There were two op-eds in the NYT today on what policy the US government should take to tackle climate change. James Hanson, a climate scientists, believes that cap-and-trade is bureaucratically inefficient and has the wrong types of economic incentives.

Paul Krugman argues that cap-and-trade is far less of an economic burden than most people believes, and argues on his blog that Hanson doesn’t really understand the economics of cap-and-trade.
Andrew Sullivan deftly summarizes the dueling op-eds.

At some point, the public decides to switch to cheaper, greener goods. Krugman’s response is that cap-and-trade is a de facto kind-of-carbon fee (except with a mountain of regulation, speculation in selling pollution permits, and the possibility of just moving carbon emissions around – through dubious off-sets – rather than reducing them). But Krugman’s core point is political: cap and trade is all our system can achieve; it’s that or nothing; so shut up.
I hope Hansen doesn’t shut up. His proposal is simpler, clearer, fairer and more likely to wean us off carbon sooner.

Sullivan is certainly right: Hansen’s proposal is far easier to understand and streamlined to avoid unnecessary bureaucratic waste and loopholes. Krugman’s proposal is far more attuned to the actual political climate we’re in. It actually accounts for, you know, reality. The value of Hansen’s proposal — in my view — is that it further disseminates other, pro-green alternatives to cap-and-trade. One problem with cap-and-trade is that it appears to be operating from the far left of the political spectrum, even though in reality it has a lot to do with market forces and actually has the government liberalizing some economic policies. If viable alternatives from the left of the spectrum arrive cap-and-trade could look far less radical, and conservatives might consider it a better alternative to more progressive measures. By vocally arguing for carbon taxes Hansen’s stretching the spectrum of ideas left, leaving cap-and-trade closer to the center.

So Paul Krugman wrote in his NYT column today, “An Affordable Truth.”

“Maybe I’m naïve, but I’m feeling optimistic about the climate talks starting in Copenhagen on Monday. President Obama now plans to address the conference on its last day, which suggests that the White House expects real progress. It’s also encouraging to see developing countries — including China, the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide — agreeing, at least in principle, that they need to be part of the solution.”

………..

“The truth, however, is that cutting greenhouse gas emissions is affordable as well as essential. Serious studies say that we can achieve sharp reductions in emissions with only a small impact on the economy’s growth. And the depressed economy is no reason to wait — on the contrary, an agreement in Copenhagen would probably help the economy recover.”

………

“As a recent study by McKinsey & Company showed, there are many ways to reduce emissions at relatively low cost: improved insulation; more efficient appliances; more fuel-efficient cars and trucks; greater use of solar, wind and nuclear power; and much, much more. And you can be sure that given the right incentives, people would find many tricks the study missed.”

Read  the NYT Op-Ed here

Paul Krugman has again asserted his right to be wrong about climate change today in The New York Times. Here is my response to Mr. Krugman which I have also posted on the Times site:

I wonder by what percentage Mr. Krugman has diminished his own carbon footprint in the last 5 years? In the last 10? In the last 30? Or, like most affluent people in the West, has his use of fossil-fuel derived energy increased with each passing decade as he has become more financially comfortable? Has he limited the number of plane trips he takes per year? Does he heat his home with solar-derived warm water? Does he own more than one home? Tom Friedman, for one, flies nearly as much as Al Gore and lives in an energy-draining mansion.

Energy hypocrisy is among the many reasons that Copenhagen rings hollow. Some others:

1. Calling time-out in the conventional-energy game before the Third World gets a chance to develop properly is a moral disaster. The only reason that we’re capable of even thinking about a better environment in the West is because of the economic comfort brought by plentiful and affordable energy. Our rivers and air are cleaner today than a century ago, but we had to go through some environmentally ugly-duckling phases on our way here. (Not that we should ever stop fighting particulate and chemical pollution; we shouldn’t.) China and India will NEVER accede to meaningful co2 caps, at least not before 90 to 95 percent of their populations have electric power, something that won’t be taking place in the immediate future.

Expensive playthings: Modern windmills typically require conventional power generation backup, kill millions of birds per year, and don't provide electricity during some of the most important periods of the year (harsh winter cold snaps, notorious for still winds).)

2. The countries that have run the farthest with wind power are in economic trouble over it already. This is particularly true of Spain, which attempted to force-feed its economy a technology that provides intermittent power at high cost, created high-paying but temporary jobs, and has created potentially long-lasting unemployment.

3. The buying and selling of carbon is a rich man’s game. If the Nobel-winning Krugman’s best economic thinking prompts him to get behind this absolutely insane investment bubble in the making, then people would do well to look beyond the presumed authority and think for themselves on this one.

4. So far, in the entire history of planet Earth, a spike in temperature has yet to be caused by a spike in co2. Al Gore forgot to mention in his movie that every temperature spike on his graph preceded the correlating carbon dioxide spike by 800 years. Is co2 a greenhouse gas? Yes. Has the planet been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age 200 years ago? Yes. Does this establish causation? No. Water vapor is a far more significant greenhouse gas than co2 and is involved in a variety of highly complex and, so far, impossible-to-predict feedbacks by which it can cool the ocean-atmosphere system.

5. Mr. Krugman’s easy dismissal of Climategate is a serious moral blind spot on his part. If oil-company e-mails among industry climate scientists (not that such people actually exist) suggested deleting e-mails that were part of a Freedom of Information Act process, do you think that Mr. Krugman would dismiss their significance? If an oil-industry scientist had written an e-mail to his peers saying that he had found a good “trick” to “hide” the increase in temperature, would Mr. Krugman similarly tell his readers that this was no big deal? If oil-industry scientists described ways to control the peer-review process and freeze out scientists warning of global warming, Mr. Krugman would be fine with that, right?

Here’s an interesting poll: When Rasmusssen Reports telephoned voters and asked them if they could give an opinion about Paul Krugman, 55% said they don’t know enough about him to give even a “soft opinion.” Those who did have an opinion of Krugman were evenly divided with 22% favoring him and 22% not favoring him. 4% voiced a “very favorable” opinion and 6% voiced a “very unfavorable” view toward him.

But here is where it gets interesting: When asked about “New York Times columnist Paul Krugman” rather than simply “Paul Kurgman,” the numbers shifted significantly. Once identified with the New York Times, his unfavorable ratings increased 15 points to 37% while those who expressed “very unfavorable” views toward him more than tripled. Krugman’s favorable ratings, on the other hand, only increased three points to 25%.

Krugman: George Clooney lookalike (Syriana)

Take note, econopundit and NobelistPaul Krugman: The Brazilian SecTreas is (reportedly) accusing you of nefarious pumping and dumping.

O Globo reports on a recent Sambodia lecture by Krugman in which he warms of speculative bubbles in the still-shallow Brazilian capital markets. Which seems like plain common sense to me, although Globo headlined it with the sensational KRUGMAN HAS CONFLICT OF INTEREST: MANTEGA.

The Diário Económico of Portugal reported that <Krugman warned he would be selling off some of his investments in Brazil>.

If Guido provided any factual basis for the claim, however — if indeed he made it; Globo has been known to invent quotes — O Globo did not report it.

I translate in order to facilatate the bilingual intercontintenal right of reply. Otherwise, Krugman might not know that cheerleaders for the Bovespa are (supposedly) out to assassinate his character.

Accusing an econopundit of secretly shorting what he pumps publicly in the paper (or vice versa) could well lead to a lawsuit under (unfathomable) Brazilian libel law. Journos can get jail time for doing that in some parts of the world, as some British tabloid stock pickers learned to their chagrin a couple years ago.

….durante uma palestra para investidores em Hamburgo, como parte da visita do presidente Lula à Alemanha, Mantega afirmou que Krugman estava pensando no dinheiro que teria investido no Brasil …

… during a lecture for investors in Hamburg, as part of a visit by the President to Germany, Mantega stated that Krugman was thinking of the money he supposedly has invested in Brazil ….

- Paul Krugman não estava só preocupado com a economia brasileira. Ele tinha feito aplicações no Brasil. Mas digo ao economista Krugman: não vamos permitir bolhas na economia brasileira. Estamos atentos – afirmou Mantega

– Krugman is not just worried about the Brazilian economy. He has investments in Brazil. But I say to Krugman: we are not going to allow speculative bubbles in Brazilian. We are keeping an eye out — Mantega stated.

The actual  quote hardly rates the sensational treatment Globo gives it:

Se na quinta-feira o presidente do Banco Central, Henrique Meirelles, fora diplomático ao comentar as declarações do economista americano Paul Krugman sobre riscos de bolhas no Brasil, o ministro da Fazenda, Guido Mantega, adotou um tom para lá de diferente ao acusar o prêmio Nobel de ter interesses pessoais na estabilidade da economia brasileira ….

Whereas Central  Bank president Meirelles was diplomatic in responding to statements by U.S. economist Krugman on Thursday, the treasury minister, Mantega, adopted a tone that was far, far different when he accused the Nobelist of having a personal interest in the stability of the Brazilian economy …..

Globo editorializes in the lede to throw  the focus on the Guido gaffe. This is a common technique of the Tupi yellow press, as when the S. Paaulo press turned a nuance in a Marta Suplicy for Mayo9r add into MARTA ACCUSES HER OPPONENT OF BEING GAY …. and beat it to death for weeks, to the exclusion of all else.Rhetoricianss call this <filibustering while changing the subject> or <mass distraction

(They dubbed Marta <Martaxa>, implying she was a tax and spend Stalinist. Kassab has now just raised property taxes by forty freaking percent (he had been going for 60%!.

Students of American political history may recall the  firestorm by a partisan lit and tended by a fledgling press over the infamous <Rum, Romanism and Rebellion> gaffe … which the candidate in question did not actually endorse.

Still,  we challenge Krugman to disclose his Brazilian holdings — if any.

(With luck, Mtat Fina Indústria e comércio de Charutos Ltda. will go public when its Monte Pascoal Belicoso (rated 9.0 on one scale, outperforming many midrange Cubans) takes the world by storm.)

Political partisans of the SecTreas and his boss often accuse the press here of being out to ratfink Guido — a Globo certainly does love to gloat over government gaffes — bfut in my observation the man does suffer from the odd bout of foot in mouth disease (Bernanke-Bartiromo Syndrome) and could use better PR advice.

And speaking of ratfinks, the Mina de Letras (my true blue wife) informs me I have been targeted by a Google bomb on account of a post from a couple of years ago in which I question the integrity of something called The Imaginary News and Nonsense Agency.

(I speculated that the gentleman behind the INNA may be a Ministry of Culture bureaucrat who doubles as the worldwide PR man for Santo Daime, an ayahuasca cult.)

The gist of the campaign, apparently, is that cbrayton is quote CRAZY unquote for arguing no one should take imaginary news and nonsense seriously.

It seems they try to exploit the fact that I have written here and there about my experience with depressive illness –following the courageous example of William Styron (Darkness Visible) and the host of Big Brother Brasil on TV Globo, Pedro Biale (once a very fine film director and real-world journo, poor guy — until he got caught up in the imaginary news and nonsense industry!)

For the record: This is not something I am ashamed of.

I will not stand out in the snow and weep as I resign my candidacy, like Sen. Edmund Muskie when Donald Segretti outed him for having undergone electroshock therapy. If elected, I will try not to get dejected, get used to it!

Sign up for Daily email and feed at etfdesk.com

Today’s market-moving headlines, macro trade ideas and more…

• Investment guru urges US dollar exodus : Jim Rodgers – Long Commodities
• MXF November Monthly Update
• Goldman On Gold: $1,450/Oz
• Krugman : Double dip warning
• Canada Added 79,100 Jobs, Five Times Expectations
• Gold Falls Below $1,200 After Payrolls
• China eyes industrial bases in Africa

I find myself struggling with this question quite often. Should journalists openly affiliate themselves with a political party? It is ideal for a journalist, in most situations, to report objectively on a story and leave any personal political baggage at the door. Many news sources have underlying tones of bias in their reporting, but others are very effective at giving the news. I think it can be agreed upon that for news which is meant to be news, political affiliations should not make their way into a story, but columns bring in another question. Columnists are a different breed here, because they are giving a straightforward opinion, but does it help or hurt them to affiliate with a party or movement?

In the realm of columnists, I find myself enjoying those which are more independently minded, such as Christopher Hitchens, Andrew Sullivan and Thomas Friedman. With the exception of Sullivan, these men have done a pretty good job of keeping the public guessing of which side they are on. Actually, Sullivan is almost better than the others, but he does label himself. He has called himself a conservative for a long while, but has endorsed Obama, spoken out in favor of gay rights and written of his disdain for Sarah Palin. He actually recently wrote an article about leaving the Right. He despises everything that the current American conservative movement stands for, but will still not say he is a liberal. He is doing a great job of opinion based journalism and still keeping himself labeled as an independent thinker.

On the other hand, people like Paul Krugman, Geore Will and Robert Novak have been more open about where they align themselves (Krugman a liberal and the latter two conservatives), but are still very much respected in their profession. They have taken an opposite route but still gained the respect of readers on both sides of the spectrum. I must say here though, I know Hitchens and Sullivan both speak out against labels or “cliques.” They find the idea of one ideology to run one’s life a very negative thing. I don’t think they are secretly wanting to come out with a party affiliation, I think they truly disdain them.

The reason I have trouble with this question is because of two reasons.

1) I feel that if a reader does not know my stances prior to reading me, my message will get across much more effectively (the quote, “if you label me, you negate me” comes to mind here)

2) I cannot make up my mind of where I would affiliate myself if I were to. I definitely lean to one side more than the other, but if I were to embrace that side for all it is worth, I would be forever labeled that and feel that I would not be taken seriously anymore. (see, I’m even hiding my affiliation now)

I think that party affiliation is necessary though. We live in a two party system and it is going to be that way for awhile. It is either going to be the Republicans or the Democrats that get elected, and I think it is important to align one’s self with a party if any progress is to be made. Many think that political affiliation automatically means sacrificing independent thought. I don’t think this is true. At the end of the day, Krugman, Will and Novak are still independently minded and thoughtful journalists, and Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are still crazies. They would be crazy even if they did not align themselves. A lack of affiliation would not make them independent thinkers. Krugman will still be a brilliant economist, regardless of whether or not he aligned himself.

More important than affiliation is a critical mind. Being able to call your side out when they are wrong and embrace the opposite side on an issue in which they are right on is what makes someone a respectable journalist. It shows a denial of one-sided thinking, and a willingness to asses something for what it really is. In short, I think journalists should affiliate themselves if they can. As long as they hold true to being logical and rational, they will serve an important purpose in the world of ideas.

Obama is having his jobs summit today; in fact it may already be over.  In the spirit of wondering how to create more jobs, I noticed that Krugman has a solution:

Meanwhile, the federal government could provide jobs by … providing jobs. It’s time for at least a small-scale version of the New Deal’s Works Progress Administration, one that would offer relatively low-paying (but much better than nothing) public-service employment. There would be accusations that the government was creating make-work jobs, but the W.P.A. left many solid achievements in its wake. And the key point is that direct public employment can create a lot of jobs at relatively low cost. In a proposal to be released today, the Economic Policy Institute, a progressive think tank, argues that spending $40 billion a year for three years on public-service employment would create a million jobs, which sounds about right.

That got me to thinking.  There are currently about 15.7 million unemployed people in America.  Almost all are receiving some form of unemployment benefits.  How about instead of spending $40 billion a year for 3 years like Krugman says, we just make these people do the work he is suggesting and call ‘em jobs?  Why would we create a program to offer “relatively low-paying” jobs for people to work when we already have a program that offers “relatively low-paying” jobs where people have to do–NOTHING!?

Krugman.  Sheesh.

Hat tip:  Forbes

Sign up for Daily email and feed at etfdesk.com

Today’s market-moving headlines, macro trade ideas and more…

• Goldman sees Chinese earnings and shares surging in 2010
• Cast your fortunes with index funds
• Web retail a bright spot in tepid U.S. holiday season
• Goldman Sachs Sees ‘Rather Strong’ Growth in 2010-11
• Morgan Stanley raises UAL, AMR to overweight
• The Zweig Fund November Monthly Update
• The Zweig Total Return Fund November Monthly Update
• Housing Market Meltdown Not Over: Zandi
• BofA Cheer Boosts Futures
• Fears grow over US debt market
• General Growth files exit plan, reworks more debt
• U.S. chains miss sales views in weak holiday start
• Global trade disputes Trading blows
• Dave Rosenberg 12/3/2009 THE DOW IS BACK IN A BEAR MARKET
• Pensions Eliminating Stocks Add $40 Billion to Corporate Bonds
• Krugman Says He Plans to Sell Some Brazil Investments

In a recent ‘Bloomberg’ report, Paul Krugman a Nobel Prize winning economist said he now plan’s to sell some of his bigger asset’s, because of concerns that asset prices are over-valued…

Source: read more Krugman Shifts Into Asset (De)Allocation

Teresa Ghilarducci, who spoke at our May conference, had a great post, “The Second Thanksgiving of the Great Recession,” in the Brainstorm blog on The Chronicle of Higher Education web site. In it, she points to the fact that people seem more worried about the deficit than about the fact that a huge number of people are currently unemployed.

But at least in my admittedly unscientific sample, people’s legitimate anxieties about losing their homes, or jobs, or retirement savings were focused in the wrong place. Instead of calls for continued job creation, I’m hearing a lot of misplaced fear about inflation and the growing federal debt — what Paul Krugman correctly calls the phantom menace.

So, in the spirit of having vigorous family discussions, if your Aunt Teresa the economist had been at your dinner table, here’s what I would have said.
Shouldn’t the Government balance its budget? Sure, over the long term, but no, not now. If the economy was booming, the government should be shrinking  the debt. That is what the Clinton Administration did during its eight years in office, cutting it to zero, and actually leaving a surplus.  And that is what George W. Bush didn’t do, increasing spending on prescription drugs, wars, and unnecessary tax cuts for the wealthy, while not paying for any of it.

Paul Krugman, as Teresa mentions, has also been bemoaning this focus on the deficit in his blog:

When I was on This Week yesterday, George Will tried his hand at the debt scare thing, saying that we’re in terrible shape because by 2019 the interest on the debt will be SEVEN HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS. (That should be read in the voice of Dr. Evil). I get that a lot — people who talk about the big numbers which are supposed to imply that things are terrible, impossible, we’re doomed, etc.

The point, of course, is that everything about the United States is big. So you have to interpret numbers accordingly. As the graphic above shows — it’s taken from an article that managed to maintain a grim tone while reporting numbers that actually weren’t all that grim — what we’re talking about is a debt-service burden roughly comparable to that under the first President Bush. How many of the people now warning about the impossible burden of currently projected debt were issuing similar warnings back in 1992? Not many, I’d guess.

How cynical are you? Do you believe that this focus on the BIG BAD DEFICIT might serve those who’d like to cut Social Security and Medicare? Need I remind you that fear worked very well in the recent past, when politicians wanted the American public to swallow something they otherwise would have rejected (9/11, 9/11, 9/11; weapons of mass destruction, weapons of mass destruction, weapons of mass destruction).

Don’t let the fear-mongerers win again.

This is a good time to remember Frances Perkins’s words from 1935:

We must devise plans that will not merely alleviate the ills of today, but will prevent their recurrence in the future. The task of recovery is inseparable from the fundamental task of social reconstruction.

I’ll end with another quote from Teresa’s post:

Aunt Teresa reminds you that economic policy makers respond to particular historical and economic situations. Inflexible theology does not help. Our situation now calls for continued government deficit spending, keeping interest rates virtually at zero, and doing everything possible to create jobs. When the economy begins to recover, then we should fight inflation.

When an overweight patient with high blood pressure and high cholesterol has a heart attack, there are lots of things that should be done over time to make the patient healthy — better diet, exercise, proper medication. But first you have to save their life and deal with the heart attack. That’s our economy now — we need to save the patient, and then do the long-term rehab (deficit reduction, stricter regulation of the financial sector, stronger government guarantees for retirement savings) to stave off future crises.

I hope you had a Happy Thanksgiving weekend, and that this turkey of an economy is better by next year.

Today I was reading the New York Times and I came across an opinion column by Paul Krugman.  The title of the the column is “The Jobs Imperative” .  Those who know me will already know that I am a fan of both the New York Times and Paul Krugman.  In his column, Paul makes a clear point that in order to keep the Great Recession from being even more prolonged, that the Obama administration must do more to create jobs.  While following the media and the effects of the Great Recession it has been said time and time again that unemployment is always a “lagging indicator” of a bad economy.  I agree that it will take time to recover the jobs that have been lost but I agree with Paul that the Obama administration must do more to not only save jobs but to also create them.  In the column, Paul states the following:

So it’s time for an emergency jobs program.

How is a jobs program different from a second stimulus? It’s a matter of priorities. The 2009 Obama stimulus bill was focused on restoring economic growth. It was, in effect, based on the belief that if you build G.D.P., the jobs will come. That strategy might have worked if the stimulus had been big enough — but it wasn’t. And as a matter of political reality, it’s hard to see how the administration could pass a second stimulus big enough to make up for the original shortfall.

So our best hope now is for a somewhat cheaper program that generates more jobs for the buck. Such a program should shy away from measures, like general tax cuts, that at best lead only indirectly to job creation, with many possible disconnects along the way. Instead, it should consist of measures that more or less directly save or add jobs.

One such measure would be another round of aid to beleaguered state and local governments, which have seen their tax receipts plunge and which, unlike the federal government, can’t borrow to cover a temporary shortfall. More aid would help avoid both a drastic worsening of public services (especially education) and the elimination of hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Meanwhile, the federal government could provide jobs by … providing jobs. It’s time for at least a small-scale version of the New Deal’s Works Progress Administration, one that would offer relatively low-paying (but much better than nothing) public-service employment. There would be accusations that the government was creating make-work jobs, but the W.P.A. left many solid achievements in its wake. And the key point is that direct public employment can create a lot of jobs at relatively low cost. In a proposal to be released today, the Economic Policy Institute, a progressive think tank, argues that spending $40 billion a year for three years on public-service employment would create a million jobs, which sounds about right.

Follow the link below to read the entire column:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/opinion/30krugman.html?_r=1

Republicans have been talking a lot about deficits lately, and presumably with good reason. If George Will is correct, the US debt will be an astonishing 700 billion dollars in 2019. Now that’s a lot of money. Right?

Turns out it’s not—or, at least for the US economy, it’s not. As Paul Krugman explains, Will’s estimated figure is “roughly comparable to that under the first President Bush.” If anything, Krugman argues, the deficits incurred under Bush should have been more worrying than today’s numbers:

And bear in mind my point about causes of deficits: the deficits of the Reagan-Bush years were essentially gratuitous, the result of a desire to cut taxes while increasing military spending, rather than a response to a temporary emergency. So that debt burden should have been more worrying than what we’re facing now.

The problem with Krugman’s view is that the line between gratuitous spending and emergency spending is not always clear. Krugman and I may agree that tax cuts and military spending in the Reagan-Bush years were gratuitous, but Republicans certainly don’t. To take a current example, it is possible to acknowledge that some form of stimulus was necessary last fall to prevent a Great Depression II, while at the same time disagreeing over the appropriate amount. (Was 787 billion dollars too small, too large, or just right?) And then there is the question of what to spend the stimulus money on. One politician’s pork is another’s bread-and-butter.

So ideology plays an important role in all of this: whether to spend money in the first place, what to spend it on, and when to stop spending. The reality is that, once in power, neither party tends to worry about deficits too much — whether its war or social welfare, Democrats and Republicans deem their respective agendas essential and worthwhile. If you favor small government, vote Libertarian. Otherwise, lets hope for less obstructionism from the Right, and more discussion of the real questions at hand: Would another stimulus package help create jobs? Is guaranteed access to health care morally necessary for an advanced society? Is Afghanistan a worthy cause?

These are the important concerns right now, not deficits.

Stephanopoulos: ClimateGate Complicates Copenhagen for Obama

News Busters
November 29, 2009

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos actually brought up the ClimateGate scandal as a topic for discussion during the Roundtable segment on Sunday’s “This Week.”

Not surprisingly, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman found “not a single smoking gun” in those e-mail messages (video in two parts embedded below the fold with transcript and commentary by myself and others involved in this debate):

“Nothing that Obama has proposed, that Geithner has enacted or that Krugman has cheerleaded has meant a damn thing for small businesses in the US.”

My clientele is nationwide and the vast majority are business owners.  They represent every industry, every region in the country and every political persuasion.  When I relay the sentiment on The Street about how the ISM or the ABC or the XYZ survey is indicating an economic recovery, they are completely at a loss as to what recovery I could possibly be talking about.

This is becoming a farce, with the punchline being the small business owner and his employees.  CNN is reporting that President Obama’s upcoming Jobs Summit will be featuring Disney Chief Bob Iger and Google CEO Eric Schmidt, two guys who wouldn’t understand the plight of the independent businessman if they tripped over it on the way to the executive washroom.

With the majority of the administration’s efforts being driven toward coming to the aid of the Fortune 500 and keeping the union/bureaucratic machinery humming at level 10, it’s no wonder we’re staring 20% under-employment right in the face, a year into Obamanomics 101.

How much longer small business will be ignored remains to be seen, but judging by Obama’s guestlist for the event, I wouldn’t be too excited for the epiphany we all know must come for the bleeding to stop.

Let me spell it out for those in the administration who think that higher stock prices are their report card:

CUT TAXES FOR SMALL BUSINESS NOW.  AND GIVE TARP MONEY TO SMALL BUSINESS, TOO.  YESTERDAY.

Small businesses account for HALF the jobs in this country and they have been absolutely trampled in both the recession and the so-called recovery.  While big oil and big tech and big manufacturing are “playing” the dollar carry trade and deriving huge sales and profits from overseas, the provincial business owner can do nothing but watch.  For many, exporting is out of the question logistically or doesn’t translate based on what the company makes or does.

Banks are hoarding and not lending, state governments are using federal stimulus cash to pay down debt, consumers are stampeding Wal-Mart and TJ Maxx for 99 cent Asian-made junk – they are not transacting with the local merchants.  Nothing that Obama has proposed, that Geithner has enacted or that Krugman has cheerleaded has meant a damn thing for small businesses in the US.

Until this changes, the bankruptcies, layoffs and delinquencies will continue.

Have fun at the Jobs Summit Apathy Olympics, fellas.

• Policy misprescription: Switzerland has voted to ban construction of minarets. No good can come of this. In terms of confusing symptom with illness, it’s sort of like a doctor voting to ban coughing. And the Swiss are going to catch it both from the civil-libertarian community and from Muslims and their friends. There’s a real and growing problem here, but this ain’t the way you fix it.
• I’ve got your stigma right here, pal: The National Review’s John J. Miller may be the world’s stupidest person with a keyboard.
• Kinda hard to blame the guy who wasn’t in the room: I’m eagerly awaiting an explanation of how Dubai’s economic problems are the liberals’ fault.
• Born in the ’50s: Somebody’s got a blacklist.
• Economics 101: Some deficits are worse than others.
• Memo to Obama: Keep on screwing your base over and see how you like Congressional Republicans with subpoena power.
• Screwing the pooch: Gen. Tommy Franks and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld let Osama bin Laden get away at Tora Bora in 2001, a Senate report says. I think this is news only insofar as Franks has been claiming he didn’t even know whether bin Laden was at Tora Bora, but facts matter.
• Not that it will make a lot of difference to the fact-averse, but MIT economists say Obama’s health-care plan actually will save money. Memo to Mitch McConnell: Bite me.
• Memo to pundits: Having a clear position on issues does not automatically equate to having a beneficial position on those issues. WashPost’s David Broder and now Newsweek’s Jon Meacham somehow achieved their exalted status without having learned this.
• Shocker: Lobbyists are lobbying to be able to keep on lobbying.
• Shorter Devin’s Advocate: The movie version of Stephenie Meyer’s “Breaking Dawn” must be directed by David Cronenburg. (I heartily concur.) (NSFW) (h/t: Mel)