Senate, by a little, chooses well.

Remove all ads!

Whew.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38404_Page2.html

I'm glad the Senate did something right.

Just recently a Senator from Alaska (Oil is one of the big industries there and I suspect it had quite a hand in encouraging her to put this bill forward) tried to pass a bill through the Senate that would remove the authority the EPA had to regulate Carbon Emissions.

The proposal was defeated by 53 Senators voting against it. I'm glad they did.

 

I couldn't disagree more. What that bill was trying to do was to restore our system of "checks and balances" on the government. The reason it was sponsored was the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was considering passing "regulations" that look an awful lot like "laws". The passing of laws is a function of the Congress and then the President has to sign it. The EPA is a part of the executive branch of government so now the President can basically write laws without Congressional approval.

To put this another way, could you imagine if when Reagan or Bush (either one) were in office they decided that the military could purchase whatever they wanted without Congressional approval?

Without any knowledge of what the EPA is planning everyone is just thinking the worst. For instance, what if they decide for the good of the environment all cars must get 75mpg or they cannot be driven, or if coal plants must be shut down. I'm not saying that is what they are going to do, but that would impact pretty much everyone in the country.

I seem to recall we went to war with England over things happening without "representation".

 

Oh, yes. We have plenty of "representaion." You are quite right on that point:

See? We had that rather niffty "check" on the government.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/10/why-haven-t-we-heard-from-dick-cheney-on-the-oil-spill-.html

 

You have a fair point.

Checks and balances can hinder great strides-be they taking the nation a great step forward or jumping off a cliff.

But there are a few other points to consider.

On the plus side.

1. Is the Congress (Senate) incapable of acting on this issue?
-The House already passed a law relating to Global Warming and it died in the Senate.
-The Senate may also be, to a greater extent, bought off by or expressing favoritism to fossil fuel industries.

2. This is a building Global problem that the US has yet to seriously address unless you consider some of the weaker efforts compared to other industrialized nations a step forwards or feel Global Warming isn't real, human made, and so on. If the problem cannot be addressed and is both real and major then it isn't irrational to find a way around the Senate due to the scale of the problem in this specific instance outweighing the usual procedure (which may stay intact generally).

3. The author of the Bill herself may not have been interested in generating this legislation if it hadn't been for the focus on an issue that directly relates to the oil industry-which is important in her state and likely receives favors from her because it is. Meaning the violation of procedure isn't so important/large as to move her to action normally.




On the minus side:

1. If the standards of environmental law/protection are only as strong as the EPA chief and the President (who, minus dirty tricks, is elected) that appoints him or her that means there is a great possibility for inconsistent enforcement meaning instability and/or possible poor enforcement.

2. As Global Warming is a Global problem even if the US shapes up China may not. That means the efforts of the US, if unmatched, may not provide a solution after all.

 

Chandos: A reasonable example, but the failure of one administration to adequately represent the interests of the citizens is not an excuse for another administration to do the same.

 

@Chandos,

You may not have liked the "energy policy act", but at least it was a bill that passed both houses of Congress and then Bush signed it. If Bush had done it by fiat I would have agreed with you. Now it seems like the White House is trying to do everything by fiat with either czars or regulations.

Just a basic understanding of the Constitution should show how this is wrong and the bill should have passed.

I do acknowledge that the bill is also a great example of political skill. If it had passed and Obama vetoed a bill when his party controls both houses that would have looked bad for him and now it makes the Dems in Congress look bad as they are abdicating their responsibility.

@pplr

I will not get into the whole global warming farce as we have enough threads about it.

 

Could you imagine if/when Bush was in office, he decided that the NSA could seach people's mail, e-mail, or phone conversations without their knowledge? Oh wait...

I was actually being snarky there as there was Congressional approval of that in the Patriot Act. I just couldn't resist.

In seriousness though, there is nothing unconstitutional about Senators voting against the bill. Evidently, the Dems didn't think the EPA having such regulatory powers was all that bad...

 

T2, I respect that opinion and I agree. However let me ask: Why bother to have a regulatory agency if they can't regulate? This is why we are losing the Gulf of Mexico; a failure to regulate. This is why we lost trillions of dollars in wealth and investment; this is why homes are being foreclosed on all over the country. It is the failure of government agencies to do their jobs properly that has caused disaster after disaster, and still there are people complaining that corporations don't have enough representation in our government (BP is not even American, btw). Who is going to look out for the American citizen?

 

Pardon my ignorance, but a regulatory body would, and should, be overseen by the federal government as a whole, correct? Not just one branch, but the whole thing, right? That would make the most sense to me.

 

I don't know if I entirely agree with this Chandos:

Without going into specifics, in some cases the agency (no agency in particular) has its hands tied by legislation. In others the political appointee has ... strong armed a change that has detrimental affects on the ability of the people within the agency to do their job. Many of the problems we've faced both financially and environmentally have been intensified, but not caused, by political decisions (made by both parties) -- those decisions were often well meaning; for example, it sure sounded like a good thing to put more Americans in their own home ten years ago and having more oil reserves sounded like a great plan two years ago (not everyone agreed with those but I think they're good examples).

The American public as a group (and our politicians) allow themselves to be swayed by emotion far too often.

 

Like this? You might appreciate this one:

This is even more interesting, because it's the bigger picture:

That was only a secondary consideration. The issue here was the lack of regulation on WS, especially regarding structured investments, and the second part, an abundance of cheap, plentiful cash, both here and from emeging markets in Asia (and elsewhere, but mostly China), partly fueled by an expansion of a cheap credit market crafted the Fed Res (Greenspan). The demise of the dominance of Freddie and Fannie in the mortgage lending business, created a wide-open market and lowering of lending standards, which led directly to the housing bubble.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1029028275&play=1



http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/white-house-office-overrules-1.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-10-14-cover-pollution_x.htm
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source...TuMvy-uNgKAAAAqgQFT9A7db0&fp=fabe5f418103de0b

 

I agree with pplr, this was a good move. I don't think CO2 is a pollutant and should be regulated as such, but once it was defined as such, that put it firmly in the hands of the EPA to regulate. To now try to reverse that by attacking the whole of EPA authority is, well, a catestrophic mistake.