Senate energy bill faces job-creation doubts

After months, Senators Kerry and Lieberman submit their energy bill and the first thing we learn is that they have overstated the amount of jobs created according to the CBO.

But a recent CBO study casts doubt on the measure's job-creating potential. The May 5 report, which analyzed how policies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions could affect employment, concluded that total employment during the next few decades "would be slightly lower than would be the case in the absence of such policies."

There is something about John Kerry being involved in an energy bill that automatically throws up red flags that just maybe this bill is more about new regulations than anything else. What was once a bi-partisan bill with Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on board as Graham pulled out several weeks ago from this bill over immigration? Something is missing from that statement but we still don't know what it is because the two are not tied together from what we can tell.

We decided to look at who are members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and Environment and Public Works Committee and discovered that neither Senator Kerry or Senator Lieberman are members of either committee. Senator Graham was not as well so originally we had three Senators not even on these committees who wrote the bill.

The timing of the BP oil spill just happens to coincide with the tightening of off shore drilling by the Kerry and Lieberman in this bill not even recognizing that BP didn't follow standard procedure. Now this group and Obama have a bully pulpit they are using against big oil in this so-called 'energy bill' they have introduced.

Since BP sold out to the environmentalist years ago, the American people deserve answers on why they changed drilling procedures on the last stages of the drilling that led to the blowout and death of 11 men. Is it possible this was supposed to be a small spill to highlight the dangers of off shore oil drilling that got out of hand completely? We hate to think so but something smells about this whole deal. First thing that Obama mentioned about this bill was the oil spill and yet some wonder why many of us are questioning what happened and why.

President Obama praised the bill, saying the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico underlined the need for energy reform.

"For too long, Washington has kicked this challenge to the next generation," Mr. Obama said in a prepared statement. "This time, the status quo is no longer acceptable to Americans."

Then Kerry weighed in as well:

Mr. Kerry said the so-called "American Power Act" would convert the nation's energy policy "from a national weakness into a national strength."

"We can finally tell the world that America is ready to take back our role as the world's clean-energy leader," the Massachusetts Democrat said. "This is a bill for energy independence after a devastating oil spill."

This bill also goes after coal once again by putting a price on carbon emissions used by coal powered plants. It is more of the cap and trade nonsense we have been hearing about for months that essentially is dead on arrival in the Senate no matter how much fanfare that Kerry and Lieberman want to trot out.

We wish someone would clue us in about this $6B annually to improve mass transportation throughout the Country. That seems such a small amount when you have such wide open spaces once you leave the east coast states. On the west coast you only have to drive 60-75 miles inland to be in fairly wide open country even in California. Is $6B a year is going to make a difference? The way government at all levels waste money we say it will make little difference if any and put the states more in debt as they will probably have to spend some of their own resources they don't have in today's economy of cut-backs.

Senator Barrasso (R-WY) is the lone Republican to serve on both the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and Environment and Public Works Committee, said the bill was deeply flawed.

"Families in Wyoming and across America have made it clear: They want more jobs, cheaper energy and lower taxes. This bill doesn't reflect these important priorities, [and] in fact it does exactly the opposite," he said.

Our money is on the side of Sen Barrasso whose comments hit at the core of the problem with the Kerry/Lieberman bill. Unlike Kerry and Lieberman, Barrasso is a member of both committees while they are a member of neither Committee. We are waiting for Senator Inhofe to weigh in on this next which should provide some interesting soundbites.

Senate energy bill faces job-creation doubts
CBO study questions predictions of a boost to the economy
May 13, 2010
By Sean Lengell

Long-awaited legislation designed to reduce fossil-fuel use, curb carbon emissions and impose tighter restrictions on offshore drilling was introduced in the Senate on Wednesday, although the bill faces scrutiny from Republicans and moderate Democrats concerned about its economic impact.

Promises that the bill — authored by Sens. John Kerry and Joe Lieberman — would add a significant number of energy-related jobs also has come under question, most notably by the independent Congressional Budget Office.

(snip)

The Senate bill, which had been months in the making and involved hundreds of meetings, aims to cut by 2020 carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases by 17 percent below 2005 levels, and more than 80 percent by 2050. It also would set a price on carbon emissions for large polluters such as coal-fired power plants.

The bill calls for a single set of rules for achieving greenhouse-gas-emissions reductions instead of a patchwork of state and federal regulations. States wouldn't be allowed to operate their own "cap and trade" emissions-trading programs.

It would allow coastal states to opt out of federal drilling up to 75 miles from their shores — a concession to lawmakers worried about offshore drilling accidents in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

States could veto drilling plans of neighboring states if the Interior Department determined that a leak could cause a significant economical and environmental negative impact.

Those states that go ahead with offshore drilling would retain 37.5 percent of the federal revenue generated. Currently, royalty revenue goes to the Treasury Department, with states getting nothing.

(snip)

Excerpt: Read more at Washington Times