Just a few years ago, President George W. Bush’s cronies at Enron stole billions of dollars from average Americans by gaming the energy markets. In Washington State, for instance, the company raked in almost $2 billion through illegal profiteering. Enron traders were caught on tape laughing about being “in the mood to screw with people” and “want[ing] to see what pain and heartache this is going to cause.”

But apparently for the Bush administration, consumers didn’t get fleeced enough. In his 2006 budget, the president is pushing to raise electricity rates in many of the same regions that were bilked by his friends at Enron. Specifically, Bush is pushing to make the Bonneville Power Administration (a network of publicly-owned dams and power plants) raise its electricity rates in order to help cover his tax-cut-induced deficits. It is a classic example of how Bush wants to rob average Americans (aka. electricity ratepayers) to finance his plans to pay off the rich.

Don’t believe me? Then believe some of Bush’s staunchest allies on Capitol Hill, who are apalled at the brazen effort to bilk consumers. For instance, Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) said, “if this plan is implemented, it would cost the Northwest hundreds of millions and possibly billions of dollars” and promised that “I am going to exhaust every right and privilege I have, as a Senator, to kill this proposal.”

I don’t expect Bush to back off on this proposal – remember, money talks in Washington.

“The death tax deserves to die.” That little wordplay is courtesy of right wing propagandist Luntz who then proceeds to describe “the language of death tax repeal [as] easy for working and retired Americans to understand and appreciate.” Besides continuing to casually deride the American citizens, Luntz presents some “common sense principles” behind repealing the death tax. Except his explanations don’t make sense themselves:

The death tax is the wrong tax. It accounts for just one percent of the nation’s revenues, and dollar for dollar, it costs more to collect than any other federal tax.

It hurts the wrong people. If you saved for the future, put away money for your children, built a small business, ran a family farm, or achieved the American Dream in other ways, the death tax punishes you and prevents you from sharing your dream and hard work with your loved ones.

In actuality, repealing the estate tax would reduce revenues for federal government and state governments — a permanent repeal “would cost $162 billion through 2013” — while providing a “massive windfall for some of the country’s wealthiest families,” as the estate tax affects only about 2 percent of America’s estates. Furthermore, even if the tax is repealed, the estates stand to “still be taxed at the state level.”

It helps the wrong people. The only people helped by the estate tax are the army of fancy lawyers, expensive tax accountants and IRS agents.

And by saying the tax “hurts the wrong people” Luntz must mean President Bush’s close allies; most of the individuals from his original cabinet would benefit from the repeal. The tax hurts millionaires, not the average American, but Luntz continues to villify lawyers, accountants, and the IRS. Luntz seems set on putting them in the crosshairs; earlier in his report he shows little sympathy for this part of our citizenry: “[N]o one will weep for the IRS agents, tax attorneys and CPAs who would rather keep a complicated, confusing and corrupt tax system in place than go out and get another job.”

Luntz is stunned by “just how easy it is to convince people of the absurdity of the death tax if you stick to these principles.” Yes, Luntz may find it “truly remarkable” that campaigns of half-truths and flat out lies can convince people of anything — even weapons of mass destruction in Iraq — but it certainly is not principled.

[Influential conservative strategist Frank Luntz has produced a 160-page playbook to advance the right-wing agenda. Think Progress cuts through the spin and gives you the tools you need to fight back. Check here for updates throughout the week.]

Never mind that President Bush’s budget is the largest in American history, or that his first-term tax cuts are responsible for a much larger portion of the federal deficit than any spending increases.

Luntz’s message on the budget? Our earlier lies worked — why fix what’s not broken?

“Americans still believe the primary cause of the deficit is wasteful Washington spending, not the tax cuts,” Luntz says. “So tell them: ‘Americans aren’t taxed too little. Washington spends too much.’” Problem solved!

[Influential conservative strategist Frank Luntz has produced a 160-page playbook to advance the right-wing agenda. Think Progress cuts through the spin and gives you the tools you need to fight back. Check here for updates throughout the week.]

From “key communication point” number nine on Lawsuit Abuse Reform:

You must always explain how and why lawsuit abuse is driving up the cost of healthcare.

Good advice, if only it were true. From yesterday’s New York Times:

For all the worry over higher medical expenses, legal costs do not seem to be at the root of the recent increase in malpractice insurance premiums. Government and industry data show only a modest rise in malpractice claims over the last decade. And last year, the trend in payments for malpractice claims against doctors and other medical professionals turned sharply downward, falling 8.9 percent, to a nationwide total of $4.6 billion, according to data compiled by the Health and Human Services Department.

[Influential conservative strategist Frank Luntz has produced a 160-page playbook to advance the right-wing agenda. Think Progress cuts through the spin and gives you the tools you need to fight back. Check here for updates throughout the week.]

President Bush likes to credit his massive tax cuts for the mega-rich for turning around the economy. According to Luntz, it’s time to cut it out. In his playbook, he writes, “Don’t assert that the tax cuts caused the economic recovery…we have never found a Republican who has effectively made the case for strong economic growth as a result of the tax cut. It has been tried and tried and tried and it just doesn’t sound credible.”

There’s a reason it doesn’t sound credible, Mr. Luntz: The tax cuts didn’t cause the economic recovery.

As a matter of fact, the 8/12/04 New York Times pointed out, for every dollar spent on Bush’s tax cuts, the economy only received about 59 cents of economic stimulus. That means higher deficits without much bang for the buck. In contrast, “the economic bang for a dollar of aid to state governments is $1.24. Yet such assistance accounted for only 3 percent of the total cost of Mr. Bush’s fiscal policies.”

Frank Luntz, recognizing this, is advising conservatives that “instead of linking the current economic situation with tax cuts, you would be better off linking tax increases to future economic hardship.” In plain language — since there’s no way to say these tax cuts for the rich have done anything to help average Americans, a better strategy is to scare the pants off the public about the dire (but vague) consequences of rolling these expensive tax cuts back.

[Influential conservative strategist Frank Luntz has produced a 160-page playbook to advance the right-wing agenda. Think Progress cuts through the spin and gives you the tools you need to fight back. Check here for updates throughout the week.]

Frank Luntz states the obvious — conservatives aren’t being honest about Social Security:

As it stands now, Republicans lack factual discipline. Figures, dates and even analogies are woefully all over the place.

In the same chapter, he advises this dishonest response to concerns that Bush’s $2 trillion privatization scheme is too expensive:

The perfect response is to show that yes, we know that, and look at how doing nothing is MUCH more expensive (11 trillion dollars).

That statement forcefully implies that private accounts will solve any long range shortfall in the Social Security system. In fact, even the administration has conceded, private accounts will do nothing to improve the financial condition of Social Security. From the LA Times on February 3:

A Bush aide, briefing reporters on the condition of anonymity [said] that the individual accounts would do nothing to solve the system’s long-term financial problems.

[Influential conservative strategist Frank Luntz has produced a 160-page playbook to advance the right-wing agenda. Think Progress cuts through the spin and gives you the tools you need to fight back. Check here for updates throughout the week.]

Some snippets from the overview:

Use reform not simplification. Reform sounds like Americans will end up paying more but everyone likes the word simplification. (And we all know how simple President Bush likes to keep things. Because being President is hard work. It’s hard.)

People hate tax hikes more than they like tax cuts so instead of making Bush tax cuts permanent, say that revoking the tax cuts would lead to “the largest tax increase in American history.” (Especially don’t say that the Bush tax cuts have lead to the largest federal deficit in American history)

In step one, legislators are given a few instructions on how to set the mood:

• Stress how badly Washington spends their money. “The only way to stop wasteful Washington s pending now and forever is to keep the money with those who earned it…If Washington doesn’t have your money, Washington can’t spend your money.” (Some thing tells us that it won’t be difficult to convince the American people that this administration’s spending is out of control.)

• And when attacking Washington, especially go after the IRS: “The IRS is still the most hated institution of government. You cannot overdo it when it comes to attacking the IRS.” (Nothing like advocating the school bully strategy.)

• And like a petulant child, stomp your foot and say, Taxes aren’t fair! “It IS an issue of FAIRNESS. It’s time…to talk about why the tax system punishes the successful.” (Actually, the middle class now bears the burden of the tax system. Thanks to Bush’s tax cuts.) Read more

[Influential conservative strategist Frank Luntz has produced a 160-page playbook to advance the right-wing agenda. Think Progress cuts through the spin and gives you the tools you need to fight back. Check here for updates throughout the week.]

In his memo on how to manipulate American perception on the economy, right-wing spinmeister Frank Luntz advises conservatives to “resist the temptation’ to use facts and figures about the economy. (You know, all those pesky statistics about lower wages, unemployment, skyrocketing deficits, etc.) Instead, he advises, you can’t go wrong if you continuosly remind people about the terrorist attacks of 9/11. “This is the context that explains and justifies why we have $500 billion deficits, why the stock market tanked, why unemployment climbed to 6%.”

Oh, yes, he advises preying on the emotions tied to the terrorist attacks to distract Americans from the truth about the economy, writing, “Much of the public anger can be immediately pacified if they are reminded that we would not be in this situation today if 9/11 had not happened.” It’s also an easy way to get President Bush off the hook: Luntz points out that convincing people that the struggling economy is a consequence of 9/11 (as opposed to, say, Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy) will convince people “it is unfair to blame the current political leadership”

Finally, Luntz advises, 9/11 is the perfect way to dodge responsibility for sinking the country in red ink. In a section headed “Without the context of 9-11, you will be blamed for the deficit,” he points out “supporters are inherently turned off to the idea of fiscal irresponsibility.” The best way to counter that fact? “The trick then is to contextualize the deficit inside of 9/11.”

[Influential conservative strategist Frank Luntz has produced a 160-page playbook to advance the right-wing agenda. Think Progress cuts through the spin and gives you the tools you need to fight back. Check here for updates throughout the week.]

From, “more words that work” on lawsuit abuse reform:

“We all remember the McDonald’s lawsuit…millions paid out to a woman who, at a drive-through window, spilled coffee on her lap that was – go figure – HOT!”

FACT: As a result of her injuries, 79 year old Stella Liebeck spent eight days in a hospital. In that time she underwent expensive treatments for third-degree burns including debridement (removal of dead tissue) and skin grafting. The burns left her scarred and disabled for more than two years

FACT: Before a suit was ever filed, Liebeck informed McDonald’s about her injuries and asked for compensation for her medical bills, which totaled almost $11,000. McDonald’s countered by offering her $800.

FACT: The original, $2.7 million award was equal to two days of McDonald’s corporation coffee sales.

FACT: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

FACT: During trial, McDonald’s admitted that it had known about the risk of serious burns from its coffee for more than 10 years. From 1982 to 1992, McDonald’s received more than 700 reports of burns from scalding coffee; some of the injured were children and infants. Many customers received severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs and buttocks.