As anyone who followed the Kyoto Protocols back in the 1990s can tell you, even if you believe that government action to stem carbon emissions would be desirable, Kyoto wasn’t a genuine effort to get a worldwide agreement on limiting emissions: it exempted seven of the world’s eight most populous nations (the U.S. being the lone exception) from its provisions, including rapidly growing economies like China (now the world’s number one carbon emitter) and India. And neither of those countries, with more than a billion inhabitants each, has any intention of being subject to the kinds of restrictions that President Obama’s carbon emissions “cap-and-trade” plan would impose on U.S. industries, much less during a global recession. Including industries that employ lots of the blue-collar union workers the Democrats purport to represent.

Those industries’ and unions’ solution, naturally, is even more government taxes and regulations: use trade barriers to try to inflict the same harm on foreign manufacturers as on American ones. Hey, why not start a trade war? Just remember, one thing, though: Senator Smoot and Congressman Hawley both lost their bids for re-election in 1932.

Read More →

“Budget reconciliation” is an important phrase for government wonks and it has a particular meaning in a parliamentary setting. In the Senate, items that are included as part of a budget reconciliation bill get placed on the fast track to approval because those items do not need to overcome filibusters to be voted on and voted into law. While the time limit for debate is oftentimes exceeded when omnibus packages are part of the reconciliation process, generally, debate for reconciliation matters is limited to only 20 hours in the Senate.

Seeing as how Senate Democrats are oh-so-close-but-not-quite-there when it comes to having the 60 votes necessary to invoke cloture and overcome Republican filibusters, budget reconciliation is a tempting way for Democrats to get around the sixty vote requirement and pass items on their wish lists without worrying about compromising in order to pick off Republican votes. Senator Barbara Boxer wants to put carbon emissions regulations into a budget reconciliation bill and pass the regulations more easily.

There is a problem with this approach, however. Only a certain number of items are supposed to be part of the reconciliation process. As the link above mentions:

. . . The Budget Act also maintains that reconciliation provisions must be related to reconciling the budget. For example, section 313 of the Budget Act, more commonly known as the “Byrd Rule”, provides a point of order in the Senate against extraneous matter in reconciliation bills. Determining what is extraneous is often a procedural and political quagmire navigated in part by the Senate Parliamentarian. The Byrd Rule and other points of order in the Budget Act may only be waived in the Senate by a three-fifths vote. Furthermore, the Budget Act prevents reconciliation legislation from being filibustered on the Senate floor.

Boxer and allies say “to heck with this” and itch to pass a non-budgetary carbon emissions package as part of the reconciliation process. But amazingly enough, a number of Democrats are standing up and saying “nyet”:

Read More →