Obama's auction scheme improves on previous cap and trade schemes which gifted value to high level economic players, and does not preclude other cap and trade schemes or expanded schemes in the future.

Obama's scheme auctions environmental value, quantifies that value then in dollars, and gifts the dollars to lower level economic players in part, and encourages conservation in part. By gifting dollars in this fashion, there will be some loss of environmental value, as people use those dollars to buy, for example, CO2 emitting products.

A better approach is to gift the shares of the environmental value directly to citizens, and let them sell them directly on a cap and trade market. This scheme will retain environmental value by encouraging conservation and move value to low level economic players as stimulus.

It would also remove the government as the decider on how to spend the dollars, and instead place the government in the role of creating the structure of the market. The government should get its cut by taxing the share-dollar trades (or, the profit on these trades).

The future problem with Obama's scheme is the same as with the tobacco settlement--this money was supposed to go to tobacco cessation programs but a fraction of it did. The government will change its fickle mind how to spend the cap and trade money. Imagine if it decided to use the money to fund a war, build superhighways, or other anti-environmental purpose. The quantified environmental value that Obama's program captured will be lost.

That's why gas taxes, to take another example, are usually counterproductive or neutral environmentally. Higher gasoline taxes discourage consumption, yes, but if the tax money is spent on road-building or repair (and it usually is), the overall effect is to encourage driving and gas consumption. By acting as its own auction house for cap and trade, the government creates a conflict of interest and exposes quantified environmental value to political devaluation over time.

That all said, what the fuck, it's a start. Much better than anything that came before it. Thanks, Mr. President.

There's a lot of racism and other isms in America, and the world, and the Democrats should continue to fight prejudice. There's no doubt that Democrats have far more to be proud of in these matters than Republicans.

But, Democrats are unwise to dismiss Americans global economic worries as xenophobia or racism. Elite Democrats are particularly stupid to underestimate the impact of foreign economic actors on average workers in our economy.

Here's the story: Clinton/Republican globalization exposed the middle and lower-class to cut rate wage scales and lax/nonoexistent environmental standards abroad. Meanwhile Cinton/Bush era regulators relaxed credit and Americans borrowed, borrowed, borrowed to try to match the income inflation of elites.

Bill and Hillary Clinton then took over 100 million dollars in payoffs from foreign economic interests after leaving the White House. Cash only, please.

As Senator, Clinton supports spying on American citizens, the Iraq War, and, apparently, torture. Of course, the secret WTO courts on trade issues foreshadowed the rapid detioriation of civil and criminal process under Bush.

Hillary overspends her Presidential campaign budget, covers the debts from the Clinton household budget, therefore transferrinig foreign funds into her presidential campaign. Obvious to everyone but the US Senate.

As Secretary of State, Hillary immediately triangulates human rights, environmental and economic concerns. As if the people China persecutes, imprisons, and tortures are not protesting economic and environmental issues.

Meanwhile, elite Democrats (including Salon) spin the quaint idea that the economic collapse is all the fault of "white (American) men" despite the multi-hued male and female cast of characters stretching around the globe-- a reality increasingly obvious to every American voter and worker with a TV or computer, and to every consumer calling Dell's crappy support center.

So, where will voters go to complain? I think the Republicans are clumsily, awkwardly on the right track. The ridicule and hubris of elite Democrats toward average American workers concerns plays right into their hands. Meanwhile, the elites line their own pockets with the stimulus.

If the Republicans had countered Obama's horribly complicated and needlessly slow reward-the-rich stimulus with a simple-to-understand stimulus that would have immediately and directly put money in workers pockets, things would be much worse for the Democrats. In reality, the stimulus should have been simple and quick for economic reasons. Instead, the Republicans went for austerity alone.

Obama's budget recovers much of the high ground lost by the stimulus package. Budgets, unlike stimulus packages, should be complicated and look to the long term, and this one has some good ideas. How will the Republicans respond? I think they must come up with substance and not just blather.

Salon has pulled in a tidy sum from this foray into Republican stratergizing.

I suspect that a defacto deal restrained outgoing Bush from issuing blanket and specific pardons, but required Obama to evade court decisions that would rule the Bush actions illegal.

My guess is that Obama would pardon Bush and company, but prefers not to be placed in that position.

I also suspect Obama feels an obligation to protect Pelosi, H. Clinton and other Democrats who almost certainly knew of, and concurred with, the torture of Muslims, including children in their teens, as well as domestic spying. Clinton's position in these matters is particularly precarious as Secretary of State.

My guess is that the Congressional interest in Bush-era crimes is interplay between real action and diversion, depending on the actors.

Suspect-guess-suspect-guess.

Bush was a sadist and hated the Constitution. I don't feel that either is true of Obama. I think Obama is mistaken that Bush-era crimess can be covered up forever, or that the coverup is best for the country, or best for Obama himself. Just as Obama seemed to shake off the wacko advice of his economic brain trust, perhaps he can shake off the criminal legal stratetegies of his Yoo-esqe legal team.