26 June 2009

For Those of You Interested in the W-M Vote

E&E Daily has a nice breakdown of where the votes are and who is on the fence on the Waxman-Markey "jobs bill" in this PDF. If it is brought to a vote, then you can assume that the votes to pass are all lined up. If there is a delay, for any reason, there remains some uncertainty. My guess is that it has the votes and will pass. There is little political risk for Democrats to vote for the bill as conventional wisdom holds that it can't get through the Senate. On the other hand, not voting for it guarantees offending Congressional leadership and the President. On this basis I'd be very surprised if the Democrats cannot line up the needed votes.

Next week I'll discuss what happens after Waxman-Markey.


  1. It would be nice if they at least read the bill. Or even took the time to let the people learn about the proposed changes and express their opinions. But that would be too much like democracy and that all changed in November.

  2. Being very interested in the W-M vote I tried to watch the three hour “debate” on C-SPAN. At first I thought three hours was ridiculously short for such a huge change in our society. Now I would really appreciate three hours of intellectually honest debate.

    When a Dem said that there are no studies contrary to the IPCC version of AGW I turned it off.

    I would really like to give my true opinion of the process but Roger is running a respectable blog here.

  3. There are many different approaches to climate change that could be legislated. I wish we weren't in such a hurry and could have a debate about all the pros and cons- who might win and who might lose and why.

    Unfortunately the debate seems to have devolved to "protecting the environment" vs. "increasing energy costs" when there are so many choices we could be making with goal of protecting the environment with a minimal increase in costs.. and we could be debating a variety of ways to achieve that.
    I personally don't perceive the rush. Perhaps we could solve health care and immigration while we are having a more nuanced debate over climate alternatives.

  4. I suppose after writing the following, it's saying essentially what Sharon already put very well above, but for what it's worth:

    It seems to me that, even if the science were as completely settled as the supporters of this bill claim, that such a massive and intrusive bill might merit more "debate" than the few hours it received today. Even if, for the sake of argument, the science is hard and fast, there are many different ways, and combinations of ways to address the issue.

    I missed out on the Congressional session today; would I be right in assuming that responses to those in opposition's claims there should be more time considering the legislation were mainly along the lines that the "science is settled?"

  5. “Earlier today I voiced my strong objections to this bill. ...

    “For three reasons, I’m voting for final passage. First, I’ve been listening to the debate; not so much to those who support a bill that I’m not all that enthusiastic about, but listening to the flat earth society and the climate deniers, and some of the most inane arguments I have heard against refusing to act on this vital national security challenge.

    “Second, I believe there is still some hope to make improvements once it gets out of the House – better to have a seat at the table to try to influence the change that is needed in this legislation.

    ... http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/26/lloyd-doggett-texas-switches-to-supporting-waxman-markey-after-listening-to-the-flat-earth-society-and-the-climate-deniers/#more-8446

  6. Wow Dano!

    Obama, Waxman, and Pelosi got him to vote their way?

    That's quite an accomplishment!

    "Lloyd Doggett has voted with a majority of his Democratic colleagues 96.2% of the time during the current Congress."


    (Add an h to that address if you want to look at the source)

  7. Wait.. because some people are deniers who are against the bill, then you should vote for the bill?
    By this same logic, if some people who oppose illegal immigration are racists, then we should vote for open borders? Disagreeing with unenlightened people doesn't lead to only one policy option. In my opinion.

  8. Wait.. because some people are deniers who are against the bill, then you should vote for the bill?

    This in itself is faulty logic.

    What the man is saying is that the best argument the denialists can make is akin to flat-earth arguments. These are arguments from ignorance and hardly compelling.

    See, he changed his mind when he heard the best they could do is a load of hooey.




  9. -8-Dano

    I think that he changed his mind because he got a call from the big guy at 1600 Pennsylvania ;-)