Fibbing Liberals at it again with Dix attack ads

The Liberals are obviously worried about the possibility of the NDP forming the next provincial government and have created ads attacking past NDP policies in general and Adrian Dix in particular. 
Ironically, when they tried the same kind of attack ads against BC Conservative Leader John Cummins it resulted in a jump in the polls for the Conservatives. 
While not outright lies, the shots taken at Dix involve some selective use of statistics to misrepresent such things as interprovincial migration, job growth, taxes and NDP promises. Nothing can be verified in Clark's weasel ads and if examined closely they collapse like a cheap tent.

False Claim #1: Dix was top advisor to NDP premiers. This will come as crushing news to NDP politicians like Moe Sihota, Joy McPhail, Doug MacArthur and Tom Gunton. The Liberals go to great pains to denigrate the NDP records of two decades ago and they want to make sure they tie Dix to the negative characterizations. Anything to avoid being accountable for their own dismal record and loss of public trust.

False Claim #2: BC under NDP "dead last" in job growth according to Progress Board. These words don't appear in the report and the ad misuses the rate of change in the job to population ratio. Stats Can annual labour force survey data show BC unemployment of 1.5775 million in 1991, 1.9 million in 2001 and 2.3 million in 2010. That means that the annual average compound job growth was 2% from '91 to '01 and 1.8% from '01 to '10. BC experienced lower job growth in 2011.

One of the first things Clark did was to get rid of the Progress Board. It's 2011 report showed BC to be in better shape in 2000 than in 2010. BC had a better ranking in every year from 1990 to 2009 than it did in 2010.

False Claim #3: NDP policies caused mass exodus according to BC Stats. Clark's ad asserts that 50,000 left for other provinces in search of work between 1998 and 2001 according to BC Stats provincial migration flow data. However, the data Clark uses don't show why people leave or come to BC in any given year. Upon closer examination the data show that tens of thousands of people flowed both ways. The numbers fluctuate each year. BC's population had an average annual growth rate of 2.2% between 1991 and 2001 and 1.3% between 2001 and 2010.

False Claim #4: BC Liberals are big tax cutters for average families. Clark's negative ad claims, "Dix wants to raise taxes again." The actuality is that the Liberals have shifted where they get their revenue in a kind of shell game. The cuts they implemented for personal income tax have been considerably offset by increases in more regressive provincial taxes and fees. A family of four making $60,000 per year pays the same MSP premiums as does the same size family making ten times more.In 2000 the MSP premium for a family of three or more was $864 per year; effective Jan. 1, 2012, the family MSP premium tax increased to $1,536 per year, an increase of 78%.
MSP premiums weren't the only taxes to claw back income tax cuts. Tables published in the Ministry of Finance budgets compare provincial and federal taxes by various benchmark families.

The B.C. Progress Board's 2011 report indicated that in terms of real personal disposable income per person, B.C. ranked third amongst the provinces from 1991 through 2007, slipping to fourth from 2008 through 2010.

On the Bill Good show recently Dix said he'd return corporate taxes to 2008 levels, something Clark promised if the voters agreed to keep the HST. Dix also said he was reluctant to consider raising personal income taxes. He said any tax changes would be disclosed before the May 14, 2013 election. An unprecedented disclosure.

False Claim #5: Dix is committed to "billions in new spending." They claim Dix is the source for that figure and have a bunch of dates next to his name. Nowhere on either the website that features the negative ad or on the Liberal caucus or party website can anyone find a list of promises that add up to and support their assertion.
In the speech Dix gave at the NDP's December convention he talked about the financial challenges facing the province and that an NDP government would be limited to what they could accomplish during a first term. He has promised to explain how planned commitments will be financed.

The Iowa Caucus: Random Thoughts...

Mitt Romney: He might win but I hope he doesn’t because then we’re in for crushing boredom for months. I always like to follow the money and Mitt’s got the moolah. He’s still my pick for the GOP nominee because he looks like a senior citizen Ken doll.

Newt Gingrich: Always thought The Newt was the sharpest of the bunch, but I’m wondering if he won’t be crushed by all the baggage he’s carrying: the treatment of his former wives, the censure and fines imposed upon him by a Republican House, and collecting millions for “history lessons” with Freddie Mac. He’s also been bloodied by the negative attack ads fired from the pro-Romney camp. Here’s hoping he shows better than fifth for no other reason than the entertainment value he’ll provide.

Rick Santorum: If he wins or even comes second/third the media might actually have to pay him some attention. Rick’s in tough because he hasn’t got a whole lot of money. If he’s judged a “serious candidate” by a possibly good showing, the attack ads will begin.

Ron Paul: I like Ronny because he’s almost as cranky as I am. I also like some of his ideas even though they’re a bit out there. What’s wrong with bringing all the troops home, eliminating the IRS and abolishing the income tax? Too much racist and homophobic baggage here, too, I’m afraid. He doesn’t have a chance in New Hampshire and even the GOP establishment is horrified by his foreign policy. Best he could do tonight is second. Paul's poor chances at a GOP nomination are unfortunate because he's the closest thing America has to a third party.

Rick Perry: The debates hurt this guy, big time. He seems lost outside of Texas. The national stage has been less than kind. I think the voters have decided he’s not ready for the presidency and his donations have been reduced to a trickle.

Michele O’Bachmann (that’s what Letterman insists on calling her): She’s lost her Iowa chairman to the Paul camp. She’s running bare-bones and she stuck too long with some of her goofy positions like the cancer vaccine causing mental retardation issue. She’ll have a poor showing in Iowa since they’ve never endorsed a woman candidate or sent one to the governor’s mansion. She’ll have her hands full just saving her House seat in Minnesota.

Jon Huntsman: He’s looking at New Hampshire instead of Iowa already and says he’s putting some of his own money there. This guy has received all kinds of positive spin from the pundits but for some reason he’s never connected with the voters. I predict he won’t break out of single digits in N.H. and will be history.