The ‘$3,000 Light-Switch Tax’ Myth

[...] good until the the study’s author says that fact is completely wrong and [...]

Perhaps you might want to poast a retraction…
John Reilly has publically admitted that his original estimate of cap and trades cost was inaccurate. The annual cost would be $800 per household. Quote: “I made a boneheaded mistake in an Excel spreadsheet. I have sent a new letter to the Republicans correcting my error and others.”

Okay, but $800 is way higher than $340, but it's still way less than $3100 that the GOP came up with, right?

Yes, but the figure that Reilly came up with, according to Mr. Reilly, is the cost of greening your lifestyle. So in other words, if you buy green insulation or a couch made of hemp, invest in a solar roller or whatever, the number is of just that cost to the economy.

The problem is that Reilly is still lowballing the cost because he assumes that the $3100 of extra taxes on energy producers per household, which they will obviously pass on to the consumer. So he's assumed that this cost will be returned to each household. Without that assumption, Reilly writes, “The cost then would be the Republican estimate $3,128 plus the cost I estimate of $800.” So in other words, if these companies don't pass their costs on to you, then it's only going to be $800. But if these companies raise their prices because they're now having to pay for higher energy costs, it will be $4,000. Keith Olbermann was right! The Republicans were wrong again! Because they said $3100. Now according to the MIT scholar that Keith Olbermann and you were was quoting and basing your 'facts' on, has retracted his statement, and is now stating that the cost will be $4,000. But the government will just send that money back to the housholds and not use it for some of the billions in un-funded mandates currently proposed in the new budget, right? Reilly's theory is they will just use that money for programs that people will use so it's not like they are really losing and tangible costs.

Obama's own Office of Management and Budget is predicting trillion dollar deficits for the next decade. Democrats are already openly salivating on how they can spend the cap and trade money. Democrats think they are saving the world by jacking up energy prices. This is a $300 billion annual cash cow for Washington. And If you think they're going to turn around and give that money back to you, you are sadly mistaken. Remember, the politicians in Washington promised that the income tax would never go over 1%. Look up the congressional records. These progressives swore it would be insane and the people would rise up if we ever broke the percentage of 5% income tax. And by the way, they were only talking about the wealthiest of the wealthy. Congratulations. You've just witnessed the fusion of socialism and Microsoft Excel. And congratulations to the progressives, the Washington 'Independent' and Keith Olbermann on becoming the worst people in the world!

Perhaps you might want to poast a retraction…
John Reilly has publically admitted that his original estimate of cap and trades cost was inaccurate. The annual cost would be $800 per household. Quote: “I made a boneheaded mistake in an Excel spreadsheet. I have sent a new letter to the Republicans correcting my error and others.”

Okay, but $800 is way higher than $340, but it's still way less than $3100 that the GOP came up with, right?

Yes, but the figure that Reilly came up with, according to Mr. Reilly, is the cost of greening your lifestyle. So in other words, if you buy green insulation or a couch made of hemp, invest in a solar roller or whatever, the number is of just that cost to the economy.

The problem is that Reilly is still lowballing the cost because he assumes that the $3100 of extra taxes on energy producers per household, which they will obviously pass on to the consumer. So he's assumed that this cost will be returned to each household. Without that assumption, Reilly writes, “The cost then would be the Republican estimate $3,128 plus the cost I estimate of $800.” So in other words, if these companies don't pass their costs on to you, then it's only going to be $800. But if these companies raise their prices because they're now having to pay for higher energy costs, it will be $4,000. Keith Olbermann was right! The Republicans were wrong again! Because they said $3100. Now according to the MIT scholar that Keith Olbermann and you were was quoting and basing your 'facts' on, has retracted his statement, and is now stating that the cost will be $4,000. But the government will just send that money back to the housholds and not use it for some of the billions in un-funded mandates currently proposed in the new budget, right? Reilly's theory is they will just use that money for programs that people will use so it's not like they are really losing and tangible costs.

Obama's own Office of Management and Budget is predicting trillion dollar deficits for the next decade. Democrats are already openly salivating on how they can spend the cap and trade money. Democrats think they are saving the world by jacking up energy prices. This is a $300 billion annual cash cow for Washington. And If you think they're going to turn around and give that money back to you, you are sadly mistaken. Remember, the politicians in Washington promised that the income tax would never go over 1%. Look up the congressional records. These progressives swore it would be insane and the people would rise up if we ever broke the percentage of 5% income tax. And by the way, they were only talking about the wealthiest of the wealthy. Congratulations. You've just witnessed the fusion of socialism and Microsoft Excel. And congratulations to the progressives, the Washington 'Independent' and Keith Olbermann on becoming the worst people in the world!

Only determined this site in Google nowadays. Ended up pursuing them during their visit today. Great blog. Bookmarked! :) When i will likely be rear!