Conservatives in Congress are resting their objections to effective green economy legislation on a bogus stat. Conservative leaders like Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) are attacking the cap-and-trade proposal before Congress by claiming that it would “cost every American family up to $3,100 per year in higher energy prices.”

This is a deliberate lie.

They seem to be getting this number from an intentional misinterpretation of a 2007 study performed by a group of researchers at the MIT.

In an interview with PolitiFact, John Reilly, an MIT professor and one of the authors of the study, explained about this $3,100 claim:

“It’s just wrong. It’s wrong in so many ways it’s hard to begin.”” [...]

“Someone from the House Republicans had called me (March 20) and asked about this,” Reilly said. “I had explained why the estimate they had was probably incorrect and what they should do to correct it, but I think this wrong number was already floating around by that time.”

House Republicans apparently took the total revenues from the hypothetical cap and trade system that MIT analyzed and crudely divided it by the number of households in America, getting approximately $3,100 per family.

What they don’t mention, however, is that not only did John Reilly explicitly tell them that this was an inappropriate way to do this calculation, but that MIT had determined the net welfare effect on a typical family and the burden would be less than 1/40th what they claim, and wouldn’t occur until 2015.

As PolitiFact explains: “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.” In exchange, we’d get a clean & renewable energy economy, decreased reliance on oil, and a safer climate for the world.

The reason Boehner’s methodology is totally inappropriate?

“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. [In this case,President Obama wants to use revenues from cap-and-trade to fund a tax cut for 95% of working families]“

When conservatives tell you you’d see your energy bills go up $3,100 every year, it’s not distortion or spin, it’s just a lie.

Cross-posted at ThinkProgress.

As debate on the 2010 budget began in the Senate today, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) appeared on CNBC to explain an amendment to the bill that he is proposing. Sessions’ plan is to implement a two year federal spending freeze, to be followed by three years with no more than one percent spending growth. Sessions characterized the amendment as “perfectly responsible.”

Noting that “it’s very easy to throw rocks and shoot spitballs,” CNBC’s Donny Deutsch then asked Sessions three times where in the budget he would cut spending. Sessions refused to answer each time, finally claiming that he can’t specify cuts because he doesn’t “have access” to the same information that President Barack Obama does. Watch it:

Of course, a spending freeze is only “perfectly responsible” if you find it perfectly responsible to endanger the economic recovery with anti-stimulus. Sessions doesn’t seem to grasp this at all, as his justification for the freeze is that the stimulus was enacted.

And Deutsch, who is emerging as the occasional voice of reason at CNBC, was spot-on in pressing Sessions as to where he would make cuts. As Hilzoy noted, Republicans have essentially “proposed a whole raft of new tax cuts and only one specific spending cut, ‘ending the bailouts.’” Indeed, there are legitimate debates to be had about priorities in the budget — and there are probably woefully inefficient and fraud-ridden programs that can be pared back — but the Republican position has been to advocate the “dramatic effect” of a spending freeze. Given the economic climate that we’re in, that’s simply not productive.

Today, Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General for the TARP, appeared before the Senate Finance Committee to lay out his efforts to track TARP money. Barofsky explained that his office has asked for and received responses from all of the TARP recipients regarding their use of the funds, which he claimed directly rebuts the Treasury Department’s charge that tracking the money is “challenging at best.” As Barofsky said:

One thing, however, was apparent from the responses – complaints that it was impractical or impossible for banks to detail how they used TARP funds were unfounded. While some banks indicated that they had procedures for monitoring their use of TARP money, others did not but were still able to give information on their use of funds.

This is a big improvement over where we were just a few months ago, when the banks simply refused to provide information about where their TARP funds were going. Whether they’ve broken down and provided answers because someone is actually putting some effort into getting them, or because of the bad PR connected to all the secrecy is anyone’s guess, but this is a promising development.

So where is the money going? Last week, JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon said that banks were using “some” TARP money appropriately. In a report he provided to the committee, Barofsky fleshed this out a bit more:

Respondents provided diverse answers to how funds received have been used such as to strengthen the capital base of individual banks providing a foundation for lending activities; retiring debt, purchasing mortgage backed securities, increasing credit lines, making loans, etc.

Now, its not immediately worrisome that banks are buying mortgage backed securities, but as we noted last week, some bailed-out banks may be speculating on toxic assets with TARP money. This is something worth keeping an eye on.

Barofsky said that his report “makes an even stronger case for a recommendation we made back in December and which up until now has not been adopted — Treasury should require TARP recipients to monitor their use of funds and be required to provided certified reports to Treasury on how they are using taxpayer money.”

Elizabeth Warren, chair of the TARP’s Congressional Oversight Panel, reiterated this, and told the committee that “we do not seem to be a priority for the Treasury Department.” Indeed, while oversight seems to have improved slightly, the TARP is still not transparent enough to prevent the banks from gambling with taxpayer money.