In same sentence, Hannity cites CBO numbers on health care, while ignoring CBO numbers on cap and trade
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Sean Hannity selectively cited "the impact of the CBO numbers and the CBO scoring" while discussing health care reform, but not CBO's estimate for cap-and-trade legislation.
On the June 24 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity selectively cited "the impact of the [Congressional Budget Office] numbers and the CBO scoring" while discussing health care reform, but not its estimate for cap-and-trade legislation. Hannity stated: "A lot of people haven't paid attention to it, and the impact of the CBO numbers and the CBO scoring, nor are people paying attention to this cap and tax, which could cost us nearly 3 million jobs and literally tax American families about $2,000 each." However, Hannity ignored that CBO estimated in a June 19 analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act that the net impact to households from the bill in 2020 would range between a benefit of $40 per year and a cost of $340 per year, with an average cost of $175 per year -- a figure significantly less than $2,000.
As Media Matters for America has noted, as of June 23, several media figures -- including Hannity -- had yet to report on CBO's analysis, despite advancing conservative claims that cap-and-trade legislation favored by President Obama and congressional Democrats would cost thousands of dollars per household.
According to CBO, "That net impact would reflect both the added costs that households experienced because of higher prices and the share of the allowance value that they received in the form of benefit payments, rebates, tax decreases or credits, wages, and returns on their investments." From the analysis:

From the June 24 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: Let me ask you one broad question on the economy before we have to let you go, because you've been writing extensively in The Wall Street Journal about nationalizing health care. He --
KARL ROVE (Fox News political contributor): Right.
HANNITY: He has an infomercial -- and we'll talk about this in more detail later in the program tonight -- but he's got that coming. A lot of people haven't paid attention to it, and the impact of the CBO numbers and the CBO scoring, nor are people paying attention to this cap and tax, which could cost us nearly 3 million jobs and literally tax American families about $2,000 each.
Do you think the American people are aware of the consequences of those two pieces of legislation?
ROVE: Well, I don't think they're fully cognizant yet, but they are paying more attention to it and looking at the details. And as a result -- I write about this tomorrow morning in my piece in The Wall Street Journal -- there's a growing gap between the president's popularity, which is declining, and support for his programs.
The opposition is growing faster to his programs. He is declining in his popularity, but at the opposition to his programs is growing even more dramatically. And what that says to me is that he's in deep trouble on things like the cap and tax and like health care -- $1.6 trillion price tag when he himself admits we're out of money, and we're drowning in a river of red ink, is a real problem for him. And I think we're likely to see his numbers get worse, not better, because of it.
HANNITY: All right, Karl, thanks for being with us. Appreciate it.

















If the article read "weigijl igejesalek gjsilriiske Hannity girdjgr skieslie sgils", apparently you would still have posted what you posted.
Nowadays whenever I hear "patriot" I think "idiot". I can't help it. There's too many of you poisoning the word.
By the way, "Patriot," the US didn't exist in 1776. Empty-headed or not, I know that.
What a waste of time.
CBO always produces numbers that are beneficial to its
owners. Does that surprise anyone? Who are the owners today?
Democrats.
This climate junk science would be hilarious if Congressmen
weren't voting to spend trillions of tax payer dollars on the
phony science.
The next administration will repeal every single line of the 2,200 page bill, HR2454, should it pass. I only hope our economy has not gone into a deep depression before the next election.
For a real hoot, ask any one of the congressmen voting for this bill how they know CO2 causes global warming and listen to the answer. Ask him which climate model he prefers and why.
That's an interesting question. Which climate model do you prefer and why?
Many of us who disagree are not "brainwashed". I am not sure that catastrophe is imminent or even within my lifetime. Numbers can and will be interpreted (just like CBO estimates) in many different ways. As for "the science is in", please provide some specifics. You will not find one side or the other overwhelmingly convincing, even to the numerous scientists involved. I have heard many views of the argument about global warming and man's contribution to it ad nauseum, and the only conclusion I have been able to reach is that no one individual or group really knows enough. There are certainly political agendas involved in the bill; 1,200 pages of legislation cannot be wholly based entirely on scientific research.
This does not detract from the fact that Hannity, as with most commentators, will only use information that will support his own opinion. Hypocrisy is rampant throughout the media and politics no matter your ideology.
there now you don't have to waste your time watching his show-it's been the same for a year
I guess you're looking for another Shrub-like little dictator. The Eexecutive, according to the Constitution, doesn't have the power to "repeal" a law passed by Congress. On the contrary, he or she is required to "see that the laws be faithfully executed."
Wambaugh--The Glitter Dome