Interesting Ideas

Two items from Real Clear Politics juxtaposed together make an interesting argument. The first on, from the Detroit News makes the point that Representative John Dingell's (D-Michigan) proposal to introduce a carbon tax on all industries that produce energy or energy consuming devices is actually an attempt to stop other lawmakers from posturing on environmental issues by dumping on the auto industry.

Rep. John Dingell is calling the bluff of his fellow lawmakers who love to pander, preen and posture in the name of environmentalism, just as long as it doesn't cost them anything.

The Dearborn Democrat is answering those who demand Congress "do something" about global warming and foreign oil dependence by saying, "Why just do something? Why not do everything?"

In a brilliant political counter move, Dingell is proposing a carbon tax on all industries that burn energy or produce energy-consuming goods, as well as on the consumers who use those products.

In doing so, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee is forcing his colleagues to prove they're serious about reducing greenhouse gases.

Dingell doesn't really want a widespread energy tax. But neither does he want the automobile industry to bear the full burden of reducing greenhouse gases, and that's the direction Congress has been going.

This is an excellent point. Make the politicians face up to the insane amount of damage to the economy the true believers are trying to force onto America. Let the consumers see the real cost. Then face those same voters in the next election. As the editorial succinctly puts it at the end:

We suspect Dingell is right that once the cost of reducing greenhouse gases starts hitting consumers, they'll be a lot less enthusiastic about hugging the earth.

But whatever the outcome of this proposal, moving the energy debate beyond the auto industry is a welcome development.

Which leads to the next interesting idea, this time from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, written by Bruce Chapman of the Discovery Institute.

But the new think tank study insists that talk radio is "imbalanced" and that the imbalance is due largely to the preferences of large radio conglomerates that are run by middle-aged white men. They demand that the government step in and break up the big radio chains and require as much progressive programming as conservative.

At this point Republicans, perhaps surprisingly, are rubbing their hands and hoping for a fight on the Fairness Doctrine. They think the threats from liberal legislators will backfire, helping to unite and activate the nation's 50 million or so talk radio listeners, most of them conservatives, and get them to the polls.

But the right could be making a mistake. Instead of opposing a new "Fairness Doctrine," perhaps conservatives should embrace it — providing, that is, that the new policy is extended to all media, not just talk radio. (Do I notice some "progressives" throwing down their papers in disgust?)

Let's start with that most public of federal broadcast entities, National Public Radio. Increasingly, its sponsors range from foundations with an ideological ax to grind to law firms and national teachers unions. Conservatives find that stories they care about just don't make it onto NPR schedules. When the rare conservative gets invited to participate on an NPR issues panel, somehow there are two or three liberals facing him, with a liberal host recognizing the speakers.

Next, the new Fairness Doctrine should apply to television, including not just PBS, but also CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and MSNBC, as well as the FOX channel. When newscasters seek legally required balance on a given issue, let's see if they can be persuaded to find the most articulate conservative — not the most egregious and unpopular — to reply to the liberal voice.

He doesn't stop there. Make the newspapers and magazines meet the same standards of balance. Make the left face the same standards they want to demand of talk radio. Make the media remain neutral. Whoopsie. Bet that won't go over real well, will it? Two interesting ideas, no?

This is an excellent point. Make the politicians face up to the insane amount of damage to the economy the true believers are trying to force onto America. Let the consumers see the real cost. Then face those same voters in the next election. As the editorial succinctly puts it at the end:

We suspect Dingell is right that once the cost of reducing greenhouse gases starts hitting consumers, they'll be a lot less enthusiastic about hugging the earth.

But whatever the outcome of this proposal, moving the energy debate beyond the auto industry is a welcome development.

Which leads to the next interesting idea, this time from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, written by Bruce Chapman of the Discovery Institute.

But the new think tank study insists that talk radio is "imbalanced" and that the imbalance is due largely to the preferences of large radio conglomerates that are run by middle-aged white men. They demand that the government step in and break up the big radio chains and require as much progressive programming as conservative.

At this point Republicans, perhaps surprisingly, are rubbing their hands and hoping for a fight on the Fairness Doctrine. They think the threats from liberal legislators will backfire, helping to unite and activate the nation's 50 million or so talk radio listeners, most of them conservatives, and get them to the polls.

But the right could be making a mistake. Instead of opposing a new "Fairness Doctrine," perhaps conservatives should embrace it — providing, that is, that the new policy is extended to all media, not just talk radio. (Do I notice some "progressives" throwing down their papers in disgust?)

Let's start with that most public of federal broadcast entities, National Public Radio. Increasingly, its sponsors range from foundations with an ideological ax to grind to law firms and national teachers unions. Conservatives find that stories they care about just don't make it onto NPR schedules. When the rare conservative gets invited to participate on an NPR issues panel, somehow there are two or three liberals facing him, with a liberal host recognizing the speakers.

Next, the new Fairness Doctrine should apply to television, including not just PBS, but also CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and MSNBC, as well as the FOX channel. When newscasters seek legally required balance on a given issue, let's see if they can be persuaded to find the most articulate conservative — not the most egregious and unpopular — to reply to the liberal voice.

He doesn't stop there. Make the newspapers and magazines meet the same standards of balance. Make the left face the same standards they want to demand of talk radio. Make the media remain neutral. Whoopsie. Bet that won't go over real well, will it? Two interesting ideas, no?