A union and a liberal organization have teamed up to run a TV ad against 8th District Republican Congressman Chip Cravaack.
The spot targets the first-term lawmaker for voting in favor of Republican Rep. Paul Ryan's fiscal year 2013 budget proposal.
Cravaack voted to give "big oil companies more tax breaks," a woman's voice in the ad states. Her criticism is set to a shot of Cravaack next to the following quote: "Cravaack/Ryan budget '[gives] oil tax breaks worth $40 billion [to] companies such as Exxon."
The ad, which is being paid for by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and Americans United for Change, gets its number right but its description of what Cravaack voted for is misleading.
Like most of his Republican colleagues, Cravaack voted in favor of Ryan's $3.5 trillion fiscal year 2013 budget proposal, which passed the U.S. House largely on party lines. The document is meant to be a blueprint for Congress's spending plans.
Budgets are also used to frame election-year politics, and this one is no exception. There are a lot of things Democrats don't like about Ryan's proposal, including its changes to Medicare and its cuts in domestic spending.
The Cravaack ad highlights another aspect of Ryan's budget that's already become campaign ammunition: gas prices and oil tax breaks.
According to White House Office of Management and Budget, the typical tax perks oil and gas companies take advantage of are worth nearly $40 billion over ten years.
But the ad says Cravaack voted to give oil companies more tax breaks.
To support their claim, Americans United for Change points to a post written by Daniel J. Weiss who is the director of climate strategy for the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank in Washington, D.C.
Weiss wrote that even though oil companies are enjoying a profit, "it appears that House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's (R-WI) proposed FY 2013 budget resolution would retain a decade's worth of oil tax breaks worth $40 billion."
The Ryan proposal doesn't extend oil tax breaks that are set to expire or give oil companies more tax benefits, as the ad implies. Rather, it leaves those tax breaks untouched, while Democrats, including President Barack Obama, have called for their repeal.
Preserving oil and gas tax breaks illustrates a level of hypocrisy on Ryan's part, Weiss said.
"They're cutting billions of dollars for other needs in Medicare, in education, in other programs that are vital to middle class Americans," he said.
Americans United for Change spokesman Jeremy Funk also pointed out that the Ryan proposal would trim the corporate tax rate. But that change would benefit all firms, not just oil and gas companies.
It's just one word, but there's a big difference between "more" and "retain." It's true that current oil and gas tax breaks are worth about $40 billion. And oil and gas companies would likely benefit from cutting the corporate tax rate.
But to say that Cravaack voted to give oil and gas companies more tax breaks is misleading. The Ryan budget simply assumes that those tax benefits remain unchanged.
YouTube, Does Chip Cravaack Think We Were Born Yesterday? Hands Off My Medicare!, accessed April 2, 2012
The Center for American Progress, Ryan Budget Pads Big Oil's Pockets with Senseless Subsidies: Spending Plan Keeps $40 Billion in Tax Breaks for Wealthiest Companies, by Daniel Weiss, March 20, 2012
The Washington Post, House approves $3.5 trillion budget plan proposed by Paul Ryan, By Rosalind S. Helderman and Paul Kane, March 29, 2012
THOMAS, H. Con. Res. 34, accessed April 3, 2012
House Budget Committee, Path to Prosperity: A Blueprint for American Renewal, accessed April 3, 2012
Report: Concurrent Resolution on the Budget - Fiscal Year 2013, March 23, 2012
Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2013: Cuts, Consolidations, and Savings, accessed April 3, 2012
Interview, Dan Weiss, Center for American Progress, April 3, 2012
Interview, Isabelle Sawhill, The Brookings Institution, April 3, 2012
E-mail exchange, Ben Golnick, adviser, Cravaack campaign, April 3, 2012
E-mail exchange, Jeremy Funk, spokesman, Americans United for Change, April 3, 2012
It's just one word, but there's a big difference between "more" and "retain."
If tax breaks specifically targeting Big Oil are retained, Big Oil will gain $40 billion more than if Big Oil paid the same tax as others similarly situated - which is exactly what the ad states. This isn't a misleading charge. It's exactly true. Is that so hard to understand? Sheesh!
Apparently it is hard to tell the difference between 'more' and 'retain.' If you have a tax deduction on your house of X amount and it remains the same, X still equals X. X does not mean 'more' than X. Very simple that even Mr. Crammedin does not understand. The ad is more than misleading. It's plain false, which is a lie. Sheesh!
If you give me 1000 dollars every year, and then you have to decide whether to go ahead and give me 1000 dollars the next year, are you not deciding whether or not to give me MORE?
If you adopt a law that gives me 1000 dollars a year and that law has an expiration date and you modify the law to give me money in MORE years and is that not MORE money? Money is a finite (debatable) substance, imagine it in a big pile. It is a thing. Until Chip and his ilk decided to give MORE money from the pile of money we the people have, to the oil companies, there would have been MORE in the pile for other things, but now there will be LESS in the pile for things like medicare and other things for the people and MORE in the pile for oil companies.
If I get 1000 dollars every year for 5 years I have 5000 dollars (unless I spend some on bubble gum)
If I get 1000 dollars for 6 years I have 6000 dollars.
6000 is MORE than 5000.
Get it yet?
MORE money. MORE.
I agree with NorthernGirl's analysis ... after all, one of the Republicans who voted against Cravaack, Ed Whitfield (R-KY-01) said “I am not going to vote for a budget that takes more than 20 years to be in balance.” Whitfield said Ryan’s plan would balance the budget by 2040.
Yet I am a little confused as to why they are running this in Minnesota ... Did you see this press release entitled Granite State Progress Launches ‘Chip for New Hampshire’ Campaign
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Sunday, April 01, 2012
Zandra Rice Hawkins, (603) 892-2150
Granite State Progress Launches ‘Chip for New Hampshire’ Campaign
Cravaack’s record of standing with corporate special interests a perfect fit
CONCORD, NH — The “Chip for New Hampshire” movement has begun.
Today, Granite State Progress announced the launch of “Chip for New Hampshire,” a campaign encouraging Chip Cravaack to run for Congress in his new home state — New Hampshire!
“Today, the ‘Chip for New Hampshire’ movement has begun,” said Zandra Rice Hawkins, Director of Granite State Progress. “This campaign gives Rep. Cravaack the opportunity to live up to his word. By running in New Hampshire Cravaack avoids the uncomfortable quandary of running as an absentee Congressman after winning his 2010 election hurling charges of absenteeism.”
Only six months after taking office as Minnesota’s Congressman from the 8th Congressional District, Cravaack left Minnesota and moved his family to beautiful Windham, New Hampshire. Cravaack admitted the move only allows him time to spend one day a week in the district he currently represents in Minnesota. Opponents criticized the move as hypocritical, noting that Cravaack campaigned against his opponent’s out-of-state residency in 2010.
Cravaack currently lives in New Hampshire’s 1st Congressional District.
“If Congressman Cravaack ran in New Hampshire, he could spend more time with his family and not have to release those pesky records Minnesotans are demanding to find out how much time he is actually spending in Minnesota’s 8th District ,” Rice Hawkins said. “The only challenge for Cravaack here in New Hampshire might be convincing his New Hampshire constituents that, despite his record in Minnesota, he sides with working families, not corporate special interests.”
Cravaack’s record of putting corporate special interests ahead of Northeastern Minnesota families includes:
Voting, to deny seniors health care and make college less affordable instead of focusing on job creation and getting Minnesota back on track
Voting for the radical House Republican budget (also known as the ‘Ryan Budget),’ which would have given away more than $2.9 trillion in tax breaks for the richest Americans and big corporations while slashing tens of thousands of jobs in Minnesota.
Turning his back on Minnesota’s students by voting to cut $64 billion over the next decade from the federal Pell Grant program, which provides financial aid to college students.
Voting to end Medicare as we know it instead of standing up for the seniors in Cravaack’s district.
“While the ‘Cravaack for New Hampshire’ campaign may be an April Fools joke, Chip Cravaack’s choice to defend corporate special interests at the expense of students, seniors, and middle class families in Northeastern Minnesota is no laughing matter,” Rice Hawkins concluded. “Cravaack needs to focus on real working family issues, and he needs to do it by living in the community he purports to represent.”
The government doesn't GIVE money it TAKES money. By not raising taxes the government is NOT TAKING MORE money from those that have legitimately earned it! Every penny the government spends is money TAKEN from people, whether it is from a wage employee, a business owner or a stock holder. The government takes the money and says "we know better how to distribute your money than you do." And what torques many of us off is not taxes that are paying for infrastructure and common defense, it's about tax moneys being redistributed based on political agenda's and attempts at social engineering.
Let the floggings begin! :-p
Liberals lie, unions lie. It's just the way it is.