As a whole, the GOP doesn't like environmental regulation. In the past few years, though, Republicans in Washington have had little time to act on that animosity: They've spent their energy insisting that climate change does not exist, that if it does exist, it's not humanity's fault or that if it is humanity's fault, dealing with the consequences will cost too much. That was when Democrats had control of both houses of Congress and were pushing to pass legislation to address climate change. After having disarmed the cap-and-trade bill, which passed the House but failed in the Senate, and gained a majority in the House, Republicans are going even further.
In Washington, the conventional wisdom [for awhile now](http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=an_unnatural_alliance) has been that natural gas should serve as a "bridge fuel" to renewable energy sources like wind, solar, geothermal, and hydropower. But people who live in states from which natural gas will be extracted are less psyched about the possibility of having a new extraction industry with a questionable environmental record move in.
Stephen Colbert will be able to set up a super PAC that receives financial support from Viacom, The Colbert Show's parent company. Campaign-finance groups fought against this decision because it opens the possibility of actual politicians employed by TV networks running campaigns with undisclosed funding from those media companies.
Matt Yglesias asked yesterday if we're ready to accept cheaper health care if it's as almost as good as the health care we're paying for now. I'm ready to raise my hand and say that yes, I would, because, in my particular case, at least, I think that cheaper health care that sacrificed quality on one front could mean I'd be getting better health care overall.