Erik Paulsen's Attack Ad on Meffert fails fact-check

Paulsen claims Jim supports a government control of health care
WRONG

Government Takeover? Not according to the Health Care Industry

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/174216

Despite the fact that the federal health insurance plan (a.k.a. the “public option”) is now gone from the bill, Republicans and conservative groups have continued to claim that the bill institutes a system like the one in the United Kingdom, or Canada, or otherwise amounts to a government takeover. It doesn’t. A pure government-run system was never among the leading Democratic proposals, much to the chagrin of single-payer advocates. Instead, the bill builds on our current system of private insurance, and in fact, drums up more business for private companies by mandating that individuals buy coverage and giving many subsidies to do so.


http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/a-final-weekend-of-whoppers/


Paulsen says Meffert supports cuts to Medicare

WRONG

In reaction to the cost cuts the government is implementing insurers will cut seniors benefits in order not to lose profits.


http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/mar/18/top-10-facts-know-about-health-care-reform/



Paulsen claims Meffert’s agenda kills jobs with taxes
WRONG

Moody's business analysists say the tax hit would not be too high for most small businesses. Even for those making over $250,000 the tax hit would be small

Erik Paulsen voted NO on HR5297 bill to create small business jobs

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-375

Paulsen is talking about not extending the tax cuts to the top 2% earners as a job killer.
Economists from Moody’s Analytics, in an analysis of Federal Reserve data going back to 1989, came to this conclusion, in a report released this week, that spending is far more impacted by the business cycle, such as the fluctuation of stock prices, than tax cuts.
Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, estimates that the tax hit would not be too high for most small businesses. For one, the marginal tax increase impacts earnings, not revenue. A business would need to be clearing more than $250,000 a year after salaries and other costs in order to see a tax hit. And then, it would likely be small. “For the $250,000 to $500,000 a year bracket,” Baker notes, “the estimated tax hit is $700. That isn’t enough to hire anyone.”

http://washingtonindependent.com/97315/who-would-the-tax-increases-hurt


Paulsen claims Meffert supports reckless spending

WRONG

Economists say More Bang-for-the-Buck with Spending, because most tax-cuts are saved, not spent.

Spending versus tax cuts, by Paul Krugman: Jeff Frankel says what I wanted to say about what we know so far about the impact of the stimulus:
Martin Feldstein and others predicted that the tax-cut component of the 2009 fiscal stimulus package would have substantially less expansionary bang-for-the-buck than the spending component of the package, because much of the tax cut would be saved, as had been the case with the 2008 tax cut. (“Bang for the buck” in this case could be defined as demand stimulus divided by budget cost.) We knew this from Milton Friedman’s permanent income hypothesis, or even from good old Keynesian multiplier theory.
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2009/08/spending-versus-tax-cuts.html