My representative doesn't represent me - 2

The other day I received this mailer from Rep. Doug Lamborn:

There are many things wrong with it but let me pick on a few.  First take a look at the graph, "A Choice of Two Futures".  The current level of debt is something like half what it was at what appears to be the end of WW2.  And here we are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, a little in Libya and then all the post WW2 strategic deployments (Korea, Germany, I don't know where all).  So right away, that doesn't seem like too much debt.
Then there's some exponential curve that purports to be our projected debt at "our current rate of spending".  It's ludicrous on the face of it.  There's nothing historical to support that function, in fact more like the opposite.  It's just more right-wing "fact by assertion".

Then there's Lamborn's letter where he refers to the "failed trillion dollar stimulus bill"  and how the "treasury pumped hundreds of billions of dollars in borrowed money into the struggling economy".  Absent from his analysis is any notion of the utter catastrophe that market capitalism left us with and how much worse shape we'd be in if those initiatives he so despises were not undertaken.  But enough of that.  The real outrage is on the 2nd page.

In what he trumpets as a "Common-sense Jobs Plan", Lamborn lists 4 broad aphorisms, talking points of the right for some time now, that have no self-evident connection to the creation of jobs at all.  The times of low unemployment in the United States historically have never been associated with any of these things.  In fact, the only empirical evidence there is suggests that the measures Lamborn endorses will actually lower both the standard of living in the US and the rate of employment.  It is, of course, axiomatic to the conservative movement that taxes are bad for the economy.  Well, axiomatic or not, the only evidence we have is that taxes are at best irrelevant and more likely constructive.

And his "note to seniors" (of which I am one)!  Absent entirely, although not unexpectedly, is any acknowledgement that just increasing revenues a little will actually constitute the "real reform" he supposedly wants.