A Siegel's articles

"Al Gore says support it. Paul Krugman says support it. Two Nobel Prize Winners. Who am I to question them?"

That is a question received, in more than one space, when it comes to the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act.

Well, with all due respect to the infallibility of a Nobel Prize Winner (Kissinger, ’73, James Watson, ’03, etc.), we should be clear that the bill, as drafted, falls far short of what is necessary and quite likely falls short of what is possible.

How can this be? How can a bill driven by two of the most passionate and knowledgeable House members fall short of the possible? 

For one, perhaps it is because of a fundamental failure of those advocating serious action in regards to climate change. In short, as per Gore’s and many environmental organizations’ praise for the draft bill, there is a clear impression (if not reality) that those advocating for action are prepared to take scraps from the table rather than fight for and demand adequate legislative action.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee looks poised to vote on the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act later today.

As this bill has developed, going from an already compromised draft through massive compromising to secure enough committee votes, it has reached the point where one has to wonder whether it is more appropriately called the "Assuring Coal Energy Subsidies Act."

This bill has moved away from core climate legislation principles. Rather than auctioning off all pollution permits, as candidate Obama promised and President Obama put into the submitted budget, some 85% of those permits will be given away.

Taking a look at a preliminary analysis, the allowances can be broken into these major categories:

Kathleen Sebelius’ swearing in as Secretary for Health and Human Services was a bitter sweet moment.

She has been a strong public servant. A dedicated, principled, thoughtful, and courageous leader who won respect and admiration from Kansans. The nation — and the tough challenges of American health care — merits having someone of her qualities in that seat.

On the other hand, there were two aspects of this appointment that were troubling.

As with former Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, now head of Homeland Security, appointing Sebelius to the Cabinet moved from an almost assured (if she chose to run) Democratic Party pick-up in the 2010 Senate to, at best, a long shot that a Democratic candidate can win the seat. (And, as well, lowered by two the number of women likely to be part of the Senate come January 2011.)

Secondly, there was the question of how her state would be governed in her absence.