BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Framing Effect, and Pessimism Bias, with False Dilemma as the most egregious example at 12.3% saturation with 95 hits. Analysis detected 868 faulty-reasoning hits from 771 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 39.1% and a BS Rank of 28% (15,173 of 21,082 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 72.00% of the article peer group.

House Republicans on Wednesday unveiled a $95 billion legislative plan focused on boosting defense, aiding farmers and enacting stricter voter registration rules, a sequel to the massive tax and spending cut bill that President Donald Trump signed into law last year. 
The plan, called a budget resolution, is a long-shot undertaking designed to supplement Pentagon funding for the Iran war and address Trump’s top priority of changing voter registration requirements. 
A more ambitious effort was narrowed to address concerns from some conservatives about adding to the deficit. 
The plan does not seek any offsets to pay for the new spending. 
Johnson pushed ahead after meeting with Trump at the White House this week in what will be the Republicans’ calling card to voters this fall heading into the midterm elections, with control of Congress at stake. 
“Safeguarding American elections and strengthening our national defense are the most basic responsibilities of Congress,” Johnson said in a statement. 
Johnson welcomed the chance to again use a legislative process that would allow Republicans to overpower Democratic objections and eventually approve legislation on a party-line vote, saying the Democrats won’t be able to block the GOP’s priorities “any longer.” 
Democrats, however, have argued against the sharply partisan path, particularly for matters of war funding. 
The Budget Committee is expected to consider the outline Thursday, ahead of floor action in the House next week. 
Trump has insisted that Republicans approve the elections overhaul bill, which has passed the House but does not have the votes to overcome the 60-vote threshold in the Senate. 
So Republicans are looking to get parts of it through the arduous reconciliation process that allows both chambers to pass a bill with a simple majority. 
Overall, passage of the package would be a lengthy process, with much of the action taking place after lawmakers return from their August recess and during the heart of election season. 
Johnson told reporters his goal is for both chambers to pass the budget framework before lawmakers leave Washington for the August recess. 
Vice President JD Vance met with House Republicans in the afternoon, saying he wanted to give them a message of unity. 
He said they’ve accomplished a lot, but needed to stick together to get “one very big thing” done. 
“We’ve got a good piece of legislation to support the troops, support the farmers and get SAVE America Act passed,” Vance said. 
Democrats mount opposition to the GOP package 
The additional aid for farmers dealing with higher gas and fertilizer prices has become an election year priority for many lawmakers with rural constituencies. 
But even the addition of farm aid is unlikely to be an incentive for Democrats to lend support for what is essentially a Republican-only bill. 
Democrats are expected to overwhelmingly oppose whatever final product emerges and force Republicans to take votes on scores of difficult amendments. 
Rep. 
Brendan Boyle, the lead Democratic lawmaker on the House Budget Committee, said the GOP’s budget plan would lead to tens of billions of dollars in additional debt to fund what he called the most unpopular war in American history. 
“I’m going to fight like hell to make sure taxpayer dollars are being used to lower costs and make life better for American families, not to bankroll Trump’s giveaways to billionaires and endless wars overseas,” Boyle said. 
Johnson, of Louisiana, applauded Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, and others on the panel for moving swiftly to tee up the resolution and unlock what would be Republicans’ third reconciliation bill this Congress. 
Trump’s big tax breaks bill last year and the Homeland Security funding bill this year both passed largely along party lines. 
Arrington said several factors contributed to the decision not to offset some of the new spending Republicans will seek. 
First, the Trump administration’s call for more defense spending was winnowed to just meeting replenishment needs during a time of war. 
Second, he was concerned that some of the savings generated in last year’s party line bill could be relitigated and stripped out if the Senate Finance Committee had been instructed to find offsets. 
Republicans could have tried to work with Democrats to pass more defense spending through the regular budgeting process or through an emergency spending bill, but that would require bipartisan support to get through the Senate. 
And Democrats likely would have sought commensurate spending increases for non-defense priorities. 
“There’s no doubt that Democrats would exact a big price,” Arrington said. 
“… We avoided that, so I would say in this moment, with this scenario, that’s a win.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.8%Kevin Freking: 0.8%AP News: 2.0%Confirmation Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 1.5%AP News: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.8%Kevin Freking: 3.0%AP News: 2.7%Availability Heuristic5.8%This article: 1.6%Kevin Freking: 0.8%AP News: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic1.6%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.5%AP News: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 1.2%AP News: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 11.8%Kevin Freking: 9.9%AP News: 8.0%Framing Effect11.8%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.6%AP News: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 1.2%AP News: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 2.2%Kevin Freking: 0.2%AP News: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect2.2%This article: 2.3%Kevin Freking: 2.0%AP News: 2.2%Optimism Bias2.3%This article: 9.9%Kevin Freking: 2.2%AP News: 2.1%Pessimism Bias9.9%This article: 7.8%Kevin Freking: 6.8%AP News: 9.6%Negativity Bias7.8%This article: 7.0%Kevin Freking: 3.0%AP News: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias7.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.7%AP News: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.3%AP News: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 9.5%Kevin Freking: 4.8%AP News: 1.1%In-Group Bias9.5%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.9%AP News: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Kevin Freking: 1.0%AP News: 1.4%Halo Effect2.9%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 1.7%AP News: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%AP News: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.1%AP News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.8%AP News: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.5%AP News: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 2.6%Kevin Freking: 2.0%AP News: 3.7%Appeal to Authority2.6%This article: 12.3%Kevin Freking: 3.4%AP News: 1.2%False Dilemma12.3%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.8%AP News: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.5%Kevin Freking: 4.4%AP News: 2.5%Hasty Generalization7.5%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.3%AP News: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 1.1%AP News: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 12.2%Kevin Freking: 8.3%AP News: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion12.2%This article: 1.6%Kevin Freking: 0.9%AP News: 0.6%Begging the Question1.6%This article: 4.3%Kevin Freking: 1.6%AP News: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.3%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.3%AP News: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.3%AP News: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.1%AP News: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.7%AP News: 1.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.7%AP News: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.3%AP News: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.5%AP News: 2.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 2.6%Kevin Freking: 1.5%AP News: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection2.6%This article: 5.1%Kevin Freking: 4.3%AP News: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice5.1%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.3%AP News: 0.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.4%AP News: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.9%AP News: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.3%AP News: 0.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

771 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers10.0%attributed speech694writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageJD Vance • 18 words • 0.0% coverageJD Vance • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageBrendan Boyle • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Brendan Boyle

100%flagged-word coverage
37 attributed words48% of attributed speech65% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Biased Writer Voice-5.6 ptsWriter: 5.6%Brendan Boyle: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.9 ptsWriter: 2.9%Brendan Boyle: 0.0%0.0%

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.