Congress gets serious about climate change, & we're left to ponder the future

Cue crowd noise. Cue the smell of the track. Cue sweat-dampened betting slips, clutched in our hands as we pray mightily that we might actually beat the fat cats and win for a change. Cue jockeys. Cue horses... The Climate Change Derby is off and running in Washington, DC!

The question, of course, is whether or not the legislative shenanigans that began in Congress this week will actually make any progress in limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Settle in. This is going to be a long race. Here are some first takes on what this all means.

Time reports on who did what to whom on Tuesday.

The House produced a long-awaited bill to regulate 85% of U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions, anteing up for what promises to be long, high-stakes negotiations with the Senate and business groups alarmed at the $1 trillion price tag that some estimate such an effort could entail. The effects of the already intense lobbying were felt across the Capitol, where the Senate the same afternoon passed by an overwhelming margin an amendment resolving that any energy legislation should not increase electricity or gas prices. As it stands now, energy-price hikes are unavoidable under most of the climate-change plans swirling around Congress, including the draft introduced Tuesday by House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman and Representative Ed Markey, chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.

Time says the bill isn't expected to pass as it stands, but it might well give the Obama Administration cover for its more modest proposal.

Joe Romm gives the Waxman-Markey Bill a B+, which is high praise from the notoriously stern environmentalist.

Kevin Drum says he's a pessimist.

My reservations aside, this bill is the best thing we've seen on the energy front in a long, long time. I just wish it were even better, that's all. A guy can dream, can't he?

Today's Must Read: And the most presidential candidate is...

Joe Klein describes John McCain's anger management issues and quotes Karl Rove to make his point. The bottom line: "When was the last time Americans elected an angry President?"

And in case you missed it, Klein blogs about yet more evidence that McCain is unfit to lead.

Mainstream Media & the Bailout: Getting the story wrong

One of journalism's biggest problems is a tendency to get the facts right, and the story wrong. Such is the case of the coverage of the whopper of a bailout now under debate. One of the story lines being promoted by journalists is that the bailout will hamstring the next president.

McClatchy Newspapers on Friday:

The next president will take office in January with little hope of getting his pet programs enacted quickly, if at all, because of already-massive budget deficits likely to balloon even further from the hundreds of billions expected to be used to bail out Wall Street.

Time magazine today:

For at least the next year, and perhaps for years after, Treasury's spending authority will make it harder for the next President to fulfill campaign promises and pump money into new priorities.

I added the italics.

The problem with both of these passages is that they turn this into a story about the problems of a politician. The idea that it's only this poor soul's "pet programs" and his ability to "fulfill campaign promises" that is hurt is complete and utter garbage.

While it is factually true that the new president will face problems, his tussles will be tiny compared to what's going to happen to the rest of us.

This bailout -- no matter how necessary -- means that you and I won't get universal health care, at least not anytime soon. Crumbling bridges may well not be fixed because the U.S. government won't have the money. (Can anyone say "Minneapolis?") FEMA may be even less effective than it is now. Financial aid for college students could well shrink. Medical research and other scientific research could be hampered because the U.S. Treasury is strapped for cash. The list goes on and on.

There will be much less money available to provide the kind of services citizens need and should expect from their government.

By framing the story as being about presidential problems, journalists make it appear as if this is a mere political hassle for one guy who lives in the White House. Who cares if a politician has to wrestle with campaign promises?

From my vantage point, the Bailout looks a tad too much like highway robbery. It could hurt all of us for decades to come.