Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
WAXMAN VERSUS DINGELL.
I haven't given this the attention it deserves, but Henry Waxman's decision to challenge John Dingell for chairman of the Energy and Commerce committee is a HUGE deal. Energy and Commerce is, along with Ways and Means, the key House Committee, with jurisdiction over both energy and health care legislation. This particular fight is not particularly important from a health reform perspective- both Dingell and Waxman are solid allies and skilled legislators. But from an energy reform perspective, it's crucial. Dingell is a Detroit Democrat, and an opponent of substantive action on global warming because he fears its impact on the auto industry and his state. Dingell's obstructionism is so broadly understood that Pelosi tried to create a new committee, led by Ed Markey, with authority on climate change issues, but she wasn't able to give it any teeth, and it ended up being little more than an advisory body. Jurisdiction stayed with the Energy and Commerce Committee, and John Dingell.
Waxman's challenge is a tremendously aggressive play by one of the House's savviest and most respected Democrats. And it is all about global warming legislation. The question is whether Waxman has the votes. Indeed, you can understand the challenge as one of two plays. In first, Waxman, a veteran vote-counter, has the support to win the fight and is mounting a simple and straightforward effort to replace Dingell. In the second, Waxman doesn't have the support, but is forcing a near-death experience on Dingell, and will force him to either commit to global warming legislation in order to save his chairmanship, or clarify that if he obstructs action on climate change, he can and will be replaced. And it could even be that Waxman hoped for the first play but ends up running the second. Either way, it's an early test of how serious the House Democratic Caucus is about global warming legislation.
We'll find out Thursday, when this goes to a vote before the House Democratic Caucus (which is the expected stage for resolution -- this won't be left to the Steering Committee). One of the quiet subthemes here is that Waxman's longtime chief of staff, Phil Schirilo, was just named as Obama's director of legislative affairs. That doesn't mean Obama is personally endorsing Waxman's effort, but if Schirilo decides to make some calls on behalf of his former boss, it could certainly be taken that way. And then there's Pelosi, who already tried to bypass Dingell once by forming the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, but how can use Waxman's vehicle for a far more aggressive play...
COMMENTS (6)
Global warming legislation? What's that...the asinine belief that "market" incentives will save the day?
Did the market resolve the Slavery issue? In all likelihood, the "market" encouraged it.
Did the market resolve Nazi aggression? In all likelihood, the "market" encouraged it.
The idea that market incentives will handle the big moral issues of the day was rejected by none other than Adam Smith.
How about a specific list of things Government can do now?
For example, spec an electric car and mandate it's sale, copy the French model on Nuclear Energy, Transportation bills that run lightweight "rail" down highway corridors.
The internal combustion engine has to be eliminated from daily transportation or global warming will continue to accelerate. Only the US Government can accomplish this in the time frame we have left. The asinine belief that "market" forces can resolve moral issues is refuted by the Roosevelt [both of them] experience...and we are better for it.
Posted by: S Brennan | November 18, 2008 12:02 PM
[jim plays the meh card on dingell v. waxman]
meh
I agree with S Brennan. The 'market' rarely leads, and certainly doesn't push for moral issues (more often pushes against).
One of the major unresolved dilemmas of a representative democracy (with a deliberately constructed anti-change lawmaking body) is how to see far into the future and take action - far being more than 3-5 years down the road.
For most congress people, long term is two years, but only at the start of their term. It shortens as elections approach.
One wonders how Eisenhower ever got the interstate highway system started and funded - other than claiming it was for national defense (The law was named The National Defense Highway Act).
I wish I could be optimistic, but in present circumstances long-term is probably viewed by wall street, DC cadres, and the people as about 6 months from now.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | November 18, 2008 1:45 PM
To me, this is the most important fight in a long time. Not since the fight to stop John Bolton from being reappointed to the U.N. have I felt so much is riding on a decision. Waxman is the Superman of climate change legislation, and Dingell is the Lex Luther. I honestly believe that Waxman's victory could be just as significant for the future of our country and the world as Obama's victory. If there was ever a time to call your Congressman for the sake of the planet, this is it. Go Waxman!
Posted by: Adam | November 18, 2008 1:50 PM
Waxman caved to his Beverly Hills financiers and effectively killed the LA subway 20 years ago. He wasn't out front on sustainable development, regional transportation or climate change.
Posted by: Waxman is no hero | November 18, 2008 6:35 PM
S Brennan: There is a big difference between harnessing market incentives and "letting the market work". The latter implies that we've internalized all the costs associated with our emitting activities, which clearly we haven't, and can just sit back and watch.
What climate legislation will do is put market prices more in line with the true costs of the activity.
All the things you have suggested will help reduce emissions, but at what cost? Can you imagine the amount of money necessary to retire every single car on the road and replace it with electric cars? Or retire every existing coal plant and replace it with nuclear/wind/solar? The idea of a cap-and-trade is that it allows the abatement to shift around to whatever opportunities are lowest-cost. I agree that this doesn't always work with 100% efficiency or success, but I think complemented by reasonable technology policy and land-use regulations it will achieve emissions goals at much lower costs than an unconditional set of mandates.
Posted by: Evan | November 19, 2008 11:44 AM
Waxman is the Superman of climate change legislation, and Dingell is the Lex Luther. I honestly believe that Waxman's victory could be just as significant for the future of our country and the world as Obama's victory. If there was ever a time to call your Congressman for the sake of the planet, this is it.
Posted by: tower defense | April 25, 2009 2:04 AM