CWA to Patty Ritchie: "You gotta be kidding me!"

OK, so this came across my desk (read: futon) today, Saturday, my ostensible day off, but it's too... interesting not to share.

It's an ad that the Communications Workers of America put out that takes on Sen. Patty Ritchie, and apparently they hired the lovechild of Weird Al and a morning zoo radio DJ to narrate it.

The CWA "represents workers in telecommunications, printing and news media, public service, health care, and other industries," according to its website. You might wonder: Is Brian Amaral in the CWA? The answer is no se puede.

Here's a transcript, with the video embedded below... I'd also like to take a second to put a few of the things that DJ Weird Al says in perspective.

"Senator Ritchie, you gotta be kidding me! We're facing the worst economic times of a generation and you wanna cut taxes for millionaires? You gotta be kidding me! Wall Street gave its biggest bonuses ever last year, two years after the trillion-dollar bailout, and you wanna give them a tax BREAK? You gotta be kidding me! Patty Ritchie'd rather cut funding for education, close upstate facilities and lay off thousands of our teachers than let downstate pay their share? Patty Ritchie, you gotta be kidding me. But this isn't funny."

OK, let's go through this bit by bit here.

What the ad is arguing is that "Senator Ritchie would rather do A, B and C" than let "downstate pay their share." I'm assuming that what they mean having having "downstate pay their share" is renewing the millionaire's tax, an income-tax surcharge that starts out at $200,000. A compromise proposal would set it at $1 million.

1. Does Sen. Ritchie want to cut taxes for millionaires? Well, it depends on your perspective. The millionaire's tax was meant to be a three-year tax. Sen. Ritchie wants to let it fall by the wayside when the three years are up. Is that really a tax break for millionaires? Republicans say no. Democrats say yes. Dog chases cat. Sun rises.

2. Would Sen. Ritchie rather cut funding for education than have the millionaire's tax? Well, the Senate budget that she voted for renews $286 million in funding for education. But it doesn't do it until the April 2012. Again, arguable.

3. Does she want to close upstate facilities? Uh... When has Sen. Ritchie ever said this? What does the CWA mean? If they're talking about prisons, that's a big no. Her staff realizes that politically, it would be a disaster if any prisons in her back yard close. While it's an open question of whether she'll be able to wheel and deal enough to save them, to say she'd "rather" close upstate facilities than have the millionaire's tax is, to say the least, a stretch. Because even the Assembly's budget, which INCLUDES the millionaire's tax, doesn't really say anything different about prisons. So having the millionaire's tax don't make a lick of difference. Unless the CWA is referring to something else when they say "facilities," I'd say in response to this one, "You gotta be kidding me!"

4. Lay off thousands of teachers? Again, depends on whom you believe. The governor says nobody needs to get the ax. The teacher's union says that pink slips will be flying everywhere. And again, the Senate does restore funding to schools, but not until April 2012, so schools are indeed looking at the very real possibility of laying off teachers now.

5. "Letting downstate pay their share..." If Weird Al is arguing that the burden of a millionaire's tax would rest more heavily downstate, that's true. There are probably no more than a few dozen people in the area who would pay the tax (and I already talked to Matt Doheny, who is against it, so there's one), where in downstate counties, there are many more by population, and somewhat more by percentage.