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
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."