West Virginia Blue
The Best Blogging Community in West Virginia Democratic politics, progressive policies, the good life and free living in Wild, Wonderful West Virginia.
Yesterday, President Obama met with Senators at the White House and pushed them to pass comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation. Still, the skeptics are spinning a monotonous web of negativity regarding what is achievable on this front. And, not surprisingly, the "mainstream media" once again has been asleep at the wheel in setting the record straight. Fortunately, we know that when this President rolls up his sleeves, he gets stuff done and delivers on his promises. One thing’s for sure; President Obama is anything but an underachiever!
Along these lines, President Obama held a press conference following the G-20 summit in Toronto. In response to a reporter’s question regarding how he would achieve his deficit reduction goals, the president responded:
For some reason people keep being surprised when I do what I said I was going to do. So, I say I’m going to reform our [health care system], and people say well gosh that’s not smart politics maybe we should hold off. Or I say we’re going to move forward on [Don’t Ask Don’t Tell] and somehow people say well why are you doing that, I’m not sure that’s good politics. I’m doing it because I said I was going to do it, and I think it’s the right thing to do. And people should learn that lesson about me, because next year when I start presenting some very difficult choices to the country I hope some of these folks who are hollering about deficit and debt step up cause I’m calling their bluff.
To that list of accomplishments, we could also add:
Creating or saving 2.2-2.8 million jobs, well on the way to Obama’s February 2009 pledge that he would "create or save 3-and-a-half million jobs over the next two years."
Reforming Wall Street (likely to pass Congress any day now)
Overhauling the student loan market
Reaching a nuclear arms treaty with Russia
We could go on and on, but you get the point: anyone who continues, at this point, to be "surprised" when President Obama gets things done when he puts his mind to it is deep in denial. Or, as a previous president might have put it, they are wildly "misunderestimating" our 44th president.
Clearly, as we’ve seen over the past two years, underachieving is not a problem Barack Obama suffers from. Of course, even a superachiever like Barack Obama has an awful lot on his plate to deal with. And right now, one of the most important things on Obama’s plate is figuring out how to push comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation through the U.S. Senate. Along those lines, yesterday, Obama met with a group of Senators on this issue, reportedly holding firm in his call for putting a price on carbon emissions.
The question at this point is, will President Obama roll up his sleeves and deliver on another of his major campaign promise (as well as a major challenge facing our nation)? Given the long list of accomplishments mentioned above, it certainly wouldn’t be smart to bet against him. The fact is, Barack Obama usually succeeds in whatever he puts his mind to.
Given the nation’s increased focus on energy and climate issues – and the increased support by the American people for taking strong action as a result of the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster – now is clearly the time for boldness and for bluff calling by our nation’s leaders. Today, President Obama has the opportunity to demonstrate once more that, when he rolls up his sleeves, he accomplishes what he says he’s going to do. In sum, today is clearly the moment for President Obama to prove the doubters and naysayers wrong – to call their bluff - yet again!
As is often the case, the "mainstream" media nowadays is pushing a "conventional wisdom" line that has only one major problem – it’s largely or completely wrong. In this case, the "wisdom" is that voting for limits on carbon pollution is bad politics. The polling indicates it’s far more complicated than that.
For instance, the latest CBS/NY Times poll indicates that nearly 90% of Americans believe U.S. energy policy needs either "fundamental changes’ or "to be completely rebuilt," while 97% of Americans are "angry" or "bothered" by the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Those percentages hardly appear to indicate a status quo, "conventional wisdom" electorate on this issue, or an automatic political downside to making fundamental changes in U.S. energy policy.
Perhaps that is why, when you actually look at the 17 Democrats up for reelection this year (Bayh, Bennet, Boxer, Burris, Dodd, Dorgan, Feingold, Gillibrand, Inouye, Leahy, Lincoln, Mikulski, Murray, Reid, Schumer, Specter, Wyden) and subtract out those retiring (Bayh, Burris, Dodd, Dorgan) or defeated in a primary (Specter), you find that the vast majority – all except for Blanche Lincoln - are in favor of climate and energy legislation. Let’s take a look.
Michael Bennet- What could be clearer than this recent quote, "The best way to limit carbon pollution is for Congress to pass a comprehensive climate and energy bill." Barbara Boxer- A climate champion by any measure Russ Feingold- Issued a statement declaring, "Climate change is real and we need to address it. By blocking action on climate change, the Murkowski resolution would have stalled our march toward energy independence through more efficient vehicles, alternative fuels and renewable energy, all of which can spur new American jobs." Kirsten Gillibrand - Listed as a definite "yes" on a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill by E&E News Daniel Inouye- Also listed as a definite yes by E&ENews Patrick Leahy- He recently stated, "Let us not be known as the Congress that continued to punt, pass and kick on some of the crucial issues like these, on which the American people are looking for solutions, not procrastination." Barbara Mikulski - Listed as a definite yes on a comprehensive, clean energy and climate bill by E&ENews Patty Murray- Also listed as a definite yes by E&ENews Harry Reid – Has called for "bring[ing] comprehensive clean energy legislation before the full Senate later this summer." Chuck Schumer- Also listed as a definite yes by E&ENews Ron Wyden- Also listed as a definite yes by E&ENews
And let’s not forget these two letters – one on March 19 to Harry Reid and the other on January 26 to President Obama - showing 33 Senators (not even counting John Kerry and Joe Lieberman, who didn’t sign either letter but obviously are champions on this issue, plus most likely others as) clearly calling for climate legislation.
So, why is it that we keep seeing the perception in the "mainstream media" that a vote for comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation is bad politics? Perhaps because of the unfortunate tendency of the "mainstream media" to keep recycling quotes from a few loud Senators -- like Byron Dorgan and Evan Bayh -- who just happen to be exiting the scene altogether for potentially "greener" (and not in the environmental sense!) pastures. For the "mainstream media," recycling their preferred narrative may make a good story (or the story they want to tell, for whatever reason). In politics, however, perception is nine tenths of reality, and in this case the reality is that there is far too much at stake for this country to rely on "conventional" wisdom, especially when the facts – those troublesome things - tell a very different story.
In this context, this past Friday, Greg Sargent of The Plum Line asked an important question regarding clean energy and climate legislation in the U.S. Senate: "Can A bold new crop of Senators save carbon limits?" Sargent’s intriguing thesis was that[,] "[i]f carbon limits have any prayer of surviving in the Senate's energy reform bill, it may turn on the efforts of one group: The energetic freshman and sophomore Senators that are pushing hard to keep carbon limits alive." Sargent pointed to an interview with one of those freshmen, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, in which he argued that "There's a lot of new energy in those two classes, and they recognize that this is the moment."
In short, what Merkley’s saying is that it’s time for Democrats to stop listening so much to the "old guard" of Senators who are retiring. Instead, Merkley makes the case for paying more attention to the Senate freshman (and sophomores), who by definition were elected relatively recently and, therefore – at least theoretically - might have their fingers closer to the pulse of the public than the old timers. In part, the question is whether there could be a "generational" difference going on here. Not "generational" in the chronological sense, in which "younger" Senators are more pro-environment than "older" Senators. But, perhaps, "generational" in the sense of "political age," as in "how long have they been in Washington, DC?"
Given the analysis above, we might want to add "members in cycle" to Merkley’s admonition about listening more to freshmen then to old timers. Because the fact is, the majority of Democrats actually facing the polls this November are in favor of taking action on energy independence, clean energy, and holding corporate polluters accountable. Perhaps this is because they are listening to what the public is clearly demanding, which is fundamental change in U.S. energy policy? And perhaps they are not listening to a "conventional media" narrative which is completely wrong? Regardless of the reason, it appears at the moment – and certainly on this issue - that Democrats would be better served by listening more to the folks facing public opinion, as well as those elected more recently, and less to the ones preparing to depart for "greener" pastures.
BACKSTORY: Senator Rockefeller's proposition to the Senate Finance Markup Committee regarding his "public option" never included the Congressional Budget Office's report that if included into the HCR bill, it would reduce the federal deficit as much as 50 billion dollars.source
In case you haven't heard yet, Mass. voters delivered a predictable message yesterday. With high unemployment, a bad economy, and no immediate signs of improvement, they punished the incumbent party. (Oh, and it doesn't help to demoralize your base.)
The immediate outcome of this election is the Democratic caucus in the Senate will--sometime in the two weeks or so when Sen. Brown is sworn in--have 59 instead of 60 members.
For most of the history of the Senate, this would be a minor consideration, important only for the most critical of critical votes and--even then--only for the drama of how long it took to break a filibuster.
A few decades back when our Sen. Robert Byrd was Majority Leader, he instituted an innovative change in how the Senate schedules business--he created a dual-track system where the Senate can consider two pieces of legislation at a time. Combined with an unprecedented GOP commitment to obstructionist policies, this has led to a the unintended consequence of every piece of legislation now requires 60 votes in the Senate to pass.
Senate: heal thyself
What happens next is entirely up to the Senate. The 60 vote threshold for the end of debate (cloture) is entirely a matter of tradition--a relatively recent tradition at that. The Senate makes its own rules, it can change its own rules.
If you are not facing scandals, and times are good, then you will be popular no matter what you pass into law. This is about being in power when times are bad.
In order to pass legislation that will start to make the situation in the country better, and thus make themselves more popular, Democrats are going to have to get rid of the filibuster. With the 60-vote Senate, there was never much of a chance to pass the legislation necessary to start the country in the right direction. Now, there is even less of a chance--virtually none, really.
All Democratic leaders are going to have to ask themselves a question: do they want to make the country better, or are concerns over obscure arguments about the need for a "deliberative body" more important to them? Would they rather be able to govern for the next three years, or are they afraid of a few news cycles where Republicans accuse them of not being bipartisan enough?
That is the choice that leading Democrats face right now. Even though we can help organize and apply pressure, this is still fundamentally a choice the Democratic Senate caucus faces, not us.
I hope for the sake of the country--we need bold action to take care of the critical problems facing our country--that the Senate fixes itself and is able to start passing legislation supported by the majority of the country.
To retreat to timidity would be a tragic misread of the election results, one that would not only damage future Democratic electoral changes but--far more importantly--needlessly clip the wings from implementing critical public policy.
Good afternoon, WvaBlue readers. This is your afternoon open thread to discuss all things Hill-related. Use this thread to praise or bash Congresscritters, share a juicy tip, ask questions, offer critiques and suggestions, or post manifestos.
As always, this is a crosspost from Congress Matters and I will refrain from my routine claim that this is the most important news of the day. That would be the what is happening in your own house this time of the year.
Sen. Byrd did not miss the vote today either, even thought it was finally just a majority wins event. His thoughts went to his friend Edward M. Kennedy.
It's like we're in a Saturday morning kids scifi show... the goodguy robot (in this case MSNBC) is telling us that the Repubs are getting ready to attack the Senate's vote on a Health Care Plan any way they can.
To start with, more than one of the Repub Senators (led by Lamar Alexander - R, TN) have called for new "Town Hall" meetings, like the ones the House members had in August - and it looks like the groups of lobbyists are ready to bus the same people in.
I prepared this diary at the request of national climate change activists wanting to better understand the West Virginia political landscape. It originally appeared yesterday as a contribution to the Adopt A Senator series at DailyKos.
What most casual observers of Congress know about Senator Robert C. Byrd is he's the longest-serving member in the Senate's history and he's been incredibly successful at steering federal dollars to West Virginia.
(Political Science Professor) Rupp remembers a quote from former Democratic House speaker Jim Wright, D-Texas, that Byrd posted in his office near the Senate Appropriations Committee Room inside the Capitol. It said: "Bob is a living encyclopedia, and legislative graveyards are filled with the bones of those who underestimated him."
Time and time again, Sen. Byrd has delivered for West Virginia. The question of the moment is, what does Byrd think West Virginia needs in the next energy and climate bill?
"The climate legislation proposed today by Senators Boxer and Kerry is a disappointing step in the wrong direction and I am against it.
"Requiring 20 percent emission reductions by 2020 is unrealistic and harmful - it is simply not enough time to deploy the carbon capture and storage (CCS) and energy efficiency technologies we need. Period.
"Our nation cannot survive without energy from coal and any viable climate policy must solidify our future by focusing on technology to make coal cleaner faster.
"I will continue studying the bill and all of its implications for our state and the coal industry. This is by no means the defining word on climate legislation in the Senate.
"I remain adamant in my conviction not to support any bill that might threaten the economy, workers or families across West Virginia.
"We should take the time to approach these issues with absolute care and diligence - they require nothing less."
I take Sen. Rockefeller at his word--as he studies the bill in more detail, he'll find there's parts there that can help the economy, workers, and families across West Virginia.
I agree with Sen. Rockefeller that 2020 is not enough time to fully deploy carbon capture and storage (CCS). I disagree with Sen. Rockefeller that we should set our greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets based on the risky and uncertain technology of CCS.
We should base our GHG reduction targets based on what is needed to maintain a livable planet, not based on the goal of burning as much coal as possible.
"I am glad to see that Senators Kerry and Boxer included some of the provisions I and other Senators recommended related to carbon capture and storage. I am pleased that Senators Boxer and Kerry are placing a greater focus on clean coal technology. While this is an encouraging sign, we have a long way to go on this legislation. Many issues have yet to be addressed. There is still a tough road ahead."
"I will continue to work with my colleagues to strike a balance that treats West Virginia's interests fairly as the legislative process moves forward. However, I will actively oppose any bill that would harm the workers, families, industries, or our resource-based economy in West Virginia."
West Virginia has more than just a resource-based economy. I hope Sen. Byrd will also actively consider how much damage the rest of our economy will suffer if no action is taken to address climate change.
A Good Sign
There's at least one major provision that will help out West Virginians. (For links to an overview of the bill and the actual bill visit Sen. Kerry's website.)
Part 2 of the bill provides Climate Change Worker Adjustment Assistance:
Sections 311- 313. Establishes a program pursuant to which any worker displaced as a result of Title VII of the Clean Air Act would be entitled to 156 weeks of income supplement, 80% of their monthly health care premium, up to $1,500 for job search assistance, up to $1,500 for moving assistance, and additional employment services for skills assessment, job counseling, training, and other services. Payments under the program cannot exceed the proceeds from the auction of allowances set aside for this purpose.
I've often said we need a hand-up for coal mining communities, not a hand-out for coal companies. This is a step in the right direction. (This is no mere footnote. Pages 229 - 282 of the bill text cover this program.)
Here's another program that might help (I can't tell for sure--it probably needs more funding behind it and probably needs to be directed more closely to Appalachian communities):
Section 156. Economic Development Climate Change Fund. Authorizes the Economic Development Administration to provide up to $50 million per year in technical assistance and grants for projects that promote green economic development in distressed communities.
Now that a bill is on the table, this is a good time for Sens. Byrd and Rockefeller to start being equally forceful in their advocacy for all the West Virginians impacted by climate change as they have been for the coal miners who might be impacted by addressing climate change.
I can't say it often enough... a huge thank you to Sen. Rockefeller for his support for true health care reform. He's got some fabulous amendments lined up for consideration in the Senate Finance committee.
Update: We still need to keep up public pressure (on the House Progressive Block and other Senators) to let them know how much we support a Public Option. Signing this petition is one quick way you can take action right now.
ROCKEFELLER CONTINUES TO FIGHT FOR THE FUTURE OF TOURISM IN WEST VIRGINIA
Washington, D.C.-Senator Jay Rockefeller issued the following statement on fighting for the future of tourism and jobs in West Virginia:
"I'm glad to hear from so many West Virginians about this really important issue," said Rockefeller. "I will absolutely fight for the future of tourism and jobs in our state. I will not support an energy bill that threatens West Virginia's future. Global climate change is a grave threat to the planet, but our great country can rise to this challenge. People in the rest of the country need to know how dependent they are on the restorative effects of clean West Virginia mountain air and clean West Virginia mountain water. There's nothing like a visit to Wild, Wonderful, West "by God" Virginia to soothe the soul."
The U.S. House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 in June. The Senate is in the process of crafting its own bill, and it is roughly estimated that legislation could be considered later this fall.
Update: Despite constituent pleas Sen. Rockefeller continues to "fight." An anonymous staffer confidentially disclosed: it may or may not be due to decades of being introduced to the "Rocky" theme, that's just who the Senator is.
Good news on health care reform. Pres. Obama is fully engaged this week and pushing hard for health care reform legislation that includes a public option.
President Obama, along with senior advisers David Axelrod and Nancy Ann DeParle, held a conference call with bloggers this afternoon to discuss healthcare reform and the need for grassroots and netroots pressure on Congress to keep the urgency of the issue alive.
President Obama strongly reiterated his basic principles for a reform bill:
* Cover all Americans
* Drive down costs over the long term for both the private and public sector
* Improve quality
* Strengthen prevention and wellness
* Enact real insurance reforms that end exclusions for preexisting conditions, etc.
* Relief to small businesses
* Create a robust public option
But the main message of the call was the urgency of getting this done sooner rather than later.
But if Democrats are going to get it all done before adjourning early next month, they're going to have to prevail upon conservative members in their own party--many of whom are trying to slow down the entire reform project--that time is of the essence. Just how successful their efforts will be remains to be seen, but for now, they seem to be trying to divide Congress into pro- and anti- reform camps, characterizing Republican calls to delay as political gambits meant to kill the legislation, and asking those on the fence to choose their allegiances.
The hope seems to be that, faced with the GOP's naked political considerations, conservative and vulnerable Democrats will resist the urge to aid and abet the White House's enemies on Capitol Hill and in the conservative movement, and support swift action.
Sen. Rockefeller is one of Pres. Obama's staunch allies in this effort.
I can't find any public statement from Sen. Byrd on the content of health care reform legislation--it would be a real shame if Sen. Byrd ended up canceling out Sen. Rockefeller's vote.
My prediction
Pres. Obama will be successful in getting cloture in the Senate followed by a simple majority for the bill. There will be some Democratic party votes for cloture but against the bill. (The political stakes will be so high that blocking this legislation will be practically the equivalent of leaving the Democratic caucus. Also, the threat of passage under budget reconciliation makes a filibuster effectively pointless/unlikely.)
ROCKEFELLER CONTINUES TO FIGHT FOR THE FUTURE OF EDUCATION IN WEST VIRGINIA
Washington, D.C.-Senator Jay Rockefeller issued the following statement on fighting for the future of education and jobs in West Virginia:
"I'm glad to hear from so many West Virginians about this really important issue," said Rockefeller. "I will absolutely fight for the future of education and jobs in our state. I will not support an energy bill that threatens West Virginia's future. Global climate change is a grave threat to our future, but our great country can rise to this challenge. People in the rest of the country need to know how eager the educators of West Virginia are to train students for the new jobs of the future."
The U.S. House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 in June. The Senate is in the process of crafting its own bill, and it is roughly estimated that legislation could be considered later this fall.
It's time for West Virginia to prepare for the future, not to cling to the past. Coal is just one of many resources in West Virginia, let's take advantage of everything the state has to offer.
Copyright 2011 West Virginia Blue
Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
This site exists thanks to financial support from BlogPAC, dedicated volunteers and participation by members of this community. The views expressed at West Virginia Blue belong solely to their respective authors.
