Politically, what incentive is there for the opposition party to compromise?

[DigitalC]

@adaher

Not if you put yourself in the head of a Republican. If all those things that Obama wants are bad for the country, let him have them and things go to pot and you win the next election.

Heck, probably half the reason GWB was such a massive failure is because Democrats gave him enough rope to hang himself with. A more obstructionist Democratic Party could have stopped the tax cuts for starters.

Republicans don’t honestly think those things are bad for the country, they think they will be successful and thus bad for them.

[adaher]

Every single thing Republicans stopped was stuff that needed stopping. If cap and trade had passed, or the deficit was a lot higher than it is today, things would not be going as well as they are right now.

What’s hilarious is that the President is now trying to claim credit for it. Which is smart politically. I always thought he was kinda stupid to say that Republicans keep blocking him. That’s why he didn’t get a bump in approval from the improving economy. Saying that you can’t get anything done is saying that you aren’t responsible for the improving economy.

[SirRay]

@adaher

Not if you put yourself in the head of a Republican. If all those things that Obama wants are bad for the country, let him have them and things go to pot and you win the next election.

What if you put yourself in the head of the current crop of Republican Politicians, who damn well know that many (not all, of course) of Obama’s proposals, like say “The American Jobs” act, would have improved the US economy and not inconsequently helped boost Obama’s (and by extension the Democratic party’s) image with the public?
You would indeed oppose his proposals then.

[adaher]

You’re not putting yourself in a Republican’s head. ALmost none of us believe that a Jobs Act is going to improve the economy. Especially not the one Obama proposed. It would have massively increased the deficit and actually included some provisions that would have worked against the purpose of the bill(such as prohibiting discrimination based on unemployment status, which is nice, but doesn’t add a single job on net and creates a new potential headache for businesses to make them not want to hire).

So yeah, we opposed it because it was a bad idea.

[GIGObuster]

@adaher

Every single thing Republicans stopped was stuff that needed stopping. If cap and trade had passed, or the deficit was a lot higher than it is today, things would not be going as well as they are right now.

It was thanks to powerful interests that cap-n-trade became a bad word, indeed it was thanks to the financial backing of groups that opposed climate change legislation that most Republicans that listened to the science were sacked in 2010. It was not always that way.

Building a Green Economy (Published 2010)

Pigou’s analysis lay mostly fallow for almost half a century, as economists spent their time grappling with issues that seemed more pressing, like the Great Depression. But with the rise of environmental regulation, economists dusted off Pigou and began pressing for a “market-based” approach that gives the private sector an incentive, via prices, to limit pollution, as opposed to a “command and control” fix that issues specific instructions in the form of regulations.

The initial reaction by many environmental activists to this idea was hostile, largely on moral grounds. Pollution, they felt, should be treated like a crime rather than something you have the right to do as long as you pay enough money. Moral concerns aside, there was also considerable skepticism about whether market incentives would actually be successful in reducing pollution. Even today, Pigovian taxes as originally envisaged are relatively rare. The most successful example I’ve been able to find is a Dutch tax on discharges of water containing organic materials.

What has caught on instead is a variant that most economists consider more or less equivalent: a system of tradable emissions permits, a k a cap and trade. In this model, a limited number of licenses to emit a specified pollutant, like sulfur dioxide, are issued. A business that wants to create more pollution than it is licensed for can go out and buy additional licenses from other parties; a firm that has more licenses than it intends to use can sell its surplus. This gives everyone an incentive to reduce pollution, because buyers would not have to acquire as many licenses if they can cut back on their emissions, and sellers can unload more licenses if they do the same. In fact, economically, a cap-and-trade system produces the same incentives to reduce pollution as a Pigovian tax, with the price of licenses effectively serving as a tax on pollution.

In practice there are a couple of important differences between cap and trade and a pollution tax. One is that the two systems produce different types of uncertainty. If the government imposes a pollution tax, polluters know what price they will have to pay, but the government does not know how much pollution they will generate. If the government imposes a cap, it knows the amount of pollution, but polluters do not know what the price of emissions will be. Another important difference has to do with government revenue. A pollution tax is, well, a tax, which imposes costs on the private sector while generating revenue for the government. Cap and trade is a bit more complicated. If the government simply auctions off licenses and collects the revenue, then it is just like a tax. Cap and trade, however, often involves handing out licenses to existing players, so the potential revenue goes to industry instead of the government.

Politically speaking, doling out licenses to industry isn’t entirely bad, because it offers a way to partly compensate some of the groups whose interests would suffer if a serious climate-change policy were adopted. This can make passing legislation more feasible.

These political considerations probably explain why the solution to the acid-rain predicament took the form of cap and trade and why licenses to pollute were distributed free to power companies. It’s also worth noting that the Waxman-Markey bill, a cap-and-trade setup for greenhouse gases that starts by giving out many licenses to industry but puts up a growing number for auction in later years, was actually passed by the House of Representatives last year; it’s hard to imagine a broad-based emissions tax doing the same for many years.

In any case, experience suggests that market-based emission controls work. Our recent history with acid rain shows as much. The Clean Air Act of 1990 introduced a cap-and-trade system in which power plants could buy and sell the right to emit sulfur dioxide, leaving it up to individual companies to manage their own business within the new limits. Sure enough, over time sulfur-dioxide emissions from power plants were cut almost in half, at a much lower cost than even optimists expected; electricity prices fell instead of rising. Acid rain did not disappear as a problem, but it was significantly mitigated. The results, it would seem, demonstrated that we can deal with environmental problems when we have to.

I already have enough information to know that what we can find in a Republican’s head. They do not care about the future of the nation, only on the immediate well being of just the powerful of an specific industry.

[D_Anconia]

@kaylasdad99

This is why it’s so important that Republicans not be permitted to win seats in the HoR or Senate.

You keep saying that, but how has that been working out lately?

[Velocity]

@kaylasdad99

This is why it’s so important that Republicans not be permitted to win seats in the HoR or Senate.

Riiiiiight…the numbers 247 and 54 ring a bell ?

[GIGObuster]

@D_Anconia

You keep saying that, but how has that been working out lately?

Not very well, but it remains a reality that many independents and moderate Republicans are completely ignorant about what their supposedly representatives are doing on their behalf. As in mostly doing the opposite of what moderate Republicans and independents think it should be done.

American Voters Care About Climate Change—Just Not Enough to Matter

As the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication documented last month, there is a pretty big chasm between the climate views of Republican voters and Republican lawmakers. After crunching the numbers on a half-dozen national surveys from the past three years, the Yale researchers found that more than half of self-identified Republicans (56 percent) actually support government regulations on carbon dioxide—a rather staggering conclusion when you consider the anti–Environmental Protection Agency venom that GOP lawmakers and White House hopefuls alike have been spitting for years.

Sure, most of those Republicans are not in a hurry right now to press their congress critters to do the right thing, but this is looking as the next “legitimate rape” kind of issue that makes congress critters look so dumb that it will compel many to remove them from office.

[Chronos]

The other side of compromise is that every politician should have some issues on which they’re not willing to compromise. Just, not all of them. You compromise on the things where you can, so others will compromise on the things where you can’t.

[JohnGalt]

I recall the good old days when Pork Barrel politics ruled, which led to lots of give-and-take in Congress. Congressmen would agree to support your bill if you would support their pet project. But the perception of government giveaways led to its demise (of sorts), although I don’t recall the law that banned it (was it the Federal Funding Transparency 2006 act? By Coburn and some other senators named Obama and McCain).

I remember the discussion at the time was that it would be a disaster for Congress, because no one would want to compromise with others, especially those in the other party. Maybe a little secrecy was what made Congress work (or work better than today).

[adaher]

If compromise was based mainly on spending our money badly so that individual Congressmen could have a better chance at reelection then I’m all for the death of compromise. Fortunately, the true compromisers were never motivated by that.

Let’s just call pork barrel politics what it is: legal vote-buying.

[Little_Nemo]

@DigitalC

There is no reason you have to compromise on EVERYTHING, the only problem are those who refuse to compromise at all.

At some point you have to wonder why somebody like this is even seeking office. What’s the point of being a member of Congress if you fail to put any of your ideas into practice? If your goal is absolute ideological purity, write books and go out on the lecture circuit. Congress is the place for getting laws enacted not a soapbox.

[adaher]

In Charlie Wilson’s war, Rep. Charlie Wilson says that all his constituents care about is that their taxes don’t go up and their guns don’t get taken away. There are districts where all a Congressman is expected to do is say “no”.

[kaylasdad99]

@kaylasdad99

You make several compelling points.

This is why it’s so important that Republicans not be permitted to win seats in the HoR or Senate.

@Velocity

Riiiiiight…the numbers 247 and 54 ring a bell ?

They do, in fact, much to the disadvantage of the nation, the planet, and the species. It is imperative that these numbers be electorally reduced to as close to zero as possible, and as soon as possible.

[adaher]

That’ll take a lot of persuasion. Or appeasement. Democrats don’t seem in a very appeasing mood these days though, which will mean that many red areas will only get deeper red.

[D_Anconia]

@GIGObuster

Sure, most of those Republicans are not in a hurry right now to press their congress critters to do the right thing, but this is looking as the next “legitimate rape” kind of issue that makes congress critters look so dumb that it will compel many to remove them from office.

Climate is only one issue, and it’s at the bottom of the list of the American public’s policy priorities:

Public’s Policy Priorities Reflect Changing Conditions at Home and Abroad

I don’t see any Republican Congressmen losing their seats over the climate issue.

[GIGObuster]

@D_Anconia

Climate is only one issue, and it’s at the bottom of the list of the American public’s policy priorities:

Public’s Policy Priorities Reflect Changing Conditions at Home and Abroad | Pew Research Center

I don’t see any Republican Congressmen losing their seats over the climate issue.

The point was that they did, and it was a negative thing.

Climate of Doubt | FRONTLINE

JOHN HOCKENBERRY: [voice-over] This is what they fear, what happened in 2010 to six-term South Carolina Congressman Bob Inglis, a Republican who once thought he was a safe incumbent in his solidly red state.

BOB INGLIS (R), Fmr. Congressman, South Carolina: You know, I’m pretty conservative fellow. I got a 93 American Conservative Union rating, 100 percent Christian Coalition, 100 percent National Right to Life, A with the NRA, zero with the ADA, Americans for Democratic Action, a liberal group, and 23 by some mistake with the AFL-CIO. I demand a recount. I wanted a zero.

JOHN HOCKENBERRY: But Inglis does accept the scientific consensus on global warming and favors legislation to curb the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere. He faced a Tea Party rebellion in his primary.

BOB INGLIS: I had a big tent gathering in Spartanberg County, a bunch of Republicans underneath a great big tent. Comes a question to me, “Yes or no, do you believe in human causation on climate change?” Well, I had a bad habit of answering questions, so I said yes. Boo, hiss, comes the crowd. I was blasted out from underneath the tent. And so— I mean, there were a couple of hundred, 300 people there. I mean, it was intense.

JOHN HOCKENBERRY: He was pounded in commercials and on talk radio.

BOB INGLIS: It became an oft-repeated theme on talk radio, and that is a major source of information, of course, for Republican primary voters. They were hearing, “Inglis has left the reservation. He’s over there somewhere with Al Gore.”

So how are things around here?

STORE OWNER: Slow. The economy’s way off and—

BOB INGLIS: When you get the financial collapse going, that’s what made it possible for some well-spent money to blow doubt into the science because, you know, the bankers failed us, the federal government is failing us, it’s spending too much money, and these scientists who are funded by that federal government, they’re probably in it, too. And besides, they’re godless liberals.

JOHN HOCKENBERRY: Inglis was defeated.

Last time I looked the New York Times made a nice report about the Koch’s, there was nothing mentioned about their efforts to continue to get ‘friendly to the fossil fuel’s’ congress critters elected. One of the reasons why I look at this issue is because there is a political angle, and it is one that shows how silly it is to talk about a liberal media. As for this being at the bottom of priorities: the point I made, and it stands, is that just like “legitimate rape” and gay rights the opinion among conservatives is changing and it is not being reflected among their representatives.

And sure, this is not the only issue, as the gay rights and health care issue shows conservatives in congress are still following more the dictates of their big money supporters rather than the people they represent.

The republicans may indeed win the next presidential election, but the disconnect between what moderate republicans and independents want and what congress critters do instead will become so big that it will soon IMHO cause a political collapse like the one seen when prohibition and bad economical policies helped sent the Republicans into the wilderness for decades.

And the climate issue is already affecting us and it remains an irresponsible position to ignore it.

Economist Says Best Climate Fix A Tough Sell, But Worth It

National Geographic Magazine

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

You kind of proved his point: Inglis lost his seat because Republican voters didn’t give a fuck about climate change.

[GIGObuster]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

You kind of proved his point: Inglis lost his seat because Republican voters didn’t give a fuck about climate change.

No, that is not what the documentary showed, one painful scene was Ingus going to his district and being confronted about one of the tools for a solution that was proposed, the cap-n-trade that was demonized by the propaganda machine launched against people like Ingus. It was also noticeable how the tea partiers also poo-pooed the very science that is telling us that we need to do something, sooner rather than later.

The point here is that they do care alright, they do care enough to remove even republicans that do think.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Let’s start from the beginning. You claimed that Republicans will start losing their seats because they won’t accept the reality of climate change. Maybe that’s true, but the Inglis example reflects the opposite message: that they’ll lose their seats if they do accept the reality of climate change.