Bush Campaign Lies
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Bush Campaign Lie #17: John Kerry Wants to Impose a 50-Cent Per Gallon Gas Tax
This is a beautiful, beautiful lie, because the Bush campaign frames it so well. They have recently released two TV ads which state that Kerry "supported a 50-cent a gallon gas tax". And they link to no fewer than 10 speeches by surrogates blasting Kerry for his "support of a 50-cent per gallon gas tax".
Gee. The way the Republicans are blathering on and on about Kerry's 50-cent per gallon gas tax, you'd think he was actually running on a gas-tax platform, or at least supported the idea. But no, there's no such tax mentioned in his platform, and no, Kerry doesn't support a 50-cent a gallon gas tax. What the Republicans have are a couple of Kerry's statements from March of 1994 supporting such a tax. That's it. And they know very well that Kerry no longer supports such a tax. How do we know they know? Because they list this issue as one of Kerry's flip-flops, along with a statement from 1996 stating that 'Kerry no longer supports the 50-cent [gas tax] hike'.
So, this is a particularly egregious example of bald-faced Bush campaign lying. FactCheck delves into the issue in greater detail, pointing out not only the lie, but some inevitable hypocrisy as well.
Bush Campaign Lie #16: Kerry Flip-Flopped on Gay Marriage Amendment
This is item #5 in the 'Kerry Flip-Flops' gallery. Let's just look at the Bush argument without any of their supporting evidence:
- In 2002, Kerry Signed Letter “Urging” MA Legislature To Reject Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage.
- Now, In 2004, Kerry Won’t Rule Out Supporting Similar Amendment.
Anyone who reads the letter referenced in item (1) will immediately discover that the 'Constitutional Amendment' to which the GOP are referring would have done much more than simply ban same-sex marriage. Kerry --- and the entire Massachusettes congressional delegation --- were concerned that the amendment would prohibit any legal recognition of same-sex relationships. While Kerry opposes same-sex marriage in particular, he believes that "same-sex couples should be granted rights, including access to pensions, health insurance, family medical leave, bereavement leave, hospital visitation, survivor benefits, and other basic legal protections that all families and children need". So it's no wonder he opposed the amendment cited in item (1).
And when one reviews the broader context of the quote cited in (2), Kerry proves to be a model of consistency. He doesn't rule out the possibility of supporting a ban on same-sex marriage, but he explicitly states that he is 'for civil union' and partnership rights, and so he would not support an amendment which prohibited those things.
Any reasonable person reading these two articles would see immediately what Kerry's position is, and how it remains consistent. The Republicans fail to see that, so that would make them . . . ?
Monday, March 29, 2004
Spinning His Constituents: Kerry Took BOTH Sides On First Gulf War
This is item #4 in the 'Kerry Flip-Flops' showcase. And it is a lie: Kerry very clearly opposed the first Gulf War. However, in this case, the misleading statements come not from the Bush campaign, but from Kerry himself.
In early 1991, Kerry's office apparently sent two letters to the same constituent. From The New Republic, here are relevant excerpts of each:
"Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ... to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war."
"Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf."A casual reader might conclude that these two letters, dated nine days apart, exhibit a true flip-flop on the first Gulf War. Read them more closely. In the first letter, Kerry states that he wanted to give sanctions more time to work, and that he voted against giving Pappa Bush immediate authority to go to war. All perfectly true. The second letter doesn't contradict either of these facts. Instead, he says that he supports the goals of the invasion rather than the invasion itself, and that he supported Bush's response to the crisis 'from the outset of the invasion'. The day before the war started, Kerry pledged that he would back the president 'the moment [the war] begins', and this letter simply confirms his statement. See lie 46.
So, when he thought a constituent was anti-war, he emphasized his opposition to the war. And when he thought a constituent supported the war, he discussed how he supported the President when troops were on the ground, and the goals the invasion was meant to achieve. A flip-flop? No. But disingenuous? Yes. So much so that a reasonable person might truly believe that Kerry had flipped. So this one gets scored as a flip-flop for the Bush folks, and doesn't get counted as a lie against them, since it was Kerry, not Bush, doing the dissembling this time.
Matthew Yglesias points out that Kerry is not the only politician to try to be all things to all constituents.
Bush Campaign Lie #15: John Kerry is Proposing a Tax Holiday for 'Benedict Arnold' Corporations
So lied Dick Cheney in a speech today at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Look for this lie to enter the 'Kerry Flip-Flops' showcase soon.
Here's what Cheney actually said:
"Now, just in time for the campaign, Senator Kerry is proposing what some are calling a tax reduction for businesses. Senator Kerry's proposal is inconsistent with even his own campaign positions. After attacking what he described as, quote, 'Benedict Arnold' companies on the campaign trail, Senator Kerry is now proposing to give them a tax holiday."Kerry has used the term 'Benedict Arnold' corporation a number of times to refer to companies who set up shell operations in a tax haven --- usually a tiny island nation which charges little or no corporate income tax --- simply to avoid paying U.S. taxes. Or worse, they actually transfer significant numbers of jobs to offshore locations to get a two-fer: they avoid paying U.S. taxes, and they get a break on labor costs.
How do they avoid paying U.S. taxes? Current U.S. tax law allows companies earning income overseas to defer paying tax on that income until it is repatriated to the U.S. So by setting up overseas operations in a low- or no-tax country, a corporation can avoid paying almost all of its taxes. But if the shareholders of the company live in the U.S., then they are basically getting a free ride, and not paying their fair share of taxes: hence the term 'Benedict Arnold'.
The plan Dick Cheney is referring to would close this loophole:
John Kerry is proposing the most sweeping simplification of international taxes in over forty years: eliminating deferral so that companies pay taxes on their international income as they earn it rather than being allowed to defer taxes.Kerry plans to use the extra income obtained from former 'Benedict Arnolds' --- an estimated $12 billion a year --- and use it to lower the overall corporate tax rate, from 35% to 33.25%. But if Kerry were to enact this legislation tomorrow, an estimated $639 billion in tax-deferred income already overseas would never come back into the country. Thus, as an incentive for companies to bring that money home, Kerry would provide a one-year window during which that money could be repatriated at a 10% tax rate. And this, no doubt, is the 'Tax Holiday' to which Cheney is referring. But it's a lie. Without the one-year window, that money would never be repatriated, meaning that the companies would pay zero tax on it. And moving forward, businesses who have played by the rules will get some tax relief, while the 'Benedict Arnolds' will see their taxes rise from something negligible to 33.25%. Some holiday.
Sunday, March 28, 2004
A Word About Voting in the Senate
John Kerry cast a lot of votes during 19 years in the Senate. I'm sure he's cast more than one vote he wishes he could take back. And his voting record gives the Bush camp a very long list of ammunition to use in the campaign, some of it legitimate, some achieved by distorting the truth.
One thing to keep in mind whenever you hear a Bush spokesman or a Bush campaign ad citing Kerry's voting record: in the U.S. Senate, you don't get to vote by line item. You only get to vote yea or nay on each amendment or bill or resolution as a whole. And only rarely will a bill come along such that you completely agree with every single provision, or completely disagree with every single provision.
In short, just because John Kerry voted 'yea' on a piece of legislation, it is wrong to conclude that he agrees wholeheartedly with every single provision of that legislation, or that he wholeheartedly disagrees with every provision in every bill on which he voted 'nay'. It just doesn't work that way. And this should be clear to anyone with more than a sixth-grade understanding of our government.
The Bush folks hope that you'll forget about that, as they tell you about tax hikes Kerry voted for, or weapons systems he voted against. Don't be taken in.
Saturday, March 27, 2004
Bush Campaign Lie #14: Kerry Flip-Flopped on the Patriot Act
The is the third lie in the 'Kerry's Flip-Flops' series. The Bush campaign evidence for this claim is that Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, but now wants to reform or replace it. Actually, everything the Bush camp says is true; the trouble is, it doesn't prove that Kerry changed his mind about the Patriot Act.
Kerry did vote for the Patriot Act (H.R. 3162 in the 107th Congress), indeed, he wrote part of it. And one little-mentioned part of the Patriot Act is the so-called 'sunset provision' (Title II, Section 224), which states that many of the provisions pertaining to surveillance of oral, wire and electronic communications, including voice mail and business records, would expire on December 31, 2005. What did Kerry think about the sunset provision? In a floor speech made on the same day he voted for the Patriot Act, he said:
"I am pleased at the compromise we have reached on the antiterrorism legislation, as a whole, which includes the sunset provision on the wiretapping and electronic surveillance component. It has been a source of considerable concern for people, and I think the sunset provision provides Congress a chance to come back and measure the record appropriately, and that is appropriate."So, on the day he cast his vote for the Patriot Act, he specifically called out his 'concern' about the powers of surveillance granted in the act, and said it would be 'appropriate' for Congress to 'come back and measure the record.'
The Bush camp claims Kerry has flip-flopped because he gave a speech at Iowa State University on December 1, 2003, in which he decried John Ashcroft's abuses and said it was time to replace the Patriot Act with a new law that 'protects our people and our liberties at the same time'. Let's see what else he said in that speech:
"Much of what is in Patriot Act are good ideas. The Act increased penalties for terrorists, limited the statute of limitations for terrorist crimes, and allowed for greater prosecution of overseas acts against America. I fought to include important money laundering restrictions to clamp down on the cash flowing to terrorist enterprises. I had been pushing for these ideas since the late nineties – and after September 11th they were more important than ever.So, the parts of the Patriot Act which John Kerry specifically holds out as flawed are the ones pertaining to government surveillance of computer communication and wiretapping, and seizure of business records --- the same provisions which Kerry said in October 2001 were appropriately covered by the sunset provision, and for which Congress should come back and measure the record.
I voted for the Patriot Act right after September 11th – convinced that – with a sunset clause – it was the right decision to make. It clearly wasn’t a perfect bill – and it had a number of flaws – but this wasn’t the time to haggle. It was the time to act.
(snip)
If I’m elected President, we will put an end to “sneak and peak” searches which permit law enforcement to conduct a secret search and seize evidence without notification. Agents can break into a home or business to take photos, seize property, copy computer files, or load a secret keystroke detector on a computer. These searches should be limited only to the most rare circumstances. And law enforcement should provide notice of the search within seven days, unless a court extends the period of notification.
We will eliminate the potential of fishing expeditions into people’s library and business records. If the FBI wants to make these kinds of investigations, they will need a warrant issued by a judge and evidence that they are looking into an agent of a foreign power.
We will provide Americans with protections from wiretaps, prevent local police officers from spying on innocent people, and that ensures our courts guarantee appropriate national security protections."
It sounds like Kerry has already made his measurement, and found these provisions flawed. And aside from the fact that he doesn't want to wait until the end of 2005 to undo these flawed provisions, his stance toward the Patriot Act is perfectly consistent.
Thursday, March 25, 2004
Bush Campaign Lie #13: Kerry Flip-Flopped On Eliminating Marriage Penalty For Middle Class
This is the second lie in the 'Kerry's Flip-Flops' series. And let's stipulate the evidence the GOP gives that Kerry supports elimination of the marriage penalty. That's certainly what his campaign literature says. So what about the GOP claim that Kerry voted against eliminating the marriage penalty?
Congressional votes: they're so easy to distort into political attacks in a campaign. The GOP reference S. 1415 in the 105th Congress, and it looks like they say that since Kerry voted for it, that proves he wanted to keep the marriage penalty around. But Kerry never voted for or against S. 1415, since it never came to a final vote. And if one looks up this bill on Thomas, one finds the following description:
"A bill to reform and restructure the processes by which tobacco products are manufactured, marketed, and distributed, to prevent the use of tobacco products by minors, to redress the adverse health effects of tobacco use, and for other purposes."Hmm. So what does this have to do with the marriage penalty? Well, nothing, of course, which is why we know the GOP is lying about this particular flip-flop. This was a major piece of legislation, and as is often the case, this bill attracted a lot of amendments which were irrelevant (I believe the procedural term is 'non-germane') to the bill itself. Various senators came up with 269 amendments for this particular bill, including S. AMDT 2436, introduced by the lovable Phil Gramm of Texas, which would --- get this --- define terms and conditions under which states could participate in the State Litigation Settlement Account (whatever that means) and eliminate the marriage penalty.
But this amendment was dropped in committee, and never made it to the floor for a vote. So instead, Gramm decided to add his amendment --- this time called S. AMDT 2686 --- to S. AMDT 2437 to S. 1415 instead. Got that? There was S. 1415, a big bill dealing with tobacco, there was S. AMDT 2437 --- which had to do with providing 'a substitute for provisions relating to reductions in underage tobacco usage' --- and then Gramm's amendment to S. AMDT 2437, which would eliminate the marriage penalty and make up the resulting loss in revenue by raiding the National Tobacco Trust Fund. Kerry voted to table Gramm's amendment.
Did he vote this way because he wanted to keep the marriage penalty? That's not likely. Perhaps he wanted to keep the National Tobacco Trust Fund intact, perhaps he didn't want to make S. AMDT 2437 more appealing for whatever reason, or maybe he just objected (like I do) to Gramm's repeated attempts to introduce completely irrelevant amendments into a major piece of tobacco legislation. Whatever the reason, it is misleading at best to point to this vote as evidence that Kerry flip-flopped on eliminating the marriage penalty.
Bush Campaign Lie #12: Kerry Flip-Flopped on Iraq War
This is the first lie in the 'Kerry's Flip-Flops' series. The GOP gives four pieces of evidence to back up their claim:
- Kerry Voted For Authorization To Use Force In Iraq
- In a Democrats' debate on May 4, 2003, Kerry said "George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."
- On September 3, 2003, Kerry said "I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations."
- On MSNBC's 'Hardball' program, on January 6, 2004, the following exchange took place. MATTHEWS: "Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it’s been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?" KERRY: "I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely."
In short, the spirit of the bill was that Iraq should be disarmed, by diplomatic means in concert with the UN if at all possible, and by force if necessary as a last resort. That Kerry voted for this bill is true, and consistent with item (1). That this bill threatened Hussein with the use of force unless he complied with UN resolutions is also true, and consistent with item (3). In item (2), Kerry says that disarming Hussein is good, but he would have preferred that it had been done through diplomatic means (consistent with the bill again). He also says that he supported the President when he made the decision, but considering that he states his preference for a diplomatic solution in the same breath, he surely means that he supported the President in a rally-around-the-leader in a time of war sort of way, not that he agreed that Bush had exhausted all diplomatic remedies. Finally, in item (4), Kerry says Bush didn't 'take us to war as he should have'. Here he's not disagreeing with the war or its goal, but rather the manner in which Bush handled it. While it's fairly clear what Kerry means here, it's absolutely clear that the GOP understands what he means. See Lie #10.
Kerry was disagreeing with Bush's conduct of the war (not giving inspections time to work, destroying alliances at the UN rather than building them up, etc.), and not the war itself. To claim that this represents a reversal on Kerry's part is a lie.
Kerry's Flip-Flops
The GOP and the Bush campaign have made a big deal over the fact that Kerry is supposedly a 'flip-flopper'. They claim to have documented no fewer than 35 issues on which Kerry reversed himself.
What's wrong with a flip-flop? Well, the implication is that Kerry isn't committed to a core set of beliefs, and will say and do anything to get elected. And it is generally true that voters are more likely to support a candidate with strongly held beliefs, even if they disagree with some of them, than a candidate who doesn't seem to believe in anything. So it matters if the Bush campaign is correct about many of these issues.
But is every reversal of opinion a flip-flop? Kerry has been a senator for more than 19 years, and has been a public figure for more than 30. Far from being concerned about 'flip-flops', we should be more concerned about someone who doesn't re-evaluate or alter his view over a 30-year span. As John Maynard Keynes said 'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?' Would you vote for a candidate who still makes fighting communism the centerpiece of his foreign policy agenda?
In the analysis that follows, if the facts fail to show that Kerry reversed himself, then we must conclude that the GOP is wrong, and likely just throwing out dirt to see what will stick. These items will be highlighted in red and called out as lies. Items where Kerry genuinely reversed himself will be highlighted in blue, and some additional info will be given, either inline or via a link, so the reader can determine whether the reversal was purely political (a flip-flop), or in reaction to some fundamental change in the political landscape.
A final disclaimer: Just because an item appears in red here, that doesn't mean Kerry is innocent of flip-flopping on that issue; it just means that the Bush campaign can't back up its accusations. In 30+ years, there's no doubt Kerry has flip-flopped a few times. But it's worth noting that, as Kos and the Center for American Progress remind us, Bush has done his share of flipping as well.
- Flip-flopped on Iraq War
- Kerry Flip-Flopped On Eliminating Marriage Penalty For Middle Class
- Flip-Flopped On Patriot Act
- Kerry Took BOTH Sides On First Gulf War
- Flip-Flopped On Gay Marriage Amendment
- Flip-Flopped On Attacking President During Time Of War
- Flip-Flopped On Death Penalty For Terrorists. Even though 9/11 changed everything, Republicans want to hold it against Kerry that he changed his mind on this issue after the attacks, stating 'I am for the death penalty for terrorists because terrorists have declared war on our country'.
- Flip-Flopped On No Child Left Behind
- Flip-Flopped On Affirmative Action
- Flip-Flopped On Ethanol
- Flip-Flopped On Cuba Sanctions
- Flip-Flopped On NAFTA
- Flip-Flopped On Double Taxation Of Dividends
- Flip-Flopped On Raising Taxes During Economic Downturn
- Flip-Flopped On Small Business Income Taxes
- Kerry Flip-Flopped On 50-Cent Gas Tax Increase
- Flip-Flopped On Leaving Abortion Up To States
- Flip-Flopped On Litmus Tests For Judicial Nominees. This appears to be valid, but some additional verbage is required here. First, Republicans should be commending Kerry for speaking out against litmus tests for judicial appointees in 1986, when their beloved Ronnie was president. Taking such a stand, which ran contrary to the best interests of his party, was a highly principled action. And how have the Republicans responded? When Clinton was president and Republicans controlled the Senate, there were never fewer than 50 judicial vacancies, thanks to their obstructionism. Now that Bush is president, 168 of his 172 appointees have been seated, a higher percentage than even Reagan achieved in his first two years, with a Republican Congress. Yet that's still not enough for Bush, ramming through his most conservative nominees as recess appointments. After a decade of Republicans handling judicial nominations in the most partisan manner possible, do you really blame Kerry for responding in kind?
- Flip-Flopped On Federal Health Benefits
- Flip-Flopped On Tax Credits For Small Business Health
- Flip-Flopped On Health Coverage
- Flip-Flopped On Welfare Reform
- Flip-Flops On Stock Options Expensing
- Flip-Flopped On Medical Marijuana
- Flip-Flopped On Burma Sanctions
- Flip-Flopped On Military Experience As Credential For Public Office
- Flip-Flopped On PACs
- Flip-Flopped On $10,000 Donation Limit To His PAC Yeah, this isn't Kerry's finest hour. If it makes any difference to anyone, it seems pretty clear that the creation of the 'Citizen Soldier Fund' PAC was a reaction to the tremendous pressure to raise money in modern political campaigns, combined with the deadline for end of soft money imposed by McCain/Feingold. The PAC was started in December 2001 and collected $1.35 million, all of which was disbursed to various Democratic candidates (very little went to Kerry's campaign) by the time the PAC closed down sometime in 2002.
- Flip-Flopped On Using Personal Funds In 1996 Race It's probably impossible to prove conclusively whether the Republicans are right or wrong about this one. Follow the link for details.
- Flip-Flopped On Israel Security Fence
- Flip-Flop-Flipped On Ballistic Missile Defense
- Flip-Flopped On 1991 Iraq War Coalition
- Flip-Flopped On View Of War On Terror
- Flip-Flopped On Funding For Our Troops In Iraq
- Flip-Flopped On The Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Bush Campaign Lie #11: Kerry Voted for Higher Taxes Over 350 Times
Unfortunately, I came late to the party on this one. At first I thought that Michael Kinsley had it all covered, but when I went to GOP.com to check it out, they already had a rebuttal to Kinsley. So I had to roll up my sleeves and wade in to the 87 pages of documentation which the GOP provides to verify this claim.
There is one subtle point to make here. Kinsley claims in his article that certain votes are listed multiple times, suggesting shades of lie #3; the GOP says that is not so. The GOP is technically correct; each vote they reference is a unique vote in the Congressional Record. But Kinsley is right in spirit. For procedural reasons, the Senate sometimes takes multiple distinct votes on essentially the same legislation, and an honest accounting wouldn't list these as separate votes. But that's the whole point; the GOP is not providing an honest accounting of Kerry's record.
Another cool trick the GOP uses is to pile on Kerry for voting on legislation which redistributes the tax burden. This is great for the GOP and bad for Kerry, because no matter whether he voted for or against the legislation, he either supported a tax increase for one group or opposed a tax reduction for another.
I'll just tick some examples off the list, because I don't have time to analyze the whole steaming pile of --- votes --- the GOP has provided. When a link to the vote in question is available, I provide it. If not (record of Senate votes is only available online from 1989 forward), I provide legislation, vote date, and vote number.
- (S. Con. Res. 32, CQ Vote #43, 5/7/85) The second vote referenced on the list supported a motion which, if passed, would not have altered the tax law one iota. Rather it was a touchy-feely resolution 'expressing the sense of the Senate' that Congress should enact a certain kind of tax legislation. Moreover, the tax legislation it supported would have decreased the amount of farm losses which could be deducted from non-farm income (ah-ha! A tax increase!), with the additional revenues used to 'reduce income tax rates for individuals'. Boy, they really nailed Kerry with that one. And at least 24 of the listed votes were on these 'express the sense of the Senate' resolutions, which have no direct effect on taxes.
- (S. Con. Res. 32, CQ Vote #66, 5/9/85) The third item would have maintained cigarette taxes at 16 cents per pack, rather than allowing them to drop to 8 cents a pack, and used the extra revenue to 'offset Medicare premiums increases'. Of course, had Kerry voted the other way, the GOP would have nailed him for allowing those Medicare premiums to go up.
- Similarly, Senate vote 54 in 1992 created the $300 per child tax credit, and the $2000 per year tax-free IRA contribution, and paid for it by increasing taxes on the wealthy. Kerry voted for it. Had he voted against it, the GOP would nail him for voting against the child tax credit.
By the way, every single Republican senator voted against it. - (S. Con. Res. 120, CQ Vote #78, 4/24/86) At least one item was a vote in support of increased funding 'provided that separate authorizing and revenue-raising legislation is passed'. So Kerry didn't vote for a tax increase, he voted in support of allocating tax revenue in a certain way if the taxes were increased.
- (S. 1127, CQ Vote #352, 10/27/87) It's hard to believe, but according the GOP, Kerry voted to table a resolution which would 'express the sense of the Senate that federal taxes should not be increased either directly or indirectly.' Kerry didn't vote for a tax increase, he just refused to close the door on them altogether. Not the same as voting for higher taxes. Another time he voted against an amendment which would require a 60-vote majority in the Senate to increase taxes. So he didn't vote for a tax increase, he just thought tax legislation should be passed by a simple majority like everything else.
- Three of the votes were allowing certain amendments into the Fiscal 1991 budget, even though they violated a 'non-germane' prohibition on amendments. Each of the amendments would have increased taxes in one way or another. However, Kerry merely voted to allow the amendments to be considered, which is not the same thing as voting for them.
- Similarly, Kerry voted against the introduction of a tax-cutting amendment on procedural grounds, because it violated the Constitution, a view which the full Senate ultimately upheld.
There's no doubt that there are valid instances of Kerry voting for tax increases/against tax cuts/whatever in there, too. If you follow the GOP argument to its logical conclusion, the only way Kerry avoids criticism is if he values low taxes over everything else, including education, the COPS program, health care, counterterrorism, the military, etc. Not even the most anti-government Republican does this.
Sunday, March 21, 2004
Bush Campaign Lie #10: Kerry Wanted to 'Delay Defending America Until the UN Approved'
This lie rounds out the trifecta from Bush's '100 Days' ad. The Bush campaign gives eight Kerry quotes as 'proof' of this accusation.
The first thing to note is that all of Bush's evidence pertains to the U.S. war on Iraq. It takes a certain kind of chutzpah, knowing what we know now, to seriously argue that eliminating Iraq's 'weapons of mass destruction-related program activities' is the same as 'defending America'. But one might argue that in the fall of 2002 we seriously thought Iraq was a threat. It seems that Kerry did, since he voted for the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. But that seems to undermine Bush's claim here.
Maybe we should consider the resolution more closely. H.J. Res 114 of the 107th Congress did authorize Bush to:
- Defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.
- Enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
What this really boils down to is: Kerry doesn't believe that Bush made a good faith effort to reach a diplomatic solution, which is what the bill clearly called for. Whether Bush really did that is a matter of opinion. But nowhere does Kerry say that the U.S. should have waited for UN approval. Every statement either says, basically, that Bush didn't exhaust all options before using force, or that we need strong alliances to combat terrorism.
Friday, March 19, 2004
Bush Campaign Lie #9: John Kerry Doesn't Think the 'War on Terror' is Really a 'War'
It's amazing how you can distort a quote out of context. Salon's Eric Boehlert has the complete run-down.
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
Bush Campaign Lie #8: John Kerry Cast Multiple Votes Against 'Funding Our Troops'
As with lie #3, the Bush campaign has isolated a single one of John Kerry's votes and used it to argue that he is against 'Funding Our Soldiers', 'Body Armor For Troops in Combat', 'Higher Combat Pay' and 'Better Health Care for Reservists and Their Families'. This is the claim of an ad released on March 16.
On September 30, 2003, Congress introduced an $87 billion supplemental appropriations bill for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Kerry did vote against it. However, his reasons had nothing to do with the fact that he is 'Wrong on Defense'. Instead, he explained that while he was 'prepared to spend whatever it takes to win the peace', he could not support the $87 billion spending bill:
"It is imperative that we succeed in Iraq. But to do so, we have to tackle the challenge of rebuilding Iraq an effective way, not the Bush Administration’s failed way. We need a detailed plan, including fixed timetables and costs, for establishing civil, economic and political security in Iraq."Kerry took a principled stand on really supporting our troops, not to mention protecting taxpayer dollars, and the Bush campaign is using it to make him appear soft on defense. Kerry had good reason to take this stand; although those in the Pentagon with actual combat experience and knowledge about how to conduct a war draw up detailed plans for the aftermath, Don Rumsfeld intentionally ignored them. Our soldiers were basically sent in to Iraq and told to wing it. According to acting Army Secretary Les Brownlee, 'I also regret that we were not more farsighted here. We simply were not prepared for that kind of a counterinsurgency that attacked our convoys and our soldiers in the rear as it has proven to be.'
And of course, as a result of Bush's refusal to plan for the occupation of Iraq, the situation is still bad and deteriorating rapidly. Even senior military commanders are speaking out about how badly the war has been run, and some are calling for Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz to be fired.
Had Bush taken his responsibility as commander in chief seriously, there would not have been a shortage of body armor 6 months after the start of the conflict. Had Bush been willing to change course and actually present a detailed plan for dealing with the insurgents, Kerry would have voted for the bill. But Bush wanted almost $7 billion of the money to be spent at the discretion of the Pentagon and the military.
It's possible Kerry would have supported the bill in any event if it contained the amendment he co-authored, which would obtain the $87 billion from a partial rollback of tax cuts for those in the highest bracket. But the amendment was tabled and, as the Bush camp is eager to point out, the bill passed by an 87-12 margin.
So our troops are still there, and the Bush team is still winging it. Some National Guard members are still shipping off to Iraq without body armor.
Once again, I can't help but point out some Bush hypocrisy. Bush's proposed FY 2005 budget contains zero funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pennsylvania Republican Curt Weldon has described this request as "outrageous" and "immoral", because an estimated $10 billion will be required to fund the occupation for the next five months. One item which will go unfunded, unless Bush 'flip-flops' and makes a supplemental funding request, is $40 million for body armor.
Another shameful hypocrisy involves combat pay for troops. But the worst hypocrisy is that Bush himself threatened to veto the $87 billion funding bill if it stipulated that Iraq would have to repay part of the money.
Gee, does that mean that Bush is also against 'Funding Our Troops'? Or maybe it simply means that Bush and Kerry disagree about the best way to do that?
Monday, March 15, 2004
Bush Campaign Lie #7: Kerry Will 'Weaken the Patriot Act Used to Arrest Terrorists and Protect America'
The Bush campaign makes this claim in an ad released on March 11. It's reasonable to expect the Bush camp to substantiate their claim by citing at least one provision of the Patriot Act which Kerry plans to weaken or eliminate, but they don't. Instead, they cite three Kerry quotes in which he criticizes the Patriot Act, and one where he says '. . . it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time.' Actually, in the broader context for every single one of those quotes, Kerry is targeting John Ashcroft's abuses of the Patriot Act as much as the Patriot Act itself.
When FactCheck.org asked exactly how Kerry would weaken the Patriot Act, Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt insisted that rolling back any provision would weaken it. In other words, the Bush team's major support for their claim is that Congress drafted, debated, and passed a comprehensive measure to fight terrorism and got it exactly right, all in 45 days.
Kerry has proposed changes to the Patriot Act, even though the Bush camp doesn't want to talk about them. In a speech he made at Iowa State University on December 1, he said:
If I’m elected President, we will put an end to 'sneak and peak' searches which permit law enforcement to conduct a secret search and seize evidence without notification. Agents can break into a home or business to take photos, seize property, copy computer files, or load a secret keystroke detector on a computer. These searches should be limited only to the most rare circumstances. And law enforcement should provide notice of the search within seven days, unless a court extends the period of notification.These are the changes Kerry wants to make; the Bush camp doesn't cite them as proof of their claim. One possible reason for the omission is that the changes Kerry proposes won't weaken the Patriot Act. Another is that most Americans would be likely to support them.
We will eliminate the potential of fishing expeditions into people’s library and business records. If the FBI wants to make these kinds of investigations, they will need a warrant issued by a judge and evidence that they are looking into an agent of a foreign power.
We will provide Americans with protections from wiretaps, prevent local police officers from spying on innocent people, and that ensures our courts guarantee appropriate national security protections.
Sunday, March 14, 2004
Bush Campaign Lie #6: Kerry Will Raise Taxes By 'At Least $900 Billion'
In an ad released on March 11, a woman's voice states 'John Kerry's plan [for his first 100 days in office]: To pay for new government spending, raise taxes by at least $900 billion.' This is misleading in a number of ways. For one thing, it makes it sound as though the $900 billion figure is included in a write up of Kerry's plan for the first 100 days. It isn't.
Let's lay out how the Bush camp arrived on this figure. They seem to argue the following:
- Kerry is proposing a new health care plan which will cost $900 billion.
- Kerry is also proposing to cut the budget deficit in half in four years.
- He can't do both without raising taxes.
- Therefore, Kerry will raise taxes by $900 billion.
And item (2) is accurate: Kerry does hope to cut the deficit in half during his first term of office. So does it follow that he must raise taxes by at least $900 billion?
Of course not, and the Bush campaign can't offer convincing evidence that he must. To be clear, it is important to keep in mind that Kerry has specifically stated that he will roll back the Bush tax cuts for those with incomes over $200,000, reform the estate tax, and close some corporate tax loopholes (as well as cutting taxes for the middle class). So it's not enough to prove that Kerry must raise taxes, but that he will raise them by $900 billion. The data they give doesn't come close.
They quote Howard Dean and John Edwards stating that Kerry's plan will worsen the budget deficit. But that's a far cry from proving a $900 billion tax increase, and anyway the Bush camp should be able to reference more objective sources than Kerry's primary opponents. The best they can do is a statment by Peter Orszag of the Brookings Institution that all of Kerry's tax reforms would save '$80 billion to $90 billion a year by 2013.' Orszag says this wouldn't pay for Kerry's health care plan, but $90 billion a year from now until 2013 is $900 billion, which does cover the cost of the health care plan, even using Bush's own numbers.
The most objective discussion I've been able to find so far is presented by Nancy Benac of the Associated Press. It cites the National Taxpayers Union, a group with a definite bias against both government programs and higher taxes, insisting that all of Kerry's initiatives will increase the deficit by $277 billion a year. It also cites Peter Orszag as saying that it's possible to get to $900 billion in tax increases --- not that Kerry definitely will raise taxes by 'at least $900 billion'. On the other side, it cites two other experts --- including Kenneth Thorpe, who came up with the $900 billion figure in the first place --- opining that Kerry can fulfill all of his promises without a huge tax increase.
Kerry's plan is to 'allow every American access to the same health care plan members of Congress get today'. Making accurate estimates about the impact of such an ambitious plan on the need to increase taxes is basically impossible. The plan is far-reaching, which indicates it will be quite expensive, but it also claims to cut waste and enact cost-saving measures, which will reduce the expense somewhat. Add to this the fact that Thorpe's prediction stretches out over a 10-year period, and it's very difficult to say with any certainty what the impact of this plan will be on taxes. Which is why it's a lie for the Bush camp to make it sound as though a tax increase of 'at least' $900 billion is definitely part of Kerry's plan.
Monday, March 08, 2004
Bush Campaign Lie #5: John Kerry 'has plans for those tax cuts. He wants to take them away.'
This is what Bush told a crowd at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles on March 3, 2004. Bush has enacted a number of tax cuts, so there's some ambiguity about which tax cuts he means. However, since he mentioned 'the largest tax relief since Ronald Reagan' in the same context, it's safe to assume he meant that Kerry would repeal most, if not all of the cuts passed, especially the huge income tax cuts.
However, whether you want to count the number of people affected by the cuts or the number of actual tax codes changed, Bush's statement is still a lie. Kerry has said he will eliminate income tax cuts for people with incomes over $200,000. All other income tax cuts would remain in force, and in fact Kerry would push for additional tax credits for college, and tax cuts for veterans. He has also promised payroll tax relief (most conservatives act as though the payroll tax doesn't exist) , and specifically promised to leave Bush's increased child tax credit and child care credit in place.
Kerry has also said he will 'reform' the Estate Tax, but it's not clear what that means. To date, there are no specifics on his web site. Most likely, it means a partial rollback of the Bush cuts.
Kerry is much tougher on corporations. He would eliminate loopholes and provisions which provide incentives for 'offshoring' --- laying off workers at home and contracting their jobs out to overseas firms. He has also promised to renew the tax to underwrite the superfund program, so that corporate polluters would bear the cost of cleaning up their mess.
Of course, anyone who's really studied the numbers knows that the winner of this fall's election will almost certainly have to raise taxes no matter what he promises on the campaign trail --- but that's another issue.
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
Bush Campaign Lie #4: Bush Inherited a Recession
In the barrage of campaign ads which launched immediately after John Kerry's Super Tuesday wins, the Bush campaign produced an ad called 'Safer, Stronger'. After the required 'I approve of this message' intro, the ad displays the following captions, in consecutive order:
- 'January 2001, The challenge:'
- 'An economy in recession.'
There well may be legitimate arguments Bush supporters can make to assign some of the responsibility for the recession to Clinton; it certainly makes no sense to blame a president for a recession which began two months after he took office. On the other hand, Bush may bear some responsibility for the economic downturn by 'talking down' the economy in late 2000 in an effort to build support for his $1.3 trillion tax cut package.
The Bush campaign will be lying every day that they run this ad, until the NBER actually changes the date, if they do.
