Bruised by the health care debate and worried about what 2010 will bring, moderate Senate Democrats are urging the White House to give up now on any effort to pass a cap-and-trade bill next year.All the usual suspects have lined up against it: Landrieu, Nelson, Bayh, even Kent Conrad. Considering Obama has indicated his next piece of legislation will be a jobs bill in 2010 and there's still another several months of additional wrangling on health care reform ahead, it looks like Obama's going to take his win and put off any climate change legislation until, well, let's be honest here, never.
“I am communicating that in every way I know how,” says Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), one of at least half a dozen Democrats who've told the White House or their own leaders that it's time to jettison the centerpiece of their party's plan to curb global warming.
The creation of an economy-wide market for greenhouse gas emissions is as the heart of the climate bill that cleared the House earlier this year. But with the health care fight still raging and the economy still hurting, moderate Democrats have little appetite for another sweeping initiative — especially another one likely to pass with little or no Republican support.
“We need to deal with the phenomena of global warming, but I think it’s very difficult in the kind of economic circumstances we have right now,” said Indiana Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh, who called passage of any economy-wide cap and trade “unlikely.”?
At a meeting about health care last month, moderates pushed to table climate legislation in favor of a jobs bill that would be an easier sell during the 2010 elections, according to Senate Democratic aides.
“I’d just as soon see that set aside until we work through the economy,” said Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.). “What we don’t want to do is have anything get in the way of working to resolve the problems with the economy.”
“Climate change in an election year has very poor prospects,” added Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). “I’ve told that to the leadership.”
Regulating carbon through the EPA seems like the only way to get things done. Congress wants to put that all on Obama's head, because they know what the President's EPA can regulate today will be stripped and de-regulated when the next Republican gets into the White House.
Besides, who does Obama think he is, President? Didn't you know that every Senator outranks him according to the Village?
[UPDATE 11:25 AM] BooMan wisely points out that since cap and trade can't get 60 votes but could most likely get 50 plus Biden, that climate change legislation needs to become the rallying point for removing the filibuster. Ezra has a great interview with Sen. Tom Harkin on doing just that.
1 comment:
I think Nate and the commenters on Boo's blog have it right about how to handle the near term: regulate through the EPA (preferably with a tax), introduce strong financial regulation and let it fail to GOP filibuster, then go in and do something like the de-escalating filibuster (60,57,55,53,51) then prove me right about pushing through what Congress will allow.
I'd add that in 2010 we will have the chance to possibly pick up a few Senate seats that would give us freshman not totally taken in by the powers allowed via arcane procedural rules.
Post a Comment