FactCheck.org: False Democratic attack on Republicans who signed Americans for Tax Reform pledge

[alp227]

Democrats and their allies can’t get enough of the Americans for Tax Reform tax pledge — which, as we’ve reported, they’ve falsely equated in a number of ads with "protecting tax loopholes for companies that ship jobs overseas." Still, Democrats continue to use the bogus charge against Republicans, including in West Virginia’s Senate race and House races in Connecticut, New York, Maryland and the state of Washington, to name a few.

And now, there’s a new twist on the false tax attack in the Massachusetts’ gubernatorial campaign. A labor-financed political committee accuses Republican Charlie Baker of "favoring tax loopholes that encourage corporations to ship our jobs overseas" and signing "a pledge to protect those loopholes." However, the pledge for gubernatorial candidates — a single sentence promising to oppose or veto any new state taxes — is different than the one for federal candidates, so the attack on Baker makes even less sense.

--snip--

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s ad falsely accused Republican candidate Charles Kong Djou of signing a pledge "that protects tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas." The Democratic spin: If you sign the pledge, then you oppose closing tax loopholes, an act that would raise taxes on U.S.-based corporations with foreign operations.

But, as we said at the time, the pledge a) says nothing about jobs, and b) does not rule out an overhaul of the tax code. So signers could vote to close tax loopholes and lower taxes elsewhere without violating the tax pledge. Here’s what the pledge says:

ATR’s Pledge for House and Senate Candidates

I will:

ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and

TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.

The Democrats’ attack on Djou failed, and he became the first Republican to represent President Obama’s home state in Congress in 20 years. But that didn’t deter the Democrats.

More Faulty Logic

The most curious misuse of the pledge comes from Bay State Future — a recently formed 527 political organization funded by Service Employees International Union, the Massachusetts Teachers Association and the Democratic Governors Association.

Bay State’s ad — which first aired Sept. 28 — targets Charlie Baker, Republican candidate for governor in Massachusetts. It opens by asking the question, "Worried about jobs?" The ad then goes on to describe how Baker favors tax loopholes that encourage companies to ship jobs overseas and "even signed a pledge to protect those loopholes." The group cites the ATR pledge to support its claim.

But the pledge for candidates for governor is even more straightforward than the one for congressional candidates:

ATR’s Pledge for Gubernatorial Candidates

"I, (name of candidate), pledge to the taxpayers of the state of (name of state) that I will oppose and veto any and all efforts to increase taxes."

How can a simple no-new-taxes pledge encourage companies to ship jobs overseas?

--snip--

According to Bloomberg News, the bill at issue "clamps down on what Democrats call the abuse of tax credits for multinational corporations intended to ensure income earned abroad isn’t taxed twice, by both the U.S. Treasury and a foreign government." That is, if a company has headquarters in the U.S. and has operations in a foreign country, then the tax code allows that company to separate income earned abroad from income earned on U.S. soil. The bill would suspend these measures and tax overall income, regardless of where it was earned, in order to send additional aid to states. This, of course, results in a net increase in corporate taxes with no dollar-for-dollar reductions anywhere else, which is why ATR opposed the measure.

Full article: http://factcheck.org/2010/10/a-new-twist-on-an-old-tax-attack/

[hendo]

1. Interesting.

Thanks for reminding us that faulty attack ads cut both ways.

[sandnsea]

3. No

The reminder is that "factcheck" doesn't always get it right, particularly when it comes to policies favorable to corporations.

[sandnsea]

2. Yeah, income from shipping jobs overseas wouldn't be taxed

Sad that factcheck can't read, or prefers to buy the corporate spin, but that's the fact of it.

They're trying to close these loopholes that let US corporations move everything overseas, make the product overseas, sell it here, and then claim it's a foreign product and company. It's bullshit.

[Esor]

4. oh

Sandnsea: "They're trying to close these loopholes that let US corporations move everything overseas, make the product overseas, sell it here, and then claim it's a foreign product and company."

Oh, I see how you got that out of "I, (name of candidate), pledge to the taxpayers of the state of (name of state) that I will oppose and veto any and all efforts to increase taxes."

[head of joaquin]

5. Memes Not Facts Count

You don't win political debates by fact-checking. This isn't the vulcan council. You win them by de-legitimizing the other side, and created a narrative that people buy into.

The Tea Party repeats falsehood after falsehood about social security, the deficit, the economy, taxes, which progressives spend inordinate amounts of time and energy rebutting -- but they go on repeating the falsehoods and the public goes on buying it. Why? Because they are ensconced in a larger narrative (about government being the "problem", etc). To win you attack the narrative, the meme, not the details.