Paul Campaign Releases New, Aggressive Health Care Ad
Ron Paul campaign ads are getting more specific...and more aggressive...than the earlier ads that garnered a lot of criticism. by Walt Thiessen
(libertarian)
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
The Paul campaign have released two new ads. One is a TV ad that targets HMOs and government role in rising health care costs and poor care for Iraqi veterans. The other is a radio ad that calls directly for the abolition of the IRS.
One of the criticisms of his earlier TV ads was that they were weak and didn't do justice to the Paul message. These new ads are a clear attempt to address those very valid concerns.
The Health Care ad specifically focuses on the "tug-of-war" between HMOs and the government. The un-named speaker addressing the camera says we need Ron Paul because he's a doctor who has "seen it all." He says that Paul has the right idea: take the power away from big business and the government, and give it back to patients and the doctors they choose. The ad shows just how difficult it is to address even a single issue in a 30 second ad spot, but it at least attempts to address the issue.
The radio ad is more specific, calling for the abolition of the IRS and replacing it with nothing. The ad begins, "How can we get rid of the income tax? By reducing spending to the levels of just a decade ago, we could get rid of the income tax and replace it with nothing."
The ad goes on to say that Paul has a 20 year record of saying "no" to "big spending liberals and lobbyists," a clear appeal to conservative Republican voters. The phrase, "get rid of the income tax and replace it with nothing" is repeated four times during the 60 second spot, so clearly this is the message they hope to embed in the conscious minds of Iowa and NH voters. The last repetition is in Paul's own voice, and he follows it by saying, "no income tax, no sales tax, and responsible Constitutional spending." This phrase signals that Paul has no intention of supporting the ill-named "Fair Tax." This will undoubtedly come as a disappointment to some Paul supporters, but I think it's a terrific piece of good news. The "Fair Tax," besides being a questionable proposal due to its intentionally confusing tax rates, is also very weak (virtually non-existent) when it comes to reducing government spending. Paul's insistence on replacing the income tax with nothing is not only a rejection of Mike Huckabee's bigger government embrace of the "Fair Tax"; it's also a pointed recognition that we must reduce government spending, not just assume that changing tax codes will somehow manage to achieve spending cuts by itself.
Hopefully, Paul's advertisements will continue to become more and more aggressive on the issues, so that the voters truly understand where he stands on the issues, and most especially, why.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 18
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Walt Thiessen only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Walt Thiessen is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
While Ron Paul's desire to reduce government spending is fair and desirable, your misrepresentation of the FairTax is not. The tax rates proposed in the FairTax is infinitely less confusing then the system under which we now labor, specifically zero income tax, and 23% inclusive sales tax.
That's it.
The argument that the FairTax will support, or spawn, bigger government is also a gross distortion. True, the FairTax is revenue neutral, and would collect the same amount of money as the taxes it proposes to replace, but with one major difference. For the first time in decades, people would actually see exactly what the government is taking from them. And nothing energizes people to cut the size of government as knowing exactly what it is costing them.
So, while Paul is to be lauded for his desire to eliminate the IRS and reduce government spending, let's not distort other, equally laudable, proposals just because you don't agree with them.
Instead of acting like Democrats, let's dispense with the deceit and debate the actual proposals, their merits and drawbacks, and come to a rational decision on what will work the best.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-12-12 14:22:04
If the Fair Tax is so good and fair, then why don't they simply admit that it's a 30% sales tax, rather than pretending that it's a 23% "tax inclusive" tax, which does nothing but blow the average person's synapses when it's described that way? 30% is the more honest figure. 23% is a figure used by con men trying to make the public think the tax is actually smaller than it really is.
Also, the reason why I say that the Fair Tax will lead to bigger government is that government constantly keeps growing year after year. It's in the nature of politics for that to happen. Any tax proposal that doesn't simultaneously reduce government spending on a permanent basis is therefore, by definition, a contributor to bigger government.
For a candidate as unknown as Ron Paul was to most voters it is wise to run ads that merely introduce the candidate together with his easy-sell positions and not a lot of specificity, which is exactly what the first set of TV/radio ads were designed to do. Remember that Paul has a lot of experience with campaign strategy.
Once the candidate is know, the bolder elements of the platform can be trotted out and that is what we are seeing now with these new ads.
It is highly doubtful that the campaign bowed to pressure from supporters. They were simply following the tried-and-true playbook, leaving supporters to emplement more novel approaches on their own.
Posted By: Harold Vanderboegh
Date: 2007-12-13 10:45:12
Mr Thiessen needs to be more fair and stop mixing "apples and oranges!" In his article he states, "The "Fair Tax," besides being a questionable proposal due to its intentionally confusing tax rates, is also very weak (virtually non-existent) when it comes to reducing government spending." The FairTax rate, whether stated as tax inclusive or tax exclusive is the same amount regardless. It is simply 23 cents for each dollar spent. While I totally agree with Mr. Thiessen that government spending must be reduced, I point out that the the FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with a progressive national retail sales tax. Reducing government spending is a separate issue! By the way, the FairTax would eliminate the 80,000 IRS permanent positions and replace it with 5,000 positions.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-12-13 12:37:35
Mr. Vanderboegh claims I'm mixing apple and oranges because, "Reducing government spending is a separate issue!" Then, he mixes them himself when he tries to justify his claim by showing how the mis-named "Fair Tax" would reduce IRS-related spending. Make up your mind, please!
By the way, do I really have to point out that there's no such thing as a "fair" tax?
Posted By: Robert F Liker
Date: 2007-12-14 10:33:43
I respectfully suggest that you would do well to get correct facts and speak to Americans for Fair Taxation and read HR25 so that you can understand what the Fair Tax is and what it does not do. I also suggest you not continue to write articles about the Fair Tax that are false, misleading and erroneous because it reflects a misunderstanding of the FairTax.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-12-14 12:26:34
I have read both the Fair Tax book and HR25. They are the primary sources for my analysis. The difference between me and you is that I question what I read, and you don't. That's how I came to realize that the Fair Tax is a fraud....and it is intentional on the part of the authors, Neil Boortz and Cong. Conyers. They deliberately wanted to avoid having people compare their proposal to other sales taxes, because they knew that people would not accept a 30% tax as readily as they would accept a 23% tax.
What's really sad is that a major part of the problem could be eliminated if the "Fair Tax" framers abandoned their ridiculous insistence on discussing the tax as "tax inclusive." From an analytical point of view, there's really no need for it, and it would be much more honest to simply say, "It's a 30% sales tax." That's something anyone can understand.
I have a friend who is an attorney, who call me today on the phone about another matter. He brought up the Fair Tax during our conversation. I asked him my favorite Fair Tax question. If the Fair Tax goes into effect tomorrow, and you go into a local convenience store and buy a candy bar for $1, and if we assume to make the example simpler that there is no state or local sales tax, what will be the final price of the candy bar including the Fair Tax? He replied that it would be $1.23. Yet, the correct answer is $1.30.
If a competent attorney (which my friend is) doesn't understand the legal implications of a 23% "tax inclusive" tax, then it's absolutely ridiculous to assume that the rest of the population will understand it either. That means that anyone who tries to get elected to office based on a platform that includes the Fair Tax is committing fraud. They are defrauding the voters in their attempts to be elected to office. Frankly, I think candidates like that should be locked up.
