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.

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!

So it looks like President Obama will get his health care bill passed.  But at what cost?

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/21/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6006838.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

So much for change we can believe in.  This is old-style bribery.  A key senator in Nebraska got the federal government to start paying for his state’s share of Medicaid costs.  A senator in Louisiana got a similar pledge.  And a senator in Florida got special protections for seniors in his state who are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans.

This is how health care reform was passed?  Not by writing a good bill but by running up a bill that the taxpayers will have to pay for?

This week we are continuing our series on “what’s in the news” and we begin with oil prices:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126110607887196613.html

As the article notes:

“Oil prices have risen nearly 60% this year, thanks in part to OPEC production cuts. But the cartel faces problems heading into 2010. Some members, such as Iraq and Venezuela, are increasing output even as OPEC tries to purge a huge buildup of oil. And waning stimulus efforts could pinch consumer demand for oil in industrialized nations.”

In other words, even though we are experiencing a recession, oil prices are going up because OPEC has restricted production. So the question is: how long will we Americans allow OPEC to hold a gun to our heads?

The time has come for the US to quit importing its energy and start producing it right here and right now.

This week we’ve been blogging about Washington’s ideas that don’t make sense and don’t work. Today, we look at the impact these policies are having on how the American people view the Democratic Party:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126100346902694549.html?mod=djemalertNEWS

Support for the Democratic Party has fallen dramatically.  As the article notes:

“In December’s survey, for the first time, less than half of Americans approved of the job Barack Obama is doing, marking a steeper first-year fall for this president than his recent predecessors. Also for the first time this year, the electorate is split when asked which party they would like to see in charge after the 2010 elections. For months, a clear plurality favored Democratic control.”

Duh! The Democrats pursue policies that don’t make any sense and the public turns on them. Maybe they should try something else.

Remember when the Obama stimulus was going to turn the economy around?  These days, the White House doesn’t even pretend to believe that anymore:

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/1209/stimulus_big_enough_d73b7ad9-b743-4181-92fa-bfb2bcadbe6f.html

As the article notes, the White House now sheepishly says that “we got what we could get” with the stimulus package and that it was the “political load that could be carried.”

What?  So we passed a $787 billion spending bill not because it would work but because it was politically feasible?  No wonder the stimulus hasn’t worked.  It wasn’t designed to work.  Instead it was designed to show the government busy doing something.  But as a great writer once put it, there is a difference between motion and action.  The Obama White House has given us lots of motion and little action.

But here’s the sad part: the White House is talking about doing even more to “stimulate” the economy.  I say “no thanks” to that.  Let’s let entrepeneurs and business leaders lead this economy.  We don’t need anymore of Washington’s “political load.”

Remember when the Obama stimulus was going to turn the economy around?  These days, the White House doesn’t even pretend to believe that anymore:

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/1209/stimulus_big_enough_d73b7ad9-b743-4181-92fa-bfb2bcadbe6f.html

As the article notes, the White House now sheepishly says that “we got what we could get” with the stimulus package and that it was the “political load that could be carried.”

What?  So we passed a $787 billion spending bill not because it would work but because it was politically feasible?  No wonder the stimulus hasn’t worked.  It wasn’t designed to work.  Instead it was designed to show the government busy doing something.  But as a great writer once put it, there is a difference between motion and action.  The Obama White House has given us lots of motion and little action.

But here’s the sad part: the White House is talking about doing even more to “stimulate” the economy.  I say “no thanks” to that.  Let’s let entrepeneurs and business leaders lead this economy.  We don’t need anymore of Washington’s “political load.”

Remember the story about the couple of who attended a State Dinner at the White House without an invitation?  Evidently, this isn’t the only example of the White House security messing up:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091216/D9CK7BAO0.html

So this nice couple from Georgia shows up at the White House for a tour, accidentally ends up at a meeting with the president, tells the staff they don’t belong and are told to just “go with the flow”? Incredible. As the story notes:

“So the Dardens served themselves at the buffet, and took their seats. Shortly thereafter, Barack and Michelle Obama arrived and began talking and getting photographs with guests at each table. Vice President Joe Biden and his wife, Jill, also stopped by. Darden said it was ‘quite a treat’ to meet the Obamas and the Bidens. But he remains puzzled about how he was escorted into a private breakfast – and he grew a little anxious after the Salahi episode exploded in the news. The couple’s only regret, Darden said, is that they haven’t received a copy of that picture taken with the Obamas.”

After an episode like this, why does the White House want us to believe it can manage the car industry or health care?  They can’t even manage a dinner party.

So President Obama has given up on a government-run health insurance plan.  His new idea?  Allowing people younger than 65 to buy-into Medicare:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091214/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

Come again?  At a time that the Medicare ship is sinking, political leaders in Washington are seriously considering adding more people on deck?

“It calls for jettisoning a plan for government-run insurance that Reid had initially placed in the measure. In its place would be the expansion of Medicare, alongside a system of nationwide plans to be offered by private insurers and overseen by the federal agency that supervises the health care system that members of Congress use.”

This is another great example of Washington’s cure being worse than the disease.  No other industry in America would consider adding more people to a program that is going broke.

What is Washington thinking?

Here is another classic example of why you shouldn’t put too much faith in government efforts to jump start the economy:
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20091211/1afedpay11_st.art.htm?loc=interstitialskip

So, in the midst of one of the worst recessions in memory, the only people making money are civil servants!  According to this story:

“Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession’s first 18 months — and that’s before overtime pay and bonuses are counted.”

In other words, one out of every five federal employees now makes more than a $100,000.  Incredible.  I guess when the president talked about a jobs stimulus plan, he meant people who work for the public sector, not the private sector.

File this one in the category of “believe it when you see it.”

Remember when the government was going to help people with their mortgages?  I didn’t think it would happen. Well, I was wrong.  The government has helped them…all 31,000 of them:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CGKQB02&show_article=1

In other words, this much hyped plan to help people hold onto their homes has helped only a handful of people in a country with tens of millions of homeowners.

This is another good reminder to not believe everything you hear from the government.  I continue to say “believe it when you see it.”

Here is why you should be concerned about the government running health care: it can’t even stop carp.

In the Mississippi River, the torpedo-shaped Asian carp often leap out of the water as boats are approaching. But more serious than the danger they pose to ships is the danger they pose to other fish. They prey on other species and because they are so large pose a real threat to smaller fish. As the carp continue swimming north in the Mississippi, they could endanger the recreational fishing industry in the Great Lakes.

So here comes the government to save the day.

First, fish poison was pumped into the water to kill the carp. But it hasn’t worked. Now the government is considering separating the Great Lakes from the Mississippi water basin.

The question is: if the government can’t stop the carp, how can it run health care, or win a war or turn the economy around?

Here is why you should be concerned about the government running health care: it can’t even stop carp.

In the Mississippi River, the torpedo-shaped Asian carp often leap out of the water as boats are approaching. But more serious than the danger they pose to ships is the danger they pose to other fish. They prey on other species and because they are so large pose a real threat to smaller fish. As the carp continue swimming north in the Mississippi, they could endanger the recreational fishing industry in the Great Lakes.

So here comes the government to save the day.

First, fish poison was pumped into the water to kill the carp. But it hasn’t worked. Now the government is considering separating the Great Lakes from the Mississippi water basin.

The question is: if the government can’t stop the carp, how can it run health care, or win a war or turn the economy around?