There have been some questions about my previous article, “Desperate Republicans Lie About Tom Perriello, Energy Bill”, and why I used certain words, like ‘lie’ in the title. Let’s examine these, shall we?
Although I was called a liar by ‘wilson’, an anonymous commenter on this blog, I will be glad to answer his/her questions about what I wrote. Here is what he/she said:
I am confused as to what you consider a lie? Are you saying Obama’s clip was a lie, or the numbers. I do not see any numbers that you posted to refute this. And with Obama saying electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket, the only lies are your lie about lies.
And your premise that the ad is negative is not correct. The news itself is negative to consumers. As to the false part, you need to specify what is false. These numbers came from Obama’s own people.
If you actually mean Obama’s people lied and the actual amount we are taxed will be far more, I could go along with that.
What I consider a lie is the estimate of what it would cost citizens if the energy bill were to be implemented. The figure mentioned in the advertisement is $1,870 per year. This differs widely from other estimates, and was provided by the Republican-leaning conservative Heritage Foundation, and was reported widely by media across the spectrum after being printed in the Washington Times. Television morning shows reported the figure with little analysis, accepting it as gospel.
As Justin Bank from FactCheck.org reports in his article, Minority Whip Eric Cantor’s office released a claim that the bill would “impose a national energy tax of up to $3,100.” This figure was checked by Bank, and was confirmed with Cantor’s office.
Both figures are referring to the impact on Gross Domestic Product, which is different than an increase in energy costs. I urge the reader to read the article I mentioned on FactCheck.org and understand the difference between the two.
In fact, the widely respected and non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has said that the true cost under their estimate, (PDF) is $175 in the year 2020. The Heritage Foundation did actually calculate the rise in cost to consumers at $1,241 by 2035. This figure was not chosen to be used by the NRCC for a reason unknown to me.
Other factors, such as tax credits and other incentives will actually lower the impact. Some pro-energy bill organizations have published wildly different savings figures, which might also be expected given their agenda.
Here’s the bottom line: the Washington Times, a conservative newspaper, and the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank, regularly cite each others published work for corroboration. It is not independent or verified.
“As to the false part, you need to specify what is false. These numbers came from Obama’s own people.”
Try again “wilson”. As I explained above, the CBO differs greatly from the two conservative sources I mentioned. Many more conservative institutions and media have touted the $1,870 figure as gospel, which just isn’t true.
“If you actually mean Obama’s people lied and the actual amount we are taxed will be far more, I could go along with that.”
Once again, “wilson”, you are trying to twist words in the service of your opinion of the Obama administration. I wouldn’t mind those opinions, and as you see, I am glad to discuss these items, but you need to remember that there are facts, estimates and studies from across the spectrum that will appeal to one’s own opinions and political slant.
I wish we could talk about these subjects with you using your real name, and using the full range of published opinions and studies available. I do not trust the Heritage Foundation, because they have shown me over the years to be untrustworthy, unlike the CBO.
Thanks to “wilson” and Alton Foley for bring to my attention that in my haste to expose what I feel are nothing more than attempts to hijack the issues conversations, and in the process, unseat an incumbent Congressman, MY Congressman, Tom Perriello, that I failed to lay my case out in detail so I could be understood better.