Via Brad Plumer, a little update on the progress of cap-and-trade ("cap and tax," "cap and cash back," etc.). Brad and other folks following the debate more closely than I make clear that the legislation, though weakened to the point where it will not create a much-needed dramatic reduction in emissions, is a pretty good start -- even the deal between Rep. Henry Waxman and Rep. Colin Peterson didn't so much give away the farm as ratify long-standing concessions to the pernicious corn barons of the Midwest. But of course some people are still trying to improve the bill.
The other day, Dave Roberts asked the most pertinent question -- what happens if this bill passes? (Democrats hunt for votes in the House; as always, the Senate will be ... interesting.) One important result may be that, judging by the scoring of the bill and this phenomenon, people aren't going to suffer economically and will become acclimated to this kind of regulatory scheme -- call it the gay-marriage model of legislative progress: One of the best ways to lose credibility is see your apocalyptic warnings proven totally wrong. But Waxman has a long history of keeping the ball moving forward, and we can expect the Obama administration to continue revisiting energy policy, especially as a forum for developing economic growth.
As we see a lot of big, landmark-style bills coming to the floor in the coming months and stress out over whether they are "good" or "bad," failure or success, and instead look at legislating over the longer term as a process of constantly pushing toward better policy. Obviously, Congress' institutional structure -- it's very hard to pass anything substantial or with any kind of speed -- creates an incentive geared toward achieving huge breakthroughs, since you may only get this chance -- and this majority -- once. The extremely time-sensitive nature of climate change legislation in particular makes it important in this case to try and get the job right, right away.
But, on a lot of issues, it might make sense to adopt a take-what-you-can-get, then go back and ask for more mentality. That's certainly not to excuse the timid Democrats who love to muck up good legislation with intellectually baseless compromise. But if Ezra's right about this dynamic -- I think he is, and that it applies to a lot of what the administration is doing; Matt disagrees -- we could end up with a health-care bill that is both a great improvement and a bummer for those who know what could have been done. But there's no law saying that Barack Obama and the rest of the Democrats can't take another bite at the health-care apple -- or energy, or financial regulations, or whatever -- after the midterms or, hell, as soon as the first bill passes. It's not the way we usually approach the legislative agenda, and there are good reasons for the the current modus operandi, but the usual way also produces a lot of sub-optimal outcomes. Time for a change?
-- Tim Fernholz
