On FNS, Liasson and Kristol skew CBO cap-and-trade estimate as "$175 per person," but it's per household
SUMMARY: Bill Kristol and Mara Liasson misrepresented the CBO analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, claiming the cap-and-trade bill would cost "$175 a year per person," when, in fact, the CBO estimated the net cost would be an average of $175 per household per year.
On June 28, Fox News Sunday panelists Bill Kristol and Mara Liasson misrepresented the Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the cap-and-trade bill passed by the House of Representatives on June 26, claiming it would cost "$175 a year per person." In fact, the CBO estimated the net cost would be an average of $175 per household per year. After Liasson said, "The CBO estimate of the economic impact of this bill was only $175 a year per person, but that's contested," Kristol asserted: "A hundred and seventy-five dollars a person is what, 5, 600, 7, $800 a family, depending on how many -- how big your family is? That's kind of a lot of money to heap on families in the middle of recession."
According to the CBO's analysis, the bill's net impact on households in 2020 would be between a benefit of $40 per year and a cost of $340 per year, and "the net annual economywide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion -- or about $175 per household." According to the 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 June 28 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
LIASSON: I do think that the administration got one very important thing by getting it through the House now. The big urgency was to get something that it could take to those Kyoto -- those global climate change negotiations in Denmark in the fall. They've now shown that the United States is moving, at least toward something. How fast it'll move, whether it'll ever get through the Senate -- and I think the chances for it getting through the Senate this year are going to be really, really difficult, even though Harry Reid says it's going to be on the floor in the fall.
The CBO estimate of the economic impact of this bill was only $175 a year per person, but that's contested. So, I think there's going to be a big debate about the economic impact, and it's going to determine -- it's going to be affected by how fast or slowly the economy itself recovers.
BRET BAIER (guest host): Bill.
KRISTOL: A hundred and seventy-five dollars a person is what, 5, 600, 7, $800 a family, depending on how many -- how big your family is? That's kind of a lot of money to heap on families in the middle of recession.
I think Nancy Pelosi has made a huge mistake by defining everything in terms of jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. And Republicans are going to say for the next year and a half, "Let's have that debate." Is unemployment lower than when President Obama became president? Is unemployment going up as slowly as President Obama said it would when he lobbied for his stimulus, and today when he lobbies for energy?
We're going to have double-digit unemployment. Republicans are going to be able to be the party that cares about middle-class America and about these ridiculous plans -- and this really is a ludicrous piece of legislation, in my opinion.
"Kristol asserted: "A hundred and seventy-five dollars a person is what, 5, 600, 7, $800 a family, depending on how many -- how big your family is? That's kind of a lot of money to heap on families in the middle of recession."
And the $175 is an average. NO ONE has said that it would be everyone's cost, so your assertion about their individual expense is irrelevant.
Kristol made an incorrect leap given the data, and Liasson led him into that leap. She also asserted that the $175 is contested. And it's not really. The thing that supposedly contested it was a distortion and misuse of the data gathered that had those on the right concluding that the cost would be closer to $3100.
While, I'm sure you're not an imbecile, your response, in this case, was nonsensical. I expect you to go after us. It's standard Gingrich philosophy to always be on the attack.
Conservatives should love cap-and-trade. It's a new commodity to trade and make barrels of money from. Of course, conservatives are too busy calling the American inventor incompetent to understand technology-forcing legislation. Anyone remember the reduction in pollution prompted by the Clean Air Act? btw: Signed into law by Richard Nixon.
not considered by the CBO.
I have never seen so many people be fooled by WAG's and WAG's based on WAG's. A house of cards would be a sturdy structure in comparison. The first WAG is predicting the climate 50 years from now. As I type this, global cooling is being discussed. Ask your climate modelers for the degree of confidence in predicting the climate for the year 2010.
The second is the WAG's involved in making the CBO report. It starts right out with a statement of how dangerous GHG's are, as if the CBO knows anyting about GHG's. Then it lists the things it does not consider in making its WAG. It says that $110b will be the total cost in 2020 and does not explain the source of that number. It also gives no indication of which economic model [an overlooked WAG] it is using to predict the effects on a "household" in 2020.
SCIENTIFIC FACT:
WAG * WAG = BS
As I said, I have never seen so many people follow a
fictional story of the future. The Pied Piper lives at
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
in the title of the CBO report pdf.
I can say that I've been working on the payment and settlement infrastructure for carbon credits for a couple years in anticipation of a viable market mechanism. Cap and trade, for all its problems, is a pretty decent solution to the need to make EVERYONE aware of the cost of ignoring carbon in the atmosphere.
Once you're aware of the lifecycle costs of carbon you can make better choices. I can choose to fly jets and use solar power, while you choose an H1 Hummer and pay higher costs.
Most importantly, we can quit subsidizing dangerous to human survival carbon intensive solutions and bring on newer technology that makes economic sense.
People will game the system, and people like me will build methods to help you choose to reduce your carbon footprint while also verifying that we have actually (not hypothetically) eliminated a ton of CO2 equivalent.
If the GOP wasn't so opposed to everything these days they'd be jumping for joy at the economic opportunities. Adam Smith would like it because it is literally increasing the Wealth of Nations. I think today's GOP hasn't read Adam Smith.
It sounds like you are an insider, and I am curious about
the actual workings of a carbon credit real market. I am a lot skeptical about government managed things, but still open to the possibility that the government can manage something well [I have examples].
http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/ViewPost.aspx?bpid=219818&t=01000860093551905860
Here, as a reminder, is what you said. Don't worry, my blood pressure didn't go up at all when I shot down your argument - your argument was way too easy to get my blood boiling.
How do we know for sure that Kristol and Liasson don't live in one person households? Therefore, household and personal cost may be the same. And because they probably earn more than median wage (by severalfold), their costs will be substantaily higher than norm. So, using themselves as an example, their figures are probably on the low side.
They believe: If there's no problem to begin with, why are we passing this legislation at all. Why is the government getting involved in an issue that has no relevance to anything.
This is why I will never be able to understand conservatives on this issue. I believe CO2 levels ARE a problem, only in part because so many scientists (for so many reasons) say it is.
It just defies common sense to think that if we continue to pump large amounts of CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere, that there won't be big time consequences in the future. There have already been consequences already.
Congratulations to Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, Ed Markey and Barack Obama for FINALLY getting started doing something to address this problem. Now it's on to the Senate--let's get them to pass the bill and have Obama sign it as soon as possible.
Maddof's and people are indorsing this in full view of the public.
Finally, explain what the people in the House voted for. The bill wasn't even written when it was approved. It's another case of 1100 pages of "stuff" the party says to vote for and all the party members did so. (8 Republicans did also, but 30 Dems didn't).
First of all, this is not about "belie[f]".
1. The science indicates that Carbon Dioxide increases temperature more than most other gases in the atmosphere. Contrary to the apparent religious or economic beliefs of conservatives, this is repeatable in laboratory experiments.
2. Man's activity produces more CO2 than would otherwise be here.
3. Therefore man's activity causes temperatures to be higher than it would be without that CO2.
4. We do not know all of the consequences of interfering with the natural temperature cycle. Therefore man should wisely pursue a policy that most practically avoids interference with natural cycles.
Which of those true statements or conclusions do you find fault with? Please elaborate.
Secondly, what makes you call Cap and Trade "the biggest tax in US history." I do not see support for that argument anywhere. Please provide an independent and legitimate link. Thanks.
By the way, a company called Nanosolar just made a pretty amazing breakthrough that will make solar energy CHEAPER than coal. You'd think we'd be excited about that as a nation. You'd think the GOP would be drooling..."You mean a way for us to make money AND be green?"