CBO

ORGOP Assails Nonexsistent, Debunked Climate "Tax" in Fundraiser Letter by: torridjoe Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 14:02:00 PM PDT Oh, those wacky Republicans! They'll drop a blatant falsehood in your lap, and when you take the time to point out how absurd and facts-bereft it is, they're chastened for about 2 seconds, then just go on repeating it in hopes that someone else who hears about it hasn't been told it's a load of Grade A Crapola. Remember "I killed the bridge to nowhere?" How about "Obamacare has death panels!" I could go on, but neither of us have THAT kind of time, to be exhaustive on all the lying we've seen from the party. I guess our OR GOP was just itching to get in on the tricks and games the national peeps were playing, so in their latest fundraising email, titled "Help Tell the Democrats We've Had Enough," they brought out a fairly new chestnut, ostensibly about new taxes emanating from the House-passed climate change bill earlier this year. The bromides against a non-stimulating stimulus, the state tax fairness bills ORGOP is leading the charge against, and pending health care legislation are all familiar targets. But here's a newish one, in which they claim that Congress: • Pass[ed] a huge energy tax that adds an estimated $1,761 to every family’s yearly budget – the equivalent of a 15% tax increase.  Wow, that would be steep indeed! Would, of course, that it were true. Near as I can tell, this particular trope started when the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a right-wing/libertarian economic think tank, claimed to have found "secret Treasury dcouments" that outlined costs showing a burden that equalled $1,761 when spread out among each US household. That document exists, it seems,but the problem is that it's...irrelevant: The new numbers spring from some Treasury Department documents recently acquired by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, through a Freedom of Information Act request. Some of the documents are from 2008, shortly after the election, according to the group, and others are undated, though they appear to be from early 2009. Nowhere in the documents does the Treasury Department cite the $1,761 figure. It seems Alexander got that number from a Sept. 15, 2009, story by Declan McCullagh, a blogger who writes the "Taking Liberties" column for CBS News. (Our calls to Alexander's office were not returned.) So it's worth noting that Alexander is relying not on a study by an economist, but on an estimate from a blogger. But back to Alexander's original claim. His statement that households will pay $1,761 in new taxes every year is based on a blogger's incorrect assumptions and overly simple math. The estimate does not account for revenue that will be returned to consumers in the form of rebates and other efficiency measures. Furthermore, the number is based on old numbers; the Treasury estimate was written on the premise that all permits would be sold, which, ultimately, is not the form that the Waxman-Markey legislation has taken. Finally, both Alexander and McCullagh portray money raised by selling these permits as a tax. We rate Alexander's claim False. Too bad, so sad. By the way, do you know what the real estimate is for the Waxman bill that passed the House? According to the CBO report on it, something slightly lower than $1,761...how's $160 per year? That seemed like news to our friends at ORGOP; when I asked them where they got their numbers, they had to check--but then called me back and gave me their source: the Republican National Committee. Well, THAT explains a lot, doesn't it? :) Discuss :: (0 Comments)

Obama Raps WydenCare; Merkley Cmte Bill Gets Great CBO Score by: torridjoe Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 14:17:16 PM PDT Two interesting and potentially game-changing happenings went down yesterday, both of which would seem to be positives for the drive to see a full and robust public option (FRPO) included in any health care reform bill that passes Congress. Plus I've got news of a demonstration in Portland that goes even beyond that, and continues to press for action on a single-payer plan.  First, the President made front page news in The Oregonian this morning, by commenting at some length on the health care bill being carried by Senator Ron Wyden. Obama was as usual polite and mostly glancing in his criticisms, but he was indeed critical of the plan: "There are a lot of good concepts to what Ron's proposing," Obama said. But despite his professed agreement with "90 percent" of Wyden's thinking, he said parts of the plan are too "radical" for the country. Wyden argues that linking health care costs to individuals will promote competition and drive down costs. But Obama said that is too sharp a departure from what workers have known -- and become comfortable with -- for generations. That fundamental shift, along with the major changes in the tax code that Wyden proposes, are too "radical," Obama said, when aligned with all the other changes that must take place to provide health insurance to 47 million Americans who don't have it. The president said his discussions with Wyden are similar to those with people who advocate a single-payer system. In theory, those plans work, he said. "The problem is, we have evolved partly by accident into an employer-based system." A "radical restructuring" would meet "significant political resistance," Obama said, and "families who are currently relatively satisfied with their insurance but are worried about rising costs ... would get real nervous about a wholesale change." {more, below the fold} There's More... :: (4 Comments, 1040 words in story)

Return to LO home...!