Today we conclude our series on what Obama should do next.

And this is maybe the most important step: he needs to return to being the Obama of 2008. On the campaign trail, Candidate Obama promised a new kind of politics, where he would focus on solutions, not ideology. Sadly, as  President, he has not always been well-served by his staff or by his friends in Congress who have pushed him to the left.

It’s time to return to a solutions-based politics. Now that would be change we can believe in!

What else should Obama do now?

He should confront his base. Every great political leader has the courage to tell his/her followers when they are wrong. Think of Reagan negotiating with Gorbachev when most conservatives were furious about it. Turns out Reagan was right.

Unfortunately, in the first 12 months of the Obama presidency, we have not seen many examples of this kind of presidential leadership. In fact, we’ve seen the opposite. Perhaps the best example was the stimulus package, where the White House essentially let Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid write the bill.

If President Obama will start being more forceful with his own party, he will start to win back some of the independent voters that he has lost in the past year.

Tonight when President Obama delivers his State of the Union Address, here is something else he should do: challenge Republicans to work with him on cap and trade.

Some sort of carbon legislation is going to happen eventually. So the choice Republicans face is: do we want a cap and trade system or a carbon tax? A carbon tax would most likely come in the form of a dramatic increase in the cost of fuel at the gas pump. Conservatives won’t support that. Instead, a cap and trade system would provide a marketplace where carbon credits are bought and sold.

President Obama should call out Republicans on this issue and encourage them to work with him to create a carbon-trading system that will help our economy and our environment.

Today we begin our series on what Obama should do next. And this is a great time to discuss this since he’s delivering his State of the Union Address this week. What should he say?

He should say that he had the best of intentions in his first year, but that he overreached. He should say that he wants to work with Republicans to find bipartisan ways to solve problems.

Take health care, for example. Everyone agrees that the current health care system is unsustainable. Health care costs go up 10% every year. That can’t continue. But instead of pushing for more mandates on health insurers (which they will pass on to the consumer in higher premiums) why not borrow a Republican idea and offer tax incentives for individuals and families to purchase their own health insurance with pre-tax dollars the way corporations can do?

This would be a great way for Obama to still get what he wants (health care reform) but change direction and show the country that he heard the message in Massachusetts and wants to work with people on both sides of the aisle.

“>

It’s the politics of carbon credits that is complicated, not the economics.

The economics is as simple as trading any commodity. First, greenhouse gas emissions will be capped. Second, markets are used to allocate the emissions among the group of regulated sources. That’s it. The result of this simple trading process is that the free market will help monetize and incentivize carbon so that businesses produce lower carbon emissions.

Pretty simple, right? It is. But even if it’s simple, it’s not easy. It will take political leadership to get the country to pursue a carbon credit plan.

Some say a true carbon credit marketplace will never happen.  But in California, such a marketplace is just two years away from becoming a reality:

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/25/local/me-logging25

Here is how it will work:

“In two years, the state will roll out a new carbon-trading marketplace, a provision of the landmark 2006 global warming law signed by Schwarzenegger. Major polluters such as power plants and oil refineries would tap that market. Some of the state’s biggest timber firms, including Sierra Pacific Industries and Green Diamond Resource Co., have done no carbon trading because they don’t want to be told how to manage their forests. Under rules approved two years ago, a timber company that wanted to sell carbon credits had to accept a property easement that prohibited any future development of the land. Those rules barred clear-cutting by companies selling carbon credits.”

So carbon will become a commodity that is sold and traded in an open marketplace. This will allow the marketplace to help dictate cost and value.  And that will benefit both the trader and the buyer.

Carbon credits make sense…as California is about to prove.

Today we continue our series on carbon credit by discussing how it works economically.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=253242ea-dad8-445e-be8b-22f0b1a7d3ab&k=80479

Essentially, carbon credits create a value that can be bought and sold in a marketplace. As the article notes:

“A ‘carbon market’ works something like this: Governments set tough greenhouse-gas emission caps. Companies that exceed the caps are heavily penalized or taxed. But they can escape some of the pain if they buy ‘carbon credits’ from companies that fall below their own greenhouse gas caps. Eventually, the theory holds, the environment will win because companies will use cleaner technology and clean up their act to avoid having to pay fines or purchase the carbon credits, which could cost in the millions of dollars.’”

The law of supply and demand is at work here. Since there is a demand for a clean environment, the carbon credits are emerging as a new supply to meet that demand.

This makes sense economic sense. And that’s why five U.S. states have already created a carbon trading market. Carbon credits are not just the future, they are the now.

Last week our blog focused on the politics of why carbon credits make sense for conservatives.

This week we’re going to focus on the economics of carbon credits. As a small businessman, I would only support carbon legislation if it made sense economically. I’ve checked into it. And carbon credits do make plenty of economic sense.

We’ll be talking about that each day this week. So check back in each day!

Today we end our series on why conservatives should support carbon credits.  And we do so by talking about one of the most important reasons: the free market.

As a conservative, I believe in the power of the marketplace.  I believe that companies should buy and sell products at competitive rates. And when they do, everyone wins.  Just imagine what would happen in the carbon market once producers began buying and selling carbon credits?  Not only would it be good for the environment, but it would be good for business because it would generate a whole new industry of energy entrepreneurs.

As a conservative, what’s not to like about that?

Here is a practical political reason why conservatives should support carbon legislation: because it’s going to happen one way or the other.

One lesson Republicans should learn from the recent health care debate is that when they are in the minority, they are going to get outvoted. So why not try and engage in the process and make the final product a little better?

The same is true with carbon legislation. Some form of carbon legislation will become law. The question is what will it look like? Will it be a carbon tax? Or a tax credit? As a believer in free markets and incentives, I want the final version of the law to be based on carbon credits. But the only way that will happen is if Republicans stop liberal Democrats from passing a carbon tax.

So to all my Republican friends in Washington, I say–get involved in the debate and push for carbon credits.

As a conservative, I believe in gradual change rather dramatic reform. Evolution instead of revolution, if you will. That’s why I support President Obama on carbon credits. Let me explain.

If there is a broad consensus that something should be done about carbon emission, the question becomes how do we do it. As a conservative, I think it makes sense to reward, rather than punish, private businesses. Plus,by incentivizing the carbon market, the government could set off an explosion of private sector research as companies try and figure out better and cleaner ways of handling emissions.

That’s a much better approach than the other option: carbon taxes. Again, my conservatism tells me this is a bad idea.

Let’s help encourage companies that create a clean environment rather than punish companies for making the environment worse. That’s a conservative way to create gradual change that will work for businesses and the environment.

A few days ago, President Obama returned from the climate control conference in Copenhagen. The media described his trip as a failure. I disagree:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6839650/Copenhagen-climate-summit-Barack-Obama-says-world-running-out-of-time.html

Leadership isn’t always about getting results right away; it’s about asking the right questions and looking down the road. President Obama should be commended for raising the important issue of global warming. Many conservatives say that we shouldn’t pursue climate control because scientists are still debating it. I disagree. As a conservative, I think we should take ere on the side of caution and take steps to clean up our environment.

I’m proud to be a conservative who stands with the president on this important issue.

My alma mater has announced the two finalists to be the next president.  And regardless of who is chosen, ACU can’t lose with either one.

Phil Shubert s executive vice president at ACU. He is responsible for the development and coordination of university-wide strategic planning; he oversees operational areas including ACU’s admissions and recruiting, marketing, university relations, finance, information services, facilities and human resources.

Rick Lytle is dean of ACU’s College of Business, a position he has held since 2000. He also serves as professor of marketing. He helped secure AACSB accreditation for COBA in 2004, then again in 2009.

I know both of these candidates.  And I know that these two outstanding men make for two outstanding candidates.  The real winner in all this is ACU.  In 2010, ACU will have a new president and a bright future.

We close out the week with one final event to expect in 2010: Republican wins in the 2010 elections.

Since 1934, the president’s party has lost seats in midterm elections every time except for 1998 and 2002. Why is that? Buyer’s remorse. People usually decide the guy they put in the White House needs a reality check. And so they almost invariably vote for the other party. I think that’s likely to happy again in 2010.

But here is my question: are Republicans ready to govern again? I need to see some more evidence that they have learned from their past mistakes and are ready to push for lower taxes and less spending.

What can we expect this year in the world of business? Continued growth in the stock market.

After surpassing 13,000 in 2007, the Dow collapsed in 2008 and is only now making its comeback. But comeback it will continue to do. Yet we should not equate the resurgence of the stock market with successful policies in Washington. We can’t tax our way and spend our way to growth.

Instead, the stock market’s comeback shows that American capitalism is alive and well and can endure any policies from Washington.

Just think how much more the markets would be growing if we would cut taxes and spending.

Here is something else to expect in 2010: higher health care premiums.

One of the rules of Washington is the law of unintended consequences. By passing more mandates on private insurers, the federal government has guaranteed the cost of health care will go up. Why? Because health insurance companies will pass on the costs to consumers.

So the great irony about Obama “bending the cost curve” is that he has bent it…only it’s going to go up, not down.

Today our series on what to expect in 2010 begins. And the first thing to expect is more spending from the federal government.  More spending in 2010…and in 2011…and in 2012….

Did you realize that President Obama spent more money in his first year in office than President Clinton spent in all of his eight years in office?

We have a government that believes in out-of-control spending. The last Bush budget was 3 trillion dollars. The First Obama budget was 3.5 trillion. That’s a 20% increase in one year. I don’t know about you, but that’s a lot of money to me.

And here’s something else to expect, if not this year, the next year: inflation. When the government throws around that kind of money, it’s only a matter of time before we start to see inflation rear its ugly head.

Happy New Year! Last year was a banner year for our website and blog. But we have even more in store for 2010.

This week we are kicking off our 2010 blog with a series of postings about “What to Expect in 2010.” It will cover everything from politics to business. So check in each day this week.

And have a great 2010!