You ever had someone try to tell you water wasn't wet? Or what about fire isn't really hot. You can touch water and get wet and stick your hand in fire and your ass will be burned, right?
Well the republican leadership has been touting a lie for weeks now even when any idiot can look at the facts that contradict what they are saying.
"The administration raises revenue for nationalized health care through a series of new taxes, including a light switch tax that would cost every American household $3,128 a year," the House Republican Conference said in a Web post and press release titled "Questions on the Budget for President Obama," distributed March 24. "What effect will this have on Americans struggling to pay their mortgages?" it asked.
To back up the claim, their staff pointed us to an M.I.T. report that says a similar a cap-and-trade proposal (the administration has not yet detailed their own version) would raise $366 billion per year. If you divide that by the 117 million households in the United States, you find it would cost each household $3,128, they said.
MIT economist John Reilly, the author of the report, has come out and criticized republicans for distorting his report........basically lying about it.
"It's just wrong," said John Reilly, an energy, environmental and agricultural economist at M.I.T. and one of the authors of the report. "It's wrong in so many ways it's hard to begin."
Not only is it wrong, but he told the House Republicans it was wrong when they asked him.
"Someone from the House Republicans had called me (March 20) and asked about this," Reilly said. "I had explained why the estimate they had was probably incorrect and what they should do to correct it, but I think this wrong number was already floating around by that time." So of course they decided not to correct the number but rather continue and lie.That's just not how economists calculate the cost of a tax proposal, Reilly said. The tax might push the price of carbon-based fuels up a bit, but other results of a cap-and-trade program, such as increased conservation and more competition from other fuel sources, would put downward pressure on prices. Moreover, consumers would get some of the tax back from the government in some form.
So let me get this straight, republicans use Reilly's report, gets it wrong, calls him to clarify it, he tells them it's wrong and they decide to use it anyway. What else is new?
PolitiFact: GOP full of hot air about Obama's "light switch tax"
Rep. Gohmert bashes economist Reilly