Deceptive Debicella Hits Mailboxes

by: Russell's 10

Wed Sep 29, 2010 at 09:03:24 AM EDT

Let's start with the front.  It presents the theme of the mailer (about Himes failing) and a statistic.  Saying Himes failed is fine, I guess; that's what Debicella and Himes will debate.  But the statistic, which is one part I classify as the "outright lie," is so easy to check, I'm amazed he expects it slip by unnoticed:  "Fairfield County Unemployment 10 percent"

It's just invented.  If you're gonna just make stuff up, why not 11 percent?  Heck, go for 13.  Because Fairfield County's unemployment rate is not 10 percent.  The preliminary number for July, 2010 from the Bureau of Labor Statistics  -- the most recent county-level stat I could find -- shows Fairfield County's unemployment rate at 8.5%.  From June of 2009 to July of 2010, it varied from a low of 7.7 to a peak 9.0.  How hard is it to look that up?  Let me Google that for you, Dan.  You'll find this handy map at a little publication called the Washington Post.

(you should really click the "Let me Google that" link in the preceding paragraph)

When I come across a bogus statistic like this, I try to find a possible source.  Was some subset of Fairfield County at 10.0 percent?  Was Fairfield County, South Carolina at 10 percent (they wish -- they're at 13.2)?  In this case, I couldn't figure out where Debicella got this fake number.  In this case, it appears to be made up.  And set as the headline on his mailer.  Which is an outright lie.

It doesn't get much better on the back.

Debicella trots out a variation on a favorite line of his.  He enjoys going for superlative statements like: "Fairfield County got nothing,"  the stimulus "has done nothing to reduce unemployment," or today's gem -- Himes' economic positions have "Done Nothing More than Add Trillions to Our National Debt."  All are obviously untrue.  FactCheck.org featured a Debicella ad with that sort of claim and concluded "it's just false to say that the stimulus created 'no jobs' ... or 'has done nothing to reduce unemployment.'" (emphasis mine)

I'm not going to list the 274 stimulus awards completed or underway in Connecticut's 4th District.  I'm tempted -- and I've commented on it before -- but I'll hold back.  I think the extension of unemployment and the funding of teachers' jobs over the summer did something, no?  I imagine the 25 tax cuts the Democrats in Congress enacted in 2009 alone had some effect, don't you think?  Saying any policy did "nothing" is easy to disprove.

Debicella tries to back up his extreme claim that Himes has done "nothing" for the economy by listing the things he's allegedly done.

Debicella claims Himes:

1. Offered no help for small business
2. Voted for the "failed" stimulus plan (he's gonna make me bring out the 100+ Jodi Rell quotes about how great the stimulus was for CT or link to the article about the 56,00 people it kept out of poverty, isn't he?)
3. Out of Control Deficits
4. A Bailout of Wall Street

Now, Debicella was good enough to provide some references for his claims.  In this section, he includes a footnote to allegedly back up his claim that "increased health care costs have put the future of many of our small businesses at risk."  I went and read the story he referenced. It's a short article titled "Health care reform bill 101: What will it mean for business?"  It says nothing about putting the future of anything at risk.  In fact, the subhead reads, in part: "What's the reality? [Health Care Reform] could affect some businesses heavily but many others not at all."  Later, they explain that businesses with fewer than 50 employees "might be too small to be affected by some of the most important business-related elements in the bill. Employers with 50 or fewer workers would be exempt from coverage provisions."  After reading the referenced article, I think Debicella is admitting he has no evidence to back up his claim.  There's certainly nothing in that article that does so.

"Voted for the 'failed' stimulus plan"
For some reason, I am rather obsessed with pointing out that the stimulus, you know, stimulated the economy (I think that's evident above).  But don't take it from me.  Take it from USA Today, and an article headlined "Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs."

But I want to point out a very funny little detail on this part of the mailer.  Again, it comes from the footnote.  It is revealing.  I think it's actually the proofreader's notes, and the piece went to press without further revision.  Welcome to the Fairfield County Amateur Hour.  The proofreader references stats from recovery.gov, which is encouraging.  After looking at all those dots, they ought to know the stimulus did more than "nothing"  (is my obsession showing?). The proofreader also points out that the cost of the stimulus was wrong as stated in the mailer.  I don't know why the Debicella campaign cares about getting it right.  They just make the number up.  Here are screen grabs from two different Debicella TV ads, and a photo of today's mailer.

First of all, stimulus spending never got anywhere near $767, $800, or $887 billion.  It was approved at $512 billion in spending.  The rest of the cost ($275 billion) came in the form of all those tax cuts, which benefited about 95% of Americans.  But look at how fluid the number is in Debicella's own campaign materials.  He's hard to fact-check because he rarely presents the same fact twice.

"Out of Control Deficits"
I'll give Debicella credit where credit is due: spending did go up 22% from FY2008 to FY2009 and the debt did grow.  But that spending includes Medicare and Social Security, the costs of which go up annually with or without congressional approval.  Also, a lot of the FY2009 appropriations (like Defense and Homeland Security) were voted on in the fall of 2008 -- with "yes" votes from Chris Shays.  Did the stimulus vote contribute to the higher expenditures?  Yes, and I think it was wise and necessary.  So does economist Mark Zlandi (who advised the McCain campaign, by the way).  His analysis credits the stimulus with "raising 2010 real GDP by about 3.4%, holding the unem­ployment rate about 1.5 percentage points lower, and adding almost 2.7 million jobs to U.S. payrolls."  Hardly "nothing."  Did the stimulus tax cuts, and the other tax cuts voted on by Himes add to the debt?  Yes, but these, too, were wise and necessary.  And let's remember who voted for PAYGO: Democrats including Jim Himes.  And while both Himes and Debicella promote extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to all taxpayers (a position for which Himes has taken a lot of criticism, even anger, from people likely to be reading this), Debicella wants them permanent.  Himes' position costs about $500 billion in revenue, Debicella's costs $3.7 TRILLION every ten years -- forever.  Talk about out of control...

"A Bailout of Wall Street"
O... M... G.  I can't believe this one.  This is the other "outright lie."  Debicella's mailer says "Jim Himes helped push through a massive bailout of..." Wall Street.  He is actually talking about TARP.  And he says "Jim Himes helped push" TARP through, presumably, Congress.  There is one small huge problem with this.  President Bush signed TARP into law on October 3, 2008.  Jim Himes was elected to congress thirty-two days later, on November 4.  Unless Jim Himes drives a DeLorean than can pump 1.21 gigawatts of power into its Flux Capacitor when it hits 88 miles an hour, I'm pretty sure he didn't "push through" TARP.  I love that Debicella's own footnote cops to this particular lie.

Wall Street Bailout was passed in Oct. 2008, before Himes got to Congress.
- footnote 4 in the mailer

Dan Debicella is not even trying to tell voters the truth about Jim Himes' record.  I understand that some selective presentation of facts is part of the effort of candidates in every election.  But Debicella is showing a pattern.  He misrepresents the size of the stimulus spending routinely.  He claims Himes "pushed through" TARP, which is ridiculous.  He truncates Himes' statements to completely reverse the meaning of what Himes said.  He simply makes up unemployment statistics.  He was nearly impeached at Penn for lying to other representatives.  FactCheck calls his TV claim "just false." Rick Green of the Hartford Courant calls a recent Debicella statement a "fib," and says "Dan, at least be honest with us."

In trying to present an unflattering picture of Jim Himes' record, Debicella manages to reinforce a record of his own -- one of consistently and routinely lying (or intentionally distorting facts, if you prefer) if he thinks it helps him get what he wants.  To quote a mailer I received yesterday, that's "bad for Fairfield County, bad for our" country.