More bogus numbers in Shimkus letter

I called my Congressman, John Shimkus, on the day of the Waxman-Markey ACES vote. I know it won't change his mind but I won't allow him to claim that everyone in the district agrees with him.

I received a quick, courteous email response on Saturday, June 27. He starts by stating his support for "renewable and alternative" energy (that's what they all say) "including solar, wind, nuclear, ethanol and biodiesel."

He continues with two misstatements of facts in this paragraph:

Currently, 85% of electricity generated in the United States comes from carbon based fuels like coal, oil and natural gas. Therefore, any cap on these sources of energy would essentially be a tax on everyone who uses electricity. This new tax could total up to $3,128 per household annually. As family budgets are tightening around the country in this recession, higher electric bills are the last thing Americans need.

The US Department of Energy reports that in 2007 only 72% of US electrical generation came from coal, oil and natural gas. Fossil fuel sources, and coal-fired generation in particular, are even lower through March of 2009, while wind generation is growing rapidly.

More bothersome is his use of the widely discredited $3,128 estimate trumped up by Republican leaders. They claim to base the number on a study that wasn't about the ACES bill specifically. It has been widely reported by FactCheck.org and others that an author of the report called the number "simplistic and misleading."

Coincidentally, Al Gore wrote this morning about the cost of the ACES bill.

In Washington, the CBO is considered one of the best sources for the cost of legislation. They wrote: "On that basis, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the net annual economy wide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion-or about $175 per household."
That works out to approximately the cost of a postage stamp a day.

I enjoy linking to Gore because conservative bloggers and talk radio fans have a big crush on him. Why else do they bring him up so obsessively?

Shimkus' letter mentions nothing about job creation and residential efficiency programs to lower monthly electric bills that are part of the legislation.

I can only assume that the same claims are made in all his constituent letters about global warming, plus his Congressional website links to a debunked study from the corporate advocacy group, Heritage Foundation. Why does Shimkus feel the need to make his case by misleading his constituents?