- The Foundry: Conservative Policy News from The Heritage Foundation - http://blog.heritage.org -
CBO Plays "Let's Pretend" on Kerry–Lieberman Scoring
Posted By David Kreutzer, Ph.D. On July 8, 2010 @ 10:00 am In Energy | Comments Disabled
Here’s a principles-of-economics question: Suppose the U.S. gross domestic product (national income) is currently $14 trillion. Then suppose the U.S. raised all tariff, income tax, and sales tax rates to 100 percent. How much money would the government collect? If you realized that nobody would generate taxable income under such a regime and answered “zero,” congratulations.
If, instead, you answered $14 trillion, you may have a future at the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), because that is how they analyze (score) the fiscal impacts of the Kerry–Lieberman climate change bill. In defense of the many good economists at the CBO, the Kabuki Theater of legislation-scoring requires they use static analysis—that is, they have to assume that higher tax rates do not affect investment or work-effort decisions and, therefore, have no negative impact on national income and income-tax revenues.
This leads to the sort of stylized ritual we observed Wednesday. First, the CBO sent the lead sponsor a letter  estimating the costs of the Kerry–Lieberman cap-and-trade climate bill, in which analysts assume no detrimental impact on national income despite tax increases of hundreds of billions of dollars per year. Then Senators Kerry and Lieberman issued a statement earnestly announcing the CBO’s unrealistic projection of a $19 billion deficit reduction as though people might actually believe it. And finally, in Act III, the media  reported the results with a straight face.
Please note that, even though Senator Kerry said this isn’t a cap-and-trade bill , we can be pretty sure that’s what it is because (1) Senator Lieberman said it is a cap-and-trade bill ; (2) the CBO said it is a cap-and-trade bill (actually they said it “would establish two separate regulatory initiatives known as cap-and-trade programs”); and (3) it has to be a cap-and-trade bill—it directs the EPA to cap allowed CO2 emissions, and the associated permits can be traded.
If it seems like déjà vu, don’t worry, you have seen this before in the form of the wildly unpopular Waxman–Markey and Kerry–Boxer bills from last year. How different is Kerry–Lieberman? Here’s what the CBO letter says about Kerry–Lieberman in comparison to the two bills from last year:
Regarding the GHG cap-and-trade program, all three pieces of legislation include roughly the same caps on emissions, roughly cover the same entities, and allow for about the same amount of total offsets used to satisfy compliance.
The CBO notes that the new bill (Kerry–Lieberman) throws some bones to the nuclear power industry and adds not-so-likely-now revenue-sharing for oil-and-gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf. Also, in what would be a good first step if they were to carry it forward a couple of centuries, the full onset of the bill’s provisions are delayed a couple of years.
In short, this bill is last-year’s model with a new hood ornament and some mud flaps. So, using the Kerry–Boxer bill from last fall as a guide, here’s what we could expect  should the bill become law:
The Senators’ statement and the CBO letter ignore almost all of the important economic impacts of the proposed legislation. Instead there is a bit of hoopla over one laughably optimistic estimate for one really expensive bill.
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org
URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/08/cbo-plays-lets-pretend-on-kerry%e2%80%93lieberman-scoring/
URLs in this post:
 letter: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11565/AmericanPowerActKerryLtr.pdf
 media: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38130006/ns/politics-capitol_hill/?ocid=twitter
 Senator Kerry said this isn’t a cap-and-trade bill: http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/09/28/28climatewire-boxer-kerry-set-to-introduce-climate-bill-in-43844.html
 Senator Lieberman said it is a cap-and-trade bill: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/10/AR2009121002659.html
 what we could expect: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/01/What-Boxer-Kerry-Will-Cost-the-Economy
Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.