Issue Paper #3: Climate Change

It is not “conservative” to ignore the clear scientific evidence that global temperatures are increasing at least in part due to the burning of fossil fuels by people and businesses. There is, however, a great deal of uncertainty about the severity of the problem and the effects of reducing carbon emissions now. In light of that uncertainty, it is prudent to take measured actions to begin reducing carbon emissions. These actions should phase in gradually to minimize the economic costs. The measures we take should allow us to accelerate emissions reductions as evidence of humankind’s contribution to global warming strengthens, and be reversible in case new scientific evidence shows that humans are not a major cause of global warming.

The Obama Administration has proposed strict new regulations on carbon emissions from electrical utilities that threaten to raise costs and hurt the employment prospects for millions of American workers. At the same time, the Administration is following the example set by the G.W. Bush administration in introducing costly government subsidies for untested technologies such as ethanol, wind power, and solar power. This amounts to a radical industrial policy under which government is tasked with picking winners and losers. It is a vast intrusion into private business decisions that violates time-honored conservative principles. The Administration’s proposed new mileage standards for automobiles is industrial policy on steroids. If elected I will push for a reversal of these programs and their replacement with a more sensible approach to dealing with the problem of climate change.

My approach reduces carbon emissions by relying on private enterprise and the prudent decisions of American households working through markets. Basic economic theory tells us that if the price of emitting greenhouse gases rises, businesses and households will find the most efficient ways of reducing emissions. All government needs to do, then, is to impose a tax on carbon emissions (or, equivalently, to require companies and households to purchase permits to emit greenhouse gases and then let them purchase these permits through auctions). The tax or “cap-and-trade” system will raise the price of emissions. Businesses and households, faced with higher costs of emissions, will make the changes required to reduce their emissions that are best for them, as opposed to the current “one size fits all” industrial policy approach. At the same time, I will support the elimination of all of the green technology subsidies and regulations on carbon emissions that the Obama Administration has imposed.

Under my proposal, the tax on carbon emissions will be phased in gradually over a ten year period. This will allow us to avoid wrenching changes now that will slow the recovery. It will also provide an incentive for businesses to invest in new technologies such as electric cars and solar power that will be profitable when the taxes are fully phased in, stimulating growth. A tax on the carbon content of all products bought and sold in the US will apply equally to goods imported from countries like China, so American manufacturers will not be put at a disadvantage relative to foreign competitors. If in the years to come new scientific evidence emerges showing that carbon emissions are not a major cause of global warming, the taxes can be reduced or eliminated.

Pricing carbon emissions through taxes or a cap-and-trade system is the conservative solution to problems like climate change. A cap-and-trade system was applied successfully to the problem of sulfur dioxide emissions under the G.H.W. Bush administration in the early 1990s. The market-based solution has been endorsed by many conservative economists, including Gregory Mankiw, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under George W. Bush. It is an efficient approach to a serious environmental problem and accomplishes its objectives with as little government interference in private business decisions as possible.

Issue paper #2: Health care

It has long been a principle in our society that people should not be denied health care simply because they cannot pay. Doctors are required by oath to give emergency care to anyone who comes to them. Hospitals are required by law and by basic principles of Judeo-Christian morality to do the same. Having made the commitment to provide people with medical care, the question is how to do this in the most efficient manner.

As a conservative Republican, I believe that to the greatest extent possible we should leave the allocation of resources to markets rather than government. In general markets are the most efficient mechanism to accomplish this. Economic theory and years of experience demonstrate that when markets are competitive, government interference only leads to inequity and inefficiency.

Markets for health care and health insurance, unfortunately, are unlike other markets. Consumers are not willing or able to weigh costs and benefits of treatment, especially in emergency situations. Health insurance markets are plagued by the problems of moral hazard and adverse selection. As a result, a free, unregulated health care market delivers excellent care for the majority of people, but young people and people with low incomes typically do not get coverage. When they get sick and require care, the cost of care is borne by those with insurance. This raises the cost of health insurance, raises costs for business, and makes our economy less competitive.

To deal with these problems, liberals have long advocated a system of universal health care modeled on Medicare. But government-run health insurance will inevitably fail to control costs. The most popular measures to control costs under Medicare, such as placing price controls on pharmaceuticals and forcing doctors and hospitals to accept lower reimbursement rates, merely shift costs to health care providers and in the long run will destroy the incentives to invest and innovate.

Republicans have a better plan. In Massachusetts, Republican governor Mitt Romney implemented a system under which government provides vouchers to individuals to buy health insurance from private insurance companies. Insurance policies were made more uniform and are sold on "exchanges" that closely approximate competitive markets. As a result, almost all residents of Massachusetts are now covered by health insurance, and the plan remains popular. A version of this plan has been proposed by Republican Congressman Paul Ryan to transform Medicare. The voucher system is similar to conservative proposals for reform of public schools. Given the success in Massachusetts, I propose applying this plan nationwide.

Now, Democrats passed a health care plan modeled on the Massachusetts experiment in 2010. In this case, Democrats were adhering more closely to conservative principles than my fellow Republicans. However, the Democratic plan included a smorgasbord of taxes and fees on things like medical devices that represent a harmful and unnecessary intrusion into private enterprise. I propose eliminating these onerous taxes and fees and other regulations contained in the bill (though the elements of the law forbidding insurance companies from setting lifetime limits for coverage and denying care to people with pre-existing conditions need to stay). The Democrats' law also did not include tort reform. I will insist that Congress amend the law to ensure that there is a predictable system of compensation for medical malpractice that is fast and efficient, treats like cases in the same way, and provides meaningful incentives for doctors and hospitals to maintain high quality without imposing excessive costs on them.

Reform of our health care system did not end with the passage of ACA in 2010. Republicans need to be at the table when the new system is modified, as it must be, in the years and decades to come. We need to resist costly add-ons to the system while maintaining the market emphasis of the legislation and ensuring that states have the flexibility to experiment with alternative arrangements. Republicans can best accomplish this if they are active participants in reform rather than taking the nihilistic approach of the current Republican leadership. I pledge, if elected, to be such a positive voice for reform.

Weise announces formation of exploratory committee

My fan base is clamoring for me to challenge Congressman Todd Platts (R, PA-19) in the Republican primary next year. (Ok, one person suggested jokingly that I do this – that’s all it takes, there’s no stopping me now.)

The basis for my challenge is that Platts and other Washington Republicans have abandoned the core principles of American conservatism. In doing so, they have turned their backs on our founding fathers. My candidacy is an appeal to Todd Platts and all Republicans: come back home to America!

I have assembled a crack team of conservative intellectuals and policy wonks to help me craft position papers on the important issues of the day. Let’s begin with the hottest of hot topics: the debt ceiling.

Issue paper #1: the debt ceiling

I am astonished, appalled, and, frankly, saddened, that my friends in the Republican party have toyed so recklessly with the good credit of the United States. Tim Pawlenty, Paul Ryan, and Pat Toomey are among the Republicans who have argued that a brief default would be acceptable. But a default would be unconstitutional: the plain language of Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment states that “The validity of the public debt of the United States… shall not be questioned.” As Treasury secretary, founding father Alexander Hamilton insisted that the federal government assume and honor the debt that the states had run up under the Articles of Confederacy; indeed, under his leadership the federal government borrowed the money needed to pay off the debts of the states. Defaulting on the debt – indeed even threatening to default for political gain – is unpatriotic and un-American.

If I am elected, I will vote to honor America’s debts by authorizing an increase in the debt ceiling. I will support re-imposing the Gephardt Rule, under which budget resolutions authorized the Treasury to issue debt to cover the borrowing that they implied. I will fight for the conservative principles of small government, low taxes, and balanced budgets, but I will do so in the context of debate over the annual budget, not by holding hostage the good credit of the United States of America.

I will describe my proposals for restoring fiscal discipline to the budget in coming issue papers.