Originally posted on grist.org.
Health care reform has passed and Obama will sign it into law today or tomorrow. By the end of the week, most experts forecast at least twelve katrillion thumbsucking "what does health care reform mean for X" pieces. This is one of them.
First, politics aside, this is the largest expansion of the social safety net and the most significant social legislation in over forty years. Millions of lives will be improved and hundreds of thousands of premature deaths avoided. As Jon Chait says, Obama has already secured his place in history. So there's that.
Secondly, Nancy Pelosi is a G. Not only did she push the entire Democratic establishment to stiffen its collective spine after Scott Brown's victory; not only did she masterfully and implacably whip votes for health care reform; under her leadership, the House has passed major progressive legislation on health care, climate change and energy, financial reform, and economic stimulus, to say nothing of many other smaller efforts. Were the U.S. a unicameral parliamentary system like most developed democracies, this past year would have changed the course of history and Democrats would have secured a generational majority. But: the Senate.
Thirdly, speaking of the Senate, climate legislation can't do what health care reform did. The only reason HCR is headed to the president's desk is that the Democrats had a 60 vote majority in the Senate prior to Scott Brown's election on Jan. 19. By then the Senate had already passed the bill (which in itself counted as a miracle). The key to the bill's ultimate success was that the House agreed to vote through the Senate's bill as long as the Senate made some modifications via a process called budget reconciliation, which only requires a 51 vote majority. In other words, at every stage the bill has proceeded on a party-line vote.
Now that there are no longer 60 Dems, that's not even theoretically possible (not that it was ever realistic on climate). No more major bills can pass on a party-line vote. If Republicans maintain their extraordinary party unity and blanket opposition, no more major bills can pass at all. In the end, Republicans couldn't stop HCR, but they can stop the climate bill, and they know it. Of course Sen. Lindsey Graham has been cooperating on climate, but he has said in recent weeks that using reconciliation for HCR would "poison the well" for subsequent efforts. Graham himself has a good deal of personal credibility tied up in climate legislation, so he probably won't bail, but he hasn't yet elicited any commitments from his fellow Republicans, and lots of them will be feeling mighty grumpy for the next few months.
There will be lots of talk about how this victory builds momentum and fortifies resolve for Democrats. Given a taste of victory, they'll be fired up to do more. Maybe that will be true. But the level of fired-uppitude among the Dem base, or House Dems, or Obama, is ultimately beside the point. The problem has always been, and remains, the Senate. Conservadems have been saying for months that the Senate has already done one big thing this session, and, goodness, what do you want from them? Financial reform is next on the docket. Then possibly immigration. You want them to do climate too? HHHHHhhhhhhh. [Sound of teenage-style sigh.]
Anyway, HCR passing is an enormous accomplishment. But to pass a climate bill of comparable scope, there would have to be the same kind of patient, sustained effort from Dem leadership in the face of setbacks and prognostications of failure. Only it would have to be faster (time is running out). It would have to secure Republican support for a major Dem initiative, which would be a first in Obama's term. It would have to coax even more nervous Dems in conservative states from no to yes. It's just a more difficult hill to climb.
Tell you what, though: pass the nation's first climate bill alongside health care reform and Obama's Dem majority will take its place beside FDR's as American history's most consequential. Maybe, if nothing else, this weekend's victory will open Senate Dems' eyes to that possibility. It's a nice thought -- even nicer, some might argue, than winning the next election.
Follow David Roberts on Twitter: www.twitter.com/drgrist
Nalini Chilkov: Let's Be Honest: Health Insurance Reform Is Not Health Care Reform
Let's be honest we are getting a small amount of insurance reform and no health care reform.
Donnie Fowler: After Health Care: Climate & Energy Legislation
Politics digest: Health care, climate change - washingtonpost.com
Who's Counting: Health Care, Climate Change, Jobs, and Twitter ...
In an 8000 word essay; You can't solve energy / Climate without solving Agriculture / Food, that done Health , security & general welfare naturally follow.
I understand that for now a Hansen tax & dividend is no where in sight,
Jim Hansen's latest proposals on "Tax&Dividend" vs. Cap & Trade ;
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar-climatechange/message/766
What is coming down the road are other mechanisms like the carbon foot print / sustainability Index labeling pricing that will soon be lead by Walmart, (as goes Walmart so goes the world)
To me, in the long run, the final arbiter / accountancy / measure of sustainability will be
soil carbon content. Once this royal road is constructed, traffic cops ( Carbon Board ) in place, the truth of Biochar systems will be self-evident.
As I read the agronomic history of civilization, only the Kayopo Amazon Indians and the Egyptians
(Nile floods, which they now have forsaken) have maintained fertility for the long haul, millennium scales
The true "Gold" standard of sustainability is soil carbon, measurable soon by earth sensing satellites, available for all to see their good (or bad) works.
The clarity and lack of complexity in this simple perspective has focused my efforts to this goal.
The Agricultural Soil Carbon Standard is in final review by the AMS- ARC branch at USDA.
There is much broader support for environmental legislation than for health insurance. Health care reform to help the uninsured was a hard sell to the 90% of Americans who already had health coverage. The environment impacts every one.
I can tell you that Scott Brown here in MA, and Snowe and Collins in ME, will NOT be reelected if they oppose a climate bill.
New Englanders are true Americans. We love the environment and hate corporations.
We boarded a ship owned by the corporate giant British East India Tea Co and dumped their tea, in protest to a crony-capitalism tax break the British government gave to them, exempting only that corporation from tea taxes.
Maybe you've heard of it - the "Boston Tea Party"?
Our first revolt against crony capitalism, but not our last.
As a State Senator Scott Brown voted for the MA health care bill, which is exactly like the Senate bill. He's a politician and an opportunist, which means he'll go whichever way will get him re-elected.
He could vote against the health care bill because it does not matter to his constituents: we already have "Obama care" (really, "Romney care") here in MA. The fed bill gives us nothing but costs us more. In MA, our attitude is "we got ours", which is why we elected Scott Brown. We're selfish, we don't want to pay so others can have what we already do.
Voting against an environmental bill is a different story. He doesn't have principles, so how he feels about oil companies doesn't matter. Being reelected does.
Lieberman is not a Democrat; he's an Independent. He refused to support the public option, and would not block a filibuster if it were in the bill. That made him less than useless to the Dems; he was a detriment.
This is serious, the United States is the only developed country that is not only RESONSIBLE for a significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions, it is also the only developed country not taking ACTION against a catastrophe that would cost Americans hundreds of trillions of dollars over centuries.
That is what most teabaggers and other global warming deniers don't realize: We have 70 years to stop global warming. If we don't take action global warming will affect this planet the next 5 MILLION YEARS. You can read everything here: www.wikipedia.org
http://www.capanddividend.org/?q=readfirst
To the surprise of everyone, future cars and trucks will be able to dispense with gasoline and diesel fuel and run on very small amounts of ordinary water. See the article Running on Water at: http://www.aesopinstitute.org
Assuming the science soon satisfies very understandable skepticism, and the technologies prove practical, how rapidly this change might take place will become the significant question and the right answer might stimulate economic recovery in ways that can hardly be imagined.
After Pearl Harbor was attacked, Ford completed the Willow Run factory in a few months. Once it reached full production, a bomber rolled off the assembly line every 59 minutes.
Automotive manufacturers are unlikely to be the first to ignore the feasibility of running on water.
A 24/7 development program for these technologies is far less difficult than building bombers.
Cars and trucks that run on water will prove capable of selling electricity that can turn future vehicles into power plants. No wires required. Not too far in the future, they are likely to pay for themselves.
That holds promise of turning parking garages into utility sub-stations, eliminating any need to build new coal burning or nuclear power stations.
These future vehicles are also expected to be able to power a home or a business.
This game changing technology is likely to make fossil fuels fade as fast as factories can produce the new technologies.
Utilizing fractional Hydrogen is new technology and is not widely believed or understood.
See www.blacklightpower.com for papers reflecting their theory and technology.
Our theory and technologies are different, but both use fractional Hydrogen. See: www.chavaenergy.com to see a bit about our approach. Look for ECHO - Energy from Collapsing Hydrogen Orbits and SPICE - Self Powered Internal Combustion Engines.
The Wright Brothers were among a long list of inventors who were considered quacks.
As you know, they flew in 1903, but Scientific American, the New York Times and the Smithsonian did not believe it until 1908.
Running on Water is new science. But, as you know, walking on water is rumored to have taken place some time ago.
The reality is the only way Obama can affect Climate is through the EPA. They will face litigation at every turn as well. Besides, the whole Al Gore "Every kind of weather is evidence of AGW" malarkey is not selling anymore. Obama got his victory. it is all he will get and it may be taken away in the courts anyway or by repeal when he is booted in 2012.
If it's not too much trouble, could you provide a link to either the original, complete interview or to the Congressional record on senate.gov, or best, the video on c-span.org? Thanks in advance.
There may be a Democratic-party-line (plus an odd Republican in the Senate) bill for financial reform, but their isn't anything meaningful that can be done on a party-line vote for climate change, immigration, education, or taxes. (Want November pain - watch the reaction as Democrats aren't able to pass a bill to deal with the end of the Bush tax cuts and get blamed for everyone's taxes going up when they expire next year.)
My fear is that the Senator was correct and the President was wrong. Congress might as well pack up and go home until after the November elections.
If it's not too much trouble, could you provide a link to either the original, complete interview or to the Congressional record on senate.gov, or best, the video on c-span.org? Thanks in advance.
Senator Obama CBS Interview 11/02/04.
My understanding of the Senate is that you need 60 votes to get something significant to happen. Which means that the Democrats and Republicans have to ask the question, do we have the will to move an American agenda forward not a Democratic or Republican agenda forward?
Change to Win Convention 09/25/07.
We’re going to have to have a majority to get a bill to my desk, that is not just a fifty plus one majority.
Obama interview Concord Monitor 10/09/07.
You’ve got to break out of what I call the sort of 50 plus one pattern of presidential politics. Maybe you eke out a victory of 50 plus one. Then you can’t govern. You know you get Air Force One. I mean there are a lot of nice perks. But you can’t deliver on healthcare. We are not going to pass universal healthcare with a fifty plus only strategy.
Center for american Progress Conference 07/12/06.
If we want to transform the country though, that requires a sizeable majority.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/05/barack-obama/obama-hypocrite-reconciliation/
As a well-known radical-right website, it is not surprising that Politifact found that the President has done a "full-flop" on the 50+1 question.
A further note: the vast majority of the current healthcare reform did not pass via the 50+1 route - the Senate bill was passed under normal rules. Only the relatively short "fixes" bill is being done through reconciliation and that required severe limitations on what was included. It is unclear what could be done on cap-and-trade as a reconciliation bill.