What 60 Votes Means

Today, the Minnesota finally made their predictably unanimous ruling on the Minnesota senatorial election in favor of Al Franken. Norm Coleman finally conceded that his obstructionist ways would only further hurt the people of Minnesota and Governor Pawlenty has said that he'll certify the results shortly. This means that not only will the good people of Minnesota have their representation in Congress but the Democrats now hold 60 seats.

Well, that's all fine and dandy, but that doesn't take away any power from the Blue-Dog Conservodems that want to hijack every bit of progressive legislation and water it down to the point of uselessness. What it does do is provide the Blue-Dogs with some political cover. To understand this, you have to know that it still only requires 51 votes to pass legislation and not the 60 votes that Progressives (like myself) are always bitching about. The 60 vote barrier is required to break a filibuster or to bring "the end of debate" (cloture) over a particular bill.

The Blue-Dogs are now in a position where they can support progressive legislation (remember they are still beholden to primary voters) and still keep their conservative street cred. This is done by voting "yes" on cloture while voting "no" on the actual bill. This tactic is not at all unusual and I suspect that this is going to play a huge rule in the ACES bill in the Senate. I wouldn't be shocked to see this exact statement made by a blue-dog while the GOP threatens their filibuster:

This bill represents a monumental shift in the environmental policy of the United States. While I am opposed to this bill, I agree with Rep. Boehner's sentiments that this bill is the most "monumental piece of legislation to hit the floor of congress in 100 years." Because of this I feel that it would be a gross injustice to the American people if the bill were not held to a vote by the entire Senate.

I felt a couple of days ago that ACES was a dead-duck in the Senate but now I am wondering if the conservodem caucus will be willing to allow the bill to pass with 51 votes if they can have their political bomb-shelters to hide in.

Now the Blue-dogs can have their cake and eat it too. If they don't like the cake, they can go find other work because we only serve one flavor. Time to put-up or shut-up.

Cash For Tanks

Sometime next week the US Congress is going to take up the so called "cash for clunkers" bill. Under this bill 1 million people will be able to trade in their old gas guzzler for a newer more fuel efficient vehicle. The purpose of this bill is to get more fuel efficient vehicles on the road, lower emissions from vehicles and to stimulate the auto industry. While this bill is certainly good intentioned, I am not sure that it goes far enough. Courtesy of Consumer Reports, here is a handy chart:

There are a couple of problems I see with this bill. First of all, I find it ridiculous that someone can get a $3500 kick back for a 4 mpg increase. While I am sure that if a million people all added 4mpg in fuel efficiency to their vehicles it would result in some gaudy amount of savings I think this misses the point. Why are we settling for a 4mpg increase in fuel efficiency?

The second problem with this bill is that trade-in vehicle must be rated at less than 18 mpg by the EPA. In theory this doesn't seem like a big deal, but it's really pretty difficult to find a vehicle rated under 18mpg. Here are some examples that without a doubt fall into the "clunker" category:

1986 Ford Bronco: 18mpg
1988 Dodge Daytona: 22mpg

Now, I suppose that some folks have a 1977 Ford F-150 or a 1988 VW Vanagon hanging out in the garage, but how much are these vehicles really used? How many of these are used as a primary source of transportation? I have my doubts that it's very many.

I happen to drive 2 pretty fuel efficient vehicles, but I would love to have a hybrid. The problem with the hybrids is that they are out of my price range. When I buy a new car I will end up financing about 10-13K after taxes and licensing. That's just not possible with a Prius, Insight, or Fusion. I look at them as green vehicles, but not money saving vehicles. I'd have to buy a lot of gas to break even on the purchase of a hybrid.

If we really want to accomplish the set out goals of the bill, why not structure it in a way that would allow anyone to get involved? Perhaps the payout should be in a tiered system. Pick a #: 3,4, or 5 and give refund $1000 for every incremental increase in mpg. If someone wants to bring in their 25mpg vehicle and buy a hybrid getting 50 give them $5,000 (50-25)*1000/5 (assuming that the marginal increase is 5mpg). You could even structure it in a way in which each increase in mpg is worth more. That would really get folks out to the lots to trade in their Expeditions and Escalades. While it would be quite a bit more expensive, this could go a long ways to accomplishing the stated goals of the bill and the bill would be taken a lot more seriously. I am confident that the long term benefits would trump the short term cash outlays and it would show that we are serious about addressing this issue.

CBO Report on Cap-and-Trade

On Thursday the Congressional Business Office (CBO) issued their report on the proposed cap-and-trade legislation. Here is a notable graph included in the analysis:


Clearly something needs to be done to curb the CO2 emissions that are warming the planet. Cap-and-trade is a good first step to get back on the right track. In short here are the findings:

1. Cap-and-Trade works!
2. The "tax" would likely be passed on to the consumers
3. The government has the tool at their disposal to combat rate hikes

Of course, wingnuts are already going crazy over finding #2. The problem is that they are ignoring the next 6 pages of tools at the government's disposal to off-set the likely rate hikes.

Check out the report: Here
Check out the CBO blog entry: Here

Spoler Alert: Goposauric Park

I'll be in line opening day for this flick! The trailer for Goposauric Park, a misadventure 8 years in the making:



Who plays the role of the venom spitting velociraptor?

Pardon Me, Sir....

VS.

This is what the right has been reduced to? A bunch of snot-nosed sniveling drama-queens that care about the kind of mustard President Obama puts on his hamburger?

From Mediamatters:


Laura Ingraham wants to know what kind of a man orders a burger without ketchup and with dijon mustard....well, me for one. I've never been a big fan of ketchup and I love spicy or dijon mustard. I too am an elitist snob who is clearly out of touch with "normal" americans.

I hope these clowns like Hannity, Ingraham and Steyn never change. They are only working to marginalize their brand of ideology when they continue to ridicule a President with a 69 percent approval rating.