Debicella’s Own Footnotes Highlight Deception in Misleading Attack on Himes

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, September 29, 2010

PRESS RELEASE

Himes2010

Connecticut’s 4th District

Contact: Liz Kerr, 203-275-9715

Debicella’s Own Footnotes Highlight Deception in Misleading Attack on Himes

Negative mail piece attempts to tie Himes to votes from 2008, before he was elected to Congress

BRIDGEPORT, CT— In his latest distortion of the facts, Dan Debicella sent a mail piece last week that again highlights his complicated relationship with the truth. The ad misrepresents Jim Himes’ record on two fronts. In some cases, Debicella blames Himes for votes that took place before he was sworn into Congress, some even taken by his predecessor Chris Shays. Second, Debicella ignores, despite all evidence to the contrary, the impact of Himes’ work to turn the economy around. Proving Debicella knows he is manipulating the truth, the footnotes of the mail piece, apparently in draft form, even note that Himes did not vote for a number of items highlighted in the mail piece.

“Dan Debicella’s strategy is clear—if the facts don’t support your rhetoric, change the facts. He is so desperate to distract voters from his own reckless and radical record he’s blaming Jim for bills he didn’t even vote for,” said Himes’ campaign manager Mark Henson. “Instead of discussing the facts—that Jim Himes helped move the economy from losing over 700,000 jobs a month to eight straight months of private sector job growth—Debicella is continuing to play fast and loose with the facts in an attempt to deceive voters.”

Key discrepancies regarding Himes’ record in Dan Debicella’s latest mail piece include claims that Himes supported a 22% increase in federal spending, that Himes pushed through the bank bailout, and that Himes failed to help small businesses. Debicella also fails to accurately assign a cost to the Recovery Act, yet one of his core campaign promises is to repeal the stimulus and provide residents with a $1,500 payroll tax cut. Most importantly, Debicella’s footnotes don’t even cite votes taken by Himes. His citations are simply news articles for which they do not even provide titles.

“If Debicella doesn’t even know how much the Recovery Act cost, how does he know the money for his proposed tax cut exists?” asked Henson. “This campaign-year promise sounds like more of the same deficit spending that created this economic mess, not smart economic policy.”

Why Debicella’s claims about federal spending are false

In Debicella’s recent mail piece, he cites a Wall Street Journal article as proof that Himes voted for a 22% increase in federal spending for Fiscal Year 2009. While the total increase in federal spending from FY08 to FY09 was 22%, this figure includes spending for programs like Medicare and Social Security, which made up approximately two-thirds of FY09 spending and are funded automatically (without yearly congressional approval).

The figure also includes appropriations spending for the Defense, Homeland Security, and Military Construction FY09 Appropriations bills, which were supported by Himes’ predecessor then-Representative Chris Shays and signed into law by then-President Bush on September 30, 2008, as part of the Continuing Appropriations Act. Himes took office on January 6, 2009.

Finally, the figure includes one-time emergency spending authorized by the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), also supported by Himes' predecessor and signed into law by President Bush.

Why Debicella’s claims about TARP are false

The Troubled Asset Relief Program was passed by Congress—at the urging of President Bush and Treasury Secretary Paulson—and became law in 2008, before Himes entered Congress. [Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. P.L. 110-343. Signed into law 10/3/08.] While Himes has publicly stated he thought the measure was necessary to prevent economic collapse, he never voted on the legislation. However, Himes predecessor Representative Chris Shays did vote in favor of the bill. While Debicella’s footnote recognizes Himes did not vote on the measure, he still felt it prudent to attack Himes for the “pushing through” the “bailout,” when in truth, Himes helped author the new law to prevent future bailouts. Debicella has publicly opposed the legislation and suggested he hoped the banks just show self discipline. [Interview with I-Caucus. 1/5/10. Available here.]

Why Debicella’s small business claims are false

Debicella also claims that Himes has supported legislation to create higher taxes and increased health care costs for small businesses. He fails to cite any vote, and, in fact, the opposite is true.

Health care reform will decrease insurance premiums in the long run for small businesses and created an immediate 35% tax cut for small businesses that choose to provide health insurance to their employees. [ Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. P.L. 111-148. March 23, 2010]

Job-creation legislation Jim helped pass has lowered small businesses’ investment costs by allowing them to write off more costs up-front, which has reduced the capital gains rate on investments by 75%. The same legislation also extended from two to five years the length of time that small businesses can elect to carryback 2008 net operating losses, which gave small businesses that experienced losses in 2008 the ability to get immediate refunds of income taxes they paid in earlier years. [American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. P.L. 111-5. Signed into law 2/17/09.] Dan Debicella says he would have opposed this legislation and would repeal it if elected.

Jim also helped pass the HIRE Act, which exempts businesses from the employer’s portion of the Social Security tax on wages paid to employees who were previously without work. If that business retains the employee for at least a year, the business is eligible for up to $1,000 in additional tax credits. [Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act. P.L. 111-147. Signed into law 3/18/10.]

Why Debicella’s claims about the stimulus are false

Debicella’s negative mail piece includes what is at least the third estimate from his campaign on the cost of the Recovery Act. In a negative television ad, Debicella claimed the Recovery Act cost $887 billion. On this mail piece, Debicella claims the stimulus cost $767 billion. In the footnotes for this mail piece, Debicella finally gets the entire cost correct. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the total cost of the Recovery Act is $787 billion. However, since the Recovery Act was about one-third tax breaks and it is a two-year program, it only increased spending in 2009 by about $127 billion. [Cost Estimate for the Conference Agreement on H.R. 1, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Congressional Budget Office. 2/13/09]

Despite Debicella’s claims that the Recovery Act has failed, both the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office and John McCain’s economic advisor Mark Zandi credit the stimulus with saving millions of jobs. According to Zandi’s report How the Great Recession was Brought to an End, published on July 27, 2010:

“… the effects of the fiscal stimulus alone appear very substantial, raising 2010 real GDP by about 3.4%, holding the unem­ployment rate about 1½ percentage points lower, and adding almost 2.7 million jobs to U.S. payrolls.”

###