Debbie Bacigalupi: from Corporate Event Planner to Fourth-rate Liar

I had an interesting conversation today with Debbie Bacigalupi, a former corporate event planner who is running for Congress as a Republican in California’s 14th district. Bacigalupi more or less met my expectations of a not-particularly-sharp electoral punching bag whose political education thus far has consisted of years of listening to conservative talk radio plus maybe a week of whatever GOP media summer camp teaches candidates how to repeat the same talking points over and over. The conversation centered on reproductive rights; while dodging virtually every question on how she would actually vote on bills concerning abortion, Bacigalupi did essentially admit that she did not have the slightest clue that birth control is often prescribed in cases having nothing to do with sexual activity. (In case it wasn’t obvious, she’d vote to ban Medicaid from funding birth control.)

But enough about that. I also picked up her campaign brochure targeted to “college age voters”, which she and her companion were doling out at my local college campus. Now, I’m not under the illusion that the brochure contains an above average number of lies per square inch compared to other GOP candidates. These are Republicans we’re talking about here. But it contains a lot of them.

A bit of throat-clearing is necessary here. Why am I bothering with a detailed takedown of a fourth-rate tea party hack? Bacigalupi isn’t going to beat Jackie Speier in CA-14. It’ll be remarkable if she only loses by forty percentage points. And as I’ve admitted, there’s nothing particularly remarkable about this candidate’s claims relative to others in her party, so singling her out is a bit odd. Moreover, in most of the Bay Area, Republicans are still as radioactive as ever and that shows no sign of changing. So there’s a bit of a tilting-at-windmills quality to this.

That said, I think it’s an important project for one reason: the modern conservative movement is toxic to the body politic, and only when the Republican Party has finally purged itself of these dishonest lunatics will we be able to have anything resembling a normal politics again in America. And one piece of that project is making sure that people who say this stuff are thoroughly humiliated by public reputations as backward liars, and embarrassed that they ever ran for office in the first place. So in short, in a race where the press doesn’t care about writing anything after the primary because the result was never in question, this kind of thing will serve as lasting documentation where there otherwise might be none. Plus…it has the additional virtue of being true!

So let’s get on with it and look at what’s in Debbie Bacigalupi’s brochure. My method here excludes from consideration the following: statements of subjective opinion or subjective issue-framing, even laughably stupid ones (“the govt. has NO money, except what it takes from tax paying citizens”, “Imagine charging 40 cents of every dollar you spend to your credit card!” – the framing here being the braindead trope equating the US Treasury to a household); statements that, however tendentious or vague, are at most only indirectly related to federal government policy (“Since 2008, tuition costs have increased at Public universities by over 21%”, “gasoline prices have increased 100% since 2009”); and statements so incoherent I have no idea what they even mean (“the tax payers pay for the food stamps, welfare, Medicaid, loan defaults, [blah blah]…of non-tax paying citizens” – my brain hurts just trying to understand how the American taxpayer has paid for private loan defaults in the absence even of cramdown legislation, unless the idea is that the financial crisis requiring the bailout of the financial system is entirely the fault of distressed homeowners). Also ignored are painful errors in grammar, of which there are several (President Obama’s “job’s council”). However, statements of fact that are obviously intended to mislead anyone with average common sense will be called what they are: lies. I also reserve the right to call particularly egregious cases of cherry-picking lies; picking 2009 as a baseline year in making claims about gas prices is clearly preying on reader ignorance that 2009 was an especially cheap year for gas relative to 2005-2008.

“Consumer prices have increased 9.5% since 2009.”

Verdict: EGREGIOUS CHERRY-PICKING

The language here is vague; if “since 2009” means since the very end of 2009, it’s almost certainly false. Total CPI change over this period was somewhere around 7-8%. So instead I’m going to assume that the brochure means since the beginning of 2009, when President Obama took office. Ignoring the implicit and wrong value judgment here that price increases are in and of themselves horrible, this stat essentially says “President Obama came in and rescued the economy from epic disaster – and that’s a bad thing.” The CPI was a whopping negative 3.2% in November/December 2008, thanks to the economy plunging into a deflationary spiral. The economy bounced back in early 2009, causing a jump in inflation that offset this deflation. That’s where a good chunk of the inflation of the last few years came from (and even if it weren’t, 9.5% inflation over four years is hardly unprecedented or dangerous – it’s just a shade over the 8% target set by the Fed as part of its dual mandate).

Things get more obvious than this, trust me.

“3 million fewer Americans will gain health insurance as part of the health-care overhaul (Obamacare).”

Verdict: LIE

The source here is given as the unhelpful “WSJ”. In any case, this is such an obvious attempt to mislead that it deserves to be called a lie. The language here is directly copied-and-pasted in a bunch of sources on the Web; probably the ultimate source is Louise Radnofsky’s story in the WSJ from this summer on…you guessed it, the striking down of the Medicaid expansion provisions in the PPACA by the Supreme Court. In other words, the PPACA as passed had 17 million more Americans getting health insurance than before and now, thanks to the Court preventing the federal government from laying the hammer on states that resist Medicaid expansion, only about 14 million more will. Saying that 17-3 = 0-3 and implying that a Court modification is the same as the law itself:  lies.

“With the new healthcare law you are required to buy insurance or pay a fine!” 

Verdict: LIE

False under normal readings of the word “buy”. You aren’t required to buy insurance under the PPACA unless you aren’t already covered. Lots of people in group plans don’t “buy” insurance per se; they’re given it as a benefit from their employers, or it’s directly paid for by taxpayers (Medicare). It would have been easy enough to convey much the same message while not lying, but that’s not my problem.

“New regulations already require certain types of light bulbs, toilets, and showers.”

Verdict: HILARIOUS

No real reason for including this statement other than that it’s a funny-ass window into the GOP as the party of Get Off My Lawn, pandering to the voters who think mandatory seat belts in cars and CFLs are signs of the Apocalypse. The horror, the horror of the nanny-state telling us we can’t build earthquake-unsafe structures if we damn well please!

“Nearly half of all Americans pay no federal taxes.”

Verdict: LIE

The conflation of all federal taxes (payroll taxes, etc.) with the federal income tax is particularly frowned upon at this blog. F-minus-minus.

“Meanwhile the top 10% of wage earners pay over 70% of all the taxes for the Nation.”

Verdict: ALL THE ALCOHOL ON EARTH WILL NOT GET ME THROUGH THIS WHOLE POST

Probably the same conflation as above is animating this nonsense. A cursory look at some data from a right-leaning think tank suggests that the actual tax share paid by the top decile is probably not more than 45%.

Update: Yep, I was right . There may also be some chicanery here in focusing on “wage income” to distort the effects of the capital gains tax on the stats – that is, you can only get to 45% if you conflate “federal taxes” with “federal income taxes”, and you can only go from 45 to 70% by slicing all the rich investors whose income is primarily capital gains out of your data. Note also that economics21, who supplied the chart in my link above, is also guilty of the same lie (see the chart).

“Who has decided to enforce only the nation’s laws he agrees with?”

“Who has allowed voter intimidation at the polls?”

“Who is hiring 16,000 IRS agents to enforce Obamacare on Americans?”

Verdict: THIS IS JUST LIKE WHAT HAPPENED AT THE END OF FLOWERS FOR ALGERNON, EXCEPT I DIDN’T GET ANY SMARTER FIRST

Needless to say, Newt Gingrich’s garbage claim about 16,000 IRS agents has been thoroughly dealt with before, though this zombie lie will likely be with us long into the PPACA era.

That’s it till 2014, folks! Join us then when the next lying GOP doormat runs in CA-14 when I’m sure the Party of Lincoln will have reformed itself into a responsible center-right opposition that wants nothing to do with the wingnut fever swamp, making my job much more boring!

Update: A closer inspection of the brochure suggests it was not put out directly by the Bacigalupi congressional campaign, but by the San Mateo Tea Party group mylibertysanmateo.com, led by Carol Negro. That said, I do not think it’s unfair to term it “Bacigalupi’s brochure” as I have here.  The tea party guy who handed it to me and asked me if I would like to meet a candidate for Congress was clearly involved with assisting Bacigalupi on campus, and gave the impression that he worked or volunteered for her campaign. The brochure appeared to be given out as official campaign literature. Additionally, Bacigalupi and Negro are likely to be closely connected through the tea party organization (see this video of them both speaking at a local development meeting), and Bacigalupi’s actions today gave every indication that she fully endorses the statements in the brochure. If I see reasonable evidence that none of these things are true, I’ll correct the post accordingly.

Advertisements
    • Adam
    • October 22nd, 2012

    The phrase “it takes one to know one” comes to mind, however I prefer to stick to the facts.

    It is clear that your writing is based upon a predetermined outcome, where you mold the so called facts to fit your point of view. Even in your title, it is very clear that you want people to not like Miss Bacigalupi. There is some underlying mission or vendetta with Miss Bacigalupi and the Republican Party.

    I ask that you consider that your statements and rantings only serve to hurt the Democratic Party.

    You don’t like Miss Bacigalupi it is clear. You are not required to like her or any of the candidates on any side. You are required to be a respectful and decent human being. Considering that you call your postings “Hazardous Morals”, maybe you don’t subscribe to this belief.

    I have found some of your posts entertaining. Most of them nothing more than rants. This particular post I found to be hateful and disrespectful. Just as you are entitled to your opinions, I’m entitled to mine.

    I expected more from you.

    • Thank you for the concern trolling.

      I find it curious that you’ve chosen to “stick to the facts,” yet in a reply to a post that’s laden up and down with facts, you’ve cited not one single fact in your comment. Zero. On the other hand there’s 1) speculation that I’m a projecting liar, without evidence to back it up; 2) speculation that I have a vendetta against Ms. Bacigalupi and the Republican Party, again without supporting evidence; 3) claims that I’m disrespectful and hateful – again, no evidence proffered to support this view. Oh – and the implied claim that you’ve read anything on this blog before just now, without specifying anything in any one of my posts. Funny.

      For the record, I have no opinion on Debbie Bacigalupi the person; for all I know she’s very nice to her cats. However, if Ms. Bacigalupi is going to run for the United States Congress, the rest of us have the right to point out when her campaign literature contains clearly deliberate falsehoods, and to give those falsehoods and the liars who spread them exactly the respect they deserve. I didn’t decide to associate Debbie Bacigalupi with the amateurish lies that came out of her mouth: she did. Time for some of that accountability we’ve heard so much about. Politics ain’t beanbag.

      Finally, you’re right on one count: I have no respect for the mostly extremist views Bacigalupi holds, very much want others to share my disrespect of these views, and believe that by virtue of their extremism those who hold them fully deserve to be drummed out of American politics. Anyone who agrees with Newt Gingrich’s paranoid and false 16000 IRS agents claim has pretty much immediately disqualified themselves from national political office. However, that doesn’t constitute a “vendetta” – I’ve held Ms. Bacigalupi to the same standard that I would hold any other provably dishonest, reactionary wingnut to. Moreover, I’d be happy to stop attacking the Republican Party as soon as it stops making this kind of fever-swamp extremism part of its core platform. Thus, no “vendetta” there either.

      I’m afraid I have to give your comment a grade of D. But despair not! Your grammar and spelling were mostly tolerable, and with a bit less unsupported assertion and maybe some irrelevant references to the national debt or Israel/Palestine, you, too, will be able to attain a C-minus.

    • One last thing that I don’t think I made clear: although I showed little respect to Debbie Bacigalupi the politician in this post, it was in large part because she showed me (as well as the rest of the voters) a lack of respect during our conversation. I asked her pointed, yet polite questions on where she stood on important reproductive rights issues, and she immediately began dissembling, launching into her prepared talking points while refusing to answer several of my questions directly. In other words, she obviously wanted to hide many of her true legislative goals in this area and certainly had no desire to admit those goals to a constituent who might not like them. On top of this it was clear that the opinions she was willing to admit to were based mostly on complete ignorance (like the birth control/Medicaid question). This from someone who wants to represent a few hundred thousand people IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Who’s not being a respectful and decent human being again?

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: