False ads continue
November 3, 2008 | By Nathaniel Ward
Senator Barack Obama's campaign continues to air false and inaccurate advertisements citing Heritage Foundation expert Rea Hederman.
Watch Heritage's video that sets the record straight:
As Hederman himself makes abundantly clear on National Review Online, he did not endorse the Obama tax plan as the ads falsely suggest.
"I'm flattered that the Obama campaign thinks so highly of me that they insist on giving me national exposure," he writes. "I just wish they had called me first, to verify the information in the ad. I imagine they're pretty embarrassed now that The Heritage Foundation's lawyer has notified them that their advertisement is false."
"In fact," he continues, "the campaign must be feeling really sheepish about their gaffe. They haven't worked up the nerve to apologize to me, or even respond to our lawyer's letter. Perhaps they're still debating how to set the record straight."
In a video distributed widely online, Hederman explains how the Obama campaign is misconstruing Hederman's words and the positions of The Heritage Foundation.
Follow the latest at blog.heritage.org/obama.
-- David Talbot
Fighting misinformation
Since the campaign continues to run the false and misleading ads, Heritage's lawyer has contacted television stations and networks to ask them to discontinue showing the ads.
The letter to the stations and networks reads:
Dear General Manager:
We are informed that your station has been running advertisements placed by Obama for President that contain false statement concerning my client, The Heritage Foundation. The ads and the reason for their falsity are described in my attached letter to the Obama campaign. The campaign has apparently ignored my letter and continues to run the false ad.
As a responsible media outlet, we assume that you take seriously your obligation to ensure that advertisements appearing on your station do not mislead the public with false information. Accordingly, we respectfully request that your station discontinue the publication of these ads.
Further information about The Heritage Foundation's position on the Obama and McCain tax plans can be obtained at heritage.org. After reading them, we are sure you will agree that it is misleading in the extreme for the Obama campaign to suggest that The Heritage Foundation believes that Senator Obama's tax plan would be better for middle class Americans than the plan proposed by Senator McCain.
Very truly yours,
Alan P. Dye
Talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham have picked up on the story, as have dozens of blogs and news websites like ABC.
-- David Talbot
The facts on taxes
Given the liberal distortions about taxes, Heritage economist Bill Beach sets the record straight.
"John McCain's tax plan, which makes all of the tax reductions permanent (among other things)," he argues, "produces more than twice as much economic activity as Barack Obama's plan, which makes those tax reductions permanent only for taxpayers with incomes below $250,000."
Beach goes on to conclude that "the Obama tax increases hit capital costs particularly hard, which reduces investment and creates significantly higher borrowing costs for businesses at all levels. These effects combine with declines in savings, consumption, and labor effort to produce significant economic consequences outside of the targeted class of taxpayers. Thus, families whose incomes exempt them from the higher Obama taxes still feel the pinch of these taxes through a slower job market an increasingly sluggish income."
-- David Talbot
Other Heritage work of note
- After seven years of overseas combat deployment, America's military is in a state of reduced readiness. Heritage's Mackenzie Eaglen explains that "symptoms include delayed, shortened, or less diverse training; cross-leveling of personnel and equipment from disparate units to plug deploying-unit shortfalls; less maintenance for worn-out weapons; and shortened rest time at home before redeploying overseas." Congress must work quickly to remedy this urgent problem, she argues.
- "Redefining marriage to include same-sex unions poses significant threats to the religious liberties of people who continue to believe that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman," Heritage visiting fellow Thomas Messner writes in a new in-depth analysis. "In states with same-sex marriage, individuals and institutions that believe marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman can expect to encounter an increasing number of challenges to their freedom to express their beliefs and live by them inside and outside of their places of worship. These challenges will come from the state itself, from increased civil liability under nondiscrimination laws, and from private actors."
- Congress is considering bailing out state governments who spend lavishly at taxpayer expense. Writing in the New York Post, Heritage expert Brian Riedl explains why this is a bad idea. "The biggest losers from a federal bailout are taxpayers who live in fiscally responsible states," Riedl explains. "The right answer is for the states to face the facts: Set priorities, make trade-offs and reduce unnecessary spending."
- In a brief analysis of the Founders' take on redistribution of wealth, Heritage expert Matthew Spalding writes on Heritage's blog that a major element of the pursuit happiness is keeping the rewards of our labor. "In the long run," writes Spalding, the director of Heritage's Simon Center for American Studies, "the Founders reasoned markets would do a better job at spreading wealth" than the government.
In other news
- While many governors want Congress to bail out their state budgets, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford testified before a Congressional committee and specifically asked for no money. Instead, Governor Sanford asked the Committee "to simply give the states more freedom," "more flexibility" and "more in the way of control over the dollars we already have and less in the way of costs. Give us more options, not more money with federal strings attached."
- The 100-year-old Christian Science Monitor will cease daily publication and switch to a weekly print edition and an online edition starting next year.
- Expected cuts to defense spending pushed through by a more liberal Congress are forcing officials to determine what sorts of wars America will face and thus what sorts of wars to prepare for. In the past, Pentagon officials had sought to be able to meet any military challenge.
- Gun sales are up, which the Washington Times says may be because Americans are preparing for anticipated firearms regulations.
- The AP reports on some good news from Iraq: "U.S. deaths in Iraq fell in October to their lowest monthly level of the war, matching the record low of 13 fatalities suffered in July."
- Crude oil prices fell 32 percent in October, a record monthly drop fueled by sagging demand. Demand is sure to rise with economic recovery, though, which is why it remains imperative to develop new sources for energy in this country.
- The Navy conducted a test of its anti-missile systems over the weekend. It was the first test not run by the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency. One of the two target missiles was destroyed.
Coming up at Heritage
To attend these or any other events at Heritage please RSVP at Heritage's website. Or you can view these events live online. All times are Eastern.
- On Thursday, November 6 at 11:00 a.m., Sichan Siv recalls his escape from the killing fields in Cambodia.
- On Friday, November 14 at noon, Guatemalan Vice President Rafael Espada discusses his country's ongoing challenges and opportunities.
Nathaniel Ward is the Editor of MyHeritage.org—a website for members and supporters of The Heritage Foundation. David Talbot contributed to this report.
