All Swans Start As Ugly Ducklings: Healthcare Reform In Perspectiveby Norbrook <http://norbrook.dailykos.com/> - Dec 26, 2009
Thursday, I wrote a diary entitled Damn, that's an ugly baby! <http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/24/818769/-Damn,-Thats-An-Ugly-Ba\ by%21> As the battle over the healthcare legislation in Congress continues, I thought it would be helpful to remember that this isn't the end of the process. Many laws that today we consider "signature" pieces of legislation were actually very ugly at the beginning. The important thing is to remember that they were the beginning. Why is it important? Let's switch to another concern: Climate change. Recently the EPA announced plans to regulate greenhouse gases as a health hazard. A quick scan of the news shows that this is unwelcome to corporations and Republicans. But no one says that the EPA can't regulate it - the debate is whether it should. Why is that remarkable, and what lessons does that have for HCR? If you ask most environmentalists today about which laws were landmarks, one of the answers will be the Clean Air Act of 1970 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_1970> . It was the law that established the air quality standards, and the power to regulate emissions. A remarkable achievement, which has led to much better air quality. Except, the title of the law isn't the Clean Air Act. The actual title of the 1970 act is: The Clean Air Act Extension of 1970. "An Act to amend the Clean Air Act to provide for a more effective program to improve the quality of the Nation's air." (emphasis mine) That's right. One of the landmark environmental laws wasn't written as a new law. It was written to amend an existing law. That it was a complete re-write of the law, for all intents and purposes a new law, does not change the fact that the Clean Air Act was already the law. The first legislation about air pollution was the Air Pollution Control Act of 1955. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Pollution_Control_Act> This law really didn't do much. It had no enforcement provisions. It simply directed the Surgeon General to to conduct research, investigate, and pass out information "relating to air pollution and the prevention and abatement thereof." If you look at it, it's a very weak law. It still regards air pollution regulation as a local or state responsibility, not a national one. Why would we ever think this law was important? As weak and pathetic as this law looks today, it's important because it did something else: It reserved to Congress the right to control this problem. It established the principle that Congress could pass laws relating to air pollution - in effect, turning what had been a strictly local or state responsibility into a federal responsibility. That air pollution is a cross-border problem, and controlling it should be a federal responsibility seems blindingly obvious today, but it wasn't then. In 1963 <http://www.ametsoc.org/sloan/cleanair/cleanairlegisl.html#caa63> , the actual "Clean Air Act" was passed. It wasn't very strong either. It granted $95 million over a three year period to state and local governments and air pollution control agencies in order to conduct research and create control programs. This act also recognized the dangers of motor vehicle exhaust, and it encouraged the development of emissions standards from these sources as well as from stationary sources. Interstate air pollution from the use of high sulfur coal and oil also needed to be reduced; therefore, this act encouraged the use of technology which removed sulfur from these fuels. To continue action in this area, the Clean Air Act promoted ongoing research, investigations, surveys, and experiments Notice something? It's still considered the states' responsibility to regulate or control air pollution. There's no federal regulatory or enforcement capability built in. It's reads as an expanded version of the 1955 law. It's weak, toothless, and doesn't seem to be doing much except to add motor vehicles exhaust to the mix, and increase funding. It would be ignored, considered a failure, except for one thing: Every other "clean air act" is an amendment to this law. It's the basis of what we have today. The amendments came in rapid succession: The Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Vehicle_Air_Pollution_Control_Act> in 1965, which set vehicle emissions standards. The Air Quality Act of 1967, which for set national1970 Act <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_%281970%29> , which many consider the "real" act, which not only set new standards and federal powers, it gave a new agency - the Environmental Protection Agency - its authority to act. standards for emissions, and set a timetable for meeting them. Then the 54 years ago, a weak, flawed piece of legislation was passed. It didn't do anything to control air pollution. It didn't set any standards. It didn't have enforcement built into it. It didn't even have a lot of funding. 8 years later, another piece of legislation was passed. It wasn't much better. But they were the beginning. As weak and toothless as these laws were, they set into law the principles that enabled the 1970 law. 39 years later, the idea that the federal government doesn't have the power to control air quality, that it shouldn't set emissions standards is ridiculous. Few people would agree with you if you said it didn't. Exactly how strictly various emissions should be regulated, or whether it's necessary to regulate a particular one is the subject of heated debate, but not the authority of the government to do so. Air pollution standards and their enforcement are taken for granted. What we should keep in mind as we debate the current healthcare reform legislation is this: It's the beginning, not the end. We should regard this as the equivalent of the 1963 Clean Air Act. The environmental movement was able to push for the 1970 Act and get it enacted because the horrible, terrible, awful, pathetic 1955 Act and its almost as bad 1963 successor existed. They set the principles of federal responsibility into law, and are the base on which everything was later built. As the current health care reform legislation goes to conference, the hope is that it will come out better than what the Senate passed. We should work to make it that way. Despite that, whatever emerges from conference will not be pretty. It'll be an ugly piece of legislation, packed with compromises, weakened provisions, lacking regulatory teeth, and missing funding for important areas. It's not going to be what we dreamed of. The healthcare reform law isn't what we hoped for - but it is setting a principle into law. The idea that the government has the responsibility to provide - or help to provide - healthcare to all its citizens. Yes, this is an awful piece of legislation. It falls far short of the goal. Just like the 1963 Clean Air Act, the 1957 Civil Rights Act <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1957> , the Social Security Act <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_%28United_States%29> or any other progressive first law did. The law can be amended, if we elect more progressives. We need to keep working. It can be the start of what we want - universal, single-payer healthcare. No, we didn't get what we wanted this time, but we have a beginning. History shows us that previous great progressive achievements were ugly at the beginning. Let's not forget that ugly ducklings can turn into swans, if the egg is allowed to hatch. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/12/26/75325/042
