Bachmann Perpetuates Boehner’s Refuted $3000 Light-Switch Tax Myth

[Life_Long_Dem!]

Last week, MIT professor John Reilly called out Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) for intentionally misrepresenting Reilly’s cap-and-trade study to claim that President Obama’s emissions reduction scheme would cost American families more than $3,000 a year. “It’s just wrong,” Reilly told the St. Petersburg Times in reference to Boehner’s use of his study. “It’s wrong in so many ways it’s hard to begin.”

Well, that didn’t stop Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) from hopping on board the Boehner train. This morning, she wrote an op-ed in the Star Tribune that kept Boehner’s distortions alive, and then some. She argued:

Any way you look at it, it’s low- and middle-income Americans who will pay dearly for this. According to an analysis by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the average American household could expect its yearly energy bill to increase by $3,128 per year. Using an analysis by Peter Orszag, President Obama’s budget director, that number would be closer to $4,000.

I can’t speak for Peter Orszag, but I have a feeling he would take issue with these numbers, too. A report issued by the Congressional Budget Office, of which Orszag was director until he was tapped for his new post, estimated that low-income families would see their bills increase by $680 annually. But since Obama’s cap-and-trade scheme, as outlined in his budget proposal, would give these families an $800 rebate, they’d actually come out ahead.

The Washington Independent » Bachmann Perpetuates Boehner’s Refuted $3000 Light-Switch Tax Myth

 

[Life_Long_Dem!]

why do repubs think we are so stupid as to not realize that THEY are lying to us...even the cbo's numbers dont match what they say....look at the graph posted in the original linked story!

 

[Xenophon]

The stupid one is YOU, raising energy rates in a recession FOR NOTHING is stupidity itself.

And what about people that don't qualify for 'rebates', they have to pay, even at that widely optomistic number, another 680 bucks per year.

That is NOT looking out for the little guy, it's pure democrat over-tax idiocy, and only morons would support it.

 

[driveby]

Last week, MIT professor John Reilly called out Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) for intentionally misrepresenting Reilly’s cap-and-trade study to claim that President Obama’s emissions reduction scheme would cost American families more than $3,000 a year. “It’s just wrong,” Reilly told the St. Petersburg Times in reference to Boehner’s use of his study. “It’s wrong in so many ways it’s hard to begin.”

Well, that didn’t stop Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) from hopping on board the Boehner train. This morning, she wrote an op-ed in the Star Tribune that kept Boehner’s distortions alive, and then some. She argued:

Any way you look at it, it’s low- and middle-income Americans who will pay dearly for this. According to an analysis by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the average American household could expect its yearly energy bill to increase by $3,128 per year. Using an analysis by Peter Orszag, President Obama’s budget director, that number would be closer to $4,000.

I can’t speak for Peter Orszag, but I have a feeling he would take issue with these numbers, too. A report issued by the Congressional Budget Office, of which Orszag was director until he was tapped for his new post, estimated that low-income families would see their bills increase by $680 annually. But since Obama’s cap-and-trade scheme, as outlined in his budget proposal, would give these families an $800 rebate, they’d actually come out ahead.

The Washington Independent » Bachmann Perpetuates Boehner’s Refuted $3000 Light-Switch Tax Myth

1) It's not a lie.

2) If want want to talk lies, lets talk about all the "green energy jobs" that will be created.


Now crawl back to whatever Daily KOS hole you crawled out of, thanks ...

 

[C-101]

Last week, MIT professor John Reilly called out Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) for intentionally misrepresenting Reilly’s cap-and-trade study to claim that President Obama’s emissions reduction scheme would cost American families more than $3,000 a year. “It’s just wrong,” Reilly told the St. Petersburg Times in reference to Boehner’s use of his study. “It’s wrong in so many ways it’s hard to begin.”

Well, that didn’t stop Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) from hopping on board the Boehner train. This morning, she wrote an op-ed in the Star Tribune that kept Boehner’s distortions alive, and then some. She argued:

Any way you look at it, it’s low- and middle-income Americans who will pay dearly for this. According to an analysis by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the average American household could expect its yearly energy bill to increase by $3,128 per year. Using an analysis by Peter Orszag, President Obama’s budget director, that number would be closer to $4,000.

I can’t speak for Peter Orszag, but I have a feeling he would take issue with these numbers, too. A report issued by the Congressional Budget Office, of which Orszag was director until he was tapped for his new post, estimated that low-income families would see their bills increase by $680 annually. But since Obama’s cap-and-trade scheme, as outlined in his budget proposal, would give these families an $800 rebate, they’d actually come out ahead.

It's hardly a myth.

In fact, the system is not a flat carbon tax for everyone, it's based upon a per-capita basis.

But the greatest inequities are geographic and would be imposed on the parts of the U.S. that rely most on manufacturing or fossil fuels -- particularly coal, which generates most power in the Midwest, Southern and Plains states. It's no coincidence that the liberals most invested in cap and trade -- Barbara Boxer, Henry Waxman, Ed Markey -- come from California or the Northeast.

Coal provides more than half of U.S. electricity, and 25 states get more than 50% of their electricity from conventional coal-fired generation. In Ohio, it totals 86%, according to the Energy Information Administration. Ratepayers in Indiana (94%), Missouri (85%), New Mexico (80%), Pennsylvania (56%), West Virginia (98%) and Wyoming (95%) are going to get soaked.

Another way to think about it is in terms of per capita greenhouse-gas emissions. California is the No. 2 carbon emitter in the country but also has a large economy and population. So the average Californian only had a carbon footprint of about 12 tons of CO2-equivalent in 2005, according to the World Resource Institute's Climate Analysis Indicators, which integrates all government data. The situation is very different in Wyoming and North Dakota -- paging Senators Mike Enzi and Kent Conrad -- where every person was responsible for 154 and 95 tons, respectively. See the nearby chart for cap and trade's biggest state winners and losers.


Democrats say they'll allow some of this ocean of new cap-and-trade revenue to trickle back down to the public. In his budget, Mr. Obama wants to recycle $525 billion through the "making work pay" tax credit that goes to many people who don't pay income taxes. But $400 for individuals and $800 for families still doesn't offset carbon's income raid, especially in states with higher carbon use.

All the more so because the Administration is lowballing its cap-and-trade tax estimates. Its stated goal is to reduce emissions 14% below 2005 levels by 2020, which assuming that four-fifths of emissions are covered (excluding agriculture, for instance), works out to about $13 or $14 per ton of CO2. When CBO scored a similar bill last year, it expected prices to start at $23 and rise to $44 by 2018. CBO also projected the total value of the allowances at $902 billion over the first decade, which is some $256 billion more than the Administration's estimate.

Source: Wall Street Journal: "Who Pays for Cap and Trade?"

This article points out that the tax is geographically dependent as well.

Wyoming citizens pollute at a per-capita rate of 154.4 tons per year and would be taxed at $14/ton under the Obama cap and trade program.

If we accept the current Administration's estimates, a family in Wyoming will pay $2161.60 in carbon taxes each year.

However, if we take the CBO's estimates from a similar cap and trade tax last year the cost for people in Wyoming would start at $3551.20 and would increase to $6793.6 by year 2018. (This is a more realistic indication of the effects of a carbon tax since the Obama administration likes to paint rosy pictures with their estimates.)

By contrast, a Californian who supposedly pollutes only at 12.8 tons of carbon per year would only be taxed $179.20 per year at $14/year and and $294.40 at the more realistic CBO estimate of $23/year.

Also, consider possible carbon taxes that might be placed upon businesses.

As the WSJ points out the heavily populated democrat states would be lightly taxed despite the fact that they are the biggest polluters overall.

Therefore, the democrats achieve two goals with this: They appease the environmentalist wackos and avoid anti-tax resentment from their blue state bastions.

Was the information Boehner and Bachmann used cherry-picked to provide the most shock?

Yes, but it was still a mathematical fact for some taxpayers who strangely enough, live in red states such as Wyoming or the Dakotas.

Overall, your article does the same cherry-picking of the least alarming data they can get to support a liberal viewpoint.

 

[Otter_Creek]

You were dumb enough to vote obama into the whitehouse. That's how dumb we know you are.

 

[garyd]

Cap and trade. AKA soaking the poor.

 

[Old Rocks]

Cap and trade. AKA soaking the poor.

Boy, are you guys good at talking shit. Look at where we are after eight years of your idiocy.

Cap and Trade. Better yet, just start shutting down the really dirty coal generators.

 

[krotchdog]

Cap and trade. AKA soaking the poor.

Boy, are you guys good at talking shit. Look at where we are after eight years of your idiocy.

Cap and Trade. Better yet, just start shutting down the really dirty coal generators.

If anyone wants to know who talks shit take a look at old mans posts in global warming. old rock knowingly posted a report by hansen in which hansen took a warm months weathers data and used the data in place of a cold months data, I pointed it out and old rock immeadiately posted showing how hansen had to go back and correct the data.

old rock let the bad report stand holding back the information old rock was holding

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/73527-climate-change-the-simple-argument-8.html

if old rock willingly posts a false report all of old rocks posts must be false.

make your own decision, check out the thread

old rock is a scurrilous lying crock of shit (this is not a flame, its old rocks words with old rocks name placed in front)

 

[Old Rocks]

Cap and trade. AKA soaking the poor.

Boy, are you guys good at talking shit. Look at where we are after eight years of your idiocy.

Cap and Trade. Better yet, just start shutting down the really dirty coal generators.

If anyone wants to know who talks shit take a look at old mans posts in global warming. old rock knowingly posted a report by hansen in which hansen took a warm months weathers data and used the data in place of a cold months data, I pointed it out and old rock immeadiately posted showing how hansen had to go back and correct the data.

old rock let the bad report stand holding back the information old rock was holding

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/73527-climate-change-the-simple-argument-8.html

if old rock willingly posts a false report all of old rocks posts must be false.

make your own decision, check out the thread

old rock is a scurrilous lying crock of shit (this is not a flame, its old rocks words with old rocks name placed in front)

Poor doggie, got his tail kicked, and is running around yelping.

 

[xotoxi]

Well, that didn’t stop Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) from hopping on board the Boehner train. This morning, she wrote an op-ed in the Star Tribune that kept Boehner’s distortions alive, and then some. She argued:

Any way you look at it, it’s low- and middle-income Americans who will pay dearly for this. According to an analysis by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the average American household could expect its yearly energy bill to increase by $3,128 per year. Using an analysis by Peter Orszag, President Obama’s budget director, that number would be closer to $4,000.

That's not surprising. I'm quickly learning that Bachmann is a complete idiot who is unable to conjure up an original thought with any ounce of truth or semblance of reality.

 

[tigerbob]

Last week, MIT professor John Reilly called out Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) for intentionally misrepresenting Reilly’s cap-and-trade study to claim that President Obama’s emissions reduction scheme would cost American families more than $3,000 a year. “It’s just wrong,” Reilly told the St. Petersburg Times in reference to Boehner’s use of his study. “It’s wrong in so many ways it’s hard to begin.”

Well, that didn’t stop Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) from hopping on board the Boehner train. This morning, she wrote an op-ed in the Star Tribune that kept Boehner’s distortions alive, and then some. She argued:

Any way you look at it, it’s low- and middle-income Americans who will pay dearly for this. According to an analysis by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the average American household could expect its yearly energy bill to increase by $3,128 per year. Using an analysis by Peter Orszag, President Obama’s budget director, that number would be closer to $4,000.

I can’t speak for Peter Orszag, but I have a feeling he would take issue with these numbers, too. A report issued by the Congressional Budget Office, of which Orszag was director until he was tapped for his new post, estimated that low-income families would see their bills increase by $680 annually. But since Obama’s cap-and-trade scheme, as outlined in his budget proposal, would give these families an $800 rebate, they’d actually come out ahead.

The Washington Independent » Bachmann Perpetuates Boehner’s Refuted $3000 Light-Switch Tax Myth

1) It's not a lie.

2) If want want to talk lies, lets talk about all the "green energy jobs" that will be created.


Now crawl back to whatever Daily KOS hole you crawled out of, thanks ...

Maybe we could find out why it's not a lie before changing the subject to green energy jobs (a valid point, but not the point in question).

If one of the authors of the report has said repeatedly it's a lie, then can someone explain to me how it isn't a lie?

Taxpayers may have been shocked to learn from House Republicans that President Barack Obama wants to pay for health care by charging them to turn on a light.

"The administration raises revenue for nationalized health care through a series of new taxes, including a light switch tax that would cost every American household $3,128 a year," the House Republican Conference said in a Web post and press release titled "Questions on the Budget for President Obama," distributed March 24. "What effect will this have on Americans struggling to pay their mortgages?" it asked.

This alleged "light switch tax" is a reference to Obama's proposal to tax power companies for carbon dioxide emissions, and allow companies to trade emissions credits among themselves. That's called a cap-and-trade program, and Republicans say the companies would just pass the tax on to electricity consumers.

So any revenue raised by a cap-and-trade program amounts to a "light switch tax" on consumers, the House Republicans alleged.

To back up the claim, their staff pointed us to an M.I.T. report that says a similar a cap-and-trade proposal (the administration has not yet detailed their own version) would raise $366 billion per year. If you divide that by the 117 million households in the United States, you find it would cost each household $3,128, they said.

But is it that simple? Can you just assume consumers would be out $366 billion since that's how much the program would raise from fuel companies?

No.

"It's just wrong," said John Reilly, an energy, environmental and agricultural economist at M.I.T. and one of the authors of the report. "It's wrong in so many ways it's hard to begin."

Not only is it wrong, but he told the House Republicans it was wrong when they asked him.

"Someone from the House Republicans had called me (March 20) and asked about this," Reilly said. "I had explained why the estimate they had was probably incorrect and what they should do to correct it, but I think this wrong number was already floating around by that time."

It continues to float.

That's just not how economists calculate the cost of a tax proposal, Reilly said. The tax might push the price of carbon-based fuels up a bit, but other results of a cap-and-trade program, such as increased conservation and more competition from other fuel sources, would put downward pressure on prices. Moreover, consumers would get some of the tax back from the government in some form.

The report did include an estimate of the net cost to individuals, called the "welfare" cost. It would be $30.89 per person in 2015, or $79 per family if you use the same average household size the Republicans used of 2.56 people.

The cost would grow over time as the program ramps up, but the average annual cost over time in today's dollars — that is, the "average annual net present value cost" — is still just $85 per person, Reilly said. That would be $215.05 per household.

A far cry from $3,128. And that isn't the only inaccuracy in the claim.

The Republican press release said the cap-and-trade program would pay for "nationalized health care."

But Obama's health care proposal is not for "nationalized health care." It does call for a "National Health Insurance Exchange" with private insurance options plus a new public plan based on the one currently available to members of Congress — but consumers could still keep their private insurance if they want, as Obama emphasized during his presidential campaign.

Even if it were true that Obama wants to nationalize health care, he does not envision paying for health care reform with the cap-and-trade program as the Republicans alleged. Rather, his $634 billion health care reserve fund is to come from efficiencies in Medicare and Medicaid and decreased deductions for some charitable contributions by upper-income taxpayers, according to Obama's proposed budget.

The House Republicans partially corrected this portion of the claim, changing their Web site and sending out an updated press release that says the cap-and-trade program would pay for "increased spending" rather than health care.

But it still calls cap-and-trade a "light switch tax" and claims the whole cost would come from consumers.

If the Republicans had simply misstated the results of the MIT study, the Truth-O-Meter would have been content giving this one a False. But for them to keep repeating the claim after the author of the study told them it was wrong means we have to set the meter ablaze. Pants on Fire.

PolitiFact | GOP full of hot air about Obama's "light switch tax"

That seems to be a well argued, factual and clear rationale. If it isn't, can someone say why? I have no ax to grind one way or the other, but this seems to me to be exactly the kind of politically motivated spin that I find so repugnant. Both parties do it, but on this occasion it appears to be the GOP who are guilty.

 

[krotchdog]

Boy, are you guys good at talking shit. Look at where we are after eight years of your idiocy.

Cap and Trade. Better yet, just start shutting down the really dirty coal generators.

If anyone wants to know who talks shit take a look at old mans posts in global warming. old rock knowingly posted a report by hansen in which hansen took a warm months weathers data and used the data in place of a cold months data, I pointed it out and old rock immeadiately posted showing how hansen had to go back and correct the data.

old rock let the bad report stand holding back the information old rock was holding

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/73527-climate-change-the-simple-argument-8.html

if old rock willingly posts a false report all of old rocks posts must be false.

make your own decision, check out the thread

old rock is a scurrilous lying crock of shit (this is not a flame, its old rocks words with old rocks name placed in front)

Poor doggie, got his tail kicked, and is running around yelping.

My fucking God!!! Old rock just licked my tail, you are one sick motherfucker. Its sick, I can feel the air, my god, leave me the fuck alone you old pervert. Why the hell would you run your sick perverted mind across my tail. You are disgusting. I am violated.