WSJ:
The Environmental Protection Agency debate lands in the Senate this week, amid the makings of a left-right coalition to mitigate the agency’s abuses. Few other votes this year could do more to help the private economy—but only if enough Democrats are willing to buck the White House.
This moment arrived unexpectedly, with Majority Leader Harry Reid opening a small business bill to amendments. Republican leader Mitch McConnell promptly introduced a rider to strip the EPA of the carbon regulation authority that the Obama Administration has given itself. Two weeks ago, Mr. Reid pulled the bill from the floor once it became clear Mr. McConnell might have the 13 Democrats he needs to clear 60.
The votes are now due as soon as tomorrow, and Mr. Reid is trying to attract 41 Democrats with a rival amendment from Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus. The Baucus plan is a political veneer that would exempt some farms and businesses from the EPA maw but at the cost of endorsing everything else. The question for Democrats is whether their loyalties to President Obama and EPA chief Lisa Jackson trump the larger economic good, not to mention constituents already facing far higher energy costs.
[…]
The EPA now claims its carbon regulation is compelled by the Supreme Court, as if Congress can’t change the law, as well as by “science,” as if Congress is a potted plant. Someone even disinterred former Republican EPA Administrators William Ruckelshaus and Christine Todd Whitman to claim in the Washington Post last week that Congress would somehow be voting against “environmental progress.”
But a vote for the McConnell amendment, which would permanently bar the EPA from regulating carbon unless Congress passed new legislation, is justified on democratic prerogatives alone. Whatever one’s views of Massachusetts v. EPA or climate science, no elected representative has ever voted on an EPA plan that has often involved the unilateral redrafting of plain-letter law.
A vote to overrule the EPA is also needed to remove the regulatory uncertainty hanging over the economy. This harm is already apparent in energy, where the EPA is trying to drive coal-fired power out of existence. The core electricity generation that the country needs to meet future demand is not being built, and it won’t be until the EPA is bridled. This same dynamic is also chilling the natural gas boom in the Northeast, and it is making U.S. energy-intensive industries less competitive world-wide.
As the EPA screws tighten, the costs will be passed along to consumers, with the same damage as a tax increase but none of the revenues. Eventually, the EPA plan will appreciably lower the U.S. standard of living. Hardest hit will be the middle-American regions that rely on coal or heavy industry, though the EPA bulldozer will run over small businesses too. The Clean Air Act, once the carbon doomsday machine has been activated, won’t merely apply to “major” sources of emissions like power plants or factories. Its reach will include schools, farms, hospitals, restaurants, basically any large building.
Which brings us to this week’s Senate votes. Democrats to watch will be Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Bob Casey (Pennsylvania), Tim Johnson (South Dakota), Tom Carper (Delaware), Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Kent Conrad (North Dakota), Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota), Claire McCaskill (Missouri), Jim Webb (Virginia), Ben Nelson (Nebraska), Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow (Michigan) and John Rockefeller and Joe Manchin (West Virginia). All of them have been publicly critical of the EPA, and, not incidentally, most of them face a tough re-election.
The White House and Mr. Reid will offer phony alternatives to keep 41 Democrats in the corral. The Baucus amendment is the classic Beltway trick of trying to provide political cover while not solving the problem. Mr. Rockefeller is sponsoring a two-year delay before the EPA rules take effect, but that will merely defer the problem.
The McConnell amendment is one of the best proposals for growth and job creation to make it onto the Senate docket in years. If Mr. Obama is intent on defending the EPA’s regulatory assault, then the least Senate Democrats can do is force him to defend his choices himself.
What this vote will tell us is if there are any remaining Democrats who aren’t progressives, and so part of the New Left takeover of the Democrat party that began in earnest after the defeat of McGovern.
If the McConnell amendment fails, we’ll know for certain that the left is indeed determined to affect a full-scale coup by instituting a Soviet-style industrial policy intended to cripple a growth economy, using the administrative branch to circumvent the legislature and impose on the US population regulatory mandates favored by the hard left, who makes up barely 20% of the population, but who is clearly overdetermined in the bureaucratic apparatus daily erodes individual liberty.
Of coures, there’s always the possibility that I’m overstating things. So keep that in mind.
You wouldnt’ want to get my stink on your good shoes.
It’s good that this will be put to a vote, but I’m in one of my pessimistic moods again. It will not get 60 votes in the Senate.
Wow cranky, you’re really a glass half full (of dangerous human emissions)type, aren’t you?
Often, yes.
are there any folks on our side are who developing plans for resizing and redefining the epa? me i liked too see the epa as primarily an ambient data collection agency with few powers that reports to congress. every thing else to the states.
Ewwww. Dude, I’m not wearing any shoes!…
Every state in the Union has its own EPA. The Federal EPA is beyond redundant.
The easiest way to end this debate is for a Republican President to dissolve it altogether. Hell, a Republican President (Nixon) created the beast in a moment of panic (after a 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill).
“The Federal EPA is beyond redundant”
presently yes. in my idea i see epa collecting all the monitoring data collected in the states and providing a national clearing house for the data.
If that’s all the federal EPA should do, it could be handled just as effectively and several times as economically by a private think tank at some university’s school of natural sciences.
There is just one problem with this sentence:
McGovern lost the election but it wasn’t a defeat for McGovern.
After the 1968 convention fiasco the Democrats decided they had to have more diversity (that word, again) and McGovern was the man writing the delegate selection rules. And the delegates chosen with the delegate-selection rules written by George McGovern nominated … George McGovern. These rules have effectively militated against the Democrats every nominating anybody who would be a decent president except in 91-92 and that was because Bush’s poll numbers were so stratospheric after the Gulf War that no mainstream Democrat heavyweight wanted to be the sacrificial lamb, e.g. Mario Cuomo. So we got the DLC’s Clinton and aside from the usual Democratic tics – like using the CRA to prepare the ground for the financial meltdown – he proved to be a pretty decent (politically) and reasonably centrist president.
It is George McGovern whom we have to thank for the fact that there are few reasonably sane Democrats. He lost the election but he shaped the party for half a century. The Democratic Saul Alinsky.