Boehner: We're Right, MIT Scientist Is Wrong
Yesterday, John Boehner's office told us Republicans would be standing by their claim that cap and trade legislation would cost American households an average of $3,128 a year--even though John Reilly, the scientist upon whose study they based that estimate, told them their calculations were wildly off.
Now Boehner's made it official by releasing a "Leader Alert" explaining their fuzzy logic.
How do Republicans arrive at the $3,100 dollar figure? It's pretty simple. We took MIT's own estimate of a key "cap-and-trade" bill from the 110th Congress (S. 309) cosponsored by then-Senator Obama that said S. 309 would generate $366 billion in revenues in 2015.... We took MIT's own number - $366 billion - and divided that by the number of U.S. households (we assumed 300 million people and an average household size of 2.56 people...which is 117 million households). Using this formula, you get roughly $3,000 per household....An MIT professor has questions about the $3,100 figure but his letter makes assumptions that are factually inaccurate. Moreover, he claims "government rebates to consumers" must be factored in. But we all know that Democrats have no intention of using a cap-and-trade system to deliver rebates to consumers; they want the tax revenue to fund more government spending. Key Democrats - including Senators Reid & Conrad - have even said they want to use cap-and-trade to fund their bureaucrat-controlled health care plan. In fact, nothing in the Democrats' budget would provide rebates or any relief to consumers.
QED.
Except, of course, that Reilly's objections were farther reaching than that, and included not just the idea that increased costs will be somewhat offset by rebates, but that consumers will respond to higher energy prices by being more efficient and reducing consumption and that alternative fuels will become cheaper and so on. In other words, their methodology is flawed even if you grant them the assumption that the government will rebate $0 to consumers.
Additionally, the Republicans could have mentioned that Kent Conrad is deeply opposed to using the budget reconciliation process to pass major reform legislation, or that Harry Reid all but squelched the idea of funding a universal health care system with cap and trade revenue.
And they might have noted that a budget resolution isn't legislation that can provide consumer relief, but that the Senate did amend their budget to provide that future cap-and-trade legislation would not result in added costs to consumers.
Other than that though, this is spot on.
Late update: Via ThinkProgress, the group Republicans for Environmental Protection says the House GOP's tactics are "designed to score political points and gain headlines [and] are a disservice to American citizens."




















They're making things up as they go along. Before you know it, it'll hard to disprove their logic because of all the "documents" they've created to prove their point.
April 3, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
They sure did learn the game well from the nazi party. I bet goebbels strategy and tactics are required reading for the republican caucus. The main mantra is to keep repeating the same lies over, and over, and over again and the sheep population starts to believe the lies as being the truth. It's nazi propoganda 101.
April 3, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
What else can Boehner say? The best defense is a good offense.
Of course this is like a 2nd grade arithmetic teacher telling Einstein that E=MC2 is wrong.
April 3, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not really, Einstein didn't assume a change in consumer usage and hope for government rebates when defining his calculations.
April 3, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Einstein made several very large assumptions when formulating (he didn't define his calculations, he calculated them) his theory on general relativity, particularly about the speed of light in a vaccuum since there was no way to physically measure that with accuracy back then. The thing he didn't do, unlike Bonehead Bohner, was rip off someone else calcuations and then present them out of context to prove a WAG about economics.
So, thanks for playing Sarge. Vanna has some lovely parting gifts for you on your way out. Be sure to check out that book on quantum mechanics so that you can speak to Einstein a bit more coherently.
April 3, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Snap!
April 3, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want to get Hyper-technical he didn't calculate the equation, he derived it. He also borrowed from many of the previous ideas of mass-energy ralationship as well as the equations for them; he was just the first to propose the equivalence of mass and energy is a general principle. Coherent enough?
April 3, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Calculate the equation? Define the calculations? Derive the equation? I think you need to do a quick run to the dictionary, Sarge. Your sharpshooting proficiency is (probably) greater in ballistics than it is in forensics.
General grasp? perhaps. Coherent? no. You still fail to show how Einstein's assumptions (that you now admit) somehow weaken his theory. You also fail to show how this allegedly weakened theory is analogus to the weakness of the Democrats economic case due to corresponding assumptions. So, while you may have cribbed up on Einstein's take on relativity (anybody can Google these days), you failed to show any coherence in your attack on the analogy.
Care to play again?
April 3, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Schmedley,
he's just being quarky....er, I mean snarky.
April 4, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
SFC says:
.. he didn't calculate the equation, he derived it.
Perhaps he derived it from the calculations?
April 4, 2009 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Teh stupid. It burns.
April 3, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shorter Boner: We can make up lies faster than you can tell the truth.
April 3, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well...Duh. Facts still have a liberal bias. So, in the grand tradition of Pappa Bush, Bohner's just going with what his gut says must be right.
April 3, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boehner doesn't know which end of a light bulb goes into the socket. That he should be challenging the studies of a Massachusetts Institute of TECHNOLOGY professor is way beyond laughable.
Maybe he can find his missing helix on Craig's List.
April 3, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again I must call "bullshit":
"Except, of course, that Reilly's objections were farther reaching than that, and included not just the idea that increased costs will be somewhat offset by rebates, but that consumers will respond to higher energy prices by being more efficient and reducing consumption and that alternative fuels will become cheaper and so on."
If $366B is collected it will have come from somewhere in CURRENT spending. The Repos are correct that it comes to about $3100 per person. Talking about what happens in the FUTURE (after 2015) as a response to this huge burden is not relevant to what it costs NOW (2015).
So either the $366B is a lie, or the argument above (against the Repo claim) is a lie.
Please stop posting lies on TPM. You should be attacking them, not promoting them.
We should look at how the $366B or whatever amount would be spent, what consumers would get for their $1000 per person average increase in cost. If there are compensatory rebates, that's just churning and is a bad thing.
April 3, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry, $3100 per "household"
April 3, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The best Federal government money can buy.
if we had a Universal health care, run like France or Britain, our auto industry would never be under this financial pressure. No wonder our car manufacturers are in steep competition with foreign companies, because outside of the United States auto makers are subsidized. Not only does GMC, Ford and others have to add health care benefits to every vehicle off the conveyor belt, but they have likely millions of retirees who are still collecting health care services. Its a dream, but think of it? no intermediates like cold-hearted insurance companies. Run by a bunch of bean counters. I have first hand knowledge of their relentless activity, to use any gray-area possible to undercut services to you or a loved one. Serve you with all kinds of paperwork, to deceive you. Look for pre-existing conditions, charge you exorbitant premiums and co-pays.
Wouldn't be great to have a single payer system, where you pay your share to the government and your employer. Then you collect decent services such as doctor visits, specialty physician's, eye and dental care. Just like Europe, without the skulduggery of debt collectors, medical billing companies, civil courts or bankruptcy. I never, ever had to show any ID, to go and see a doctor. No receptionist was ready to photocopy your social security number, drivers license and insurance card? It's criminal that's it's a privilege in our nation--not a necessity abroad. Whereas it's the wealthy who don't appreciate Universal health care, because they have no intention in waiting a month or so. Yet while uninsured Americans have to jump through hoops for health care, illegal aliens who have stolen into our nation pay--NOTHING--for emergency services. Colds, flue, hang nail--they go to hospital and get it all for free. Well! that's not quite true? You! The taxpayer are their wealthy uncle. That's thanks to Sen.Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and other Senators, who think 40 million illegal aliens is great for America. Thats why they killed E-Verify in the Stimulus/Omnibus packages.
April 5, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point of any carbon regime (tax or cap-and trade) is to increase the relative price of carbon use.
When the revenue raised by taxing or credit auctions is rebated to the general taxpaying public (assuming that those who pay for taxes/credits in final demand and those who receive rebates roughly match), there is no burden except for the socially net beneficial shift in energy use away from carbon emissions through conservation, efficiency, and alternate primary energy production.
April 20, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink