Kerry, Lieberman Unveil Climate Bill Without Graham

Joined by over a dozen stakeholders, but absent the presence of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) put forth their much-anticipated energy bill today, the American Power Act (APA).

After months of delay, the duo decided they could no longer wait for Graham, an original co-author of the bill, to move forward with them. Graham has expressed displeasure over the Obama administration's calls for Congress to take up work on immigration reform. Earlier in the day, however, Kerry told MSNBC that Graham will support the bill, which If enacted, he said, would leave a positive print on just about every aspect of American society.

"The bill that we are introducing today...will restore America's economy and reassert our position as a global leader in clean energy technology," he said. "It will create millions of jobs, move us towards energy independence and strengthen America's security. And it will give us cleaner air."

The Kerry-Lieberman bill is being framed as somewhat of a compromise between the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), passed by the House last year, and the broad energy proposal laid out by President Obama. On a controversial item known as cap and trade, a system by which companies are provided with economic incentives for limiting their emissions, the APA would gradually implement the policy, first on utilities and industries, and then on the broader economy by 2025. The President's plan calls for the imposition of an economy-wide system of cap and trade, while the House bill would mandate cap and trade for utilities, industries and big oil starting in 2012.

Similar to both the White House plan and the House bill, the APA aims to lower emissions by 80% below 2005 levels by the year 2050. Yet unlike them, the APA contains support for nuclear energy and natural gas, items that could win the support of conservative Democrats and Republicans. In addition, its price tag is slightly lower than both its counterpart in the House and the administration's plan. Another key difference is its inclusion of language that would allow states to opt out of offshore drilling within 75 miles of their coast.

But although the bill attempts to usher in a new era of clean energy usage in the U.S., many of its provisions already face legions of criticism. For starters, opponents say it will ration energy use for Americans by increasing the cost of everyday consumption for businesses and individuals.

Ben Lieberman, a senior energy and environment policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told Talk Radio News Service that the APA amounts to nothing more than a giant energy tax.

"The only way to reduce these greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels is to raise the cost of energy," he said. "They have to raise costs high enough so that people are forced to use less, that's how this works."

In addition, there are concerns about the bill's impact on the nation's coal industry, which has lately been the focus of an intense debate in Washington over energy safety due to the tragic deaths of dozens of miners in West Virginia earlier this year. Though the APA contains weaker financial restrictions on coal production than the House bill, critics believe the administration favors moving completely away from coal. In fact, days before he was elected President in 2008, Mr. Obama said "if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

According to Lieberman, the net effect of smaller investment in coal and natural gas will be increased unemployment.

'Sure, there's a few 'make-work' jobs created in specialized industries that will deal with reducing emissions," he said. "But overall the impact is negative; higher cost of energy and fewer jobs."

Click here for more on the American Power Act

Will Social Security suffer under an Obama-Biden administration?

The McCain-Palin campaign says the Obama-Biden campaign’s tax plan will have a downward effect on Social Security solvency by giving Americans credit for their payroll tax liability. The campaign’s Senior Policy Adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin said the Obama campaign plans to relieve Americans of payroll taxes, and by doing would “rob Social Security indirectly,” because payroll taxes finance social security, as well as medicare.

Former U.S. Senator Dan Coats (R-Ind.) said, “The rhetoric and record of Barack Obama clearly supports higher taxes and more spending...At a time of financial crisis that we’re all going through right now, the idea of raising taxes is counter to what virtually every economist who has ever written, or studied, or analyzed the situation would recommend. You don’t raise taxes in a fiscal downturn”. Holtz-Eakin explained that the impact of raising taxes hurts small businesses first, who generate “80 to 90 percent of new jobs in America.”

Former Senator Coats added that another one of the main differences between the McCain-Palin campaign and the Obama-Biden campaign is that McCain supports the use of coal in the mid-west, where Coats says there are abundant coal resources and new clean coal technologies.