Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

How Bills Get So Bad

The next time you wonder why Congress seems incapable of producing clean, clear policy -- without built-in inefficiencies, subsides and the myriad other ways its members devise to deliver legislative payoffs -- consider the drubbing Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) is getting back home on his August break. At the Farmfest Expo in Redwood Falls, Minnesota yesterday, Peterson faced an unhappy crowd of rural voters skeptical of his recent vote in favor of the House-passed Waxman-Markey energy bill, which would cap greenhouse gas emissions. Playing some D, Peterson insisted that the reason he voted for it was because the bill wasn’t going to become law immediately -- implying that the Senate would make it even more generous to rural interests.

There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical of Waxman-Markey. But many of them are the direct results of the sorts of payoffs these very rural voters are demanding of their congressmen. Peterson brought consideration of the bill to a stand-still in the House until its authors agreed to some massive concessions to the farm lobby, which include giving the farmer-friendly Agriculture Department (USDA) power to distribute valuable pollution “offsets” to American planters. In other words, legislative gravy at odds with the stated purpose of the bill. USDA now projects that farmers will actually make money off of Waxman-Markey.

Such narrow parochialism is responsible for many of the bill’s other deficiencies, including its original sin: that 85 percent of “allowances” -- valuable securities that give the holder the right to pollute and can be sold -- are to be given out to politically-favored groups in the opening years of the cap-and-trade system, which will make the transition to a cleaner economy a lot bumpier. Among those singled out for special treatment are -- surprise -- rural electric cooperatives and utilities, which rely disproportionately on coal.

But, somehow, all that -- even the prospect of net profits -- apparently isn’t enough, judging from the Farmfest folks. (I suppose you can’t really blame them, considering how brazen the farm bloc has been about sucking billions in free cash out of Washington in the form of agricultural subsidies.) Today also brings word that a group of small Midwestern electricity distributors seem to be bucking an industry-wide agreement on the bill and pushing for more handouts in the Senate. And farm-state senators are getting the message. The end result could be ugly, indeed.

By Stephen Stromberg  | August 5, 2009; 4:19 PM ET
Categories:  Stromberg  | Tags:  Stephen Stromberg  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: A Latino Backlash Against Sotomayor's Critics?
Next: A Remarkable Life Ends

Comments

The people understand this is a bad bill. Support for cap-and-trade is evaporating. Daily I read editorials, comments and letters-to-the-editor from all over the nation. Whereas when the House passed the bill it was maybe 2-to-1 against cap and trade, opinion now seems to be at least 6-to-1 against.

If instead of a complex and risky cap-and-trade system the United States had a national mandate to replace coal generation plants with natural gas and nuclear energy, plus if we replaced our commuter cars with battery-powered electric cars, we would drastically reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce CO2 emissions faster and beyond the proposed cap and trade targets.

-- Robert Moen, www.energyplanUSA.com

Posted by: Rmoen | August 6, 2009 1:00 AM | Report abuse

I agree with Rmoen, but we need cap and trade as well infrastructure upgrades. Cap and trade will give the business community incentive to invent clean technologies that won't pollute as much or incur a tax.

Posted by: chimben | August 10, 2009 1:16 AM | Report abuse

Many in the crowd laughed uproariously when Sen. Benjamin Cardin (DEMOCRUD – MD) said illegal immigrants would not be entitled to coverage under the Democratic plan.

And they jumped to their feet in one of the longest, loudest ovations of the night after an audience member asked why tort reform wasn't a feature of the health care overhaul.

Posted by: hclark1 | August 11, 2009 1:16 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company