Direct to consumer advertising of drugs has been a target of FDA and pharmaceutical company critics. After the debacle of Vioxx, in which the heavily advertised drug was pulled from the market, many called for stricter regulation of such advertisements, or an outright ban. There's been some tightening of drug advertising oversight by the FDA: for instance, the agency recently told General Mills to stop claiming that Cheerios is "clinically proven to reduce cholesterol."

But advocates for reform may have been missing an easy target: Pharmaceutical companies receive tax deductions for such advertisements. This week, congressman Charles Rangel proposed dropping this deduction, which could raise as much as $37 billion over 10 years--money he says could be put towards overhauling health care. The big four television networks oppose this idea, noting that advertising employs millions of people in the United States.

What do you think? Is this a worthy tax deduction, or is Rangel right to call for its elimination?