Topic: Energy and Environment

The Administration Concedes Defeat

To sell his high-speed rail program, President Obama desperately needed a success story—a high-speed train operating during his administration that would awe the public and lead to a national demand for more such lines. That success story was going to be Florida’s Orlando-to-Tampa line, the only true high-speed route (as opposed to speeding up existing trains by 3 to 5 mph) that could have been completed during Obama’s term in office (assuming he is re-elected).

Anticipating that success, the administration drafted a proposal to use federal gasoline taxes and a “new energy tax” to fund $53 billion for more high-speed rail lines over the next six years. (The proposal also included $250 billion for highways, $120 billion for urban transit, $27 billion for “livability,” and $25 billion for an infrastructure bank.)

The chances of that happening died when Florida Governor Rick Scott decided to turn back the $2.4 billion in federal dollars dedicated to the Orlando-Tampa line. To maintain momentum behind high-speed rail, the administration could have given all of that money to California, the only other state proposing to build true high-speed rail.

Instead, the Department of Transportation gave nearly $1 billion of the $2.4 billion to Amtrak and states in the Northeast Corridor to replace worn out infrastructure and slightly speed up trains in that corridor, as well as connecting routes such as New Haven to Hartford and New York to Albany. Most of the rest of the money went to Midwestern states—Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Missouri—to buy new trains, improve stations, and do engineering studies of a few corridors such as the vital Minneapolis-to-Duluth corridor. Trains going an average of 57 mph instead of 52 mph are not going to inspire the public to spend $53 billion more on high-speed rail.

The administration did give California $300 million for its high-speed rail program. But, with that grant, the state still has only about 10 percent of the $65 billion estimated cost of a San Francisco-to-Los Angeles line, and there is no more money in the till. If the $300 million is ever spent, it will be for a 220-mph train to nowhere in California’s Central Valley.

In essence, the administration has given up on high-speed rail. New York Times editorial writers haven’t figured that out yet, opining that Florida Governor Scott made a dreadful mistake when he rejected the rail money. In fact, as tax activist Doug Guetzloe told a Tampa newspaper, “Federally funded rail is like being given a brand new Maserati and then you have to pick up the gas and the insurance — forever. The car looks great, but the costs will kill you.”

The Times suggested that Florida taxpayers will resent Scott’s decision whenever they are stuck in traffic. But no one seriously believes that intercity rail will ever relieve traffic congestion, most of which is in cities, not between them. In its original application for high-speed rail funds, Florida’s DOT admitted that Orlando-to-Tampa traffic grows more every five years than all the cars the trains were expected to take off the road, so at best high-speed rail was a very expensive and temporary solution to congestion.

Outside of the Times editorial offices, most transportation experts agree that the President’s high-speed rail program is over and his draft transportation bill is dead on arrival. Taxpayers throughout the country should thank Scott (as well as Ohio Governor John Kasich and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker) for saving them the hundreds of billions of dollars that Obama’s program would have eventually cost.

Dodging the High-Speed Bullet Train

President Obama’s dream of connecting 80 percent of Americans to a high-speed rail line appears to be dead. Congress appropriated $8 billion for high-speed rail in the 2009 stimulus bill and $2 billion more in the 2010 appropriations bill. But, after newly elected governors of Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin rejected high-speed rail projects in those states, Congress declined to include any more funds in 2011 and it is unlikely to spend any more on this boondoggle as long as Republicans have a hold on the House.

What will Americans get for the $10 billion or so already committed?

  • California appears ready to spend $5.5 billion building a 220-mph rail line from Corcoran–a town south of Fresno mainly known for the prison housing Charles Manson–to Borden–a ghost town north of Fresno. Considering that trains were not scheduled to stop in either Corcoran or Borden, this will truly be a train to nowhere.
  • Illinois is spending more than $3 billion adding three trains per day (to the current five) between Chicago and St. Louis and increasing average train speeds from 51.6 to 56.8 mph, saving train travelers a half hour on the current 5.5-hour trip. Illinois hopes to eventually boost average speeds to 72.6 mph, but that will require more money.
  • Washington state is spending $700 million adding two trains per day (to the current three) between Seattle and Portland and increasing average train speeds from 53.4 to 56.1 mph, thus saving rail travelers 10 minutes on the current 3.5-hour journey.
  • North Carolina is spending $545 million adding two trains a day (to the current three) between Charlotte and Raleigh and increasing speeds from 54.1 to 57.7 mph, thus saving travelers 12 minutes on the current 3.2-hour trip.

There are a few other even less-inspiring projects, and the administration has yet to decide what to do with the $2.5 billion that Florida turned back to the feds. But it is clear that the administration’s plan to dazzle Americans with an exciting new infrastructure project comparable to the Interstate Highway System has failed.

When first announced, Obama’s plan was well received by people who had taken high-speed trains in Europe and Japan. Obama’s strategy was to quickly build an 85-mile high-speed line connecting Tampa to Disneyworld in Orlando, which would open before the end of Obama’s presumed second term. This, he hoped, would inspire politicians elsewhere to demand similar lines in their states. He also hoped the fact that China was building a $400-billion high-speed rail network would be a “sputnik moment” forcing Americans to support our own rail system. Rarely mentioned was the total cost of Obama’s plan, though Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood finally offered an estimate of $500 billion.

Reports from Cato, Reason, and others attempted to dampen people’s enthusiasm for this expensive program. The real turning point, however, was the November, 2010 election. Republican gubernatorial candidates in Ohio and Wisconsin promised to kill the trains if elected. However, Rick Scott–the Republican candidate for governor in Florida–the linchpin of Obama’s plan–was on the fence.

The incumbent governor, Charles Crist, wanted to anchor the Tampa-to-Orlando train with light rail in Tampa and commuter rail in Orlando, and to do so light rail was on the ballot in Tampa. A few weeks before the election, Wendell Cox, who had written on high-speed rail for Reason, and I spoke to Tampa Tea Party members and inspired them to fight both the light rail and high-speed rail. Despite being outspent by 50-to-1, light rail opponents prevailed at the polls in November, winning by 58 to 42. The momentum from this victory helped them persuade Scott, who narrowly won the governorship, to kill high-speed rail in February.

In April, National Review Online credited Cato, Reason, Heritage, and the Florida Tea Party with killing high-speed rail. The day after the article appeared, Congressional leaders agreed to zero-out funding for high-speed rail in the 2011 budget. It appears likely that, other than minor improvements to Amtrak’s Boston-to-Washington corridor, high-speed rail is dead, at least for now.

Once the darling of the media, high-speed trains are now closely scrutinized. The New York Times published an op ed calling Obama’s plan “a fast train to nowhere.” Instead of praising China’s high-speed trains, the Washington Post has declared them a “train wreck.”

The big question is California. The state currently has only about 10 percent of the funds it needs to build a line from Los Angeles to San Francisco. Scrambling to close a $28 billion deficit in its 2012 budget, the legislature is not likely to find any more state funds for this megaproject. Unless a miracle occurs, it appears the only added impact of Obama’s dream will be the cost to state taxpayers of running a few extra trains per day in Illinois, North Carolina, and Washington.

AEP v. Connecticut: Global Warming as Political Question

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in American Electric Power v. Connecticut, the massive greenhouse-gas suit. Like the other “big” global warming/climate change suits, this one suffers from a basic and incurable defect: it seeks to undermine the separation of powers established under the U.S. Constitution by inviting the courts to address “political questions” of a sort properly resolved by other branches of government. As Cato’s amicus brief by Ilya Shapiro and Evan Turgeon explained in the case of Comer v. Murphy Oil:

“[W]hile it executes firmly all the judicial powers intrusted to it, the court will carefully abstain from exercising any power that is not strictly judicial in its character, and which is not clearly confided to it by the Constitution.” Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346, 355 (1911). A dispute is not “judicial in its character” when, among other reasons, the plaintiff does not have “standing” or the claim raises a “political question.” … And the political question doctrine, for which “the appropriateness under our system of government of attributing finality to the action of the political departments and also the lack of satisfactory criteria for a judicial determination are dominant considerations,” Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 454-55 (1939), isolates the judiciary from policy disputes the Constitution assigns to the democratic process.

By its nature, global warming is exactly the sort of policy question traditionally entrusted to the political branches: it is wholly unsuited to individualized justice based on links between particularized emissions and particularized effects, its proposed remedies are much disputed and likely to be the result of inevitably arbitrary compromise, sovereign negotiations with foreign actors play a crucial role, and so forth. As the courts have long recognized, one does not generate a case for judicial action simply by piling atop each other the propositions “something needs to be done” and “the political branches have not done it.” Indeed, the Obama administration itself has more or less invited the Supreme Court to dismiss the action on political-question grounds.

The Cato Institute filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to review the American Electric Power case and then filed another amicus brief on the merits. Anyone interested in how the complexities of the Court’s “political question” doctrine apply in this case should read – in addition to Ilya Shapiro’s blog posts here and here – this new article in the Federalist Society’s publication Engage by Megan L. Brown of Wiley Rein LLP, who has served as Counsel of Record to the Cato Institute in its amicus briefs in this area. Brown provides a thorough explanation of why all three of the major warming suits fail the justiciability test, why Justices Kennedy and Breyer may be worth watching as “swing” votes in AEP, and how the new case affords the court a chance to revisit its problematic pro-regulatory holding in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). (More from Brown in this Christian Science Monitor op-ed.)

Also worth reading on this subject: Harvard professor Laurence Tribe, by no means known as a general skeptic of environmental regulation, who has assisted the defense side in this litigation and explains some of the reasons in a new Boston Globe op-ed.

If There Were An Annual ‘Regulation Day’

As Iain Murray points out at National Review’s “Corner,” there’s no date on the calendar each year that reminds us, the way income tax filing day does, of the huge share of our economic labors that the government commands in the name of regulation. In part this is because the costs of regulation are even better disguised than those of taxation: while paycheck withholding may lull us into complacency about our income tax burden, it is downright transparent compared with the costs of regulation, which the ordinary citizen may never recognize when passed along in the form of higher utility bills or sluggish performance by some sector of the economy. Iain notes the good work done by his colleagues at the Competitive Enterprise Institute:

Regulations cost $1.75 trillion in compliance costs, according to the Small Business Administration. That’s greater than the record federal budget deficit — projected at $1.48 trillion for FY 2011 — and greater even than all corporate pretax profits. This is only one of many findings of the new edition of Wayne [Crews’] “Ten Thousand Commandments: An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State,” a survey of the cost and compliance burden imposed by federal regulations.

As is now becoming evident, the Obama Administration is presiding over one of the most extraordinary expansions of regulation in all American history, in areas from health care to consumer finance, university governance to “obesity policy,” labor and employment law to the environment. Not all these developments originated with Obama appointees – some had their start under President George W. Bush or with lawmakers in Congress – but this administration has pursued stringent regulatory measures with extraordinary zeal, notwithstanding the odd feint to soothe business-sector misgivings.

Here are three more or less random samplings from recent days of the quiet momentum that’s built up in Washington toward a much bigger regulatory state:

  • Reflecting the historical development of the Food and Drug Administration, the introduction of new medical devices such as pacemakers and joint replacements is still somewhat less intensively regulated than the introduction of new pharmaceutical compounds. As Emory’s Paul Rubin relates at Truth on the Market, pressure is building in Washington to correct this supposed anomaly by intensifying the regulation of devices. As Rubin notes, “virtually all economists who have studied the FDA drug approval process have concluded that it causes serious harm by delaying drugs,” yet the premise of the new campaign for regulation “is that we should duplicate that harm with medical devices.”
  • Much of the new regulation of consumer finance has taken the form of rules governing what information lenders can ask for or consider about borrowers’ situation in extending credit. One such proposed rule, from the Federal Reserve, “would require credit card issuers to consider only a person’s independent income, and not the household’s income, when underwriting credit cards in an effort to protect young adults unable to repay debt.” Great big unforeseen consequence: many stay-at-home parents will now be unable to establish credit in their own names (via).
  • Among a slew of other high-profile regulations, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has chosen this moment to demand very rapid new reductions in emissions from industrial boilers (“Boiler MACT” rules). Per ShopFloor, Thomas A. Fanning, who runs one of the nation’s largest electric utilities, the Southern Company, thinks trouble lies ahead:

    EPA has proposed Utility MACT rules under timelines that we believe will put the reliability and affordability of our nation’s power system at risk. EPA’s proposal will impact plants that are responsible for nearly 50 percent of total electricity generation in the United States. It imposes a three-year timeline for compliance, at a time when the industry is laboring to comply with a myriad of other EPA mandates. The result will be to reduce reserve margins—generating capacity that is available during times of high demand or plant outages—and to cause costs to soar. Lower reserve margins place customers at a risk for experiencing significant interruptions in electric service, and costs increases will ultimately be reflected in service rates, which will rise rapidly as utilities press ahead with retrofitting and projects to replace lost generating capacity due to plant retirements.

At least we’ll be able to avert brownouts by switching over readily to fracked-natural-gas, Alberta tar-sands, and latest-generation-nuclear options – or we would had all those options not been put under regulatory clouds as well.

Gas Prices, Speculation, and the Price of Tea in China

With gasoline in the United States moving toward (and in some places, above) $4 a gallon and motorists understandably unhappy, there is a growing desire to blame someone for the high prices.

Previous gas price spikes in 2006 and 2008 brought blame on ”Big Oil” (meaning firms like Exxon-Mobil, BP, Royal Dutch/Shell, et al., which really are just mid-sized oil — but whatever), the Bush administration and Republicans, environmentalists, and the federal government. But 2011 offers a new leader in the blame game: speculators. From Capitol Hill lawmakers, to business columnists, to activist websites, to letters to the editor and hyper-forwarded emails, people are calling out trading in the oil and gasoline futures markets, aka ”speculation,” and demanding that government do something about it.

The problem is, I haven’t seen any of these folks offer a coherent explanation for how speculation drives up the price at the pump. And I doubt any is forthcoming.

The speculation-blamers’ story is simple enough: Investors sign futures contracts in oil and gasoline — traditionally, agreeing to a price today for oil or gas that will be delivered weeks or months in the future (and that probably has yet to be pumped out of the ground or refined). But, speculation-blamers say, the investors are running amok, paying outrageous prices for the futures. Those prices then affect oil and gasoline sales today, driving up prices at the pump.

Worse, they say, many of the futures are just paper transactions: the traders don’t have oil or gas to sell, nor do they intend to take delivery of it. Instead, when the future closes (that is, reaches its end-date), then one of the two counterparties will simply pay the other the difference between the agreement’s price and the actual market price on the closing day. For instance, if Smith Investments and Jones Investments signed a six-month future for one barrel of oil at $100, with Smith taking the “short” position (believing that oil’s price will be less than $100 six months from now) and Jones taking the “long” position (believing the price will be above $100), and six months from now oil is selling for $80, then Jones will pay Smith $20. Vice-versa if oil’s price is $120. (In fact, most futures today are settled in cash, even if one of the counterparties is somehow involved in oil production or use.)

On first blush, the speculation-blamers’ story makes sense: Surely, the price for future delivery of oil or gasoline will affect the price for present-day delivery. And all the paper-transaction stuff just seems devious and dangerous — shrewd Wall Street investors are hosing Main Street again!

But think more carefully about the story, and it begins to unravel.

Futures prices for some commodity like oil or gasoline can affect current prices — but if and only if those futures cause producers, consumers, or stockpilers (i.e., people who buy and hold commodities for future sale, aka speculators) to change their behavior in some way that would affect supply and demand today. For instance, if the federal government were to announce that it’s going to buy a lot of gold in six months at a price much higher than what it sells at now, stockpilers would likely respond by buying and storing gold today in anticipation of selling it to Uncle Sam later, at a profit. This would push up prices today.

However, commodities that are costly to store are less likely to experience this because speculators will have to factor in the storage cost, which could make the strategy risky and unprofitable. For instance, roses are inexpensive most of the year, but are very expensive around Valentine’s Day. The reason for this (in part) is that roses harvested in August can’t be stored cheaply and sold on Valentine’s Day. A “rose future” signed in August but closing in February won’t have much effect on August rose prices.

Interestingly, oil and gasoline are more like roses than gold. Oil and gas don’t spoil (at least, not to the extent roses do), but they’re expensive to store — petroleum is heavy, dirty, emits fumes, and is combustible. For that reason, not a lot of oil or gasoline is stockpiled for the long term (beyond the Strategic Petroleum Reserve). With that said, there has been some building of oil stockpiles in recent weeks, but it’s not dramatically higher than the stockpiling usually seen prior to the summer driving season – and gasoline stocks have been declining.

What about the devious-seeming paper transactions? One prominent speculation-blamer, The Street contributor Dan Dicker, derisively compares this investing to gambling. OK, but what does that have to do with the price of gasoline at the pump? If you and I were to bet on the Capitals-Rangers series, our bet wouldn’t affect the outcome of the series. Likewise, I don’t see how a bet on the future price of oil between two investors would affect the price of oil today (or in the future for that matter) because their paper transaction would not affect the supply or demand for oil today.

So what is driving the gasoline price spike? It seems far more likely that it is the result of a combination of the following:

  1. Uprisings in the Middle East could spread to mega-exporters Saudi Arabia and Iran, which has resulted in an implicit risk premium on oil and oil products.
  2. Japanese recovery efforts from the March 11 earthquake and tsunami are drawing heavily on petroleum.
  3. China and India are using more energy as their economies recover from the global recession.

All of this exacerbates the underlying problem: World demand for oil is very strong at most any price, but supply can’t be ramped up quickly in response to demand (because it takes about a decade to bring a new oil field online). In economic parlance, this means that both supply and demand are “price-inelastic,” which in turn means that even little problems can have a big effect on price (fortunately, in either direction). To understand this better, see this short paper.

Now, I admit, I’m no Wall Street wizard, and perhaps the Dan Dickers of the world know something that I don’t. But, so far, I haven’t seen them present a sound explanation for their claim that speculation is to blame for high gas prices. When I read their comments, I think of the old retort, “What’s that got to do with the price of tea in China?” So the next time one of these folks starts in, we need to get him to clearly explain how “speculation” affects the price at the pump.

Congress: The Least Dangerous Branch

That’s the topic of my Washington Examiner column this week. In it, I discuss last week’s budget battle and the failure of “policy riders” designed to rein in the Obama EPA’s attempts to regulate greenhouse gases without a congressional vote specifically authorizing it. The Obama team believes it has the authority to implement comprehensive climate change regulation, Congress be damned. Worse still, under current constitutional law–which has little to do with the actual Constitution–they’re probably right. Thanks to overbroad congressional delegation, “the Imperial Presidency Comes in Green, Too.” At home and abroad, the legislative branch sits on the sidelines as the executive state makes the law and wages war, despite the fact that “all legislative powers” the Constitution grants are vested in Congress, among them the power “to declare War.”

Yet, as I point out in the column, Congress retains every power the Constitution gave it–powers broad enough that talk of “co-equal branches” is a misnomer. Excerpt:

The constitutional scholar Charles Black once commented, “My classes think I am trying to be funny when I say that, by simple majorities,” Congress could shrink the White House staff to one secretary, and that, with a two-thirds vote, “Congress could put the White House up at auction.” (I sometimes find myself wishing they would.)

But Professor Black wasn’t trying to be funny: it’s in Congress’s power to do that. And if Congress can sell the White House, surely it can defund an illegal war and rein in a runaway bureaucracy.

If they don’t, it’s because they like the current system. And why wouldn’t they? It lets them take credit for passing high-minded, vaguely worded statutes, and take it again by railing against the bureaucracy when it imposes costs in the course of deciding what those statutes mean.

Last year, in the journal White House Studies [.pdf], I explored some of the reasons we’ve drifted so far from the original design:

Federalist 51 envisions a constitutional balance of power reinforced by the connection
between “the interests of the man and the constitutional rights of the place.” Yet, as NYU‘s Daryl Levinson notes, ―beyond the vague suggestion of a psychological identification between official and institution, Madison failed to offer any mechanism by which this connection would take hold…. for most members, the psychological identification with party appears greatly to outweigh loyalty to the institution. Levinson notes that when one party holds both branches, presidential vetoes greatly decrease, and delegation skyrockets. Under unified government, “the shared policy goals of, or common sources of political reward for, officials in the legislative and executive branches create cross-cutting, cooperative political dynamics rather than conflictual ones.”

Individual presidents have every reason to protect and expand their power; but individual senators and representatives lack similar incentive to defend Congress’s constitutional prerogatives. “Congress” is an abstraction. Congressmen are not, and their most basic interest is getting reelected. Ceding power can be a means toward that end: it allows members to have their cake and eat it too. They can let the president launch a war, reserving the right to criticize him if things go badly. And they can take credit for passing high-minded, vaguely worded statutes, and take it again by railing against the executive-branch bureaucracy when it imposes costs in the course of deciding what those statutes mean.

In David Schoenbrod’s metaphor, modern American governance is a “shell game,” with We the People as the rubes.  That game will go on unless and until the voters start holding Congress accountable for dodging responsibility.

GE and Obama: A Betrothal at the Altar of Industrial Policy

The angry Left has been calling for President Obama to fire Jeffrey Immelt from his position as head of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. I think that would be a good idea, but for different reasons.

Sen. Russ Feingold, Moveon.Org, and the regular scribes at the Huffington Post see Immelt, the chairman and CEO of General Electric, as unfit to advise the president because GE invests some of its resources abroad and, despite worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, paid no taxes in 2010. No illegalities are alleged, mind you; GE — like every other U.S. multinational — responds to incentives, including those resulting from tax policy and regulations concocted in Washington. 

But there are more substantive reasons for why Immelt is unfit to advise the president.  In particular, GE is a major player in several industries that President Obama has been promoting as part of his administration’s cocksure embrace of industrial policy. With over $100 billion in direct subsidies and tax credits already devoted to “green technology,” President Obama is convinced that America’s economic future depends on the ability of U.S. firms to compete and succeed in the solar panel, wind harnessing, battery, and other energy storage technologies. Concerning those industries, the president said: “Countries like China are moving even faster… I’m not going to settle for a situation where the United States comes in second place or third place or fourth place in what will be the most important economic engine of the future.”

Well, just yesterday GE announced plans to open the largest solar panel production facility in the United States, which nicely complements its role as the largest U.S. producer of wind turbines (and one of the largest in the world). The 2011 Economic Report of the President describes the taxpayer largesse devoted to subsidizing these green industries:

[T]he Recovery Act directed over $90 billion in public investment and tax incentives to increasing renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power, weatherizing homes, and boosting R&D for new technologies. Looking forward, the President has proposed a Federal Clean Energy Standard to double the share of electricity produced by clean sources to 80 percent by 2035, a substantial commitment to cleaner transportation infrastructure, and has increased investments in energy efficiency and clean energy R&D.

And Box 6.2 on page 129 of the 2011 ERP conveniently breaks out those subsidies by specific industry, most of which are spaces in which GE competes.

Tim Carney gave his impressions of this budding relationship between GE and the Obama administration in the DC Examiner last July:

First, there’s the policy overlap: Obama wants cap-and-trade, GE wants cap-and-trade. Obama subsidizes embryonic stem-cell research, GE launches an embryonic stem-cell business. Obama calls for rail subsidies, GE hires Linda Daschle [wife of former South Dakota Senator and Obama confidante Tom Dachle] as a rail lobbyist. Obama gives a speeeh, GE employee Chris Matthews feels a thrill up his leg. I could go on.

And Carney does go on in a December 2009 Examiner piece:

Look at any major Obama policy initiative — healthcare reform, climate-change regulation, embryonic stem-cell research, infrastructure stimulus, electrical transmission smart-grids — and you’ll find GE has set up shop, angling for a way to pocket government handouts, gain business through mandates, or profit from government regulation.

One month after President Obama proposed subsidizing high-speed rail because, in his words, ”everybody stands to benefit,” the head of GE’s Transportation division proclaimed, “GE has the know-how and the manufacturing base to develop the next generation of high-speed passenger locomotives. We are ready to partner with the federal government and Amtrak to make high-speed rail a reality.”

About the optics of these related events, Carney writes: “This was typical — an Obama policy pronouncement in close conjunction with a GE business initiative. It happens across all sectors of the economy and in all corners of GE’s sprawling enterprise.” And he goes on to list other examples.

Jeff Immelt should step down as head of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness because there is simply no avoiding a conflict of interest.  Even if he recommends courses of action to the president that don’t advance GE’s bottom line, it’s hard to see how that wouldn’t be an abrogation of his fiduciary responsibility to GE’s shareholders.

But more troubling is that Immelt and the president appear to be two peas in a pod when it comes to faith in government-directed industrial policy.  Immelt admires the German model of industrial policy because the Germans believe in “government and business working as a pack.”  He admires China’s “incredible unanimity of purpose from top to bottom.”  And days after Obama’s inauguration, Immelt wrote to shareholders:

[W]e are going through more than a cycle. The global economy, and capitalism, will be “reset” in several important ways. The interaction between government and business will change forever. In a reset economy, the government will be a regulator; and also an industry policy champion, a financier, and a key partner.

Citizens of a country that owes so much of its unmatched economic success to innovation and entrepreneurship and an absence of heavy-handed top-down mandates should be wary of the changes the presdient and Mr. Immelt are fostering.