Even for those who have ample reservations about the Democratic Party platform/agenda, it should be preferable that the Congress & White House are at least moderately successful, that they at least avoid terminal internal gridlock and thereby seriously irritate/alienate the voters.

The reason I say that is, the element of polarized whipsawing that has been so prominent with American government in recent times weakens us and dissipates our resources in self-negating false starts & stops.  If the Democrats get their chance at the reins, jump up on the buckboard and promptly run the coach off into the rough, #1, Obama will be a lame duck on Nov. 5, 2010, and #2, in 2012 we will have some Republican wunderkind focused mainly on being the un-Obama.  I'd rather the Prez (D or R) be focused forward and on us, not backward on the used-to-was Prez.

The Brave New World is a close kin to Big Brother.  Recognition of these hazards in the 18th C (long before the 2 books were written) largely explains the restrictions & limits placed on the Federal government.  It's clearly wrong for Central Government to aggrandize itself by putting itself in charge of a new tax-scheme on CO2 release.

I suspect that is why we are seeing Obama move quickly to give States their own lead on climate-change concerns.  These are more properly States' issues, and are outside the legitimate authority of the Fed.  I bet the quick action to recognize State initiatives was taken with specific, intentional deliberation ... and it bodes poorly for the prospect of a high level of Federal command 'n control of the CO2 issue.

Note that the same principles apply to Social Security and Medicaid, etc.  These are extra-Constitutional enterprises by with the Fed improperly enlarges it's role, and this reality no doubt has a bearing on the efforts of recent years to retire these 'entitlements'.

With President Obama being a Constitutional scholar, we should keep a close eye on what the Constitution has to say on these considerations, in order to better-anticipate what the ultimate decisions will be.

Here is a WIN-WIN suggestion. Instead of taxing livestock and giving corporate farms the bulk of USDA farm subsidies do a carbon trade instead. Place windmills in pastures, solar panels on farm buildings and water-turned turbines on farm creeks. Farmers pay for this with grants available for ALL small farmers. The farm becomes energy self sufficient and sells excess power to the power companies. Not only will this helpout the small american fam, it will produce green energy and pump money into the local economy. It also will reduce paperwork and inspection costs since the farms would become EPA exempt. By giving the farmers an additional product to sell it will also reduce the amount of farm subsidies needed in the future. The farm show catalog (30th Anniversary Issue) has some great ideas including a mini-generator for small creeks and a wedge shaped wind mill that requires much less wind than commercial wind mills.
 
Small traditional farms should be encouraged for several reasons.
1. They generally sell locally so much less energy is used to get the product to market.
2. Grass/range raised livestock has a much smaller foot print. Corn and other grains as well as hay require petroleum based chemicals and energy intensive equipment use compared to grass fed.
3. Integrated traditional methods use poultry and livestock for pest management and fertilizer production instead of extensive use of petroleum based chemicals.
4. Livestock produces food and fiber from marginal lands that can not otherwise be used for food because the soil is erosion prone, too rocky, too dry or too wet.
5. According to the PEW report, family farms multiply the grant money by a factor of five by their spending within the community. CAFO's (factory farms) bring very little money into a community while causing major pollution problems
6.. Grass raised livestock is actually more nutritious than CAFO livestock.
7.  A Purdue University report shows commercial poultry lack genetic diversity and are 'more vulnerable' to Avian flu. Small farms promote genetic diversity and some raise rare breeds.
8. If USDA grain subsidies are taken out of the equation, grass fed organic/traditional farming methods are competitive with energy intensive factory farms.
9. Changes in Ag policy means the USA no longer has food surplus/stockpile. As Sec of Ag Ed Schaefer put it “The cupboard is bare” There are over 2.1 million farms in the USA only 300 thousand gross over $100,000 a year. The average age of the American farmer is 53. Can the US afford to remove 1.8 million families from their homes and put them on welfare? Can we afford to lose the 73 billion dollars worth of food these small farmers produce in a year?  Proposed USDA and FDA regs will put all but comercial farms out of business in the near future.