Daily Archives: February 2, 2010

This, from the first paragraph of an Observer piece, made me laugh:

The climate secretary, Ed Miliband, last night warned of the danger of a public backlash against the science of global warming in the face of continuing claims that experts have manipulated data.

A danger, you say? Call me an alarmist, minister, but I’d say this was more than a danger. I’d say the backlash has happened. I wouldn’t go so far as Walter Russell Mead, who writes that the global warming movement is dead, but it looks crippled, and the Climategate scandal, which is still unfolding, is a principal reason. I am not a climate change denier; I am an IPCC sceptic. I think it is important to fix what has gone wrong at the IPCC and its feeder groups, restore the credibility of climate science, and devise intelligent policies in response to the threat. Miliband has other ideas, apparently:

[I]n the government’s first high-level recognition of the growing pressure on public opinion, Miliband declared a “battle” against the “siren voices” who denied global warming was real or caused by humans, or that there was a need to cut carbon emissions to tackle it.

If he wants to bring moderate public opinion round, the battle Miliband should wage is with the people who have brought climate science into such disrepute. To begin with, how about calling for the resignation of Rajendra Pachauri? Speaking of things that made me laugh, I see that the IPCC chief has a second career all mapped out: despite his crushing official workload, he has written a novel (mainly about breasts, apparently). A second Nobel prize cannot be far behind. I’d say climate science can spare him.

In addition to Pachauri’s novel, I’ve another reading recommendation for Miliband. The Observer quotes the minister as saying:

Everything we know about life is that we should obey the precautionary principle…

I don’t think so. As Cass Sunstein has pointed out:

The precautionary principle takes many forms. But in all of them the animating idea is that regulators should take steps to protect against potential harms, even if causal chains are unclear and even if we do not know the harms will come to fruition… [I]n its strongest forms, the precautionary principle is literally incoherent, and for one reason: There are risks on all sides of social situations. It is therefore paralysing; it forbids the very steps that it requires. Because risks are on all sides, the precautionary principle forbids action, inaction, and everything in between.

This would be a good thing for a minister of energy and climate change to understand.

No huge surprises in the budget proposal. There is a bit more short-term stimulus than I had expected. In addition to the widely trailed $100bn “jobs package”, the proposal includes another $150bn or so of temporary tax cuts, extended unemployment benefits, and help for states. (It tells you something that the administration is now playing down its efforts to stimulate the economy instead of playing them up.) That’s fine: if anything, too modest. On the other hand the proposals for longer-term fiscal control are weaker than I had hoped. For the past six months, officials have been promising a budget that would bring fiscal policy back under control. This is not it. Again, given the political difficulties, this is not so surprising.

The budget proposes a deficit target of 3% of GDP (compared with 8.3% in 2011). This would be enough to stabilize public debt, at what the White House hopes will be a supportable level. Having announced the goal, the plan misses it by a wide margin. Through 2020, the deficit is above 3% despite the three-year freeze on non-security discretionary spending (if it happens), despite the Medicare savings that will supposedly flow from the health care plan (if it happens), and despite the substantial tax increases on upper-income households already legislated for 2011 (if they happen). After 2020, the deficit’s trajectory is rising. A proposed budget deficit commission will have to come up with other ideas, and Congress will have to enact them, to close the gap.

It would be a serious mistake to withdraw stimulus too quickly while the economy is still weak. But a further and possibly prolonged delay in addressing the long-term issue is just as bad – and that is what the budget, in effect, advocates.

Robert Greenstein’s supportive analysis is well worth reading. I agree with his praise for the proposed narrowing of tax subsidies, including the cap on high earners’ tax deductions. But I think he is too generous in offering this rationale for the administration’s timidity on longer-term control:

Had the President proposed major additional budget cuts and revenue increases, not only would Congress almost certainly have rejected them, but the inevitable harsh attacks on them could have “poisoned the well” and made them even harder to achieve in the future if and when a more bipartisan atmosphere makes greater budgetary progress possible.

Obama needs to wait for a more bipartisan atmosphere before he starts advocating long-term fiscal discipline, and spelling out to the country what that would mean? How long might that be? Even if outreach to Republicans is pointless at the moment, this does not stop Obama taking the message to the wider public. It might be one way to put Republicans on the spot. Greenstein’s advice is to admit defeat at the outset.

Keith Hennessey’s hostile take on the proposal is also worth reading. I disagree with his insistence that the deficit problem is not taxes that are too low but spending that is too high. It is both. But it is still valuable to look, as he does, not only at what the budget would expect to “save” from some questionable current-policy baseline – the usual approach – but simply at levels of taxes, spending and deficits, compared with those in the previous budget, and with historical averages. Freeze notwithstanding, the main difference between this year’s budget and last is that public spending is significantly higher all through the next decade. That is something you might have missed.

Clive Crook’s blog

This blog is no longer updated but it remains open as an archive.

I have been the FT's Washington columnist since April 2007. I moved from Britain to the US in 2005 to write for the Atlantic Monthly and the National Journal after 20 years working at the Economist, most recently as deputy editor. I write mainly about the intersection of politics and economics.

Clive Crook’s blog: A guide

Comment: To comment, please register with FT.com. Register for free here. Please also read the FT's comments policy here.
Time: UK time is shown on Clive's posts.
Follow the blog: Links to the Twitter and RSS feeds are at the top of the blog.
Schedule: Clive's column appears in the FT on Mondays and you can read an excerpt of it on this blog.
FT blogs: See the full range of the FT's blogs here.


« Jan Mar »February 2010