SMITH DELIVERS FOR BIG OIL, NOT FOR OREGON
DSCC TV Ad shows what Smith’s tax breaks for big oil could mean for average Oregon families.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee released a new television ad today showing how the $18 billion that Gordon Smith gave in tax breaks to Big Oil could help average Oregon families – 407 bags of groceries, 298 tanks of gas, or two years of college tuition.
The DSCC recently launched the website www.BoughtByBigOil.com to expose Republican Senators’ support for policies that leave Americans paying at the pump while oil companies bring in record profits.
“The oil executives who fill Gordon Smith’s campaign coffers with cash have gotten huge tax breaks, while average Oregon families are left with higher prices at the pump,” DSCC spokesman Matthew Miller said. “Oregon families need help, but Gordon Smith is busy helping Big Oil instead.”
Posted August 15, 2008 Economy, Smith Videos 2 comments
Comments
I would like to believe you in your ad for Gordon Smith for big oil but the numbers don't add up. There are 300 million people in the US when talking about a federal tax break - 18 billion divided by 300 million is $60 per Oregonian. Even if you slightly mislead and use just Oregon's population of about 4 million you get $4,500 per Oregonian. How do you come up with $19,000 per Oregonian? Very, very misleading and completely untruthful, not to mention that you treat us like we're idiots that wouldn't figure this out.
Please explain yourself so I can help determine who is the honest candidate here. Thank you.
Funny, I just did the same math and came to the same conclusion - $60 per Oregonian.
Worse, two of the three votes referenced - Senate Vote 94 on 4/25/02 and Senate Vote 213 on 7/29/05 - received "yea" votes from Biden and Obama (Biden voted yes on 94, Obama voted yes on 213 (Biden voted no)). Vote 94 passed 84-11. Vote 213 passed 74-26. Neither of these were close, party-line votes.
This ad, like the other ad that includes the Iraq rebuilding vote (which might be a Merkley ad, I think) doesn't pass the thorough review test. I suspect if Factcheck.org got ahold of these, we'd get the whole story.
Smith has his faults. This ad fails miserably in properly identifying and exploiting them.
Post a comment