I'm surprised that the margin was so slim, and that with such a large Dem majority, stray Republicans finally were the difference. Guess they allowed some Blue Dogs the luxury of remaining in their kennel.

Interesting politics.

Hilzoy, if you want to lament the fact that the bill got watered down to get mushy corporate centrist weenie votes, you can't say, "it still only passes by seven votes" -- because some of the 44 Democrats who voted against it did so *specifically* to say, "Hey, you're giving away too much!"

Not that I've got a count or anything (alert: lazy internet commenter!), but I'm going to guess that it's more than a few, and I'm going to guess that Pelosi was happier to lose the Kucinichs and Starks of the House than risk pissing off the Collin Petersons.

On the other hand, I sure wouldn't bet against your fear that the Senate will sabotage the bill even further, just to scoop up some more campaign cash (or worse, to impress conservative shitheads like David Broder).

Chris: as I understand it, the number who voted no because it was too watered down was 4; the number who voted yes only because it was watered down was considerably larger.

Sigh. I wish I didn't think that was true.

This is a huge win for Nancy Pelosi and Rahm Emanuel, two much maligned but extraordinarily effective politicians. It is, without question, a deeply flawed compromise. But when the unattainably perfect becomes the enemy of the acheivable good, I'll always choose, and happily applaud, the latter.

Oh, don't worry about it, it will never pass the Senate anyway. As bad as it was, it was only nothing.

The House of Representatives is the house of the businesses, not the people. Why is this so difficult to understand ? For me the paradigm always has been: America's prosperity has always been dependent on a healthy business community, so whatever threatens the business community threatens America, period. We're fond of using the term lobbyist in the perjorative, but the overwhelming majority of these lobbies represent business. A few of the lobbies push such issues as clean air, water, reduction in greenhouse emmisions, worker safety, etc, but we shouldn't be fooled into thinking that these public interest lobbies are on a numerical par with the vast sea of business lobbies. So why should we be surprised at the margin of this vote ? It's nice to label these representatives as in the pocket of business in order to feel more self-righteous, but this, in fact, is exactly what they are.

Cap and trade is completely in line with standard market economics

which is why republicans almost universally opposed it - it challenges the status quo of the moneyed interests.

It's very simple. If you make less than $250,000 a year, a working majority of the U.S. Congress does not consider you a citizen. You don't count, and whatever happens to you is of no concern.

"Oh no! shrieked various utilities and other corporations that would have had to pay for those auctioned credits"

Hilzoy, love your posts, but as someone who follows this issue professionally I have to submit that this is outright wrong. The principle advocates for giving away the initial round of credits was the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), the association of the folks who actually approve utility rates. They felt that the initial increase in costs would cause to much stress on ratepayers who they set the utilities' rates for.

In other words, they moved to protect their constituents and the utilities they regulate supported them because they are beholden to their state commissions for the rates they charge for their product.

This is a historic victory, the other side spent more than 100 million. The Senate may not weaken it much (we can hope). Regardless, it can be improved over time. Foot in the door, perfect enemy of good, etc.

media browski: In other words, they moved to protect their constituents and the utilities they regulate supported them because they are beholden to their state commissions for the rates they charge for their product.

well said.

The widely cited CBO cost estimate was replete with caveats, and did not address whatever text is in the famous 300 pp added overnight. I doubt anyone voting for it has openly addressed the true costs, though I am certain that Waxman and Markey know what they are. It's only the "special interests" who think they'll have to pay, and the "special interests" who think they'll be paid (perhaps including Al gore and Generation Asset Management), who are reckoning the costs accurately.

At least it does not, as the Kyoto Treaty would have done, obligate the US to subsidize the Chinese industrial growth, as the Euroopeans have been doing since they ratified it. I posted a link yesterday to a Chinese project in carbon sequestration that the EU is subsidizing; only about 25% of the subsidy required under the Kyoto treaty goes to renewable energy or CO2 remediation.

And, following David Mercanus, I think Waxman deserves credit for not giving up, and encouragement to keep on trying. This is just round 1, the early innings, the first quarter, etc., in a long contest.

It's a start.

Cap and Tax needs to fail in the Senate and die a timely death.

There is far too much evidence calling man caused Global Warming into question to justify the largest tax increase in recorded history.

For every scientist proclaiming Global Warming is man's doing, there is another one proclaiming it isn't. So long as there is no conclusive scientific evidence, there is no justification for this tax.

I have read much on this subject...There is no conclusive evidence either way. One thing is a verifyable fact though- CO2 is not a pollutant. Never has been. It is a vital part of our biosphere. As such, there is not logical way to put it in the same category of CFC's and the like...and no logical way to justify taking an extra $1500-$2400 a year from we citizens.

Lastly, in the countries in which some sort of carbon limit and/or tax has been implemented, there has been and average of 2.5 jobs LOST for every "green" job created.

This is bad legislation based on unproven science with enormous consequences to us all. WE should all be lucky enough to see this bill die in the senate.

Anyone else wonder why the House went and passed another H-U-G-E peice of legislation without reading it?

1200+ pages and a vote to pass it in less than 24 hrs...again.

How many of you can read, understand, asess, and intelligently debate 1200 pages in one day?