The Other Energy Bill
The whole climate/energy issue is getting strikingly little attention lately, and what attention it has gotten from the left has tended to focus on the imperfections in the Waxman-Markey bill or the depredations of secessionist Minnesota Representative Collin Peterson. But lurking in CAP/AF Supreme Leader John Podesta’s new statement urging progressives to push for House approval of Waxman-Markey is the observation that there’s probably a bigger problem to worry about:
Passing this bill is the first arduous step toward energy transformation. Senate passage of similar legislation will be more difficult, and the Senate Energy Committee is off to an inauspicious beginning by passing an energy bill that would do little to boost investments in renewable electricity. The bill would allow oil drilling in an area only 45 miles off the Florida Gulf Coast and worsen global warming by lifting the prohibition against the federal government purchase of oil from Canadian tar sands, which produce twice as much greenhouse gas pollution as regular oil. The Senate bill is weak, toothless, and unacceptable, and it must be improved before it passes.
It’s almost never a smart idea to worry about the shortcomings of House legislation. Whatever happens, the Senate always makes it worse.
11 Responses to “The Other Energy Bill”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Very true. Although one could argue that a relatively weak bill coming out of the House makes it even less likely that something palatable will come out of the Senate, I’ve been worried for some time what those clowns in the Senate are going to do, if indeed they can manage to do anything on climate change at all. Especially given the magic 60 vote “requirement” imposed by the Party of No.
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Great. So we’re faced with a possibility that NOT passing a bill might be the best option for the environment. How come Democrats couldn’t be this effective an opposition party?
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:14 pm
“t’s almost never a smart idea to worry about the shortcomings of House legislation. Whatever happens, the Senate always makes it worse.”
While this is technically correct, the ‘09 healthcare reform legislation is the exception that proves the rule.
The most important thing for healthcare reform during July will be to get a great bill out of the House, since due to reconciliation language, we’ve got a clean shot at forcing great legislation through the Senate.
For most bills, it’s what can you get the Senate to accept. But for healthcare, it’s what can you get the House to produce…
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:29 pm
But lurking in CAP/AF Supreme Leader John Podesta’s new statement
============================================================
Suck-up alert. Jennifer Palmieri take note!
June 23rd, 2009 at 7:35 pm
“How come Democrats couldn’t be this effective an opposition party?”
They are a very effective opposition party, just only when they have a majority.
June 23rd, 2009 at 8:16 pm
It’s almost never a smart idea to worry about the shortcomings of House legislation. Whatever happens, the Senate always makes it worse.
Isn’t it exactly the opposite, though? I mean, I think a large part of the Senate making bills worse is that some conservative Dems and the Maine Senators have a compromise fetish, and feel the need to make bills more right-wing regardless of whether the bill starts off maximalist or with pre-concessions. Related to this is the need of the Ben Nelsons to go home to their considerably-right-of-the-Democratic-party constituents and say, “look here, I managed to prevent X millions dollars in government spending!”. This is similar to the GOP refrain that taxes should be lower. Lower than what? Exactly how low? The Republicans’ “Taxes as a percent of GDP should be 10% lower than whatever they happen to be at the moment” is equivalent to Nelson’s and Collins’s “This spending bill should be 10% smaller than whatever it is right now”.
All this seems to counsel that it actually does matter quite a lot what gets put together in the House. Better to have a strong bill that’s weakened than a mediocre bill that’s weakened.
June 23rd, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Tar Sands???! are they kidding? use taxpayer dollars to purchase the most polluting fuel (outside of plutonium) yet discovered?
the comment above about the Dems being an excellent opposition party only when in the majority makes so much sense. this is when people start saying ‘tweedledee vs tweedledum’ and stop voting altogether.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:10 pm
What is the historical precedent for democracies dissolving their upper level of congress? Not that its practical, but at least to get the goal within site. Seems like if you reach a certain level of political evolution, and there is less likelihood of radical change, it is just a matter of dropping unnecessary weight.
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:48 pm
So what’s the point of the House, anyway? It takes a supermajority to pass anything in the Senate, so what’s the point of the House with their simple majority? The only thing I can see is that that House can manipulate the bill in ways that don’t embarrass Senators when it goes to Committee. And what happens in committee cannot ever be discerned. Want to roll the dice on that?
June 24th, 2009 at 12:14 am
“What is the historical precedent for democracies dissolving their upper level of congress?”
England did it. Not officially, of course, but in practice. The House of Lords is pretty much nothing. They can theoretically veto legislation if they can muster a majority. But they rarely even muster a quorum. And even if they did get a veto, the Queen can veto them. The House of Lords in England is as close as you get to being an eliminated upper level of Congress. They still get paid, but aside from meeting everynow and then again, and approving the Naval Treaty, what the hell do they do? They basically just approve everything the House of Commons does. And if they don’t, they’ll catch hell from the Queen.
June 24th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
We desperately need to start electing Greens to the House and Senate.