New ThinkProgress ‘Ad’: Romney Says ‘Let Us Just Raise Your Taxes Some More’*

By Judd Legum and Jeff Spross/Think Progress

Yesterday, Mitt Romney released his first campaign ad, which quotes President Obama saying “if we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.” But those weren’t Obama’s words; he was quoting a strategist for Sen. John McCain in 2008.

In response, the Romney campaign has defended this blatantly dishonest campaign tactic as “not out of bounds.” Thus, ThinkProgress has created this completely in-bounds “advertisement” quoting Romney, in his own words:

*Accurate, according to the Romney standard of accuracy.

Conservative Media Pick Theme For GOP's 2012 Campaign: Obama "Made [The Economy] Worse"

From Media Matters

Right-wing media have seized on a line from a Peggy Noonan column -- "he made it worse" -- and have begun repeating the false message that President Obama's policies have worsened the economy. In reality, there is broad agreement among economists that the stimulus boosted growth and employment, and most of the deficit is attributable to Bush policies and the recession.

Noonan: "Four Words: He Made It Worse"

Noonan: Obama Decisions Worsened "Financial Collapse, Deficits, and Debt." From Peggy Noonan's June 3 column in The Wall Street Journal:

Barack Obama is different, not a political practitioner, really, but something else, and not a warm-blooded animal but a cool, chill character, a fish who sits deep in the tank and stares, stilly, at the other fish.

He doesn't know how to confuse his foes with "outreach," with phone calls, jokes, affection. He doesn't leave them saying, as Reagan did, "I just can't help it, I like the guy." And because he can't confuse them or reach them they more readily coalesce around their own explanation of him: socialist, destroyer.

This isn't good, and has had an impact on the president's contacts with Republicans. And it's added an edge to an emerging campaign theme among them. Two years ago I wrote of Clare Booth Luce's observation that all presidents have a sentence: "He fought to hold the union together and end slavery." "He brought America through economic collapse and a world war." You didn't have to be told it was Lincoln, or FDR. I said that Mr. Obama didn't understand his sentence. But Republicans now think they know it.

Four words: He made it worse.

Obama inherited financial collapse, deficits and debt. He inherited a broken political culture. These things weren't his fault. But through his decisions, he made them all worse. [The Wall Street Journal, 6/3/11]

National Review: Noonan "Finds The Campaign Theme"

National Review's Ponnuru Titles Blog Post "Peggy Noonan Finds The Campaign Theme." The day Noonan's column was published, National Review senior editor Ramesh Ponnuru posted an entry to the National Review Online blog The Corner that excerpted from the column and declared that she had found the campaign theme. [National Review Online, The Corner, 6/3/11]

Fox Figures Hammer Home False Message That Obama "Made It Worse"

Doocy Touts Noonan's Claim In "Great Editorial": "It Comes Down To Four Words: 'He Made It Worse.' " From the June 6 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

STEVE DOOCY (co-host): You know what, Gretch? There was a great editorial by Peggy Noonan in The Wall Street Journal over the weekend. And what she --

BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): From Massapequa. But go ahead.

DOOCY: That's right. Her sister lives in my town.

KILMEADE: But I deserve credit for that somehow.

DOOCY: Anyway, what she wrote was, you know, the president does have a lousy economy on his hands right now, and it was lousy when he took over. But he was able to make a bunch of decisions on which way to turn the ship. And she says the decisions he made got us where we are today. And she says it comes down to four words: "He made it worse." And when you think about it, we had all those different arsenal tools in Ben Bernanke's toolbox. We did what the president wanted. He made it worse, according to Peggy Noonan. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 6/6/11]

Charles Krauthammer: "I Think You Can Argue Strongly That The Obama Administration Made It Worse." From the June 7 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:

KRAUTHAMMER: Look, I don't think it's a communication problem. This is not Cool Hand Luke. This is a reality problem. No matter what Obama said, no matter how he spun it. If he used the phrase "a bump in the road" or a blip or whatever, it wouldn't make any difference in the world. It's the fact that we have historically high unemployment, and it is staying there.

With Reagan, you had a really deep recession like the one that we have just had, but we had this remarkable snap back. We had 6, 7 percent growth. Even though he had high unemployment on Election Day in 1984, everybody had a sense that we were in recovery, and you could, with a straight face, run an ad saying, "It's morning in America." You can't now. It's dusk in America. It's evening in America. It's midnight in America. But it's not morning in America. That's why no matter what he says, it's not going to make any difference.

And I think you can argue strongly that the Obama administration made it worse. In the midterm election last year, the idea that Republicans ran on was that he's a left liberal. What they're going to run on in 2012 is he's a failure. He tried all of this stuff. He promised us we'd get improvement, and it hasn't worked. It was a huge Keynesian experiment, and it hasn't panned out. [Fox News, Special Report with Bret Baier, 6/7/11]

Bill O'Reilly: To Say "Obama Administration Has Not Made" Economy Worse Is "To Just Ignore The Statistics." From the June 7 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: Here's the problem with that, with your analysis. The private sector is sitting on a tremendous amount of money, a trillion dollars, easy. OK? The banks aren't lending it. They're not giving it out. You go to a bank, very hard to get a mortgage, very hard to start up a business. The reason is they don't have any confidence in Barack Obama. Because he's breaking the bank with the entitlement spending. Now, that includes Medicare, that includes Medicaid and all of that. The banks are going, "You know what? We don't have confidence in this guy. We think it's a nanny state coming, and if he gets re-elected, it's going to be worse." So they're sitting on the money.

ALAN COLMES (Fox News Radio host): How do you know it's about Obama versus the economy? Why is this specific to Obama, if the economy has not done well because the Republicans drove it into the --

O'REILLY: Because he's driving the policy.

COLMES: Thank God we had the stimulus we had and helped save the auto industry. And we need a bigger stimulus.

O'REILLY: You're missing the point. If a Republican says, "I'm going to cut taxes," instead of Obama saying, "I'm going to raise them," the economy -- the private sector is going to cheer that.

COLMES: It didn't work for Bush. Where were the jobs? Bush cut the -- we paid the --

O'REILLY: You just heard Schieffer say 5 percent versus 9 percent.

COLMES: You know why? Because it's where we're coming from. We're coming off a terrible recession, and so right now, 8 percent looks really good.

O'REILLY: The Obama administration's made all of it worse.

COLMES: No, they didn't make it worse.

O'REILLY: Yes, they did.

COLMES: They would have made it better if we had a bigger stimulus.

O'REILLY: They would have. They would have.

COLMES: And imagine what the Republicans would be saying if the auto industry were not saved and hundreds of thousands of jobs were gone. They'd be going crazy. They'd be going crazy.

O'REILLY: I was OK with the auto industry, but for you to sit there and say the Obama administration has not made it worse --

COLMES: They made it better.

O'REILLY: -- is for you to just ignore the statistics. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 6/7/11]

Monica Crowley: "Barack Obama Took A Bad Situation And Made It A Thousand Times Worse." From the June 7 edition of The O'Reilly Factor:

CROWLEY: In the fall of 2008, you had a financial crisis. That crisis then spread like a contagion to other aspects of the economy. Barack Obama took a bad situation and made it a thousand times worse with a massive expansion of government, with unprecedented spending -- as you point out -- record-breaking deficits and debt, which hangs like a suffocating overhang over this economy. And then regulations, new requirements like ObamaCare, where businesses -- small, medium, and large -- have no idea what it's going to cost them to hire an employee tomorrow.

O'REILLY: That's right. She's right. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 6/7/11]

Analyses Agree: Stimulus Curbed Unemployment And Boosted Growth, And Most Debt Is Attributable to Bush Policies And Economic Downturn

Independent And Private Analysts: Stimulus Significantly Raised Employment. As Media Mattershas previously documented, many analysts confirmed that the stimulus significantly raised employment. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the stimulus increased the number of people employed, as of the second quarter of FY2010, by "between 1.4 million and 3.3 million." Moody's Economy.com estimated it would have created 1.9 million jobs by 2010. [Media Matters,9/26/10]

Economists: "The Effects Of The Fiscal Stimulus" On Economy "Appear Very Substantial."Economists also agreed that the stimulus was effective. A March 2010 study in The Wall Street Journalfound that 70 percent of economists surveyed said the stimulus "boosted growth and mitigated job losses." ABC News reported on February 18, 2010, that most of the economists on its panel thought the economy "would be worse today without the big aid package." And a February 2010 survey of 203 members of the National Association for Business Economics (NABE) found that "[e]ighty-three percent believe that GDP is currently higher than it would have been without the 2009 stimulus package (ARRA)." [Media Matters, 9/26/10]

Wash. Post Graphic Shows Bush Tax Cuts And Iraq Wars Contributed Most To Current Deficit.From a June 4 post on The Washington Post blog PostPolitics:

In the debate over the nation's rising debt, rhetoric trumps reality. In January 2001, the U.S. budget was balanced for the first time in decades and the Congressional Budget Office was forecasting surpluses totaling $5.6 trillion by 2011. A decade later, the national debt is larger, as a percentage of the economy, than at any time in U.S. history except for the period shortly after World War II.

[...]

In fact, 75 percent of the members currently serving in Congress voted for at least one -- and in most cases more than one -- of three policies that contributed to fully one-third of the $12.7 trillion swing from projected surpluses to real debt: President George W. Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and President Obama's 2009 stimulus bill.

The post also included the following graphic illustrating the CBO's estimates on how much Bush's tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the 2009 stimulus contributed to the current debt:

[The Washington Post, 6/4/11]

CBPP: "[V]irtually The Entire Deficit Over The Next Ten Years" Due To Bush Policies, Economic Downturn." The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) published an analysis of federal deficits in December 2009, which was updated on June 28, 2010, titled, "Critics Still Wrong on What's Driving Deficits in Coming Years: Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers." The report noted:

Some critics continue to assert that President George W. Bush's policies bear little responsibility for the deficits the nation faces over the coming decade -- that, instead, the new policies of President Barack Obama and the 111th Congress are to blame.  Most recently, a Heritage Foundation paper downplayed the role of Bush-era policies (for more on that paper, see p. 4).  Nevertheless, the fact remains: Together with the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years.

The report also graphed the effects of Bush's policies and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on the deficit. From the report:

Koch-backed group's fake eviction notices rile up Detroit

By

Stephanie Condon

Residents in a Detroit neighborhood received a scare this week when they found what appeared to be eviction notices on their doors. The flyers, however, turned out to be political pamphlets in opposition to the construction of a controversial new bridge.

The fake eviction notices were posted by a local chapter of Americans for Prosperity, the conservative political advocacy group backed by Charles and David Koch, the billionaire brothers who run Koch Industries and are longtime libertarians. Local political leaders and columnists are condemning the group for scaring residents -- whose homes sit in the epicenter of the nation's foreclosure crisis -- while refusing to disclose which of its corporate backers are funding the flyers.

At the center of the flyer in question, in large print, reads: "Eviction Notice." In medium print, the top of the flyer reads, "This property is subject to seizure by the Michigan Department of Transportation." Only in small print does the flyer say the property in question could be seized if legislation approving the bridge is passed.

Michigan's Republican Gov. Rick Snyder supports the bridge construction, as did his Democratic predecessor Jennifer Granholm. The bridge would link Detroit to Canada, and Canada has agreed to fund a loan for its construction. So far its construction has failed to receive state legislative support, in part because of lobbying, particularly from private bridge company Ambassador Bridge, the Michigan Messenger reports.

Calling American for Prosperity's fake eviction notices "emotional terrorism," Detroit Free Press editorial editor Stephen Henderson points out that if the bridge project were approved, no one would be technically "evicted" -- the law requires that any land acquisition for such a project come with remuneration, and land owners in areas with depressed home values can even end up better off.

Still, the fake eviction notices had residents on edge. Resident Steve Toth told the Free Press his elderly mother saw the flyer and "damn near keeled over," while one of his neighbors was "beside himself."

Scott Hagerstrom, American for Prosperity's Michigan state director, told the Free Press the group had no apologies for the flyer.

"It was meant to startle people," he said. "We really wanted people to take notice. This is the time that their opinions need to be heard. We wanted people to read it."

State Rep. Rashida Tlaib reportedly said the flyers created "chaos" among her constituents. State Sen. Coleman Young II, whose name was on the flyer as the politician to contact about the bridge, called the flyer "slime-ball, gutter politics."

"Americans for Prosperity has linked arms with Ambassador Bridge Owner Matty Moroun in order to preserve the monopoly Moroun enjoys now," Henderson wrote.

The Detroit International Bridge Co. -- the operating arm of Ambassador Bridge -- released a statement saying it had nothing to do with the flyers, even though it has been lobbying heavily against the bridge.

"Let me be clear that the Detroit International Bridge Co. had nothing to do with the bogus eviction notices posted at homes in southwest Detroit yesterday," the company's president Dan Stamper said in a statement. "Although we disagree with plans for a bridge that would disrupt the neighborhood and displace residents, we would never distribute misleading information to disturb or upset residents."

Still, it's impossible to know who is behind the Americans for Prosperity campaign since recent developments in campaign finance, including the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision, allow such groups to keep its donors private.

The $7 Trillion Lie: Palin Falsely Claims Debt Has Grown More Under Obama Than ‘All Other Presidents Combined’

By Judd Legum

Sarah Palin, in the only interview she’s granted during her “One Nation” bus tour, claimed that the U.S. federal debt had grown more under Obama than “all those other presidents combined.”

Watch it:

This is flatly false. When Obama took office the debt stood at $10.6 trillion. After inheriting two wars and the worst economy since the Great Depression, the debt has grown by $3.7 trillionsince Obama has been in office. Palin is off by about $7 trillion.

So not only has the debt not increased more under Obama than all other Presidents combined, it has increased less under Obama than our last president, George W. Bush. Under President Bush, who inherited a $236 billion budget surplus from President Clinton, the deficit increased by $4.9 trillion.

Voice Of The Opposition: Fox News Adopts GOP's "Mediscare" Talking Point To Defend Ryan Budget

From Media Matters:

Fox News, continuing its role as the communications wing of the Republican Party, has adopted the GOP talking point that Democrats are using "'Mediscare' Attacks" against Rep. Paul Ryan's plan to replace Medicare with vouchers.

EMBED

House Speaker John Boehner's Talking Point: Democrats Are Using "Mediscare" Attacks On Ryan's Budget

Speaker Boehner: "Democrats' 'Mediscare' Attacks Meant To Deflect Attention From #hcr 'Rationing.'" From a May 6 post to Speaker of the House John Boehner's twitter account:

 

[Twitter.com/JohnBoehner, 5/6/11]

Boehner's Website: "The 'Mediscare' Offensive Launched By Democrats ... Isn't Fooling American Seniors." From a May 6 post on Boehner's website:

The "Mediscare" offensive launched by Democrats - including top Administration officials like Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius - to attack the GOP plan to protect and preserve Medicare isn't fooling American seniors.

[...]

Central to the Medicare scheme outlined by President Obama in his "phantom budget" speech is the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), a "rationing board" of bureaucrats created by ObamaCare. [Speaker of the House John Boehner's website, 5/6/11]

Fox Adopts GOP's "Mediscare" Talking Point

Cavuto Caption: Senate Vote On Ryan Budget Imminent Amid "Mediscare." During Fox News' Your World With Neil Cavuto the following on-screen graphic aired:

            

            [Fox News, Your World With Neil Cavuto, 5/25/11]

Krauthammer: New York Democrat Might Win "Almost Entirely On Mediscare." From Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

BILL O'REILLY: All right, now Karl Rove, at the top of the broadcast, submits this is going to be the dirtiest campaign in -- almost in history. That the Democrats are going to attack whoever the Republican nominee is and vice versa. I'm sure that's gonna happen, even though John McCain really kept that at a minimum, Mr. Rove believes it's going to break out into real mudslinging this time around. Do you see that?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Absolutely. Look at two indications of it. Number one, we heard last week the Democrats are already preparing dirt digging on Governor Christie of New Jersey, who isn't even a candidate.

And second, look how the media have covered the Medicare proposal of the Ryan plan, the one that the House Republicans have supported. Democrats have been running these truly scurrilous ads which essentially say it's the abolition of Medicare. It's going to happen to your granny, even though if they're honest about it they would say it doesn't start for 10 years. And it's a change in the structure of the program. It's not an abolition of it.

You're getting echoes of that already in the press. So you're going to get the press supporting the Democratic narrative and the lies, I would say, about the Medicare. And that's a very strong issue. There's going to be an election tonight, a bi-election in New York state for a seat that was left open where the Democrat might even win a Republican district almost entirely on the Mediscare. And you're gonna see the press line up like lemmings right behind the Democrats on this issue.

O'REILLY: All right, scaring Granny. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 5/24/11]

Conservative Media Defend Tax Breaks For Big Oil With False Claim About Gas Prices

From Media Matters:

Conservative media claim that recent proposals to repeal tax breaks for the five largest oil companies will "make gasoline more expensive." However, energy experts say that cutting the tax incentives will have little to no effect on prices at the pump.

EMBED

Conservative Media Claim Cutting Subsidies Will "Make Gasoline More Expensive"

WSJ's Moore: "The Price Of Gasoline And Oil Is Going To Go Up." From the May 10 edition of Fox News' Happening Now:

STEPHEN MOORE: The problem I have with though, this circles back to the whole issue of when we pay for gasoline at the pump. If you raise the taxes on gasoline and oil, the price of gasoline and oil isn't going to go down. The price of gasoline and oil is going to go up. [Fox News, Happening Now, 5/10/11]

Wash. Examiner: "More Likely, The Obama-Reid Program Will Make Gasoline More Expensive." From a May 9 Washington Examiner editorial:

At best, Reid's approach will do absolutely nothing to take the pressure off the wallet of American families. More likely, the Obama-Reid program will make gasoline more expensive. By discouraging U.S. oil production, Obama and Reid will force American consumers to be even more dependent on foreign sources like OPEC and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. This in turn will hinder the economy from creating new jobs to ease the 9 percent unemployment rate. [Washington Examiner, 5/9/11]

Beck: "If You Cut The Subsidies," Then "Your Price Is Going To Go Up." From the May 10 edition of Glenn Beck's radio show:

BECK: OK, so if you cut the subsidies --

GRAY: It goes up.

BECK: -- then your price is going to go up. So everybody who says let's cut the subsidies to the oil companies, I just want you to understand how that works. That means the price goes up. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Glenn Beck Program, 5/10/11]

Ben Ferguson On Fox: "We're Going To End Up Paying More Because He's Wanting To Go After Their Tax Breaks." From the May 10 edition of Fox News' America Live:

FERGUSON, RADIO HOST: This president is proving that he does not mind these high gas prices and is willing to go only after the oil companies. And guess what? That's going to be passed on to us so we're going to end up paying more because he's wanting to go after their tax breaks. [Fox News, America Live, 5/10/11]

Energy Experts Say Cutting Oil Companies' Tax Breaks Will Have Little Effect On Prices

Borenstein: "The Incremental Change In Production That Might Result From Changing Oil Subsidies Will Have No Impact On World Oil Prices." According to Severin Borenstein, co-director of U.C. Berkeley's Center for the Study of Energy Markets, cutting subsidies for oil companies "would not affect gasoline prices." He further explained:

Gasoline prices are a function of world oil prices and refining margins.  The oil companies are quick to point out that they are not to blame for oil prices because the price is set in the world market, or which they are a small share.  That is all true.   But one implication of that is that the incremental change in production that might result from changing oil subsidies will have no impact on world oil prices, and therefore no impact on gasoline prices. [Email toMedia Matters, 4/28/11]

Canes: Ending Oil Subsidies Would Have "Very Little" Effect On Gasoline Prices.  Michael Canes, a distinguished fellow at the Logistics Management Institute and former chief economist of the American Petroleum Institute wrote in an email to Media Matters that ending subsidies to oil companies would have "very little" effect on oil prices. He further said that there could be "Some small effect if at the margin domestic production is adversely affected, but I suspect that effect would be very small indeed. Personally, I'd like to see an end to ALL energy subsidies, but that's another issue entirely." [Email toMedia Matters, 4/27/11]

Kingston: "It Won't Change The Price Of Gasoline." When asked how the proposed cuts to oil subsidies would affect gasoline prices, John Kingston, Director of News at energy information firm Platts said: "It wouldn't, and I don't view them as subsidies." He added:

The tax breaks on oil are part of the endless discussion about how to tax an economic activity. Do you tax it at 0%? Do you tax it 100%? Or do you tax it in between? You want to tax it at the rate that provides the most money for the government while not inhibiting economic activity.

But that is not a subsidy. My demand for oil isn't going to change one iota because of the changes that are under consideration, and therefore it won't change the price of gasoline.

Oil companies will argue that the changes in the tax rate could change supply.  Now you could build some theoretical model that says, if the tax rate is changed, it MIGHT inhibit production, and therefore down the road, supplies would be less than they would be otherwise. Therefore, the price could be higher and my demand might be less. This is not as crazy as it sounds. If the rate on these forms of exploration went to 100%, obviously, no company would produce that oil, the overall market would tighten, and the price could go up. But that's not in question; the administration is not proposing a 100% tax rate. [Email toMedia Matters, 4/27/11]

Lafakis: Decisions On Production And Development Of Oil Wells "Are More Influenced By Other Factors Such As Oil Prices And Technological Innovation." In an email to Media Matters, Moody's economist Chris Lafakis stated that while he hadn't conducted a full analysis of the implications of tax breaks to oil companies and thus couldn't comment on the impact of legislative proposals, generally speaking, factors other than tax incentives have more of an influence on oil companies' decision to begin exploration or production of a well. According to Lafakis:

Generally speaking however, my sense is that while tax breaks encourage exploration, production and development of oil wells, those decisions are more influenced by other factors such as oil prices and technological innovation. For instance, tax breaks have had little to do with the increase in oil rig drilling since the third quarter of 2009. Instead, oil rig drilling has risen as oil producers have developed methods to extract oil from shale formations in the West North Central census division. [Email to Media Matters, 4/27/11]

CRS: The Market Price Of Crude Oil "Would Not Be Expected To Increase Very Much, If At All," If The Domestic Production Tax Break Were Rescinded. One of the tax breaks President Obama seeks to end is a domestic manufacturing credit. According to a Congressional Research Service analysis of the Section 199 deduction for domestic manufacturing:

As before, eliminating the deduction -- that is to say, raising the corporate tax rate -- would increase total (or average) business costs and therefore reduce profitability among the major oil and gas producers.  As long as marginal production costs are unaffected, there would be no price effects in the short run. Similarly, the demand for imports is likely to remain the same in the short-run.  Thus, this type of corporate income tax increase  would arguably be an administratively simple and economically effective way to capture at least some of the oil industry's windfalls in the short run.  However, at a current deduction of 6%, and a marginal corporate tax rate of 35%, only a small portion of the industry's likely windfalls would likely to be captured under this option.

The market price of crude oil and natural gas, or even of refined petroleum products, such as gasoline, would not be expected to increase very much, if at all, by such a change in the short run.  In general, also, the income tax increases are not expected to have real output effects in the short run, although they could cause resources to flow to other industries in the long run as long as these other industries are allowed the manufacturing deduction, which is equivalent to a lower marginal tax rate. [Congressional Research Service, "Oil Industry Financial Performance and the Windfall Profits Tax," 9/30/08]