CBO: Kerry-Lieberman bill trims deficit by $19B over 10 years

[cal04]

Source: The Hill

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.





Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/107501-cbo-kerry-lieberman-bill-trims-deficit-by-19b-over-10-years

[msongs]

1. what's that, the cost of ONE submarine made in Lieberman's district? nt

[saigon68]

3. Joementum Limpmann= traitor ass hat

[No Elephants]

15. What does erectile dysfunction have to do with treason?

(Don't mind me. I can't even figure out what testicles have to do with courage.)

[EJSTES2005]

5. like paying $19 on $10K loan...............

[Imajika]

2. This is not going anywhere...

"The American Power Act would cost taxpayers $732 billion over the next 10 years"

There is no chance that anything with $732 billion in fees and taxes is going to pass unless it were 100% for deficit reduction.

Maybe when the economy is better, but certainly not right now.

[Myrina]

4. ... if Joe's name is on it, I don't trust it.

There's gotta be something underhanded in some really small type, somewhere in that bill.

[politicasista]

9. Yep. Unfortunate that Kerry/Boxer did not have enough votes

Has a better ring than K/L and Graham (he trippin about the Teabaggers).

[smoochpooch]

6. Great news, how long till Lieberman votes against it?

Better yet, I hope he spends weeks marshaling votes only to have a couple Dems back out and fuck him at the last minute.

Fuck you Joe, I'll never forgive you and your ass-hattery.

[proud patriot]

7. LOL

My feelings exactly

[humbled_opinion]

8. I am a little bit ignorant here but...

It says that the legislation would bring in even more revenue then the amount that it costs...

1. What exactly will the taxpayers be buying
2. What exactly will the government get revenue on
3. Is there a danger that Carbon energy producers could increase costs to consumers to cover their end of the cost output to government?
4. Is there a danger of mass inflation because business that is impacted will raise costs to consumers?
5. Is there a danger the energy resources could be rationed?

Thank you for schooling me.

[The Croquist]

13. Schooling me

That's a bit of a stretch since I'm schooling myself here too. Here is what I'm finding.

1. Theoretically the taxpayers are not buying anything.

2. CO2 producers will be paying for additional CO2 emissions over and above their emissions the year before. That means that businesses that are growing will be punished. That also means that parts of the country that are growing the fastest will be punished.

3. There is no question that the costs will be passed on to the consumer. That's the way it works. There are subsidies in place. They include; Corn (can't ignore that Iowa primary!), nuclear, natural gas and coal carbon capture. All of these, of course, will be paid out of the revenue generated which means the consumer. I thought I read somewhere that there were additional subsidies for consumers but I can't find it now. Regardless, a subsidy to a consumer is counter productive. If you want less CO2 to be released you need to discourage the people releasing it from releasing it and ultimately that is the consumer.

4. I doubt there will be "mass inflation" but there will be inflation as a result.

5. I doubt that there will be any additional rationing but places that need to build additional power plants will pass the increased cost on.

[RBInMaine]

10. GOOD ! Pass it now !

[Psephos]

11. A word of caution regarding CBO estimates.

The CBO is required to use the wording of the bill and its supplied data and assumptions when making its calculations. Factors that can/will affect the analysis that aren't spelled out cannot be used. Furthermore, the analysis is static, not dynamic. In other words, the analysis assumes that businesses and individuals do not change their tax behaviors and strategies, and that the economy is not in flux. Garbage in, garbage out. Quality in, quality out.

As we are seeing with the health insurance bill, the real-world costs and projections can be at quite a variance with the synthetic numbers.

A larger point: impact on the deficit is not the problem. Impact on growth is the problem. Consistent, above-normal growth alone can prevent a US government default on national debt and future entitlement obligations. If the US can't average 3.5% year-on-year growth from here forward, the government will enter a credit death spiral as soon as interest rates on Treasury bonds rise a couple of points. That won't be long in coming.

[defendandprotect]

12. We could cut MIC budget by 28% if we simply COMBINED the services . . .

as most other nations have done -- !!

28% --- !!!

[No Elephants]

14. WOW! Someone actually thought under $2 billion a year for 10 years merited bandwidth!111!!!!

Does $1.9 billion even cover a full hour in Iraq and Afghanistan?