Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Is Harry Reid 'cynical' on energy? Is the GOP? Both?

Can Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pass a big energy and climate bill before the end of the year, let alone before the Senate’s August recess? Increasingly, senators and Hill staffers say no, and they’re wondering why he would try.

Ever since President Obama decided to prioritize health care over climate, timing was a problem for energy policy. Health reform dragged on longer than planned. So did financial reform. Now, in the waning days of the 111th Congress, the majority leader might have about a week before August in which to consider the energy legislation he’s assembling. Given the legislative calendar, Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) said Tuesday that any attempt to pass such a bill in this Congress would be “cynical” and not “intellectually honest.” The deal-making that Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) conducted with industry to finely tune their all-but-defunct energy plan took months to complete. It will be hard to calibrate a different scheme quickly.

A senior GOP staffer and others I’ve spoken to speculate that the Democrats might be less interested in actually passing the bill than in merely goading Republicans into voting against it. That wouldn’t make much sense -- Republicans seem very happy to rail against the Democrats’ plan for a “national energy tax” -- except that the bill will also include reforms related to the gulf oil spill. Voting against those might look bad.

Some progressives, of course, argue that Republicans are the ones operating in bad faith.

Citing Hill sources, they speculate that Republicans are preparing to drag out the process of considering the energy bill, debating cap-and-trade regulation at length, eventually filibustering it and forcing consideration of other elements of the legislation into late in the year.

Either -- or both -- are possible. Here’s the reality that’s lost in all of this speculation: Unseemly motives or no, senators in both parties are working against good policy, and they should know better. Supposedly free-market conservative Democrats and Republicans hypocritically oppose market-based carbon cap policies, among the most desirable for greening the economy. If they ended their obstruction, a huge point of contention would be settled. And if liberal Democrats could then accept sensible provisions broadening their Renewable Electricity Standard to include any low-carbon technology and expanding domestic oil exploration, enough GOP senators might stay on board to pass something actually worth enacting. Instead, both sides seem more interested in preemptively blaming the other for the bill’s failure.

By Stephen Stromberg  | July 21, 2010; 6:46 AM ET
Categories:  Stromberg  | Tags:  Stephen Stromberg  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Shirley Sherrod: Sacrificial lamb on the altar of race
Next: The firing of Shirley Sherrod -- and the cowardice of Tom Vilsack

Comments


yeah that is true, major brands do give out free samples of their popular health products best place to get yours is http://bit.ly/9UAtgc tell your friends and family too

Posted by: jordanrow | July 21, 2010 7:18 AM | Report abuse

"Some progressives, of course, argue that Republicans are the ones operating in bad faith."

Well... yes. This is what Republicans do nowadays. Any attempt to appease them or make legislation palatable to them is wasted. Obama (and other Democrats) need to stop with the bipartisan or postpartisan shtick and get on with the business of getting this country out of the depression into which we've fallen.

Posted by: roblimo | July 21, 2010 9:08 AM | Report abuse

boblimo,

If only it were as easy as you suggest. The US Constitution has a number of mechanisms built into it to prevent majority rule, otherwise known as democracy. As it stands the Senate is the main stumbling block and if we take the financial industry bill as an example, you can see that it was necessary to water it down to get the vote of Scott Brown, the Senator from Massachusettes.

It's not so easy to just "get this country out of the depression". There are many conflicting interests and there are also limits to what even a positively inclined Congress can legislate. Job preservation and job creation for example would require wealth redistribution towards productive industries and away from financial jugglers. Such a step would bring howls of "socialism" from the bankers and the owners of main stream media such as Fox. They are not particularly interested in the health or wealth of ordinary Americans.

Chris Brown in Hamburg

Posted by: chrisbrown12 | July 21, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

I am shocked, SHOCKED, that you are alleging cynicism on the part of American politicians. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

Posted by: AlexRemington | July 21, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

The correct question that should be asked, is is this proposed legislation good for tghe country rather than who is playing politics with abill that will stifle job creation and raise energy prices astronomically. You call this journalism?

Posted by: emmettshortsr | July 21, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company