Monday, October 02, 2006

Overtaxed

Rob Simmons is attacking Joe Courtney on taxes.


Which prompted this response from Courtney:

Taxes are an old saw. Nancy Johnson attacked Chris Murphy for voting to raise taxes as a state senator. Simmons is basically taking the same line against Courtney.

Except that unlike Murphy, who is currently a state senator, Courtney hasn't been in the legislature for twelve years. Then again, voters don't know that, and they probably don't care.

Simmons has attacked his rivals over their stance on taxes before. He attacked Jim Sullivan for voting to raise taxes while a member of the Norwich city council during the 2004 campaign, for example, and attacked Sam Gejdenson for some of his tax votes, as well. It works. People respond. It's also the sort of attack that is very, very hard to defend against. In most cases, all a politician can do is work to change the subject.

That's what Courtney is doing in his ad: changing the subject to Rob Simmons and George Bush. We'll see which issue voters care about more.

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

GC wrote: "Except that unlike Murphy, who is currently a state senator, Courtney hasn't been in the legislature for twelve years."

how come it's OK for Courtney to call himself a "respected legislator," but when Simmons attacks him for votes cast while he was a legislator, it's somehow out-of-bounds.

Courtney can't have it both ways IMHO.

Genghis Conn said...

Both are a little disingenuous, and both mislead the voters a bit.

Anonymous said...

Saw the ad yesterday during Football...it's a good ad. And it plays well in North Central CT (Vernon, Stafford, Ellington) all three towns had very contentious budget votes this year, all three had failed on the first go around and Vernon and Stafford were very tough. Voters don't like taxes.

Anonymous said...

Keep in mind while Courtney is no longer a state rep, his tax votes still linger.

Voters hate paying taxes and they are still paying for Joe's votes even 12 years later.

Anonymous said...

Genghis...I'm pretty sure that the Courtney ad was released first (just to correct your statement saying it was a response to the Simmons ad.)

Billy said...

Its funny that Joe tries to use the same line of reasoning that Simmons did except negative.

Simmons: Joe votes to increase taxes!
Courtney: Rob voted for tax cuts for the rich!

last I remembered though those tax cuts were a bit more fair than going to just the rich. Why should the middle class get more back in tax cuts than they put in? The rich pay a giant portion of the taxes disproportionate to thier % of the population, why shouldnt they get an equal amount back that they put in? This disgusting class warfare that the Democrats have been trying to harp on for the last 50 years makes me want to puke.

Billy said...

Its funny that Joe tries to use the same line of reasoning that Simmons did except negative.

Simmons: Joe votes to increase taxes!
Courtney: Rob voted for tax cuts for the rich!

last I remembered though those tax cuts were a bit more fair than going to just the rich. Why should the middle class get more back in tax cuts than they put in? The rich pay a giant portion of the taxes disproportionate to thier % of the population, why shouldnt they get an equal amount back that they put in? This disgusting class warfare that the Democrats have been trying to harp on for the last 50 years makes me want to puke.

Anonymous said...

Simmons says in his commercial that Courtney voted for the gas tax, then Courtney's commercial says he opposed the gas tax....whcih one is right? Or did Joe vote for it before he voted against it...

dumbruss said...

Billy, you realize that as a percentage the rich actually pay less in taxes then most Americans? Any tax cuts for the rich are unfair. They already pay less as a percentage, they have more ability to pay taxes, and they benefit from the system the most. Disagree entirely.

Anonymous said...

As a side note, the tax cuts themselves weren't fairly distributed.

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/newsflash_060531_ss

Brian said...

Let's be honest....Simmons is done. Simmons won in 02 and 04 because hes not a bad guy at all and did a decent job holding office. However, its almost 2007 and it doesn't help when your voting record shows that you are with Bush on his tax cuts for the rich and you are a republican still in favor of the war. People don't want to hear it anymore. It will be a close race on election day, but I like Courtney to win by a margin of 3-6%.

Anonymous said...

The rich pay a giant portion of the taxes disproportionate to thier % of the population.... This disgusting class warfare that the Democrats have been trying to harp on

This is nonsense. The wealthy pay more dollars in taxes because they make the most money. But they pay much less of a % of their income in state and local taxes than middle-income and low-income people. Our state and local tax structure is highly regressive, and the wealthy are not paying their fair share. The federal income tax is more progressive, but CT's sales and property taxes make our state system very regressive. And the GOP's federal tax breaks went almost entirely to the super-wealthy, while their huge program cuts hurt the middle- and working class.

Anonymous said...

A close genealogical scrutiny of Schlesinger's family tree shows him separated-at-birth from his brother: Baghdad Bob.

You remember Bob...the Iraqi defense minister who kept going on TV during shock and awe saying "what americans? there are no americans here!" just as a Bradley Fighting Vehicle drove by in the background--stars & stripes on it.

Now his brother Alan is trying that ploy in CT. Poll comes out showing him at 5%. He goes on TV and says "we're within striking distance", just as another poll comes out verifying him at 5%.

A Different Anonymous (No! Really!) said...

Brian:

Let's be honest ... Simmons is not even close to done. He is a great guy, and no one works harder for his district. Courtney is also a nice guy, but has all the panache of wallpaper paste.

No one in the 2nd gives a rat's hinder about tax cuts for the rich because -- unless they have a really big night at Foxwoods -- it doesn't touch them. And if they care about military issues, they likely care most about the fact that Simmons busted his butt (along with every other politician in Connecticut) to save the sub base.

I know, I know, that's not what they told you at the College Democrats meeting. But Brian, here's a little secret: That stuff in the paper cups? It was Kool-Aid.

Anonymous said...

Two problems with your statement there anonymous:

1. According to the CBO top 25% of income earners in this country pay 83.88% of all federal income taxes. That is significant and that is what we are talking about (Congress controls federal taxes).

2. The tax cuts voted for by Simmons increased tax revenues. This begs the question that if we can raise revenues by cutting taxes, then why shouldn't we?

3. Also, huge program cuts? I wish. We have spent more under Bush than ever....

bluecoat said...

No one in the 2nd gives a rat's hinder about tax cuts for the rich.. that's brilliant, brilliant - spin, spin, spin.

CTRevolution said...

ADONR

"No one in the 2nd gives a rat's hinder about tax cuts for the rich"

I beg to differ. Last time I checked, most people aren't too happy that Bush gave out billions in money to the extremely wealthy in this country and large corporations. The same corporations that run up gas prices on consumers and in doing so reap huge profits. The same rich families that donate to Republican campaigns.

What could we have with all that money, oh, just Universal Health Care, Universal Preschool Education, lower middle class taxes. But no one cares eh?

It's time we had a government that cared more about the other 99% of America.

bluecoat said...

count me out of government funded Universal Healthcare (except for the poor and the elderly) and Universal pre-K. It's time that we had a government that did government stuff.

Brickbat said...

Legislators vote for tax increases. They do so because they are being responsible and the state is in a deficit situation, not because they like to (these are politicians who have to run for re-election, after all). Those votes almost always come along with large budget cuts.

They also vote for tax cuts when there are surpluses (except for some Republicans who vote for tax cuts when there are deficits. This form of pandering is called "Bushonomics". It figures that the next generation can pay the bills).

Every two years somebody goes into the archives and digs out a number about how many "tax increases" someone else voted for. Sometimes it's one vote on a bill with a whole revenue package attached.

It's nonsense, typical nonsense. And insulting, as it assumes the public is so dumb as to go into apoplexy whenever the phrase "tax increase" is mentioned.

Brian said...

I'm not even a democrat. I'm registered as a independent voter and I never joined the college democrats. Look at this current republican congress that dominates the majority....

It's done nothing, but let a village idiot push shamless legislation over and over again. In less than five weeks I will be able to help vote in a democratic congress. Then we won't be voting on legalizing torture and banning online gambling. It's funny because nobody is going follow the gambling ban.

Brian said...

I applaud those who understand the concept of regressive and progressive tax systems in our country. The middle class and low income persons get wiped out when they have to pay a higher percentage toward state income taxes when the wealthiest 1% get so many breaks.

There is no way in hell Simmons will win in Enfield after all the failures that have been occuring in Iraq. In addition, nobody in Enfield has any relation to the subase. So those ads really don't have any appeal to Enfield voters. Oh yea Simmons will say Joe had nothing to do with the sub base, but he will leave him a thank you message on his cell-phone congratulating his efforts on saving the base.

A Different Anonymous (No! Really!) said...

bluecoat, that's brilliant, brilliant - spin, spin, spin, while cogent and pithy, is not actually a meaningful contribution, pro or con. Did you have something to add or do you just want to sit there and snark from the sidelines, as usual?

A Different Anonymous (No! Really!) said...

CTRev:

My apologies. Let me rephrase that. No one in the real world cares, etc.

Those of us in the chattering class - that's you, me, and the rest of the political junkies here - can debate it ad nauseum. Every so often, though, you might want to remind yourself that - despite what you might think - most people do not live and breathe this stuff. More shocking still, some of them do not actually agree with you.

GMR said...

I beg to differ. Last time I checked, most people aren't too happy that Bush gave out billions in money to the extremely wealthy in this country and large corporations. The same corporations that run up gas prices on consumers and in doing so reap huge profits. The same rich families that donate to Republican campaigns.

First, Bush didn't "give out" money, he simply let those who earned it keep more of what they earned.

Gas prices were not run up by the big oil companies. Big oil makes about $0.10 in profit for every gallon sold at the pump. Sure, they sell a lot of gallons. But for every gallon pumped, taxes are about $0.40 to $0.50. Taking that extra $0.10 wouldn't allow for your panacea of things that you think would be great to have.

In the past six months, Exxon Mobil has earned $18.76 billion in profit. Well, it earned $33.663 billion and paid $14.9 billion in taxes. Note that this is a global company, and it pays taxes in many jurisdictions.

So how does this $18.76 billion in profit that Exxon Mobil earned break down?

About $1.8 billion was from chemicals, both in the US and abroad.

$3.7 billion came from downstream oil production, and about $13.5 billion from upstream production ($2.9 billion in the US, $10.6 billion outside of the US).

Finally, the rich families that donate to Republican campaigns: in the past, the Republicans have had a much broader base of donors than the Democrats, and a lower percentage of Republican donors were below the maximum allowable donation than Democratic donors. Not sure if that's still the case this year. But if you look at the Senate, I see a bunch of Democratic multi-millionaires: Kerry, Kennedy, Rockefeller, Dayton, Kohl, Cantwell, and Corzine (well, he's moved on).

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

The rich don't pay their fair share?

USA Today


For instance, taxpayers who earned between $100,000 and $200,000 in 2004 paid 22.5% of all federal taxes, up from 19.4% four years earlier. Those who earned between $200,000 and $500,000 in 2004 paid 17.9% of all federal taxes, up from 15.4% in 2000, the analysis showed.





So much for the Bush gives it away to the rich arguement.

Anonymous said...

see: http://politicalcortex.com

Anonymous said...

Billy & ACR,

99% of Connecticut residents are net losers under GOP tax and spending policies when you take into account the massive debts the GOP has forced on us. Only his super-wealthy funders come out ahead.

More Bush tax myth busting. Here are the winners in graphical terms.

The wealthiest Americans pay a chunk of our tax dollars, because they make the biggest chunk of the income! Duh. Your stats are measures of how income has concentrated in the hands of the wealthy, not tax fairness. The federal tax is somewhat progressive and our state and local tax system is highly regressive. The wealthy are not paying their fair share of state and local taxes. They pay less than half as much of the rest of us in state and local taxes as a percentage of their income.

The real goal of the Republican tax cuts is to pay off the wealthy, hurt the rest of us, burden the federal government with massive debt, and make it more difficult for us to afford the public infrastructures we need to have a healthy society.

Billy said...

Jeez look at the liberal hand wringing and class envy... grrrrr those rich bastards all have money, lets take it away from them and distribute it amoungst us! Because its not fair that they are smarter and work harder than us and have made something of thier lives!

bluecoat said...

ADANR said: bluecoat, that's brilliant, brilliant - spin, spin, spin, while cogent and pithy, is not actually a meaningful contribution, pro or con. Did you have something to add or do you just want to sit there and snark from the sidelines, as usual?

Did you, ADANR, have something to add or do you just want to sit there and snark from the sidelines, as usual? You guys spend a lot of time dissing me when your lady is running an ad saying in the same breath that she cut taxes ans spent billions on transportation - by raising taxes instead of instituting user tolls like all of these places have done. if she got around amd talke to her colleague governors instead of doing tow month after the fact ceremonial bill signings she might bring the state into the 21st Centruy the way Bush is trying to bring along Baghdad.