Obama told reporters, "I think we have to be very careful about sending any protectionist signals out there."

Obama's Day Ahead
President Obama will meet one-on-one with President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia, at 2:15 p.m. ET, with an expanded meeting at 2:45 p.m. ET. At 4:25 p.m. ET, President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama will host a reception for LGBT Pride Month. At 7:15 p.m. ET, Obama will attend a reception for National Finance Committee members.

Biden's Day Ahead
Vice President Biden will be in Wilmington, Delaware, spending the day with his family before his wife Dr. Jill Biden leaves for her trip to Europe. He does not have any scheduled public events.

Obama: I Understand Dems Who Voted Against Climate Bill
President Obama told reporters yesterday that he understands the 44 House Democrats who voted against the energy bill on Friday, saying that "those 44 Democrats are sensitive to the immediate political climate of uncertainty around this issue." He added: "They've got to run every two years, and I completely understand that."

Supreme Court To Rule On Firefighters Case
The U.S. Supreme Court will be handing down its final rulings of the session today -- including a ruling in the New Haven firefighters case, for which conservatives have criticized Sonia Sotomayor. The case, which Sotomayor previously ruled on as part of a three-judge panel, involves the city of New Haven throwing out the results of a promotion test after members of minorities did not score as well.

Congress Members Lost Big In Real Estate
Roll Call reports that members of Congress from both parties have lost a lot of money in the real estate crash. For example, Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart said of a recent sale of a North Miami Beach condo: "We took a huge loss. We sold it for less than we owed."

Peter Schiff Polling For Possible Senate Run Against Dodd
CQ reports that financial commentator Peter Schiff is conducting polls in Connecticut, to test support for a potential run as a Republican for U.S. Senate against Democratic incumbent Chris Dodd in 2010. "We do think there's certainly room for the fiscally conservative, libertarian wing of the party to attract a lot of attention in the Northeast," said Schiff's brother Andrew.

Gay-Rights Activists See Politics Lagging Behind Cultural Shifts
The New York Times reports that gay-rights activists and politicians see a sharp change in cultural attitudes about gay rights -- with the political situation lagging behind. "America is changing more quickly than the government," said Linda Ketner, a gay Democrat who nearly unseated an incumbent Republican Congressman in South Carolina last year. "They are lagging behind the crowd. But if I remember my poli sci from college, isn't that the way it always works?"


12 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Obama REALLY Disappoints Gay Community: Gives Gift of ‘Stonewall’ for Stonewall’s 40th Anninversary
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=7636

user-pic

He doesn't actually pimp them himself. He has a 12 year old Bangla-Deshi boy on retainer doing it for him.

user-pic

Wow. Must DonDavis pimp EVERY one of his blog posts? I for one make a point of NOT following his links, simply on principle. Blogwhoring = bad.

user-pic

D'oh!-wrong place.

He doesn't actually pimp them himself. He has a 12 year old Bangla-Deshi boy on retainer doing it for him.


user-pic

Yes blogwhoring is bad... I make it a habit to click the 'Report Abuse' link under every one of DD's dumb-ass unfunny fake headlines.

user-pic

I'll set the over under on Madoff at 28 years that would theoretically lock him up until he was 99.

Will be very interesting how SCOTUS rules on New Haven especially and digs that Scalia and co put in on the lower court decision.

TPM can you please ban Don Davis? Very annoying adds nothing to the discussion here.

user-pic

It will be interesting especially since the Republicans on the court should agree with Sonya on ideology that the State has the right to administer any test they choose as long as they are attempting to get fair results and not trying to be bias for or against any one group.

But it is a white plaintiff and Roberts is political enough to want to give the right more ammunition to oppose Sonya with so he may cast his very first vote against the government and for the individual in this case just to embarrass Sonya a bit.

Personal rant...

The BIG lie on judges from the right is that they don't want activists jurors. Roberts is the most activists Chief Justice in a generation. His court has already overturned more standing president and any court has in my lifetime. By any definition this is a very activists court but since they are moving law to the right it's alright with the Republicans.

user-pic
"I think we have to be very careful about sending any protectionist signals out there."

I don't want the Republicans collaborating with the Chinese to use the WTO to kill this law.

I am totally not an expert on international trade law, so I'm hoping someone can tell me I'm wrong because in principle, Congress is right. If goods made in foreign countries *cough*China*cough* that don't have greenhouse limits aren't subjected to a tariff, all we'll end up doing is shifting more manufacturing from here to there, where the goods will be made using extra filthy coal power and with the fuel oil burned to ship them here added to their already enhanced C02 footprint.

What I'm afraid of, however, is that if we do that unilaterally, rather than through an international convention, they're just setting us up for a protectionism claim in the WTO which will result in retaliatory tariffs which, in turn, will give the Republicans ammo to kill the law.

user-pic

Whoops. That first sentence was supposed to include a "Translation:" at the start.

user-pic

Of course, the Chinese government just stuffed a "Buy Chinese" requirement into their economic stimulus package. This was, of course, a hypocrisy of Sanford-esque proportions, considering they just finished railing against the "Buy American" policy in our stimulus package -- which the Republicans collaborated with the Chinese to remove. And they succeeded.

user-pic

Krugman (see fnord12's links above):

The truth is that there’s perfectly sound economics behind border adjustments related to cap-and-trade. The way to think about it is in terms of a well-established theory — the theory of non-economic objectives in trade policy — that owes its origins to Jagdish Bhagwati, who certainly can’t be accused of being a protectionist. The essential idea is that if you have a non-economic objective, such as self-sufficiency in food production, you should choose policy instruments to align incentives with that objective; in normal circumstances this leads to consumer or producer intervention, rarely to tariffs.

But in this case the non-economic objective is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, never mind their source. If you only impose restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions from domestic sources, you give consumers no incentive to avoid purchasing products that cause emissions in other countries; as a result, you have an inefficient outcome even from a world point of view. So border adjustments here are entirely legitimate in terms of basic economics.

And they’re also probably OK under trade law. The WTO has looked at the issue, and suggests that carbon tariffs may be viewed the same way as border adjustments associated with value-added taxes. It has long been accepted that a VAT is essentially a sales tax — a tax on consumers — which for administrative reasons is collected from producers. Because it’s essentially a tax on consumers, it’s legal, and also economically efficient, to collect it on imported goods as well as domestic production; it’s a matter of leveling the playing field, not protectionism.

And the same would be true of carbon tariffs.
What’s happening here, I think, is that people are relying on what Paul Samuelson called an economic “shibboleth” — they’re relying on some slogan rather than thinking through the underlying economics. In this case the shibboleth is “free trade good, protection bad”, when what the economics really says is that incentives should reflect the marginal cost of greenhouse gases in all goods, wherever produced — which in this case happens to imply border adjustments.

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Matt
Cooper

Bio

Eric
Kleefeld

Bio

Brian
Beutler

Bio


Recommended Reader Posts

  • Going Green with Gore
    by LisB
  • Republicans and Democrats According to My Pa
    by ~flowerchild~
  • Republican Senators Vow to Filibuster Election Day
    by Orlando
  • Red Alert!
    by matyra
  • WSJ Tacks to the Left of Obama on Glass-Steagel
    by tonnyb
  • Lieberman and The Derivation of The Word "Dictator"
    by igotmyreasons
  • There Must Be A Way...
    by synchronicity
  • One Man's War
    by LND
  • CBO's Analysis of Republicans' Big Healthcare Game-Changer: Tort Reform
    by azpaull
  • AXJ-OBAMA B.C. FOLLOW UP ON COMMENTS
    by AXJ
  • Latest Videos




    Advertise Liberally
    Share
    Close Social Web Email

    "To" Email Address

    Your Name

    Your Email Address