Lots of people wonder why Reid and Senate Democrats were so willing, almost eager, to bargain the energy bill down to the point where it was a mere nubbin of its former robust self. Why not draw a line in the sand and force Republicans to take a stand against clean energy?
This story from Roll Call (sub rqd) sheds quite a bit of light on the matter:
Looking to pivot away from futile yearlong attempts to end the war in Iraq and increase domestic spending in the first half of the 110th Congress, Democratic leaders will dispatch Members home this week armed with a message focused on domestic accomplishments, as well as a bevy of potentially potent campaign issues heading into a crucial election year.
Countering the stinging disappointment for the party's grass-roots faithful over the war in particular, Democrats are pointing to historic victories this year on three kitchen-table issues that are easily understood by voters, starting with an energy bill that contains the first increase in vehicle mileage standards since the 1970s - at a time when families are struggling with $3-a-gallon gas. The list of domestic achievements also includes an increase in the minimum wage for the first time in a decade and deep reductions in interest rates for college loans.
...
"Democrats in Congress have made progress this year despite reckless opposition from the President and Republicans in Congress," Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement Friday. "This month, we will send the president historic energy independence legislation that increases fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks for the first time in a generation, a middle-class tax cut for 23 million Americans, and a final budget bill that addresses the priorities of the American people with new investments in education, cancer research, and law enforcement."
Democrats also are warning Republicans that their obstructionism will cost them at the polls next year. Pelosi on Thursday described the Democrats having to give in on spending levels and other issues as "the political reality of not having a President of the United States. And nothing speaks more clearly to Democratic victories in the next election than when you see this is what is possible. This isn't about caving. This is again about setting a high-water mark of values that is fiscally sound and gives priority to those issues that are relevant to the lives of the American people."
...
Other Republican victories, such as preventing oil companies from losing their tax breaks, protecting electric utilities from having to produce renewable electricity, and saving hedge fund managers from paying taxes on their offshore retirement assets, only reinforce Democrats' arguments that the Republicans are the party of the status quo, Van Hollen said.
...
Democratic lawmakers plan to spotlight the energy package expected to reach completion this week, highlighting the issue not only in terms of environmental concerns, but also as a pocketbook and national security winner as well.
"In less than one year, the Democratic Congress did what some thought was impossible. It's a tremendous victory that we plan to highlight across the country," said one Democratic aide familiar with the platform.
In short: they badly need something, anything, to show voters.
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
George Voinovich (R-Ohio) [UPDATED]
Al Franken (D-Minn.)
Comments
View as Flat
GreenEngineer Posted 9:36 am
17 Dec 2007
So they sacrifice the potential for real policy progress on real problems so that they can pass some feel-good, do-nothing (or worse than nothing, in the case of the ethanol mandate) legislation.
All they've shown this voter is that the Democratic Party has no principles, no spine, and no actual interest in progressive action. Just like the Republicans, all they care about is remaining in power. They're just not nearly as good at it.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 9:43 am
17 Dec 2007
In truth, I think that the Republicans actually do care about more than just power. Many of them seem to have real ideological positions that they are interested in promoting and political power is simply a means to that end. Granted, these positions are variously simpleminded, selfish, hateful, fear-driven and evil.
So we can choose between the party with no principles, and the party with evil principles. Great. Welcome to the twilight of the empire.
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 12:36 pm
17 Dec 2007
also, you know that you will be tagged as "do nothing"
the way to move forward the things you believe in is to get closer to 60 votes
so you have to fight the "do nothing" label
it is not an absence of goals; it is a difference in timelines. you have to plot down the road. there is little choice
the energy bill had two main purposes, in the Senate, at the start of the year
ethanol to get rural votes in the plains and midwest; a "demonstration" that we were fighting high gasoline prices by opening up an alternative source
the climate change stuff was a throw-in that took on a life of its own
(see what stuff came out of what committees)
so, at the end of the year, when it was time to grab the brass ring to fight the "do nothing" label, the choices seemed obvious to the people who designed the play a year earlier
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 12:38 pm
17 Dec 2007
deliver
then you will have a place at the table
Permalink
justlou Posted 8:44 pm
17 Dec 2007
I'll go one step further. Michigan, with its heavy dependence on the success of General Motors and Ford, also benefits from biofuel subsidies. Recent increases in fuel-efficiency standards have provided loopholes for so-called flex-fuel vehicles that can run on E85 (85% ethanol blended with 15% gasoline), whether consumers ever use E85 or not -- and Detroit has invested heavily in flex-fuel vehicles rather than in increased fuel efficiency. That probably won't change with the fuel-efficiency standards in the president's new plan. These loopholes, after all, allow GM and Ford to continue their dependence on trucks and SUVs -- two segments where they remain profitable.
Source: 'The Politics of Ethanol'
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2007/05/15/the-poli ...
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 12:08 am
18 Dec 2007
I'm not suggesting the outcome is ideal - but politics is the art of the possible, and in this particular climate, the bill we got was at least possible.
And I remain optimistic at heart that the provisions that got scuttled (e.g., RPS and the tax package) will find their way into other vehicles down the road. All the intel we heard was that CAFE, RES and the tax breaks all individually had 60 votes to get cloture in the senate, but they weren't the same 60 votes, and when you bundled them together, you ended up with <60. So tactically, it's not the worst outcome to pull those bits apart, get what we can now and then move forward on the others in smaller vehicles. Which still, of course has to happen - but let's keep watching, because I don't think we're done with energy legislation yet.
Permalink