Error in fact, not opinion

Rep. Paul Broun has a forum in the Athens Banner-Herald on the cap-and-trade legislation being debated in Congress right now, and there's no real need to hash out the philosophical differences he and I have. We disagree, and that's fair enough.

This is, however, a massive problem with Broun's commentary - it's built upon a factual error which, therefore, directly impacts his entire argument ...

Summer travel season has officially begun, and liberals have scheduled a vote today in the U.S. House of Representatives on a national energy tax that will implement $646 billion in new taxes on the American people. Although my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refer to it as cap-and-trade legislation, I prefer to call it the Cap, Tax and Cripple legislation because it will raise your family's energy costs by more than $3,100 a year.

If you're wondering if you'll be affected by this $3,100 increase, the answer is yes, because it affects everyone who drives a car, buys American products or flips on the light switch when they come home. In these tough economic times, Georgia's families already are pinching pennies, and this crippling tax will force you to tighten your budget belt yet another notch.

The usage of the $3,100 as the numerical impact on families is inaccurate. The Congressional Budget Office, at the request of Rep. Dave Camp, a Republican congressman from Michigan, conducted an analysis of the proposed legislation, and their findings were dramatically different ...

... the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the net annual economywide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion—or about $175 per household. That figure includes the cost of restructuring the production and use of energy and of payments made to foreign entities under the program, but it does not include the economic benefits and other benefits of the reduction in GHG emissions and the associated slowing of climate change. CBO could not determine the incidence of certain pieces (including both costs and benefits) that represent, on net, about 8 percent of the total. For the remaining portion of the net cost, households in the lowest income quintile would see an average net benefit of about $40 in 2020, while households in the highest income quintile would see a net cost of $245. Added costs for households in the second lowest quintile would be about $40 that year; in the middle quintile, about $235; and in the fourth quintile, about $340. Overall net costs would average 0.2 percent of households’ after-tax income.

Even the number cited by Broun is misleading, as noted by The St. Petersburg Times earlier this year. That number is drawn from an M.I.T. study conducted by John Reilly which was grossly cherry-picked to justify a particular line of argument.

Reilly, in fact, directly confronted the leadership of the House Republicans in an attempt to cease their mischaracterization of his work. Reilly's work, in fact, delivered numbers that parallel the CBO's findings ...

"It's just wrong," said John Reilly, an energy, environmental and agricultural economist at M.I.T. and one of the authors of the report. "It's wrong in so many ways it's hard to begin." ...

That's just not how economists calculate the cost of a tax proposal, Reilly said. The tax might push the price of carbon-based fuels up a bit, but other results of a cap-and-trade program, such as increased conservation and more competition from other fuel sources, would put downward pressure on prices. Moreover, consumers would get some of the tax back from the government in some form.

The report did include an estimate of the net cost to individuals, called the "welfare" cost. It would be $30.89 per person in 2015, or $79 per family if you use the same average household size the Republicans used of 2.56 people.

The cost would grow over time as the program ramps up, but the average annual cost over time in today's dollars — that is, the "average annual net present value cost" — is still just $85 per person, Reilly said. That would be $215.05 per household.

Now, I want to be clear about this ...

This is a factual error.

It's not subjective opinion which Broun is entitled to, but rather an incorrect figure which he structures his entire argument around. With this number being proven to be dramatically smaller than the congressman claims, it provides an entirely different perspective for how to view his commentary, as well as how to evaluate his motivations for putting it forward.

It's a factual error, and that means it needs to be corrected.