Richard Burr trying to scare people into giving him money

In his latest fund-raising email North Carolina Republican Senator Richard Burr apparently doesn't believe telling the truth will work, so he resorts to scare tactics and misinformation to raise money. He gives three reasons why we should send him our hard-earned money.

The U.S. Senate is in the midst of debate right now over healthcare reform. Hopefully, you have read about the plan I am co-sponsoring, "The Patients Choice Act," which I believe is a reasoned approach to this issue. I am sure you are aware that many in Congress support a government-run option for our health care. I do not believe this is the way to address healthcare reform, and I am pledged to continue the fight against that option.

First, I couldn't find one respected organization arguing for this plan. Here's a rundown from Think Progress and you can find a good initial summary of the failings of the Republican plan here.

On the whole, the Patients’ Choice Act fails to guarantee adequate, affordable and accessible coverage and it does does little, if anything, to control health care costs. Americans who can find coverage through a state-based health insurance Exchange would be guaranteed coverage — insurers would not be able to exclude individuals with pre-existing conditions — but it’s unclear that they would be able to afford it. While a summary of the bill includes European-style “non-profit independent board ” that “would penalize insurance companies that cherry pick healthy patients while rewarding companies that seek patients with pre-existing conditions,” the bill does nothing to prevent higher prices based on sex, age, occupation, or medical condition. To finance these higher prices, Americans can rely on the meager tax credits they’ve stashed away in a Health Savings Account.

Remember, it was the Republicans in Washington who proposed a budget that contained no numbers, only a few glossy pages of pretty pictures. They have now proposed a healthcare plan with no model for success. Are these the people we really want to trust? Better question: Are these the people you want to send your hard earned dollars to?

Back to Senator Burr's request for money...

Later this fall the Senate leadership intends to bring Cap and Trade legislation to the Senate floor. This dangerous legislation has already passed the House and must be stopped in the Senate. Should this pass, the average household will see an increase of more than $1000 a year in their utility bill.

More than $1000 per year? Really? Over what period of time? After Republicans took a beating for repeatedly quoting the fictional sum of $3100 per household, did Burr just figure he could lower that a bit to see if he could slide it by?

Maybe he's getting it from The Heritage Foundation that claimed energy costs would increase $1500 per household per year by 2035. Um...in 26 years we will see our energy costs rise by $1500 per year? Aren't we expecting that anyway? Maybe they mean $1500 per year above and beyond any increase we might normally expect. Still, 26 years to see an increase of $1500 is fantastic!

There are a lot of confusing figures out there surrounding the Cap and Trade proposal. FactCheck.org does a pretty good job of clarifying the different claims about costs. Here's a snippet:

Testifying before the House Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support in March, Terry M. Dinan, a senior adviser for the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, conceded that price increases from a cap-and-trade system would increase energy costs for American households. According to Dinan’s testimony, a 15 percent cut in CO2 emissions could run the average household about $1,600 (in 2006 dollars). The range: $700 for the average household in the lowest one-fifth of all households, according to income, to nearly $2,200 for households in the highest quintile.

But the CBO’s estimate did not include "any benefits to households from lessening climate change." And the CBO also concluded that cost increases for some families, at least, could be offset if revenues from the allowances were returned to consumers. In his testimony, Dinan said that a 2000 CBO study "concluded that lower-income households could be better off as a result of the policy (even without including any benefits from reducing climate change) if the government chose to sell the allowances and use the revenue to pay an equal lump-sum rebate to every household in the United States."

Burr's Cap and Trade boogeyman is a lie. He not only needs to tell his constituents where he gets his numbers, but he needs to defend his numbers.

Finally, Burr does the typical Republican song and dance about out of control spending on "programs" without naming anything specific.

Too many in Washington are willing to borrow more and more, sending America deeper and deeper in debt. And why? To pay for out-of-control programs which we do not need. America cannot continue these trends of increased spending without serious negative consequences.

Name the programs, Richard. Where are we spending too much? What would you cut? Give us something substantive.

The Bush Administration destroyed a budget surplus through their out-of-control spending. Why did Richard Burr do nothing in his first five years to stop the excessive spending during a time when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the White House?

It's really sad to see a sitting U.S. Senator play games with his constituents.

Comments

Brrrrrr

Seems to have a habit of throwing sh*t against the wall, hoping something will stick. He seems to be taking his political persona from Pat McHenry.

Let me get this one straight

Whenever I get an email from David Young, Chair of the NCDP or from any number of people at Organizing for America or BarackObama.com that asks for money using the health care debate to scare me, I am supposed to see that effort as noble. Is that what you're saying?

I agree that the Republican controlled Congress spent money with abandon but didn't the Federal tax receipts drop precipitously after the attacks for 9/11 and did not rebound to 2000 levels until 2004, after the Bush tax cuts. And by the way, Alan Greenspan may have had more to do with our economic mess than any President in office during his terms, Democrat or Republican.

"A point in every direction is the same as no point at all" - Pointless Man

Scaring vs. lies

It's one thing to present a cogent articulation of facts, allowing the reader to make his or her own decision on whether to be scared or not. It's quite another to make up a pile of bullshit (knowingly lie) with that specific intention.

I agree there's lying on both sides of the aisle, but Republicans like Bush and Burr have elevated it to a dangerous art form.

Bush Worship started 2nd before Obama worship

And don't forget the Bush Worship by the Religious Right! Just like they are accusing little kids of worshiping Obama.....In some political circles this is known as being hypocrites or simply stupid....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWvIOPiKFrs&feature=player_embedded

And of course, it was Dirty Dick Nixon that started this Presidental worship?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z199q-sZr4Y&feature=player_embedded

I've looked at this

before, Piper. That 2004 "rebound" in tax receipts to which you're referring wasn't the product of "new growth" associated with the tax cuts, it was due (primarily) to an uncharacteristically large number of asset liquidations by corporations.

Here's the deal: In addition to lowering income tax rates in the upper brackets, the Bush tax cuts also included reductions in areas like capital gains. Basically, corporations had a window of opportunity to sell real property assets like machinery or even entire divisions (buildings and all) and pay a much smaller amount of tax for the transaction.

This created a "fire sale" mentality, and even though the overall tax receipts were higher during this time, asset liquidation on such a scale is not only unsustainable, it's also destabilizing for the economy. What makes it even worse, a lot of the bigger corporations invested these proceeds in mortgage-backed securities for their corporate portfolio.

Just a bonus question for extra credit: Who do you think was shopping at that fire sale? Hint: Apple Pie is a newly-discovered treat for them.

By my reading of the Federal

By my reading of the Federal Government's published data, personal income tax receipts and capital gains tax receipts went up after the tax cuts of 2003. The Cap Gains tax was reduced from 21.06 to 16.05, a drop of 23.7%. In 1998, under President Clinton, the Cap Gains tax was reduced from 29.19 to 21.19, a 27% reduction.
Income Tax Cap Gains Tax Total
1992 $476,163 $126,692 $602,855
1993 $502,720 $152,259 $654,979
1994 $534,754 $152,727 $687,481
1995 $588,331 $180,130 $768,461
1996 $658,124 $260,696 $918,820
1997 $727,303 $364,829 $1,092,132
1998 $788,452 $455,223 $1,243,675
1999 $877,292 $552,608 $1,429,900
2000 $980,521 $644,285 $1,624,806
2001 $887,882 $349,441 $1,237,323
2002 $796,862 $268,615 $1,065,477
2003 $747,939 $323,306 $1,071,245
2004 $831,890 $499,154 $1,331,044
2005 $934,703 $690,152 $1,624,855
2006 $1,023,739 $798,214 $1,821,953
2007 $1,115,504

I'm not sure that I understand your comments. A corporation would sell assets only if they are not needed to produce income. A corporation will just go out of business using the "fire sale" mentality.

Oh hell, I give up. I'm just making your arguement,now. Let's just raise all taxes to the 75% range and see what happens..... I'm sure I'll be downsizing.

"A point in every direction is the same as no point at all" - Pointless Man

This diary had nothing about capital gains tax, Piper

Are you sure you're commenting on the right diary or did you confuse Cap and Trade with Capital Gains?



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.