Mar 19, 2009
Rhetoric V. Reality: Career Albany Politician Jim Tedisco Attacks, Misleads, and Distracts
Leave it to a career Albany politician like Jim Tedisco to resort to desperate, misleading attacks to distract from his opposition to a plan that will create 76,000 jobs Upstate and cut taxes for middle class families.
RHETORIC: Candidate Tedisco claims to oppose bonuses for AIG executives.
REALITY: Career Albany politician Tedisco says he would have voted against the economic recovery act that caps executive pay and limits bonuses.
On February 5th, it was businessman and Democratic Candidate Scott Murphy who issued a challenge to Jim Tedisco to cap executive compensation and bonuses - just like Murphy does in his business contracts.
When they voted unanimously against the Economic Recovery package, Republicans opposed eliminating all future golden parachutes for TARP senior executives, stopping incentives for top executives to take unnecessary risks, and cracking down on future bonuses, retention awards and incentive compensation for all TARP executives. [HR 1, Vote #70, 2/13/09]
After a month of waffling, career Albany politician Jim Tedisco came out AGAINST the President's recovery act. [Politicker NY, 3/16/09]
RHETORIC: Candidate Tedisco's negative ads accuse Murphy of giving "huge bonuses" to executives at a company that was losing money.
REALTIY: Career Albany politician Tedisco's attack was already discredited by the Albany Times-Union.
On March 3rd when they reported that the NRCC ad's use of "massive" and "huge" to describe Synacor's finances "is overstated on both counts," the Times Union also noted that according to an April 2008 filing with the SEC, Synacor's 2007 net sales were $39 million, almost three times its net sales in 2005 - "hardly the profile of a Wall Street husk such as Lehman Brothers." [Albany Times-Union, 3/03/09]
RHETORIC: Candidate Tedisco claims Murphy is in support of bonuses for AIG because he supports the Economic Recovery act.
REALTIY: Career Albany politician Tedisco's Republican supporters in Congress voted in favor of the Bush Administration's Wall Street bailout bill in October which did not contain any limits on executive competition. Democrats pushed to include limits on executive compensation and bonuses - President Bush and Congressional Republicans refused to accept caps on executive compensation and bonuses. That is how we got to where we are with AIG. [HR 1424, Vote #681, 10/03/08]
The Daily Star reported that during their interview with Scott Murphy this week, he said that if he had been in office last year, he would have voted against the massive bailout of banks, brokers and insurers "because there were no strings attached" to the money. [Oneonta Daily Star, 3/19/09]
The Saratogian also reported today on Tedisco's misinterpretation of the legislation, noting that, "while language in the Obama recovery bill, cited by the Tedisco campaign, allows executive bonuses, the specific language pertains to honoring pre-existing contracts."
"The error here is with the original Bush bailout," Scott Murphy said. "Kirsten Gillibrand voted against it; and I would have voted against it," he said, noting that the legislation passed in October failed to place enough controls on corporations receiving bailout funds, including AIG.
"I'm in favor of executive compensation caps and getting that money back from AIG," said Murphy, adding that if AIG and other corporations did not return government funds, he would support taxes to recoup the money. [The Saratogian, 3/19/09]
# # #