Save $19 billion? Republicans say NO to Fiscal Responsibility to pay Down Deficit.

You know, we could save more if …

That's the answer I think we'll get from the Republicans, who will discount the CBO estimates on money saved with the new energy legislation, insisting they can save even more money with deregulation and more tax breaks paid for by the taxpayer.

Congressional budget experts say a climate and energy bill now stalled in the Senate would reduce the federal deficit by about $19 billion over the next decade. The report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office was the second positive analysis of the bill by a government agency in a month, but is likely to carry more weight than a similar report issued by the Environmental Protection Agency.

After all, what would the EPA know, right?

In its report Wednesday, the CBO said the energy bill would increase federal revenues by about $751 billion from 2011 to 2020, mostly though the sale of carbon credits in so-called a cap-and-trade plan to be applied to utilities and other sectors of the economy. The legislation has been panned by many Republicans as a "national energy tax." No GOP senator has signed on as a co-sponsor.

But reducing the federal deficit isn't something the Republicans want to talk about right now. They're concentrating on the increases to the deficit, regardless of the Demoratic plans to reduce it. There's an election to win, and planning ahead while saving taxpayer money is not in the GOP's or their strong suit. It's always easier to whine about something to jazz up the base of low information voters.

An analysis by the EPA last month concluded that the Senate bill, dubbed the American Power Act, would cost households an average of $79 to $146 per year … Americans are willing to pay less than a dollar a day to … reduce oil imports and create energy-related jobs … lawmakers have begun considering the more modest approach that would limit the carbon tax to the electricity sector. Some White House officials have begun to speak favorably about such a "utility-only" approach, which they believe could be more attractive to Republicans.

Who gives a rats ass about making it more attractive to the Republicans.