“What’s hot?” the television screen asked Super Bowl XLVII four years ago. “The all-new Mercedes-Benz CLA,” it answered. The real subject of the ad, however, was Kate Upton. The 30-second, anti-tax spot the state chamber of commerce ran last week wasn’t sexist like that. But its references to former President Barack Obama and welfare recipients was as unrelated to the House proposal for a new income tax as the supermodel was to the luxury car.
And both ads appealed to the basest instincts of an audience that advertisers know all too well.
“Rep. Paul Seaton and Les Gara agree with Obama,” the chamber’s ad begins. “They think small business jobs don’t matter and resource development is bad. They think we should pay an income tax so Alaskans can pay for those who don’t work.”
First of all, Obama has never been Alaska’s chief executive. It’s Gov. Bill Walker who began calling for an income tax to help close the state’s budget gap. But the former president is a figure who conservatives love to hate. Smart advertisers know their ears will perk up at the mention of his name. Just like they know using a scantily clad Upton on the Mercedes commercial would whiplash a lot of men in the direction of their TV sets.
And so, with Obama cast as the villain, the ad tells us his tax policy destroyed small business growth. It provides no evidence to back up the claim. That’s because, when it comes to income taxes, there is none.
What Obama did was allow some of the Bush-era tax cuts to expire. But because they were never intended to permanent, the policy didn’t really belong to him. Furthermore, in 2010 he extended them for two more years. And after that, the deal he made with congressional Republicans kept the cuts in place except for families earning more than $450,000 and more than $400,000 for individuals.
Obama never intended to restore those taxes to pre-Bush levels. In 2010, he proposed setting the ceilings at $250,000 and $200,000, respectively. According to a Washington Post analysis of small business tax returns at that time, it would have affected less than 2 percent of small business owners. So when the final compromise was reached in 2012, even fewer small businesses saw an increase in their income tax.
But even if the ad was accurate, it completely ignores the state’s fiscal crisis, which is the driver behind the income tax proposal. Instead, it disingenuously implies the House majority coalition wants to take money from small businesses and every wage-earning Alaskan and give it to able-bodied people who prefer welfare to holding down a job. It’s the old “makers and takers” argument used by conservative media to rally the troops whenever tax policy is debated.
That also used to be one of the favorite phrases used by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, who is now Speaker of the House. But in a 2014 Wall Street Journal Op-Ed, he changed his tune. After describing how he, his mother, and a friend all benefited from temporary government assistance, Ryan wrote, “People struggling and striving to get ahead — that’s what our country is all about. On that journey, they’re not ‘takers’; they’re trying to make something of themselves.”
I’m not going to venture a guess on how many small business owners have similar stories. But any still struggling are going to be more negatively impacted by the chamber’s preferred solution to closing the budget gap. They want further cuts to state government.
Following that prescription will lead to more layoffs of state employees. Job losses will extend into the education, health services, and other sectors. It’ll hurt consulting architects and engineers, most of which are small businesses who have already experienced significant revenue losses due to the drastic cuts of the state’s capital budget.
All of that means that means fewer customers into the shops of small business owners.
The question of taxes is always more complicated than described by groups opposing them. In fact, there’s no public policy debate that can to be compressed into a 30-second ad and still be sufficiently informative.
But that’s not the objective of political advertising. Instead, it’s to frame an issue into black and white choices. In this case, the Chamber tries to whip up resentment among the GOP base the old way. And after eight years of disparaging Obama, they’ve added his name to the coded language of “us versus them.”
• Rich Moniak is a Juneau resident and retired civil engineer with more than 25 years of experience working in the public sector.
