'Cap and trade' bill? Trade it in

Inter Lake editorial

Well now it's up to the U.S. Senate to deal with so-called cap-and-trade energy legislation, and hopefully wisdom will prevail and the monstrous bill approved by the House will be consigned to the ash heap of history.

We do not believe it is possible to "improve" the Waxman-Markey bill, largely because of the horrendous manner in which it was developed and rushed through the House. The day before Congress adjourned for its July 4 break, the bill finally made its way to the House floor, where members were literally bought off with concessions and "improvements' granted by the Democratic leadership. There was a 300-page last-minute amendment that nobody read. But hey, so what, virtually nobody read or understood what was in the original bill of more than 1,200 pages either.

What everybody knows, however, is that the bill amounts to a very expensive, long-term energy tax on the country for the purpose of reducing carbon emissions, a practice that is becoming increasingly unpopular elsewhere.

The U.S. Senate should take note that after a new government was elected in New Zealand last year, it immediately suspended cap-and-trade legislation that had just passed. And there is an expectation that similar legislation is about to die in the Australian Senate. Both situations are due to economic pragmatism in recognizing the large costs and negligible benefits of cap-and-trade, as well as a growing collapse in the so-called "consensus' on climate change.

The futility of the U.S. cap-and-trade scheme was openly acknowledged this week by Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson, who told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that U.S. efforts "alone will not impact world CO2 levels."

Got that? The bill that would put ever-tightening economic burdens on households, businesses and overall American productivity would not accomplish its main intended purpose without similar and completely unlikely actions by China and India. But of course the legislation has other intended purposes, such as feeding favored political clients, many of which were satiated in last-minute deal making in the House.

One way of understanding just how bad the legislative sausage-making process has become in Congress is to compare it with the performance of Montana's part-time citizen Legislature. Consider that Montana lawmakers meet just once every two years for a grueling session that lasts for several months. By the end, even freshman legislators are pretty well versed in many of the bills that have been debated and voted on, and most legislators are certainly familiar with the most important bills.

The same cannot be said for members of the U.S. House, even with their expansive and expensive staffs, when it comes to cap-and-trade, the most consequential legislation to be considered by Congress so far this year.

Thus, we ask Congress to follow one simple rule: If you don't understand it, don't vote for it. That wouldn't end all the trouble Congress causes, but it would be a start.