weather icon Clear
RJ App
Vegas News, Alerts, ePaper

The Sun never lets the facts get in the way of its leftward spin

The characters at the Sun are nothing if not consistent.

So I was taken aback by the headline the other day that appeared to foretell a look at just what all the proposed climate change mitigation might actually cost: “ENERGY: Climate change law will cost, but how much?

The story reports Nevada Republican Sen. John Ensign, on the floor of the Senate, quoted a figure of $3,100 per household per year as the cost of instituting a carbon cap and trade program.

Of course a graph or so later came this: “There’s just one problem: It’s not exactly true.”

For the rest of the article the Sun’s Washington-based writer does back flips in a futile attempt at a refutation of that figure, including this gem that left me rolling on the floor in fits of laughter:

“Economists, though, say the costs per household would be far lower than Ensign claims. In fact, the costs would drop even further after factoring in expected government rebates or subsidies.”

Where in all of tarnation does the writer think government rebates and subsidies come from? Do they send the cash fairies out to the Washington mall during an early dew to gather the manna descending from the heavens?

You take it out of the ratepayer pocket or the taxpayer pocket.

In fact, when you read the rationale offered by one of those economists trying to explain why that $3,100 is all wrong, you read this: “We assumed in the analysis we did that the revenue is returned to households.”

So, you tax the power companies and drive up rates and eliminate jobs and then give people a subsidy to pay their power bills?

In fact the MIT study on which Ensign’s figure appears to be based says the cap and trade legislation can result in this:

“Table 6 also shows the potential tax disbursement to a family-of-four household each year. For this purpose we have simply divided the population by 4 as if the population were divided into four-person households and then divided the total revenue by this artificially constructed number of households. The amount ranges from about $1630 to $4560 in 2015, and ranges from about $2520 to $5190 in 2050.”

No, disbursement does not mean your family will get that money. That is the amount per fictional household taken out of the economy.

Meanwhile, the Sun makes more left turns that a NASCAR driver.


Don't miss the big stories. Like us on Facebook.