It’s crunch time on capital hill as the Obama administration puts its political capital on the line for the House to pass the Waxman-Markey bill. For those of you who don’t know, the Waxman-Markey bill is the first Climate Change bill to be introduced in the US ( on a federal level).

So what does it promise? (See here for a more comprehensive overview)

• To reduce US emissions on 2005 levels by 17% by 2020
• To bring US emissions down by 80% by 2050
• 25% of US energy by 2025 must be renewable
• A Cap and Trade system, 85% of permits will be auctioned off
• 2 Billion tons worth of carbon offsets
• A whole host of other measures from building efficiency, fuel standards and even a new technology bank!

Ok it’s been watered down, see Kelly McManus’ coverage at Climatico to,how its been watered down. Worse the Senate will be an even tougher battle with a smaller Democratic majority, and still no Al Franken *sigh*, but make no mistake, this bill is a game changer.

For a long time, I’ve had a list of things I would like Obama to do ( not including saving the US economy):

1. Health care
2. Climate Change bill
3. Immigration Reform
4. Gay rights

That isn’t a definitive list but if he got those down, that would do for me. Although far from perfect, this Climate Change bill is the only realistic chance of success in combatting Climate change, not simply because the US is the world’s second largest polluter but because it is the world’s superpower and the largest economy. If the US  was not willing to take serious action against Climate Change, China India and the rest will never get on board. As we head towards crucial Climate negotiations at the end of this year and the beginning of the next this is probably the only chance the US has of passing a serious Climate Change bill in time, to show it is willing to take serious leadership

And to be honest, the Democrats won’t have it this good for a long time, at best they will keep a hold in the 2010 mid terms, there is a small chance they’ll be able to expand and a good chance they will slip a little bit. They have a large majority in the house and IF Franken were ever seated would be looking at filibuster proof majority in the Senate. The time really is now.

So if it passes what then? Well if it passes, it still ahs to go and get watered down in the Senate, but if it survives that and the Republicans don’t use the fillibuster than a framework has been set for the US to reduce Climate emissions. With luck this will change the nature of debate for further incremental legislation to strengthen the legislation, critical to this will be:

• Proven success of green jobs, already a growing number of economists and think tanks ( e.g. Pew Research) have come out in support – that green can be good for the economy.
• An economic upturn in general, weakens the hand of those who oppose the bill purely on economic grounds.
• The continual reduction in climate sceptics as evidence already insurmountable continues to pile over, until Republicans realise that opposing near total majority of world scientific research is ridiculous, this could take a long time, but if enough of the American public are convinced, Republicans may eventualyl change their tune. Then the debate will be about the type of policy rather than the exisitence of Carbon Dioxide :-p

The House votes tommorow, fingers crossed.

photo credit: MBK (Marjie)

The big political news from America is that Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter (not pictured)  has announced he’s leaving the Republican party and joining the Democrats. This came as a bit of  a bombshell to Republicans, since it means there will be 60 Democrats in the Senate. What’s so exciting about 60? Only that it’s the number needed for a filibuster-proof majority. In other words, Senate Democrats now have the votes to cut off debate on any legislation and head straight to a simple majority vote. This means – in theory at least – that Democrats can now pass any bill they want through the Senate and Republicans can’t do anything but sit on the sidelines and moan about it. Of course, in practice it’s not that simple – but then you didn’t think it would be, did you?

The rationale for Specter’s defection was fairly low on the list of honourable reasons to switch parties. Arlen Specter was one of the most moderate Republican Senators. He has a long history of defying the Republican party and voting with the Democrats, the latest example being his February vote in favour of Obama’s stimulus package, which infuriated his party’s base. He is also up for re-election in the 2010 mid-terms and, unsurprisingly, was facing a significant challenge in his state’s Republican primary from the seriously right-wing Pat Toomey, who’s being generously funded by a  conservative political action committee called The Club For Growth. Now, The Club For Growth have a hilarious record of funding right-wing challenges to sitting Republicans, only to see their candidates  failing to beat the incumbent yet still weakening them enough so that that they then go on to lose to a Democrat in the general election.

However, given that most Republicans now despise Arlen Specter as a Democrat in everything but name, the polls showed Toomey beating him heavily in the primary, despite the involvement of the chronically incompetent Club for Growth. Specter’s defection to the Democrats is therefore a matter of simple political survival – he could no longer be re-elected as a Republican. He could’ve gone Independent, but this way he (probably) avoids being challenged by another Democrat.

So the move was great for Specter. But was it good for Democrats?

On the face of it, the answer is an emphatic yes. This was another blow for the ailing Republican party, made all the more psychologically devastating by the effect of the magic 60. Republicans are now one step closer to being a regional party that only represents the bible belt and the Mormon states – a national party they are not. Moreover, given the huge legislative battles in store this year – healthcare reform, climate-change, The Employee Free Choice Act – the 60th vote in the Senate could not have come at a better time for Democrats. Or so the argument goes.

However, I’m not convinced that this news is all good for Democrats. If Specter had remained a Republican, he would’ve been thrashed in his party’s primary by Toomey – who would then have gone on to be thrashed himself by a decent Democrat in the general. Equally, if Specter had avoided primary defeat by going Independent, then Democrats would have had a harder task but he still would’ve been eminently beatable. But by allowing him to switch to their party, Democrats might have lost the opportunity to elect a more progressive candidate in 2010 – or at least someone who doesn’t think the flat tax is a good idea. Of course, Specter could still be challenged in the Democrat primary -  several Democrats already seem intent on taking him on – but with Obama having pledged his support for Specter and the Democratic leadership pleading for an uncontested coronation, defeating him in a primary is not going to be an easy task.

Moreover, Specter’s symbolic offering of a 60th vote will seem less important come December 2010, since Democrats are already predicted to gain at least three to four  Senate seats in the midterms. Looking at the long-term picture, then, I would rather have a Democrat representing Pennsylvania who wasn’t a Republican for most of his career. Of course this ignores the fact that, with massive legislative battles on the horizon, Democrats need that 60th vote now. But, even though he now has a (D) next to his name, will Specter provide it?

The evidence suggests not. Take, for example, the Employee Free Choice Act (or EFCA). This might not sound as glamorous as health reform or climate change legislation, but don’t be fooled. It’s a bill that would completely reform labour law, in particular giving workers the right to choose for themselves the method by which to form a union and thus freeing them from the coercive, intimidating tactics of union-hating employers. Back in 2007, Specter was the only Republican to be for it, but now he is, apparently, firmly against it- a position he emphasised in his remarks explaining his defection.  Climate change legislation, too, is something that he’s been active in undermining. All told, when Specter said in his remarks that he would not be another Jim Jeffords – a Republican senator who, back in 2001, switched to the Democrats and immediately adopted a liberal voting record – he was sending his new party a warning they would be ill-advised to ignore.

That said, despite Specter’s insistences that he won’t suddenly do the Democrats bidding, history tells us that  defectors do tend to heavily adopt the voting habits of their new party. Indeed, it’s possible that now the shackles of being a Republican are cast off (and how heavy the bondage must be!) Specter will find it much easier to accept liberal positions.  Moreover, there will be enormous pressure on him from left-wing lobbyists. This is especially true for labour lobbyists – they’ve been pushing him on ECFA for a while, but as long as he was in a primary fight with a right-wing opponent, he was never going to bite. Now he’s jumped ship, however, he might find that not only is he more amenable to labour’s influence but he might have to obey their wishes on ECFA, at least if he wants to win an election as a Democrat in union-heavy Pennsylvania. Finally, he does have a promising record on healthcare reform, although now that Democrats have the possibility to pass a healthcare bill through a process called “reconciliation” – a complicated way of saying you only need 50 votes – then Specter might not be needed anyway.

I could keep on speculating like this all day (no, really, I could talk this up for hours…) but the upshot is that it’s probably 50/50 right now whether Specter’s defection will turn out to be a success for Democrats in the long-term.  The best case scenario is this: Specter is the vote that gives America universal healthcare, or a cap-and-trade-system, or union reform – or all three! He is then defeated next year in the primary by a Pennsylvanian Democrat with a more progressive and  less, well, Republican record. Worst case scenario: he votes against all the major bills mentioned above and then manages to fend off a Democrat primary challenge, leaving us stuck with the centrist, semi-conservative Specter at a time when we no longer need him for the 60th vote.

Only time will tell…

For those who read Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight, you might be familiar with this tactic from the Obama administration (Silver’s analysis). Rahm is putting the GOP in a tough spot.  Limbaugh has received a lot of air time in the US, yet he’s a vulnerable target for the centre ground given his shock jockey tactics and vocal hope that Obama fails.

On the one hand the GOP have no obvious leader, although if it’s anyone it should probably be either Mitch McConnell, John Boehner or Michael Steele.  Having Limbaugh take centre stage is a problem for a party attempting to reform at least its image, yet they can’t denounce him given his popularity with the GOP base.  I suspect Limbaughism will define the GOP until at least the mid-terms. All of which is very good news for the Dems!