Republicans tend to support the wealthy and corporate interests. And since there are far fewer of them than the vast majority of the rest of us, in order for them to win they need to get people to vote against their own interests. So its in their interest to sow confusion about policies democrats put forward they don’t like, as well as outright lie about programs that they put forward that won’t benefit the vast majority of Americans.
For example, the so called “Death Tax.” The GOP put this forward as if every one who owns a “family farm,” upon their death, would have their remaining assets taxed at a high rate, when in fact, the tax, which was really called the Estate tax, would only affect a very wealthy few -- 2% of the population.
This is why Rush Limbaugh is so important to them. Limbaugh has 20 million “dittoheads” under his spell. Rush puts forward whatever fantastic obfuscation they are trying to put across at the moment, and the dittoheads dutifully march in lock step. For example, even though Obama has said, and newspapers have reported and analyzed many times over, that everyone who makes under $250K per year will receive a tax cut, Rush et al are telling them “Obama will raise your taxes” and these people have dutifully internalized it. These people have been living in an alternative universe for decades.
In the end, they vote for things that are against their interests, but the GOP leaders are happy, as they numbers help maintain their power. Its not the rank and file they care about, its their wealthy paymasters whose bidding they live for.
Now they’re doing it with cap and trade. But this time, an MIT scientist, John Reilly, whose study of cap and trade has been badly abused by House Republicans, has confronted them about intentionally misrepresenting his findings. What is Cap and Trade?
Cap and trade is an administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. A central authority (usually a government or international body) sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. Companies or other groups are issued emission permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of allowances (or credits) which represent the right to emit a specific amount. The total amount of allowances and credits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less. The transfer of allowances is referred to as a trade. In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions by more than was needed. Thus, in theory, those that can easily reduce emissions most cheaply will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest possible cost to society
The GOP is against cap and trade because they are against anything that will cost their wealthy manufacturing and enrgy sponsors money, regardless of the public interests. Cap and trade is one such legislation.
Here’s the timeline of what the republicans did. It’s absolutely amazing:
“April, 2007: Reilly and several coauthors release a paper titled "Assessment of U.S. Cap-and-Trade Proposals, which estimates early annual revenues from such legislation would run $366 billion.”
“Sometime between April, 2007 and March, 2009: House Republicans get a hold of his paper, divide $366 billion by the number of households in America, and conclude, erroneously, that the quotient ($3,128) will be the average cost per home.”
“March, 2009: Republicans begin using this number in press releases, citing Reilly's study”
“Shortly thereafter: The Obama administration gets in touch with Dr. Reilly and asks him to explain his study and the number--he corrects the record.”
“A week or so ago: Independently, a woman who says she's with the House Republicans calls Reilly--aware of the number, she invites him to come testify against cap and trade legislation.” “Reilly informs her that her number is probably wrong, and that he supports cap and trade legislation.”
“A couple days ago: A group contacts Reilly to inform him that a large number of press releases were being issued, still trumpeting the false cost.”
“That brings us to yesterday. Now, Reilly can't say for certain that word ever went out from the woman who called him to party leaders letting them know they'd gotten the math badly wrong. It's possible, according to Reilly that "she didn't find the speaker she wanted so she went about her work." At the same time, he adds, "they could certainly have called us at any time and checked their facts." But, of course, they didn't.”
“So Reilly isn't taking any more chances. Yesterday he sent letters to Rep. Ed Markey--author, along with Henry Waxman, of House climate change legislation--and House Minority Leader John Boehner explaining the error and seeking to "clear up any misunderstanding created by this press release and to avoid further confusion." The question is, will House Republicans correct the record or, at the very least, stop citing the number from this point forward. We'll put the question to them and keep an eye on their public statements, press releases, and other documents.”
Now, you would think, after being busted out like this, they’d at least quit. But these people have no shame at all. Besides, they do this not for no other reason than to fool enough people to support them.
But dig this:
Republicans: We Stand By Our Distortion of MIT Study
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04... “Republicans won't be changing their story on the cost of climate change legislation anytime soon. I just spoke with Michael Steel, spokesman for John Boehner, about the letter the House Minority Leader received from M.I.T. scientist John Reilly. By way of background, Reilly wrote to Boehner yesterday and gently informed him that he and other Republicans had "misrepresented in recent press releases" an M.I.T. study, which estimated that a cap and trade program would likely cost the average family $340 per year. The GOP is claiming, based on the same study, that the legislation would cost the average family $3,128 per year.”
Its up to the media to call them out when they do this, but the problem is the media is in bed with them. Many of these guys in the media, even though they pass themselves off as average Joes, are multimillionaires who are so far removed from the lives of everyday Americans they may as well be reporting from Mars.
Posted By:
Thursday, April 2nd 2009 at 5:51PM
You can also
click
here to view all posts by this author...
