GraniteGrok is both flattered and confused. The Lambert for Congress campaign recently sent out a mailer in which they referenced a web address attached to a video we posted here.
Along side the link address were additional references supporting the same claim cited as “Ernst & Young Study September 2011, Shapiro McArthur Study June 2009.
The claim in the mailer was that Marilinda Garcia supports 150 Billion in new taxes that would kill over 500,000 American jobs.
This is an incredible claim, and not simply because it is hyperbolic. It is incredible because the odds of you finding any credible corroboration of the accusation, given the references provided on the mailer are near to nil.
When referencing the video clip the web address is all that appears. There is no mention of GraniteGrok, or Mike Rogers, as the source. (I’ll let Skip or Mike tackle those who use their links without proper attribution.) My point here is that as evidence goes, few if any “oh look more election crap in my mailbox” voters are going to look at the citation and then type the address in to discover the root from which this crooked branch hath supposedly sprung.
Most recipients will likewise be flummoxed by the two other citations credited to the same claim. I am no expert but I do a fair amount of research on the internet and I challenge the work-a-day taxpayer to find for me the Ernst & Young Study from September 2011, or the Shapiro McArthur Study June 2009, before you become frustrated and just say F*** **! Heck, can anyone from scratch find them for me before they become frustrated and just say F*** **!? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
In Scouts they used to send the new kids out Snipe hunting. In the restaurant business we often pranked the newbies by asking them to go out back and fetch things that did not exist. This is not much different. The Lambert campaign has placed a rhetorical bet based purely on the suspension of disbelief. Do you know so little about my opponent that you will simply take my word that a Republican supports a massive tax hike and policies that would kill half a million jobs?
Or does Lambert think Garcia naive or just too stupid to consider that what she said (in the video) would actually result in a massive tax hike and policies that would kill half a million jobs?
I am more than happy to make that video easy for you to watch along with all the Q&A that day, to let you decide for yourself what Marilinda Garcia meant.
Keep in mind that by excluding any reference to GraniteGrok as the source of the one piece of evidence you might be able to find, they will not only aggravate Skip, they will have tried to ensure that you are less likley to stumble on any number of less than flattering content about the Lambert Campaign.
So what about that video? What does Lambert’s opponent say?
In the short clip, candidate Marilinda Garcia makes two simple points. Business taxes are too high, and corporations that can afford the lawyers to work the system can end up with an unfair tax advantage. She’d rather business taxes were not so high and that congress close the loopholes to even the playing field for those in the market who cannot afford to use the system to their advantage. The only other inference I can draw is that the lawyer/lobbying culture is favoring the corporatist lobbying monopoly and as a congressperson from NH-CD 2 she opposes that culture and the Tax system that supports it.
If I owned a small business or wanted to start one, I’d like my taxes to be lower and would rather the existing players not have the ability to use politicians and the government to keep a statutory advantage.
The Lambert mailer claims that what Garcia is speaking to, would result in a 150 Billion dollar tax increase and a loss of 500,000 jobs.
Sure, and the government not only needs more of our money to save the planet from our exhaled breath, but that by allowing really smart politicians and central planners to redirect our money for us they can do something about the “risk” airborne plant food (CO2) supposedly poses to the planet–something Gary Lambert does believe in, and voted to protect.
So, take notes. According to Gary Lambert cutting taxes will raise taxes, and taking away the corporatist insider lobbying advantage will drive half a million people out of work.
It might drive a few lobbyists out of work, but is that something Gary Lambert really wants to defend?
To be fair, just closing corporate loopholes alone, an axe Democrats love to grind, would increase taxes which–by extension–limits the resources available to grow and create jobs. If you just close loopholes and do not lower the corporate tax rates, there could be job loss. But that is not what Garcia says. She says first, that we need to lower the corporate tax rate. She then says that to allow small to medium businesses to compete with larger companies, those large companies should not be advantaged by a system that offers favors to those who can afford to work that system to get them.
At this point I do not see how the Ernst & Young Study from September 2011, or the Shapiro McArthur Study June 2009 could contradict that, or if they are even relevant in the complete context—even if we could find them to check. And while I made no effort to look at or follow up on any of the other claims in the mailer, or their citations, given the way Granite Grok’s video was mishandled and cherry-picked is it safe to surmise that the other claims are equally suspect?
In closing, turnabout is fair play. Feel free to question why Lambert for Congress is protecting the jobs of corporatist lobbyists in DC. And while you are at it, ask them why they didn’t fully cite GraniteGrok, or Grok Blogger and GrokTALK! co-host Mike Rogers who posted the video in his blog post on GraniteGrok, as the source of the video on their mailer? You can try to convince me they didn’t know where it came from…you can try.
Here is the mailer as a PDF – Hyperbole and citations are on ‘page 4’ of the scanned mailer.
[gview file=”http://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Lambert_Mailer005.pdf” save=”1″]
