By now I'm sure you know that the House of Representatives passed, by a surprisingly narrow margin, the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, which we conservatives tend to call the "cap-and-trade" bill (that is, when we refer to it in language suitable for this blog). The bad news the bill will bring to the American economy and to our pocketbooks is well-documented. Despina Karras and Justin Higgins have the basic numbers as well as some other figures with which you might not be as familiar (did you know that the CBO analysis didn't factor in the likely hit to GDP caused by the bill or that the worst effects won't be felt for another 16 years?).
So, with the House vote, the future looks bleak, or does it? Just because the bill has passed the House doesn't mean the fight over cap-and-trade is done. The Senate has yet to take up the matter and, according to James Pethokoukis, there is some good news to consider. Nancy Pelosi had to do some industrial-strength horse trading to get her victory and that doesn't necessarily translate into victory in the Senate. Be sure to read his whole post, but this part is worth special attention (emphasis in the original):
The same delicate, precise formula that allowed the bill to succeed in that chamber won’t work in the Senate. For instance, more than a quarter of the bill’s House support came from the California and New York delegations whose members account for a fifth of the House. But those two states, notes Jay Cost of RealClearPolitics, make up just four percent of the Senate. A cap-and-trade bill that can’t pass the House by a big margin probably can’t pass the Senate by even a narrow one.
Conservatives and other folks who like their economy without gaping holes shot in them by half-baked Democratic central control schemes based on panic-mongering shouldn't let up now. Democrats like Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) still have some incorrect assumptions about what the public really thinks of their plans and are not yet fully under the sway of the global warming faithful.
Focusing some attention on the most ridiculous streetcorner shriekers probably wouldn't be a bad idea either.