Climate Bill, Sanford’s Future Top Week’s Political News

JUDY WOODRUFF:

And to the analysis of Shields and Brooks. That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Gentlemen, thank you both for being with us.

Let's start out with those two big domestic issues we just heard about. And, Mark, right now, the House, we hear, as we sit here at this moment, the House is moving toward a vote on energy legislation, climate change, impassioned debate on the floor. The president's been on the telephone. The Republicans say they don't have the votes.

If the president's able to get this and the Democrats get this, how big a victory?

MARK SHIELDS, syndicated columnist: It's a major victory. It's one of the three legs in the president's stool of an agenda, in the sense of this and the health care being, you know, the two and the economic stimulus.

I'd say this, Judy, that, as big a victory as it is for Barack Obama, as big a victory as it is for Henry Waxman, the author of it, Ed Markey, the others involved in it, it's an enormous achievement for Nancy Pelosi.

Nancy Pelosi's public numbers in every poll have been down, and this is a very difficult vote. Bob Dole said it well: On Capitol Hill, we love to make tough speeches. We don't like to make tough choices.

This bill is going to be criticized in its particulars, but it is enormous intervention and a risky one politically for those voting for it. And they put together a coalition of Democrats that is really across the board, and she did it. She was the key. She was the push.

This is her signature issue. And outside of the institution, she may not be popular. Inside, she is as effective as any speaker in recent times.

JUDY WOODRUFF:

How do you read it?

DAVID BROOKS, columnist, New York Times: Well, it's how they did it that I think should worry us. I think the basic idea of cap and trade, as Barack Obama…

JUDY WOODRUFF:

You said "should worry us"?

DAVID BROOKS:

I think the way they got there, because the basic idea of what President Obama proposed is a good idea, of selling off these permits and then creating these markets to give people an incentive.

But in order to get the majority, they didn't do what the White House originally wanted, which was to sell off the permits. They're basically giving them away, especially in the beginning. And so that created this vast lobbying campaign, as utilities and everybody else said, "Give it to us. Give us this free stuff or compensate us."

And so it became this wish list of giving stuff away. Some industries got better than others. And so you created these all sorts of distortions.

I think the second problem some people have with the bill, who like the basic idea, is that they got into, for example, federalizing housing codes and things like that, so they added another layer of legislation.

So to me the story is a pretty pure idea which, through the political process, has already turned into something else.

MARK SHIELDS:

I would say this. Is the perfect the enemy of the good here? I think it's an imperfect piece of legislation, certainly. There had to be compromises made.

But the point of getting this principle established in law as the law of the land that we're going to cut carbon emissions is an enormous — Judy, I mean, the last administration, we spent energy and hours and time arguing about whether there was a problem, whether, in fact, there was climate change, whether there was global warming.

I mean, it happens that 10 of the hottest years in record have occurred in this country since 1998, which has helped the argument. But to make that case and to get this done, I think you can improve it. David's absolutely right, there are flaws.

But I think the principle is established, and I think it's almost epic.

DAVID BROOKS:

I would say, I mean — I would say it's not just around the margins that they've changed the bill. They've fundamentally changed the bill.

And so, when you do a cost-benefit analysis of the thing, what we seem to be getting is a very small reduction in warming — 0.1 percent of 1 degree of Centigrade or 10 percent of a degree of Centigrade over some number of years — with this very high cost.

But that's not even what worries me, the cost. It's the way we're manipulating the market and creating some set of winners, some set of losers, which is going to make the cost so astronomical.