NoaIzumiATR: Anti-Obamans Tirelessly Rant!
May 12th 2009 22:24
The organization Americans for Tax Reform has a new angle on criticizing President Obama’s energy plan: a made-up utility bill:
Really Long Link
The $3100 figure is based on Republican interpretation of an MIT study, an interpretation which even one of the authors of the study disagrees with.
Really Long Link
Not to mention that the interpretation makes some false assumptions, such as thinking that the number of families in the United States will be the same in 2015 (when the program would have actually started) as it is today. Minor corrections aside, the MIT study is a red herring anyway. The proposal it was based on was put forward a couple of years ago, when Barrack Obama was still a senator, and as far as I could find out, never made it through the committee process. The actual program outlined by the president raises not $366 billion a year, but less than one-fourth as much, $80 billion per year. And most of that will be returned to the taxpayers (the ATR piece conveniently forgets that part), resulting in a net cost of $15 billion per year.
Really Long Link
Using the ATR’s own figure of 117 million families in this country, that comes out to an average $128.20 per family per year. Of course, that assumes it won’t be whittled down by the time it comes to a final vote, which it almost certainly will be.
The $10,000 figure cited in the article is more puzzling. ATR explains it in another article, which comes in a handy PDF form:
Really Long Link
If I read it correctly, the total cost per year of President Obama’s energy policies would be $111.3 billion per year (although the $100 billion figure is inflated, and again conveniently omits the return of most of that to the public), which comes to less than $1000 per family, not $10,000. The only way to get $10,000 per year per family is to treat the $646 billion of the first bullet point as a yearly expense, and add it to the $111.3 billion figure; then add the $3100 per family estimate from the MIT study. So the way that the folks at Americans for Tax Reform come to the $10,000 figure is by multiplying the Obama cap-and-trade plan by eight, then adding on another, more expensive plan that doesn’t exist anymore.
This blog exists to point out political deception on the Web, but ATR's “analysis” hits a new low. What’s next, they paint horns and a red tail on Obama’s portrait to prove he’s the Devil?
As for the claims of off-shore energy production that ATR tacks on, they sound awfully familiar.
Really Long Link
Ah, yes.
Really Long Link
The $3100 figure is based on Republican interpretation of an MIT study, an interpretation which even one of the authors of the study disagrees with.
Really Long Link
Not to mention that the interpretation makes some false assumptions, such as thinking that the number of families in the United States will be the same in 2015 (when the program would have actually started) as it is today. Minor corrections aside, the MIT study is a red herring anyway. The proposal it was based on was put forward a couple of years ago, when Barrack Obama was still a senator, and as far as I could find out, never made it through the committee process. The actual program outlined by the president raises not $366 billion a year, but less than one-fourth as much, $80 billion per year. And most of that will be returned to the taxpayers (the ATR piece conveniently forgets that part), resulting in a net cost of $15 billion per year.
Really Long Link
Using the ATR’s own figure of 117 million families in this country, that comes out to an average $128.20 per family per year. Of course, that assumes it won’t be whittled down by the time it comes to a final vote, which it almost certainly will be.
The $10,000 figure cited in the article is more puzzling. ATR explains it in another article, which comes in a handy PDF form:
Really Long Link
If I read it correctly, the total cost per year of President Obama’s energy policies would be $111.3 billion per year (although the $100 billion figure is inflated, and again conveniently omits the return of most of that to the public), which comes to less than $1000 per family, not $10,000. The only way to get $10,000 per year per family is to treat the $646 billion of the first bullet point as a yearly expense, and add it to the $111.3 billion figure; then add the $3100 per family estimate from the MIT study. So the way that the folks at Americans for Tax Reform come to the $10,000 figure is by multiplying the Obama cap-and-trade plan by eight, then adding on another, more expensive plan that doesn’t exist anymore.
This blog exists to point out political deception on the Web, but ATR's “analysis” hits a new low. What’s next, they paint horns and a red tail on Obama’s portrait to prove he’s the Devil?
As for the claims of off-shore energy production that ATR tacks on, they sound awfully familiar.
Really Long Link
Ah, yes.
| 33 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
