You are hereForums / Issues / Other Issues / Energy Bill to Reduce Defict by $19 Billion
Energy Bill to Reduce Defict by $19 Billion
Link from The Hill. Kerry/Lieberman Energy Bill to reduce deficit by $19 billion over 10 years. Well, if this doesn't convince a few Republicans to come on board, I'm not sure what will. This bill should actually be called the "Kerry, Lieberman, Graham Energy/Climate Change Legislation" bill since Sen. Graham helped craft it... but that was before he vowed to vote against his own bill because those Democrats said the "I" word-Immigration Reform. Such maturity in Congress! I hope this great news will boost the energy reform effort! You know the first thing we'll hear from the GOP: CBO is just plain wrong (flashback to health care reform...ugh!) Palin-get your Facebook rants ready for this one!
An energy and climate bill co-sponsored by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.)
and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) would reduce the deficit by $19 billion
during the next decade, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found
Wednesday.
The American Power Act would cost taxpayers $732 billion over the next 10 years, but bring in even more revenue, the nonpartisan budget office reported.
"There
is no more room for excuses — this must be our year to pass
comprehensive climate and energy legislation and begin to send a price
signal on carbon," Kerry and Lieberman said in a statement. "Many of
our colleagues have said they flatly oppose anything that adds a penny
to the deficit, so we hope they look anew at this initiative which
reduces it.”
The CBO report could give the legislation a boost
among deficit hawks before lawmakers return from recess next week.
Democratic leaders have said they hope to proceed with some kind of
energy and climate bill this summer or fall, though it's not clear what
shape that legislation will take.
The score could be
particularly appealing to Midwestern Democrats, who have raised fears
that the bill would be too much of a tax on the economy, particularly
for states relying more on fossil fuels.
The CBO also
projected the Kerry-Lieberman bill wouldn't increase deficits in
decades to come "because additional direct spending would be less than
the additional net revenues attributable to the legislation in each of
those periods."
I know it sounds crazy, but is there any consideration of doing the energy bill through reconciliation? If they try bipartisanship (which the GOP is saying no to anyway) we know how this ends. The bill will be watered down with no tax on carbon (which is the part that helps pay for the bill) Therefore, the new GOP bill will probably add to the deficit and be weak. Oh, and the GOP members will tease support along the way, foot drag and try to prolong progress on this as long as possible. So is there any real advantage to NOT doing reconciliation? You get a better bill that reduces the deficit and you get Progressives excited enough to come to the polls. Surely, Reid could find 51 willing Democrats. Remember how toxic the GOP warned reconciliation would be for Dem's in health care reform? Most people have forgotten the process and are starting to be grateful as they see it work for them (thus it is now more popular than ever.) The problem with health care and reconciliation was that they waited until the GOP gutted the bill and took out a public option before using it. If nothing else, if the Dem's threaten reconciliation, it might just bring the GOP to the table in a serious way.
Update: Just saw this article from the Washington Post from April on the topic. Sigh.
Meanwhile, the possibility of losing Graham has left some people wondering what would happen if climate-change legislation had to be passed through reconciliation. Politically, there's almost no chance of this. But putting the politics aside for a second, what would happen to the policy? David Roberts, in a post that includes pictures of adorable teacup pigs, explains:
You could imagine some sort of two-bill strategy, but if you had the support for that, you'd have the support for lots of things. "In short," concludes Roberts, "reconciliation -- like Cantwell-Collins, like the carbon tax, like the energy-only bill, like so many others that have come and gone in this debate -- is another pony, gamboling just out of reach, enticing largely because it it's hypothetical, serving mostly to distract attention from the haggard pack horse that is, for all her faults and infirmities, the only ride we've really got." That horse, in case you're confused, is the Kerry-Lieberman-Graham bill.