BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including In-Group Bias, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Negativity Bias, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 6.3% saturation with 40 hits. Analysis detected 151 faulty-reasoning hits from 636 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 11.5% and a BS Rank of 4% (29,370 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 96.00% of the article peer group.

Senate Republicans abandoned plans Friday night to try to take up a budget resolution for a third reconciliation package, bowing to the reality that they lacked enough votes for it. 
The decision to scrap a planned procedural vote on the budget came after a late-night meeting in Majority Leader John Thune’s office with key senators and a phone call with President Donald Trump. 
Trump had urged the Senate for weeks not to leave town for the August recess before making headway on a reconciliation package that would pump up defense spending and impose elements of the so-called SAVE America Act, which would require proof of citizenship to register to vote and photo ID at the polls. 
But Senate Budget Chairman Ron Johnson, R-Wis., said Trump agreed to give the reconciliation effort more time to shore up support. 
“There was a concern whether or not we could actually pass the budget resolution tonight,” Johnson told reporters after the meeting. 
“Then we had a discussion with the president. 
He agrees. 
Don’t take the vote tonight, and just work diligently through August and September to do an actually  better reconciliation bill.” 
The decision to punt came hours after Johnson unveiled the text of the budget resolution whose size and shape had long divided the GOP conference. 
The resolution was designed to provide up to $105 billion for defense spending, farm aid and voter ID measures. 
The budget blueprint amounts to a slightly expanded version of the resolution the House adopted last month, which would set the framework for a $95 billion package. 
The Senate budget mostly mirrors the House plan for $60 billion in defense spending, $13 billion for intelligence and $12 billion in farm aid. 
But it would provide $20 billion for voter ID measures, or $10 billion more than the House plan, Johnson said. 
The plain text of the resolution would allow for up to $150 billion in total spending without any offsets required. 
But Johnson said that figure is inflated to provide maximum flexibility to the authorizing committees charged with drafting the detailed reconciliation bill. 
While the resolution technically would allow for up to $60 billion for voter ID measures spread across three committees, for example, Johnson said the final spending total for that initiative would be $20 billion. 
To avoid any jurisdictional challenges under the complicated rules of reconciliation in the Senate, the resolution would give instructions to 11 committees  Agriculture, Armed Services, Commerce, Energy and Natural Resources, Foreign Relations, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Indian Affairs, Intelligence, Judiciary, Rules and Veterans’ Affairs. 
By contrast, the House budget would instruct only four committees: Agriculture, Armed Services, Intelligence and Administration. 
House leaders sought to narrow the instructions to avoid enlarging the package and risking its chances of adoption. 
While Senate leaders sought to provide greater flexibility, instructions this wide would give Democrats many opportunities to put forward germane amendments that could pose difficult votes for vulnerable Republican senators. 
The resolution does avoid an instruction to the Finance Committee, which would have allowed for germane amendments on health and welfare programs. 
The $60 billion for defense spending, which matches the House plan, would not please defense hawks who want far more. 
The Trump administration has asked for $350 billion in defense spending to be provided through reconciliation, as part of an overall proposal of $1.5 trillion in defense funding  an increase of more than 40 percent over this year’s level. 
With the Senate now set to leave for its August recess without action on the budget, Johnson vowed to continue the effort in September. 
“We’re not giving up,” he said earlier Friday. 
“I mean, we need to fund [the] military, I believe. 
We need to fund election integrity measures. 
So, I can’t predict the future.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 0.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.4%Roll Call: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Aidan Quigley: 1.2%Roll Call: 2.2%Availability Heuristic6.3%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 0.1%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.9%Aidan Quigley: 1.2%Roll Call: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias0.9%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 2.6%Roll Call: 4.6%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.3%Aidan Quigley: 1.8%Roll Call: 0.8%Optimism Bias1.3%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Aidan Quigley: 3.5%Roll Call: 5.5%Negativity Bias3.1%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 0.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.9%Aidan Quigley: 0.4%Roll Call: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.9%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Aidan Quigley: 1.8%Roll Call: 1.0%In-Group Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.5%Roll Call: 0.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 1.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.5%Roll Call: 1.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.6%Roll Call: 2.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 4.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.3%Roll Call: 0.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 0.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 0.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.5%Aidan Quigley: 1.4%Roll Call: 0.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.5%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.3%Aidan Quigley: 0.9%Roll Call: 0.7%Unattributed Quote0.3%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.9%Roll Call: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 1.5%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 0.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 1.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Aidan Quigley: 0.5%Roll Call: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%Aidan Quigley: 0.0%Roll Call: 0.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

636 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker28%attributed speech456writer words
Selected voice

Ron Johnson

31%flagged-word coverage
180 attributed words100% of attributed speech20% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Politically Right Leaning +9.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Ron Johnson: 9.4%9.4%Unattributed Quote+1.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Ron Johnson: 1.1%1.1%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.