WSJ report on NRCC cap-and-trade ads ignores ads' original factual inaccuracy
SUMMARY: A Wall Street Journal article about NRCC ads criticizing Democrats who voted for the House cap-and-trade bill did not mention the ads' original factual inaccuracy about the amount cap and trade would cost per household.
On July 21, a Wall Street Journal article reported on "an aggressive Republican advertising campaign" targeting Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA) and other Democrats for voting in favor of the House cap-and-trade bill and stated that the ad "blast[ed]" Perriello "for supporting what it says amounts to a giant energy tax." The article then quoted WDBJ Television general manager Jeffery Marks as saying he had "never seen" such big ad purchases early in the election cycle. But the article did not mention that, according to reports, Marks' own Roanoke, Virginia, station originally declined to air the National Republican Congressional Committee's (NRCC) ad after Democrats pointed out that the ad misrepresented the cost of cap and trade to "middle-class families"; the station agreed to air the ad when the technical falsehood was removed.
A July 7 Roanoke Times article reported that Marks "said that Perriello's office complained to WDBJ about the spot, prompting questions about the source of the ad's information" and that WDBJ decided to air the ad only "after the ad was revised." The Times also quoted Marks stating that the ad was changed "to address concerns that had been raised about the source of the information and the way it was stated." The Times further reported that "[i]n the original NRCC ad, an announcer says" the cap-and-trade bill "will 'cost middle-class families $1,800 a year,' " while the revised ad states that the program will "cost our economy equal to $1,800 for every American family."
A FactCheck.org article about the original ad said that the ad "credits a Washington Times editorial for its claim that the Waxman-Markey bill would make electricity prices 'skyrocket,' costing families $1,870 a year. But the NRCC is wrong." From the article:
The Washington Times editorial took the figure from a Heritage Foundation analysis that concluded "the GDP hit in 2020 was $161 billion (2009 dollars). For a family of four, that is $1,870." But a decrease in gross domestic product is a different calculation than an increase in electricity costs.
What's surprising is that the Heritage Foundation actually did calculate the increase in household energy bills, which the NRCC could have used instead. Heritage estimated that "the typical family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by $1,241 per year" by 2035. We'll note that the Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank, and its analysts have been vocal in opposition to a cap and trade plan. And, as we've said before, other groups have come to different conclusions. For instance, the nonprofit advocacy group American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy has estimated the legislation "could save $750 per household by 2020 and $3,900 per household by 2030." (As the name suggests, however, the group is in favor of action to reduce climate change.)
FactCheck.org also pointed out -- as did the Journal article -- that the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the House bill would cost households an average of $175 in 2020.
From the July 21 Journal article:
Freshman Rep. Tom Perriello of Virginia is a test case for whether President Barack Obama's energy agenda will help or hurt vulnerable Democrats in next year's midterm elections.
The Democrat's June 26 vote for the sweeping climate bill that aims to reduce U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases put him in the crosshairs of an aggressive Republican advertising campaign also targeting 13 other House Democrats. The GOP accuses these Democrats of exposing their constituents to higher energy costs and putting jobs at risk.
The National Republican Congressional Committee, the House GOP's campaign arm, has spent tens of thousands of dollars on TV ads blasting Mr. Perriello for supporting what it says amounts to a giant energy tax.
"Rather than trying to convince middle-class Virginians that he's right and they're wrong," an NRCC spokesman said, Mr. Perriello should "stop talking and actually start listening to the people he represents."
The League of Conservation Voters and other environmental groups have sponsored ads defending Mr. Perriello and others who supported the bill. Mr. Perriello "cast a critical vote for a comprehensive clean energy jobs bill that will create the industries of tomorrow," the league said in a statement.
Skirmishing on the climate bill in Mr. Perriello's conservative district, which voted Republican in the 2008 presidential election, has been particularly fierce.
"I've never seen anything like this," said Jeffrey Marks, general manager of WDBJ Television in Roanoke, Va., referring to the big ad purchases at his station so early in an election cycle.
The surge of activity illustrates how both parties hope to make the most of an issue they think could determine control of Congress in next year's election. Democrats believe their effort to put a price on carbon emissions will help the party with voters supportive of taking action against global warming and creating alternative-energy jobs.
Yes, and it also highlights a difference in tactics:
The Republicans are willing to lie to get what they want, and the Democrats are not.
"When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal (reaching out his hand), uh (looking down and away, rolls tongue and blinks)...y,y,yo (purses lips)...under my plan (purses lips again, still looking down) uh of a cap and trade system electricity rates (finally looking up) would necessarily skyrocket."
And to hammer the nail further he continues: "Even, regardless of what I say (Jedi style hand movements throughout rest of quote) about whether coal is good or bad, because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money onto consumers."
Unless I shouldn't believe Obama's own words, it sounds to me like this whole cap and trade business (in the truest sense of the word) is going to cost us a bit. And all this talk about compensating for the poorest, but how will we all be compensated when the price of manufacturing every product and service we buy goes up? "They will pass that money onto consumers." And a lot of us will be the poorer for it.
Just come clean already. This is a regressive tax that will be very painful for most Americans like myself who are not wealthy and can't really afford to be pinched any more. It's really starting to hurt. And, the absolute burner is that all of this pain that will be foisted upon the poor and the large middle class, this tremendous cost being put squarely on the shoulders of Americans who have shouldered so much already, this unforgivable power and money grabbin' abomination of a bill will have NO EFFECT ON THE CLIMATE.
Dear lord, people, wake up. Start snipping a few of those puppet strings. It's all right to fight it a little. I know I will. Do not go gentle into that good night and whatnot. You'll thank me later and you can bank on that. Read Animal Farm again last night. Good stuff.
to fly to Nigeria and tell them to not use their oil?
The Cap and Trade bill submitted and passed by the House is a fraud. It tells the American people that it will save the earth, but no one else in the world will participate and the reduction in CO2 achieved by just a shrunken effort of the US will have no statistically measureable effect on the climate.
Why people continue to talk about Cap and Trade in a serious tone is a mystery. As someone once said, you can fool some of the people all the time.
I suppose, though, that the Republicans doing the lying might say that its okay as long as its for a greater good. But, no, that would actually require them to admit they lied.