01 April, 2009

Happy Hour Discurso

Today's opining on the public discourse.

It's the moment we've all been waiting for, my darlings. The House Cons finally released a budget with actual numbers. You might have thought that nothing could be more pathetic than that little 19-page brochure they issued last week, but if you thought that, you have no faith in the ability of Cons to exponentially increase their stupidity:

The AP report on the new Republican alternative budget doesn't even try to capture just how truly ridiculous it is, but there was one part of the article that caught my eye.

Despite spending reductions, the plan projects permanent deficits exceeding $500 billion into the future, fueled largely by big tax cuts.

The GOP plan would offer a dramatically simplified tax code in which couples would have the option of a 10 percent rate on the first $100,000 of income, with a 25 percent rate thereafter, with the first $25,000 of income exempt from taxation. Single could get a $12,500 exemption and a 10 percent rate on income up to $50,000.

Taxpayers could also opt to remain in the current system.

Right. If you like the tax system left by Bush/Cheney, you could choose to stick with it. Or, if you prefer the lower rates proposed by GOP lawmakers, you could choose to go that route, instead.


But that's not the funny part. The hilarious angle to this is that the House Republicans run enormous budget deficits while assuming the top earners would voluntarily pay the higher rate.

If their so-called "budget" were being shelved at a bookstore, it would be going in the Humor section.

While the Cons issue fantasies thinly disguised as budgets, they're also getting spanked by people they're deliberately misrepresenting in order to spread blatant lies:

Think Progress previously reported the outright lie being told by Republicans that the green economy legislation before Congress would “cost every American family up to $3,100 per year in higher energy prices.” GOP leaders apparently arrived at this number by intentionally misinterpreting a 2007 study conducted by MIT.

PolitiFact interviewed John Reilly, an MIT professor and one of the authors of the study, who explained he had spoken with a representative from the House Republicans on March 20, and that he had clearly told them, “why the estimate they had was probably incorrect and what they should do to correct it.” Nonetheless, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) decided to use the $3,100 figure to attack cap-and-trade...


Today, Professor Reilly sent a forceful letter to Boehner and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming to denounce this blatant distortion being told by Congressional Republicans. Reilly noted that $3,100 was actually “10 times the correct estimate which is approximately $340″ and that the costs on lower and middle income households can be “completely offset by returning allowance revenue to these households”:

It has come to my attention that an analysis we conducted examining proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Report No., 146, Assessment of U.S. Cap-and-Trade Proposals, has been misrepresented in recent press releases distributed by the National Republican Congressional Committee. The press release claims our report estimates an average cost per family of a carbon cap and trade program that would meet targets now being discussed in Congress to be over $3,000, but that is nearly 10 times the correct estimate which is approximately $340. […] Our Report 160 shows that the costs on lower and middle income households can be completely offset by returning allowance revenue to these households.

Poor Professor Reilly. He wasted all that time and those poor trees to write a letter that likely ended up immediately in Boehner's circular file. Doesn't fit the Con reality, y'see, so down the memory hole it goes. And the Cons continue blathering their lies.

They also keep getting confused over the difference between weather and global warming:

Sen. James Inhofe (R) believes snow in his home state of Oklahoma is compelling evidence that global warming isn't real. Seriously.

The amusing part of this is that Inhofe began his remarks by blasting a House bill, championed by Reps. Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, that would create an ambitious cap-and-trade system. Inhofe called it "a job-killing tax increase," which would do "nothing to address climate change."

That almost makes it sound as if Inhofe is looking for legislation that would address climate change.

Of course, he quickly put that to rest, noting that Oklahoma recently saw "the largest snowstorm in the history of Marches."

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the fuckwit that the Cons put in charge of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. I shit you not.

And the man they turn to as their hero? It's no wonder they love him so much - he reflects their ignorance perfectly:

Oof. Looks like Joe the Plumber’s campaigning against the Employee Free Choice Act in Pennsylvania didn’t go so well.
Mr. Plumber, whose appearances were organized by the anti-EFCA group Americans for Prosperity, admitted he knew “little” about the legislation after being confronted with questions at one of the events yesterday in Harrisburg by a Pennsylvania progressive group. He was also heckled by dozens of Pennsylvania union workers, according to a local report.
And after his rough time in Harrisburg, he skipped a subsequent rally in Philadelphia, according to union officials who were there.


Pressed on the specifics of the law, Mr. Plumber repeatedly refused to answer, and finally lost his cool, telling his questioner: “Drop it, brother, drop it. I never said I was an expert, man.”

I do believe the stupidity just overtopped the dam, my darlings. Prepare to get buried up to the neck.

1 comment:

Cujo359 said...

I'm thinking that budget would be better placed in the paranormal section.