2016 presidential race

The Dog Days of Trustworthiness

Of all people, the Clintons know there are no mulligans in the game of politics. So why didn’t they act sooner to address what appears like conflicts of interest involving the Clinton Foundation and their government roles and ambitions?

Of all people, the Clintons know there are no mulligans in the game of politics. So why didn’t they act sooner to address what appears like conflicts of interest involving the Clinton Foundation and their government roles and ambitions?

Questions of trustworthiness dog the Clintons, and they shouldn’t be surprised.

As the fall presidential election approaches with Hillary Clinton in the lead, the Clintons have begun to position themselves for returning to the White House. They have put someone in charge of the transition and begun to discuss separation from the Clinton Foundation.

The only problem is they are late to the party.

After questions arose about pay-for-play influence-peddling, the Clintons are talking about drastically shrinking the size of the Clinton Foundation if Clinton wins the election. Hillary, Bill and Chelsea would leave the foundation's board, and Bill Clinton says he will stop fundraising for the foundation.

Fine, but why didn’t these declarations come much earlier? Why didn’t they exist when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state? Instead, they came after big-headline stories about possible favors and special access for Clinton Foundation donors. There may very well be an explanation for the favors and access, but there is hardly an excuse for not anticipating this would be an issue in the 2016 presidential election. Worse, the allegations fit to a larger narrative of the Clintons as political insiders who play loose with the rules.

The Foundation flap overlaps Hillary’s Clinton's painfully chronic email fiasco. The latest twist involves former Secretary of State Colin Powell denying that he encouraged Clinton to use a private email server. He says he gave advice on managing private email after she already had set up hers. It’s not an indictment, just another off-center, not-quite-true explanation that inflames Hillary haters and creates a media feeding frenzy.

If Clinton was facing anyone but the unpredictable and inexplicable Donald Trump, she may find herself in a political free-fall. Trump has picked up the issue and could make it his comeback cause. Even if Clinton wins the presidency, these apparent ethical lapses and tone-deaf media responses could deny her a solid mandate and weaken her ability to govern.

James Carville, the hominy grits political guru who guided Bill Clinton, tried to explain the Clinton predicament in an interview on the Today show with little success. You have the feeling that in private, Carville scolded the Clintons for failing to vet their vulnerabilities a long time ago as opposed to allowing these stories to become the equivalent of slow-drip campaign chemotherapy.

The Clinton Foundation has indisputably done much good. As a former president, Bill Clinton has used his status and clout to good effect and worthy ends. Yet, Hillary Clinton’s ambition to become president, strongly supported by her husband and daughter, should have aroused the usually keen political instincts of this very political family. They should have looked forward to contemplate Hillary’s historical presidential quest and proactively recognized and removed obstacles and provided clear, accurate explanations for behavior that raises eyebrows, even among supporters.

Yes, right-wing critics have dished out disinformation – or at least information without any supporting data – about Hillary Clinton, most recently about her health. But all the more reason to have your guard up, not in hibernation. In the game of politics, the Clintons, of all people, know you can’t declare a mulligan.

Now Hillary Clinton is left with pulling a heavy ball and chain of suspicion through the final 75 days of what seems like an indeterminable presidential campaign. It didn’t have to be like this. And it would be a shame if the Clinton Foundation wound up paying the price.

A Proposal for Managed Change in Coal Sector

Instead of waging a battle in Congress or courts over the future of the U.S. coal industry, one man suggests a federal buyout that could provide a well-financed 10-year transition to new businesses and new jobs in coal country.

Instead of waging a battle in Congress or courts over the future of the U.S. coal industry, one man suggests a federal buyout that could provide a well-financed 10-year transition to new businesses and new jobs in coal country.

The politics of climate change and the market forces turning away from coal-fired electricity will play an outsized role in the 2016 presidential election. But one man says there is a smart compromise that could put everybody on the same side.

In an op-ed published by The Washington Post, Stephen Kass says the issue of what to do about coal could lose its grimy political messiness if the federal government stepped in to buy out the industry and retrain workers for new jobs.

Stephen Kass, a New York lawyer and professor, says the federal government should buy out the coal industry and retrain coal workers for other jobs. 

Stephen Kass, a New York lawyer and professor, says the federal government should buy out the coal industry and retrain coal workers for other jobs. 

Sound far-fetched or socialistic? Kass, who heads a New York Bar Association task force on climate adaptation, says it is neither. Coal companies, he says, are barely hanging because of competition from lower-priced natural gas and the growing viability of wind and solar power. Coal industry workers may find themselves out of work and willing to accept help finding new skills and new job opportunities.

This strategy, Kass argues, offers more upside than a prolonged battle to sidetrack President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which is now stymied in court, but even if implemented would fall short of meeting climate goals agreed to by 195 nations, including the United States, in Paris.

The Kass plan would close down the coal industry over a 10-year period, providing a gentler glide path than sudden plant closures, and giving workers and communities a fixed date for pursuing a new path.

In his op-ed. Kass didn’t explicitly make the point, but could have that a 10-year transition could be a perfect pivot for manufacturers to swoop in to take advantage of a skilled, but soon-to-be unemployed work force with federal money to give them the training for new jobs.

Kass says his plan eclipses liberal and conservative ideology. “Coal plant operators and institutional investors, as well as their lenders, are locked into deteriorating (and most fully depreciated) assets that are losing the competition against natural gas and renewable energy – and facing increased regulation of pollutants independent of climate change initiatives,” he wrote. “These parties might welcome a graceful exit.”

“Even unions, faced with declining jobs and wages in the coal sector, might support a well-financed and carefully designed program to enable workers to pay off mortgages, car loans and medical or college bills and prepare for a more productive future in other energy-sector jobs." 

Agreeing to such an approach would require a level of bipartisanship in Washington that seems unattainable at the moment. But Kass implies a proactive government stance on inevitable change – which can have devastating effects on a significant swath of America – is a worthy ambition that can satisfy liberal and conservative policy appetites. Liberals would see the coal industry shut down without dumping coal workers in the slag heap. Conservatives would respect that business owners received fair compensation for their assets and red-leaning states wouldn’t be left high and dry.

The federal government would score a win by keeping its pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide a replicable example of how a government can manage a market to achieve an environmental objective without imperiling corporate, regional of personal economies.

This is an idea unlikely to pop up on the campaign stump this summer and fall, but it could be a policy option dropped on the table for a new President and the next Congress.