Tom Steyer's Big Attack Ad on Joni Ernst Ruled FALSE. Again.
Left wing billionaire Tom Steyer’s attack ad on Iowa U.S. Senate candidate Joni Ernst has been ruled “FALSE” by Politifact:
It’s back! A claim out of the Democratic Party that numerous fact-checkers debunked in 2010 has made its way to the 2014 Iowa Senate race.
A new ad attacks Republican candidate Joni Ernst, painting her as beholden to special interest groups because she signed a pledge. The ad comes from NextGen Climate Action Committee, a liberal political action committee.
The ad shows a dimly lit room, with two men looking at a picture of Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, on a screen, while laughing in a slow, almost crazed manner. The screen switches to a picture of Ernst.
"We got her to pledge? Joni signed on the line," the ad says. "The tax breaks that thing protects are gold. Green light more outsourcing! China, Mexico. All the way."
Text on the screen says, "Ernst’s Pledge: Protects Tax Breaks for Companies that Ship Jobs Overseas."
Even though the ad is new, this claim -- that a person who signs the Americans for Tax Reform’s pledge is in favor of tax breaks that encourage outsourcing -- is not.
We rate this claim False.
The “ship jobs overseas” claim has been repeatedly and thoroughly debunked (Associated Press: ADWATCH: With campaign ads, don't trust, verify; FactCheck.org: A False Tax Attack) since it first surfaced in 2010.
Steyer’s NextGen Climate Action Committee spent $2.6 million on the ad.
“Billionaire Tom Steyer has been cheated by his political consultants. He should sue them and kick himself in the pants for being a naive rich dilettante taken advantage of by hustlers,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “His consultants claimed to write an ad attacking Iowa Republican Joni Ernst, but they simply plagiarized TV ads from four years ago that were found to be dishonest then. In school, when you turn in the same poorly researched and plagiarized paper twice, you get an F, Again. ”
Norquist Response to Lois Lerner "_ _ _holes" Email Revelation
In response to the latest Lois Lerner evidence released by the House Ways and Means Committee, ATR president Grover Norquist released the following statement:
“Some jobs cannot be filled with political hacks: The director of the FBI, Secretary of State, and the head of the IRS. Lois Lerner's exposed emails show the world she was and is a political hack driven by her own partisan agenda rather than a neutral public servant. The IRS has too much power and too much access to Americans’ private information for this position to be filled with a partisan activist.”
Tom Steyer Cheated by His Consultants Who Sold Him a Plagiarized (and false) Attack Ad on Joni Ernst
Left wing San Francisco billionaire Tom Steyer has been ill-used by consultants getting rich off his $100 million in campaign spending. The consultants have simply recycled and plagiarized ads from 2010 campaigns that they didn’t tell Steyer had already been debunked. As shown by a newly launched false attack ad against Joni Ernst, Steyer is being cheated.
Ernst has made a written commitment to the people of Iowa to oppose tax hikes. The Pledge prevents politicians from raising taxes.
It seems Steyer’s consultants have stooped to rehashing provably false lines of attack against candidates who have sworn off higher taxes. Steyer’s ad makes a false claim that has been repeatedly and thoroughly debunked by nonpartisan fact checking organizations:
Factcheck.org had this to say in 2010 about the same attack used against a candidate four years ago, in a previous election cycle:
But we find the ad to be false. The pledge only protects corporations from an increase in taxation overall. It explicitly allows elimination of any specific tax deduction or credit if matched dollar-for-dollar by an overall cut in rates. And it says nothing about jobs.
The fact check continues:
To characterize his opposition to raising taxes as protecting tax breaks that send jobs abroad is wrong. Any tax benefit can be eliminated and offset by a rate cut or by other benefits without raising taxes overall, and without violating the terms of that pledge. This attack ad is false.
But the fact that someone signed the pledge doesn’t necessarily mean they are opposed to closing loopholes for off-shore companies.
Our friends at FactCheck.org have been knocking down this claim since April, when the DCCC ran a TV ad against a Republican House candidate in Hawaii. They recently debunked the same claim in an ad in the Massachusetts gubernatorial campaign.
Here’s the problem: The taxpayer pledge doesn’t prevent a signer from opposing any tax break as long as he or she finds a way to offset the resulting increase in taxes.
[The attack is] a huge leap of logic and it doesn’t prove Hurt supports the offshore loopholes. So we find the claim False.
“Tom Steyer needs to find honest and original consultants,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “The plagiarized attack ads he’s running have already been proven false by several fact checkers four years ago, in 2010. Rather than attacking Joni Ernst, he should be praising her for her principled stand against higher taxes. Taxpayers in Iowa are looking for someone to stand up to the special interests in Washington and she is exactly the candidate to do that. Steyer deserves a refund from those who cheated him.”
IRS "Loses" Years of Lois Lerner Emails
Today, the IRS claimed to the House Ways and Means Committee that it has "lost" two years' worth of emails from notorious tea party harasser and disgraced IRS employee Lois Lerner.
In response, ATR president Grover Norquist said the following:
This is the worst attempt to blame technology in service of a cover-up since the infamous "18-minute gap" during the Nixon Watergate crisis. Only in this case the gap is not 18 minutes, but two years. This cover-up is far worse.
Obamacare Taxes: Next Filing Season Could Be "one of the most chaotic in years."
Problems with a key component of Obamacare will lead to unpleasant surprises for Americans during the 2015 tax filing season, according to testimony from a top tax expert before the House Ways and Means subcommittees on Health and Oversight today.
“I am here today to tell you that the upcoming tax filing season has the potential to be one of the most chaotic in years,” said Ryan Ellis, an IRS Enrolled Agent and Tax Policy Director at Americans for Tax Reform.
According to the testimony:
“One of the key elements of the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as “Obamacare,” is the creation of advanceable tax credits for the purchase of exchange health insurance plans.
Taxpayers applying for credit assistance must be evaluated by government entities ranging from the SSA to CMS to the IRS. The goal is to have an educated estimate, based on the most immediately-available government documents (e.g. prior year tax returns, etc.), of the taxpayer’s probable income for the year--which in turn determines the size of the tax credit.
In an effort to get this tax benefit out quickly, the estimated credit is advanced to the insurance company by the IRS, which applies it to customer premiums.
This is an important point—the money has left the IRS’ hands up to over a year before the taxpayer actually calculates his final credit amount. The insurance companies have collected it, and they are not required to pay it back.
Press reports this month indicated that the government was having a hard time doing all this, with 1.2 million of the 6 million federal exchange applicants having to be asked for additional income verification information from CMS. That is not surprising. Applicants are asked to complete a detailed, confusing twelve-page application which asks for income, family size, etc. It is rather like trying to fill out a 1040 on the fly. Added to this is the lack of employer reporting requirements and the failure to complete the back-end of the web site.
Inconsistencies--some of which are the result of failures of the healthcare.gov system, some of which are poor records from the government, and some of which are mistakes from the individual--are not surprising. But they are a problem. It is the middle of June, and many people have now been receiving inaccurate subsidies for six months. To the public’s knowledge, not a single advanced tax credit has been adjusted this year.
So what happens if the flawed, confusing process results in a tax credit larger than what the law calls for?
A hypothetical example might help illustrate: a health exchange customer selects an Obamacare exchange plan. The government estimates that this taxpayer will earn $30,000 this year, which makes her eligible for a $2000 tax credit. This $2000 is paid to the taxpayer’s insurance company to help with premiums.
The next spring, our customer/taxpayer is filling out her tax return. Unfortunately, the government estimated the taxpayer earned too little and paid too large a credit. She actually earned $40,000, and so only had a $1500 credit coming to her.
Depending on the taxpayer’s income level and availability of verified affordable workplace insurance, she will have to pay back much or all of the $500 overage to the IRS. This means skinnier refunds and maybe even liabilities, and it won’t be the taxpayer’s fault—it will be the government’s fault.
It is also inevitable that many people are receiving tax credits for which they are completely ineligible. The firewall of the offer of employer sponsored insurance is a new concept — tax preparers will have difficulty figuring out how it works in operation. There is virtually no way to catch it on the front end — but come tax filing season, many people will end up owing thousands of dollars, and it will be a complete surprise.”
The hearing is now underway in 1100 Longworth and can be viewed live here.
CBO: Four Million Americans to Pay Obamacare Tax
Four million American taxpayers will be forced to pay the Obamacare individual mandate non-compliance tax in 2016, according to a newly released analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.
The report, titled Payments of Penalties for Being Uninsured Under the Affordable Care Act: 2014 Update, includes a gingerly-worded reminder that Americans will be liable for the tax as part of their annual tax-filing process:
“Among the uninsured people subject to the penalty, many are expected to voluntarily report on their tax returns that they are uninsured and to pay the amount owed.”
The CBO data also show that the overwhelming majority of those liable for the tax are part of low-to-middle income households, a clear violation of President Obama’s promise against “any form of tax increase” on Americans making less than $250,000 per year.
It is worth reminding Americans of Obama’s broken pledge:
“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” [Video]
Oct. 3, 2008: During a nationally televised Vice-Presidential debate in St. Louis candidate Joe Biden said:
“No one making less than $250,000 under Barack Obama’s plan will see one single penny of their tax raised whether it’s their capital gains tax, their income tax, investment tax, any tax.” [Transcript]
Feb. 24, 2009: In an address to a joint session of Congress President Obama restated the promise in forceful terms:
April 15, 2009: During a White House press briefing, spokesman Robert Gibbs was asked if Obama’s tax pledge applied “to the health care bill.” Gibbs replied:
Regardless of their eventual Obamacare tax liability, every American who files a tax return will be required to complete a new IRS form attesting to their “qualifying” health insurance status for each month of the year.
Healthcare.Gov to Cost Taxpayers over $1 billion
Healthcare.gov, the federal Obamacare website, will cost taxpayers over $1 billion, according to congressional testimony submitted by HHS nominee Sylvia Mathews Burwell.
In response to questions from Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) Burwell noted that $834 million had already been obligated to the glitch-prone website as of Feb. 28, with “a need for approximately $200 million” more from taxpayers through Fiscal Year 2015.
The full responses from Burwell are as follows:
Question: What has been the total cost of creating healthcare.gov to date? What has been the total cost of “fixing” healthcare.gov? Please include a detailed accounting of all costs associated with this website, including (but not limited to) salaries and expenditures, contractor costs, and training.
Answer: “It is my understanding that as of February 28, 2014, CMS has obligated a total of approximately $834 million on Marketplace-related IT contracts and interagency agreements. These expenditures include the website and the systems that support enrollment through the Marketplace, such as the data services hub as well as other supporting IT infrastructure, including cloud computing, to support Marketplace IT development.”
Question: What financial outlays are expected for fixing the backend of healthcare.gov? Please include a detailed estimate of future costs for fixing and maintaining the website, including (but not limited to) salaries and expenditures, contractor costs, and training.
Answer: “The President’s Budget reflects a need for approximately $200 million for all Marketplace-related IT in FY 2015, some of which is funded through user fees. Much of this amount reflects ongoing operational and maintenance costs of HealthCare.gov, as well as continued development."
Obamacare’s Top Five Middle Class Tax Hikes
President Obama and his Democrat allies often claim they want to raise taxes only on those Americans they deem “rich.” What they forget to mention is that among the 20 new or higher taxes in Obamacare, at least seven directly hit families making less than $250,000 per year. Below are the top five worst:
1. Obamacare Flexible Spending Account Tax: The 30 - 35 million Americans who use a pre-tax Flexible Spending Account (FSA) at work to pay for their family’s basic medical needs face a new Obamacare cap of $2,500. This will squeeze $13 billion of tax money from Americans over the next ten years. (Before Obamacare, the accounts were unlimited under federal law, though employers were allowed to set a cap.) Now, a parent looking to sock away extra money to pay for braces will find themselves quickly hitting this new cap, meaning they would have to pony up some or all of the cost with after-tax dollars.
Needless to say, this tax will especially impact middle class families.
There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. Nationwide there are several million families with special needs children and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at special needs schools can run thousands of dollars per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. This Obamacare tax increase will limit the options available to these families.
2. Obamacare High Medical Bills Tax: Before Obamacare, Americans facing high medical expenses were allowed a deduction to the extent that those expenses exceeded 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). Obamacare now imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Therefore, Obamacare not only makes it more difficult to claim this deduction, it widens the net of taxable income.
According to the IRS, approximately 10 million families take advantage of this tax deduction each year. Almost all are middle class: The average taxpayer claiming this deduction earned just over $53,000 annually. ATR estimates that the average income tax increase for the average family claiming this tax benefit will be $200 - $400 per year.
3. Obamacare Medicine Cabinet Tax: Because of Obamacare, since 2011 millions of Americans have not been able to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines using pre-tax Flexible Spending Accounts or Health Savings Accounts dollars. Examples include cold, cough, and flu medicine, menstrual cramp relief medication, allergy medicines, and dozens of other common medicine cabinet health items.
4. Obamacare Individual Mandate Non-Compliance Tax: Anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance – as defined by President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services -- must pay an income surtax to the IRS. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that six million American families will be liable for the tax, and as pointed out by the Associated Press: “Most would be in the middle class.”
Americans liable for the tax will pay a percentage of their adjusted gross income or a set dollar figure, whichever is higher:
5. Obamacare 10 Percent Excise Tax on Indoor Tanning: This Obamacare tax increase has the distinction of being the first to go into effect (July 2010). Slipped into the bill by Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) behind closed doors in the middle of the night, this tax hike replaced the planned Obamacare “Botax” on cosmetic surgery. This petty, burdensome, nanny-state tax affects both the business owner and the end user. Industry estimates from the Indoor Tanning Association show that 30 million Americans visit an indoor tanning facility in a given year, and over 50 percent of salon owners are women. There is no exception granted for those making less than $250,000 meaning it is yet another tax that violates Obama’s “firm pledge” not to raise “any form” of tax on Americans making less than this amount.
Making matters worse: According to a Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report, the Obama IRS didn’t bother to issue compliance guidelines until three quarterly filing deadlines had passed: “By the time [IRS] notices were issued, tanning excise tax returns had been due for three quarters." This was an early warning sign that the Obama administration was ill-prepared for Obamacare implementation.
Photo credit: Barack Obama
Obama has Proposed 442 Tax Hikes Since Taking Office
Since taking office in 2009, President Barack Obama has formally proposed a total of 442 tax increases, according to an Americans for Tax Reform analysis of Obama administration budgets for fiscal years 2010 through 2015.
The 442 total proposed tax increases does not include the 20 tax increases Obama signed into law as part of Obamacare.
“History tells us what Obama was able to do. This list reminds us of what Obama wanted to do,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.
The number of proposed tax increases per year is as follows:
-79 tax increases for FY 2010
-52 tax increases for FY 2011
-47 tax increases for FY 2012
-34 tax increases for FY 2013
-137 tax increases for FY 2014
-93 tax increases for FY 2015
Perhaps not coincidentally, the Obama budget with the lowest number of proposed tax increases was released during an election year: In February 2012, Obama released his FY 2013 budget, with “only” 34 proposed tax increases. Once safely re-elected, Obama came back with a vengeance, proposing 137 tax increases, a personal record high for the 44th President.
In addition to the 442 tax increases in his annual budget proposals, the 20 signed into law as part of Obamacare, and the massive tobacco tax hike signed into law on the sixteenth day of his presidency, Obama has made it clear he is open to other broad-based tax increases.
During an interview with Men’s Health in 2009, when asked about the idea of national tax on soda and sugary drinks, the President said, "I actually think it's an idea that we should be exploring."
During an interview with CNBC’s John Harwood in 2010, Obama said a European-style Value-Added-Tax was “something that would be novel for the United States.”
Obama’s statement was consistent with a pattern of remarks made by Obama White House officials refusing to rule out a VAT.
“Presidents are judged by history based on what they did in power. But presidents can only enact laws when the Congress agrees,” said Norquist. "Thus a record forged by such compromise tells you what a president -- limited by congress -- did rather than what he wanted to do.”
George H.W. Bush to Receive Profile In Courage Award for Raising Taxes, Breaking “Read My Lips” Pledge
Because he “agreed to a tax increase as part of the compromise, and he was pilloried by conservatives for doing so,” George H.W. Bush will receive the Profile in Courage Award from the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation, it was announced Thursday. The 15-member award committee, dominated by individuals with a big government philosophy, is chaired by longtime journalist and tax increase advocate Al Hunt.
“George Herbert Walker Bush’s tax increase led to higher spending, higher taxes, and the Clinton presidency which brought even higher spending and increased taxes,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “The ‘compromise’ of 1990 was bad economics, bad policy, and a betrayal of the American people. Courage would have been standing up to the spending lobbyists in Washington and saying, ‘No.’ Doing what official Washington and its spending lobbies want is not courage. It is a failure of nerve.”
The 1990 “Read My Lips” Budget Deal Scam
Starting in May of 1990, President George H.W. Bush huddled with Democrat House and Senate members at Andrews Air Force Base.
- What was Promised: Congressional Democrats convinced a number of Republicans to join them in a bipartisan deal promising $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. President Bush signed the deal on November 5, 1990.
- What Actually Happened: Every penny of the tax increases ($137 billion from 1991-1995) went through. Not only did the Democrats break their promise to cut spending below the CBO baseline by $274 billion—they actually spent $23 billion above CBO’s pre-budget deal spending baseline. Thirty-four House Republicans broke their own Taxpayer Protection Pledges and went along with this one-sided “deal.” As a result, Republicans lost eight seats in the 1990 Congressional midterms, and President Bush only received 38% of the vote in the 1992 Presidential election.
Bush later admitted that the 1990 tax hike deal was a mistake when he was running for reelection in 1992:
“I’m very disappointed with Congress. I thought this one compromise – and it was a compromise – would result in no more tax increases. I thought it would result in total control of domestic discretionary spending. And now we see Congress talking about raising taxes again. So I’m disappointed, and given all of that, yes, a mistake.”
“Because he broke his word to the American people Bush lost to Clinton in 1992. Clinton then raised taxes and spending even more. Bad policy is bad politics which leads to more bad policy,” said Norquist.
Click HERE to view the press release.