Nancy Pelosi, et al, got the Waxman-Markey carbon tax bill through the House of Representatives by a very narrow vote yesterday.  All accounts indicate that Pelosi pulled out the stops, calling in every favor and twisting every arm she could, to get her “legacy” legislation through.  Interestingly, Harry Reid is going to hold the bill in the Senate until this fall, conceding that he lacks the votes to pass it.

The Senate, of course, consists of representation per state, not by population.  If you parse the demographics, you can understand why Reid may not be able to get a cap-and-trade bill through. See the Geography of the Vote map published by the New York Times. [I know, but it's free, so suck it in and look.] Assuming that the Congressmen voted as they thought their constituents would vote, there are only about 18 states — 36 Senate seats — which are “safe” venues for a Waxman-Markey carbon tax bill. They are concentrated in the upper northeast, the upper midwest, and the west coast.

While the alignment won’t break down that neatly, the geography does indicate the nature and extent of the problem: there are some 64 Senators from states where, according to the House vote, there is majority sentiment against Waxman-Markey, a/k/a Taxman-Malarkey.

President Obama started lobbying the Senate this morning and environmental heavyweights are planning their campaigns.  Those opposing the carbon tax still have an excellent chance of defeating it this year.

So why did Nancy Pelosi spend so much political capital to get this measure through the House? So far, I am at a loss to comprehend, other than her attitude that “we won the election, we get to make the laws.”