It's that time of year again, where embattled incumbent politicians are willing to talk about anything as long as it doesn't have to do with their record. Textbook example: our opponent, Erik Paulsen.
This past week, Paulsen reached deep into his campaign coffer and pulled out another fistful of special interest money (Wall Street, Big Oil, and the health insurance industry) to launch his third misleading attack ad. Just like the ads before it, Paulsen's ad features scary music and even scarier facts distortions and misleading statements intended to confuse and scare older voters into voting for him.
His previous ads have been debunked by multiple sources, including one in which WCCO-TV reporter Pat Kessler condemned Paulsen by saying, "You would think seniors already have enough problems, like not getting a Social Security cost of living increase this year. However, this year, politicians are trying to scare senior voters with ads that are cynical and untrue."
There are real issues to talk about in this campaign, and Erik Paulsen wants to make sure he's able to talk about anything that distracts people from the actual votes he's cast. He's running away from his record, and knows seniors wouldn't approve of the votes he's taken that have proven him to be out of touch with anyone this side of Michele Bachmann and the Republican leadership in Washington. Do you think Paulsen wants anyone to mention his vote against closing the Medicare prescription drug donut hole that limits benefits for seniors? What about his vote against a fund allowing workers to set aside money to provide for future in-home medical care that so many seniors depend on? These are what are known as facts, Congressman Paulsen, and it's about time you faced them.
We need help fighting back against his smears. Three attack ads from an incumbent means one thing: They know they have a tough race on their hands. When they lie about the issues, you know that means they aren't proud of their own record. An incumbent congressman, locked in a tough race with no record to run on? Well, that's where we come in.
We need help getting voters informed and out to the polls with Election Day right around the corner. It was this type of demagoguing of the Health Care bill that brought us lies like the "death panels" in the first place, and the longer we put up with this nonsense and refuse to stand up for ourselves, the more they're going to keep it up. Can you help us fight back? Sign up to volunteer or give a small contribution to help.
Below is a full Fact Check of the latest ad:
FACT CHECK:
- The stimulus is a failure: Even Erik Paulsen knows the Recovery Act helped to limit the economic catastrophe and created thousands of jobs, for example, by funding crucial construction projects—like the ones Paulsen likes to take credit for in the Third District. It is highly hypocritical for Paulsen to attack Meffert on the stimulus (which Meffert didn’t even get to debate or vote on) considering Paulsen’s record of taking credit for stimulus-funded projects like the 494/694 intersection, Highway 610, and the Brockton/I-94 interchange. Paulsen even attended a groundbreaking ceremony for Highway 610.
- Health care bill raises taxes $525 billion: Here Paulsen attacks Meffert for raising taxes to a number he inflated 25% over what the CBO report he cites actually concluded! The ad says $525 billion, the report clearly concludes $420 billion. (Paulsen's number is from an 'alternative perspective' the report also mentions but does not include in its analysis.) It is one thing for Paulsen to make this generic and misleading claim, it is quite another for him to make up a number to do it! See the CBO report cited in Paulsen's ad (see pages 3 and 5 for these figures): http://www.cbo.gov/...
- Health care bill cuts $500 billion from Medicare: This flat-out false claim has been debunked by KSTP’s Tom Hauser and by WCCO’s Pat Kessler, who said, “Yeah and don’t touch my rocket ship to Pluto, either! That’s how far-out false the claims in this ad are.” The $500 billion in “cuts” that passed with health care reform aren't actual cuts but reductions to future spending for a program that will still grow significantly in the next 10 years. The health care bill does, however, close the prescription drug donut hole many seniors have been struggling with due to Medicare Part D, in addition to making many other needed improvements to the system. Jim supports these changes and he supports Medicare.
- Energy tax: This misleading claim, used in the previous attack as well, is based on a meaningless and unsubstantiated cost estimate and it is also designed to scare seniors. This claim was rejected by MPR’s Poligraph, stating, “Paulsen misses the mark. He bases his claim that Meffert supports an "energy tax" on one estimate from a conservative foundation that's based on a stalled bill. The bottom line is that cap-and-trade legislation is still a moving target, so it's impossible to say how much it will cost consumers until Congress puts something into law."
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/...