RNC Ads Debunked

Bush Ad Claims Kerry Voted Against "Protections for Pregnant Women"
It's a misleading ad. What Kerry really voted against was the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act."

July 12, 2004
Modified: July 12, 2004

Summary

In an ad released July 8 the Bush campaign attacks John Kerry for missing many Senate votes but still finding time " to vote against the Laci Peterson law that protects pregnant women from violence." It's literally accurate, but artfully worded to avoid tipping off viewers to the real controversy over the bill Kerry opposed -- the legal right to abortion.

What Kerry and 34 other Democrats actually voted against was the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act ." The new law recognizes an "unborn child" as a second victim if injured or killed during certain federal crimes of violence against the mother. The bill was backed by anti-abortion groups while opponents called it an attempt to undermine abortion rights. Kerry voted for an alternative measure to accomplish the same end but without making specific reference to an "unborn child."

The ad is also misleading when it says Kerry "missed a vote to lower health-care costs by reducing frivolous lawsuits against doctors." It is true that Kerry missed that vote -- two, actually. But as we've noted before, most studies show that capping damage awards to victims of medical malpractice won't do much to slow the rising cost of health care. Besides, Kerry's vote would not have made a difference either way.

And when the ad faults Kerry for missing a vote to fund our troops, it leaves out the fact that the bill passed both houses of Congress without a single vote against it.

Analysis

The ad is true enough when it says Kerry has missed the great majority of Senate votes while campaigning for President. Where it twists the facts is in its descriptions of the bills it cites to support its argument that Kerry's priorities are misplaced.

Bush Cheney '04
"Priorities"

Bush: I'm George W. Bush and I approve this message.

Announcer: Leadership means choosing priorities. While campaigning, John Kerry has missed over two thirds of all votes.

Missed a vote to lower health-care costs by reducing frivolous lawsuits against doctors.

Missed a vote to fund our troops in combat.

Yet, Kerry found time to vote against the Laci Peterson law that protects pregnant women from violence.

Kerry has priorities. Are they yours?

Against "Protections for Pregnant Women?"

It’s a fact that Kerry voted against what the Bush ad refers to as the Laci Peterson law (H.R. 1997). The measure passed and Bush signed it into law April 1.

However, what the new law actually does is increase penalties for violence against a "child in utero" by making it a separate federal offense when the mother is the victim of certain federal crimes of violence -- such as an assault in a federal park or on a military base. Its sponsors even named it the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act," and anti-abortion groups that lobbied for it call the crime "fetal homicide."

Kerry and other abortion-rights advocates called the measure a backdoor attempt to challenge legal abortion by defining a fetus as a human being with legal protection. Kerry (and nearly half the Senate) supported a different measure that would have had the same effect without making reference to an "unborn child." That measure -- called the "Motherhood Protection Act'' by its sponsors -- would have made it a separate offense to inflict violence that “causes the termination of a pregnancy or the interruptions of the normal course of pregnancy.” It failed in a 49-50 vote with 43 other Democrats supporting it, along with Independent Sen. Jim Jeffords and four Republicans.

When the Senate passed the "unborn victims" measure, Kerry was among 38 senators voting against it, including 2 Republicans.

Missing in Action on Healthcare Costs?

Kerry did miss two votes on bills to limit medical malpractice awards, but there's little support for the claim that the bill in question would have lowered health-care costs as the ad states. Kerry's absence made no difference in the outcome anyway.

The President says that putting caps on damage awards in medical malpractice lawsuits would reduce healthcare costs by 5-9% without adversely affecting the quality of care. Yet most studies show that capping malpractice awards would have little overall impact on medical spending. For a full discussion of this, see our earlier article .

Kerry's vote would have made no difference in the outcome. Each bill would have failed with or without his presence. He missed a vote Feb. 24 on a motion to invoke cloture and thus cut off a Democratic filibuster against a bill to place caps on damage awards in medical malpractice lawsuits against obstetricians and gynecologists. And April 7 he skipped a cloture vote on a similar bill to curb awards against emergency and trauma center personnel as well as obstetricians and gynecologists.

Senate Democrats did not need Kerry’s vote to block either bill – the President fell far short of the 60 votes needed on both occasions. The February vote was 48 for, 45 against, and the April vote was 49 for, 48 against.

Missed a Vote to Fund Troops? So What?

It’s also true, as the Bush ad claims, that Kerry missed a vote to authorize defense spending and thereby "fund our troops in combat." In fact, he missed two votes. He missed one vote on an amendment (S. Amdt 3260) to authorize an extra $25 billion as a "contingent emergency reserve fund" for possible use to support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Kerry also missed the vote on the overall $420 billion Pentagon authorization bill (S. 2400).

However, Kerry’s absence had no practical effect. The larger authorization bill (S. 2400) passed 97-0 on June 23. Kerry was one of three senators who missed the vote. The other two were Republicans. Kerry was one of five senators who missed the 95-0 vote on June 2 to authorize the extra $25 billion "reserve fund." The missing five included two Republicans.

Sources

U.S. House of Representatives, 108th Congress, 2nd Session H.R. 1997 “Laci and Conner’s Law” or “ Unborn Victims of Violence Act 2004” Introduced 7 May 2003.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 108th Congress – 2nd Session H.R. 1997 Vote #63 25 March 2004.

Juliet Eilperin, “Bills to Change Fetus’s Status Gain Support; Measures Expanding Crime Victim Designation Call Backdoor Curbs on Abortion Rights,” The Washington Post 19 July 2003.

S. Amdt 2858 to H.R. 1997 Introduced 25 March 2004.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 108th Congress - 2nd Session S.2061 Vote #15 Introduced 24 Feburary 2004.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 108th Congress - 2nd Session S. 2207 Vote #66 Introduced 7 April 2004.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 108th Congress - 2nd Session S. Amdt 2858 Vote #61 25 March 2004.

S. Amdt 3260 to S. 2400 Introduced 2 June 2004.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 108th Congress – 2nd Session S. Amdt 3260 Vote #106 2 June 2004.

U.S. Senate, 108th Congress, 2nd Session S. 2400, “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005” Proposed 11 May 2004.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 108th Congress - 2nd Session S.2400 Vote #146 Introduced 23 June 2004.

Bush Ad Falsely Implies Kerry Would Repeal Wiretaps of Terrorists
In reality, Kerry favors some of the same "safeguards" as several conservative Republicans.

May 25, 2004
Modified: June 1, 2004

Summary

A Bush ad released May 25 accuses Kerry of "playing politics with national security" and implies he would repeal "wiretaps, subpoena powers and surveillance" against terrorists under the USA Patriot Act. The wording of the ad could leave some viewers with the impression that Kerry opposes wiretapping suspected terrorists at all, which is false. In reality, Kerry's advocates stronger oversight by judges.

The Bush ad says Kerry changed his position on the Patriot act after being "pressured by liberals." But some conservative Republicans make the same criticisms of the act that Kerry does, and five Republicans are co-sponsoring legislation with him to amend the Patriot Act. Even Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot conceded last year that the act could use "refinement . . . so that it does not end up invading the civil rights of any American."

Analysis

The ad gets some things right. Bush did sign the USA Patriot Act and Kerry did vote for it. But the ad goes too far when it says Kerry "would now repeal the Patriot Act's use" of "wiretaps, subpoena powers and surveillance against terrorists."

Bush Cheney '04 Ad
"Patriot Act"

Bush: I'm George W. Bush and I approve of this message.
Announcer: President Bush signed the Patriot Act giving law enforcement vital tools to fight terrorism.
John Kerry? He voted for the Patriot Act, but pressured by fellow liberals, he's changed his position.
While wire taps, subpoena powers and surveillances are routinely used against drug dealers and organized crime, Kerry would now repeal the Patriot Act's use of these tools against terrorists.
John Kerry. Playing politics with national security.

"Repeal" Wiretaps of Terrorists?

It's true that last December, during the Democratic nomination fight, Kerry did call for "replacing the Patriot Act with a new law." But Kerry is not calling for repealing the law-enforcement powers alluded to in the ad. He's calling for modification -- specifically tighter control by judges. There's a big difference between "repeal" and adding judicial oversight.

Bush campaign officials say the ad is meant to refer to "sneak-and-peek" searches, which are conducted without the knowledge of the subject, and "roving wiretaps" in which authority to eavesdrop is applied to the individual rather than to a specific telephone number.

Kerry's position on those matters is spelled out in some detail on his website, and it simply does not support what the Bush ad claims.

Sneak and Peek

On sneak-and-peak searches, Kerry says he would change the law to require "more oversight" but would still allow secret searches with no notice to the subject for as long as a week, or indefinitely so long as a judge approves the continuing need for secrecy:

Kerry website: Agents can break into a home or business to take photos, seize physical property, examine and copy computer files, load a secret keystroke detector on a computer, or download the information from a previously loaded keystroke detector. Kerry believes there must be strong oversight to assure the authority can only be used in cases where notice of the warrant would endanger a person’s life or safety, result in flight from prosecution, or result in the destruction of evidence. Kerry will also require that law enforcement provide notice of the covert search within seven days, unless a court extends the period of notification if the need for secrecy continued.

Roving Wiretaps

Similarly, Kerry wouldn't end roving wiretaps of suspected terrorists, but calls for adding "adequate checks (and) safeguards" against eavesdropping on persons other than the authorized target.

Kerry website: This roving wiretap authority threatens personal privacy and increases the likelihood that the conversations of innocent people wholly unrelated to the intelligence target will be intercepted. John Kerry will require law enforcement to identify the target to be wiretapped and require that surveillance be conducted only when the presence of the target is ascertained. These are the requirements for use of roving wiretaps under the criminal code.

"Pressured by Liberals"

As evidence that Kerry supposedly flip-flopped after being "pressured by liberals," the Bush campaign cites criticism of the Patriot Act by Howard Dean and the American Civil Liberties Union. But that's unfair. Some prominent conservatives have made some of the same criticisms, too, and want the same changes.

Former Georgia congressman Bob Barr, a Republican ex-prosecutor, has called some provisions of the Patriot Act a violation of personal privacy:

Bob Barr: Kerry isn't a supporter of terrorism any more than I am, just because we both raised some questions about whether some things in the Patriot Act go too far. ...The Fourth Amendment is a nuisance to the (Bush) administration, but the amendment protects citizens and legal immigrants from the government's monitoring them whenever it wants, without good cause - and if that happens, it's the end of personal liberty.

Other conservative critics of the Patriot Act include Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly, Free Congress Foundation President Paul M. Weyrich, former Virginia Gov. James S. Gilmore III, American Conservative Union Chairman David A. Keene and Republican Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho.

Craig is lead Senate sponsor of bill S.1709 , the "Security and Freedom Ensured Act" (SAFE Act), which would amend the Patriot Act to add precisely the changes Kerry is calling for regarding roving wiretaps and sneak-and-peak searches. It has four Republican co-sponsors: Michael Crapo of Idaho, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and John Sununu of New Hampshire.

Among the 14 Democratic co-sponsors is, of course, John Kerry.

Footnote: Last October the President's own campaign chairman Marc Racicot conceded at a forum of Arab Americans that the Patriot Act could use "refinement."

Marc Racicot, Chairman, Bush-Cheney '04: And it's my belief, based upon the comments of members of Congress, who presently have legislation pending to provide refinements to that act, to bring that balance even truer than it has been, so that it does not end up invading the civil rights of any American, to be a cause that will be undertaken, and ultimately finished by Congress. . . . I do sense that most Americans realize that this is going to be an ongoing dialogue and process of refinement.

Sources

Bush Cheney '04, "Bush-Cheney '04 Ad Facts - "The PATRIOT Act – Playing Politics" Fact Sheet posted on campaign website, 25 May 2004.

John Kerry, "End the Era of Ashcroft" Position paper posted on John Kerry for President website, Accessed 5/25/2004

Ralph Z. Hallow, "Patriot Act divides Bush loyalists Some Republicans defend Kerry," Washington Times 5 April 2004; A4.

US Senate, 108th Congress, 1st Session S. 1709, "To amend the USA PATRIOT ACT to place reasonable limitations on the use of surveillance and the issuance of search warrants, and for other purposes" Introduced 2 Oct 2003.

Marc Racicot, remarks at news conference at Arab American Institute National Leadership Conference, Dearborn, Michigan 17 Oct 2003.

Remarks by Senator John Kerry, "Ending the Era of John Ashcroft," Iowa State University 1 Dec. 2003, Accessed from John Kerry for President Website.

More Bush Distortions of Kerry Defense Record
Latest barrage of ads repeats misleading claims that Kerry "repeatedly opposed" mainstream weapons.

April 26, 2004
Modified: April 30, 2004

Summary

Bush ads released April 26 recycle some distortions of Kerry's voting record on military hardware. We've de-bunked these half-truths before but the Bush campaign persists.

The ads -- many targeted to specific states -- repeat the claim that Kerry opposed a list of mainstream weapons including Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Apache helicopters, and also repeat the claim that he voted against body armor for frontline troops in Iraq. In fact, Kerry voted against a few large Pentagon money bills, of which Bradleys, Apaches and body armor were small parts, but not against those items specifically.

Analysis
On April 26 the Bush campaign released a total of 10 ads, all repeating claims that Kerry opposed a list of mainstream military hardware "vital to winning the war on terror."

Misleading Claims

The claims are misleading, as we've pointed out before in articles we posted on Feb. 26 and March 16. The Bush campaign bases its claim mainly on Kerry's votes against overall Pentagon money bills in 1990, 1995 and 1996, but these were not votes against specific weapons. And in fact, Kerry voted for Pentagon authorization bills in 16 of the 19 years he's been in the Senate. So even by the Bush campaign's twisted logic, Kerry should -- on balance -- be called a supporter of the "vital" weapons, more so than an opponent.

The claim that Kerry voted against body armor is based similarly on Kerry's vote last year against an $87 billion emergency supplemental appropriation bill to finance military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. It included $300 million for the latest, ceramic-plate type of body armor for troops who had been sent to war without it. The body-armor funds amounted to about 1/3 of one percent of the total.

Missing Context

It is true that when Kerry first ran for the Senate in 1984 he did call specifically for canceling the AH-64 Apache helicopter, but once elected he opposed mainly such strategic weapons as Trident nuclear missiles and space-based anti-ballistic systems. And Richard Cheney himself, who is now Vice President but who then was Secretary of Defense, also proposed canceling the Apache helicopter program five years after Kerry did. As Cheney told the House Armed Services Committee on Aug. 13, 1989:

Cheney: The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward, AH-64; . . . I forced the Army to make choices. I said, "You can't have all three. We don't have the money for all three." So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out. That would save $1.6 billion in procurement and $200 million in spares over the next five years.

Two years later Cheney's Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle as well. It was among 81 Pentagon programs targeted for termination, including the F-14 and F-16 aircraft. "Cheney decided the military already has enough of these weapons," the Boston Globe reported at the time.

Does that make Cheney an opponent of "weapons vital to winning the war on terror?" Of course not. But by the Bush campaign's logic, Cheney himself would be vulnerable to just such a charge, and so would Bush's father, who was president at the time.

McCain Defends Kerry, Criticizes "Bitter" Rhetoric

Kerry's voting record on military spending was defended March 18 by Republican Sen. John McCain. He said on CBS's "The Early Show:"

McCain: No, I do not believe that he is, quote, weak on defense. He's responsible for his voting record, as we are all responsible for our records, and he'll have to explain it. But, no, I do not believe that he is necessarily weak on defense.


McCain also criticized "bitter and partisan" attacks by both sides, saying, " This kind of rhetoric, I think, is not helpful in educating and helping the American people make a choice."

McCain is heading Bush's re-election efforts in Arizona. And speaking of Arizona, it was among nine states targeted by different versions of the same Bush ad.

Targeting Arizona

The state ads made mention of specific weapons -- supposedly opposed by Kerry -- manufactured in those states. The Arizona version mentioned Apache helicopters, Tomahawk cruise missiles and F-18 aircraft "all built here in Arizona."

The other ads were aimed at Arkansas, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio and Pennsylvania. All added a similar pork-barrel appeal to the basic attack on Kerry for undermining the "war on terror." And all gave an equally false impression of Kerry's actual voting record.

Sources

Richard Cheney "Hearings of the House Armed Services Committee, Fiscal 1990 Defense Budget" 13 July 1989

Fred Kaplan "Bush's 1992 Budget: Plan includes a $ 3.7b military cut" Boston Globe, 5 Feb 1991.

Nancy Benac, "McCain Says Kerry Not Weak on Defense," The Associated Press 18 March 2004.

National Journal's Congress Daily, "McCain, Differing From GOP Leaders, Defends Kerry On Defense," 18 March 2004.

Treasury Tax Expert to Bush: Clinton's Increase WASN'T The Biggest.
Study published by Bush's Treasury Department contradicts Bush's campaign.

April 16, 2004
Modified: April 16, 2004

Summary

In speeches and fundraising appeals the Bush campaign keeps making a distorted claim that Clinton 's 1993 tax increase -- supported by Kerry -- was "the biggest in history."

Republicans have been repeating this gross overstatement for more than a decade, but now there's less justification for it than ever. The GOP claim is contradicted by a study published last year by the Office of Tax Analysis of Bush's own Treasury Department.

Analysis

On Tax Day, April 15, the Bush campaign was still re-cycling this decade-old claim in an e-mail sent to supporters, asking for more campaign contributions:

Bush: Over the years, he's (Kerry) voted over 350 times for higher taxes on the American people including the biggest tax increase in American history.

And Vice President Cheney told the US Chamber of Commerce March 29:

Cheney: A career highlight was his (Kerry's)vote in favor of the largest tax increase in American history .

But that bit of political puffery has always been based on a simplistic tally of the number of dollars the Clinton tax bill yielded, without regard for population growth, rising incomes, or inflation.

Now comes a thorough study of every tax bill enacted since 1940, showing that the Clinton tax increase was indeed large, but not the largest.

A tax increase in 1942 boosted federal revenues by 71%, for example, as the US geared up for war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Measured in inflation-adjusted 1992 dollars, Roosevelt's wartime increase amounted to $73 billion a year, while Clinton's increase averaged $35 billion a year (average for the first two years.)

The study said that inflation-adjusted "constant dollars" is probably only the second -best measure of the size of a tax increase. "The single best measure for most purposes is probably the revenue effect as a percentage of GDP." That's Gross Domestic Product, the way we gauge the size of the economy. Clinton's tax increase isn't the biggest by that "best" measure, either. In the period since 1968, the study said, "the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 was the biggest increase." That was the tax increase signed by Ronald Reagan, rescinding some of the effects of his huge tax cut passed the year before.

That 1982 tax increase only slightly exceeded Clinton's in inflation-adjusted dollars ($37 billion a year vs.. $32 billion) but it was much bigger in relation to the size of the economy. The '82 increase amounted to 4.6% of GDP (average for the first two years) while Clinton's was 2.7%.

Footnote: The study's author, Jerry Tempalski of the Office of Tax Analysis, put the following disclaimer on the cover page: "The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Treasury Department." Apparently they are not the views of the President, either. Why let the facts get in the way of a campaign zinger?

Sources

Jerry Tempalski, "Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills " OTA Working Paper 81, Office of Tax Analysis, US Treasury Department, July, 2003.

George W. Bush, "Remarks by the President at Florida Rally," Orange County Convention Center, Orlando, Florida 20 March 2004.

Vice President Richard Cheney, "Kerry's 350 Votes for Higher Taxes Make the Choice Clear ," Remarks to US Chamber of Commerce, 29 March 2004.

Bush Ad Is "Troubling" Indeed
The President's ad recycles bogus claims, then tells only part of the story about Kerry's position on tax breaks for couples and children.

April 7, 2004
Modified: April 7, 2004

Summary

A Bush Cheney '04 ad released April 1 repeats several misleading claims that FactCheck.org has de-bunked before. It also adds something new, saying Kerry repeatedly opposed tax breaks for married couples and families -- breaks that Kerry has repeatedly and consistently said he would preserve.

Analysis

Bush released yet another attack on Kerry April 1, an ad appropriately named "troubling." The Bush ad recycles a couple of bogus claims we've de-bunked before -- a misleading claim that Kerry voted for "higher taxes" 350 times and a claim that "Kerry's plan will raise taxes by at least $900 billion." We pointed out previously that the 350-vote figure is so off base that it actually counts some Kerry votes for tax cuts as votes for "higher taxes." And as we said earlier , the only tax "plan" Kerry has proposed is to repeal Bush's tax cuts for those making $200,000 a year or more, while giving some additional tax breaks to those further down the income scale.

Bush Cheney '04 Ad "Troubling" Bush: I’m George W. Bush and I approve this message. Announcer: John Kerry’s record on the economy: Troubling. He opposed tax relief for married couples 22 times. Opposed increasing the child tax credit 18 times. Kerry supported higher taxes over 350 times. He even supported increasing taxes on Social Security benefits, and a 50-cent a gallon tax hike for gasoline. Now Kerry’s plan will raise taxes by at least $900 billion his first 100 days. Kerry and the economy: Troubling.

New in this Bush ad is a statement that Kerry voted repeatedly against tax relief for married couples and opposed an increase in the per-child tax credit. But the ad fails to tell the whole story -- omitting Kerry's oft-repeated promise to preserve both those tax breaks.

It's true Kerry has been a dependable vote against Republican-sponsored tax cuts in the past, and some of those votes were clear-cut votes against Republican proposals to give tax relief to married couples and families with children. Indeed, on July 18, 2000, Kerry even cast a vote against a marriage-penalty relief bill that most Democrats didn't go along with: he was one of only 19 votes in favor of stripping the tax cuts out of a House-passed measure called the "Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Reconciliation Act."

But many of the votes the Bush campaign includes in its totals were votes against large Republican-sponsored bills that also contained such things as rate reductions for the most affluent taxpayers and reductions in capital-gains taxes and taxes on large estates. And some other votes were on bills to set budget targets but which would not actually legislate any tax changes, or on complex parliamentary motions and not directly on the bills themselves. So whether Kerry voted precisely 22 times against marriage-penalty relief or 18 times against the child tax credit is a matter of opinion, and debatable.

In his defense, Kerry claims to have voted four times in favor of marriage-penalty relief. Using the standards of his Republican critics, three of those votes should count -- they were for very broad Democratic bills that contained many items other than tax breaks for families and couples. However, one of the four votes, on April 5, 2000, wasn't for a bill that would have produced tax relief at all -- it was for a meaningless, non-binding "sense of the Senate" resolution that was so non-controversial it passed 99-1.

It's a similar story with Kerry's record on increasing the tax credit for families with children. He (like nearly all Democrats in the Senate) voted repeatedly against Republican measures, but also at times supported Democratic alternatives that went nowhere.

Whatever his past votes, Kerry now is firmly on the record promising to retain Bush's tax breaks for couples and kids. Bush's ad doesn't mention that, of course.

During the months of jousting for the Democratic presidential nomination, Kerry repeatedly criticized Democratic opponents Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt for proposing to repeal an increase in the per-child tax credit and relief for the so-called "marriage penalty" along with the rest of Bush's cuts.

At the October 27 Democratic candidates debate in Detroit, for example, Kerry attacked Dean by saying Dean's proposed repeal of the entire package of Bush tax cuts would force one family to "pay $2,178 more in taxes because they lose the child credit to raise their children, they pay a penalty for being married again."

Kerry still hasn't wavered from that. Here's what his website says now:

JohnKerry.com: Specifically, he (Kerry) wants to protect the increases in the child tax credit, the reduced marriage penalty and the new tax bracket that helps people save $350 on their first level of income. He strongly disagrees with Democrats who want to repeal these tax cuts because it would cost a typical middle-class family with two children an additional $2,000. These families are often already struggling with higher health care costs and higher state and local taxes. (Emphasis added.)

Other elements of the ad we've dealt with before : Kerry's support for a 50-cent increase in the gasoline tax was limited to a couple of newspaper quotes 10 years ago, and he doesn't support such a tax now. And the the increased tax on Social Security he supported was passed as part of the Clinton economic plan in 1993 and still falls only on the most affluent 10 to 20 percent of retirees. Proceeds go to shore up Medicare.

Overall, Bush's ad strives to give the impression Kerry plans a massive tax increase on middle-income people, the exact opposite of what Kerry says he'd do.

Sources

Bush Cheney '04, " Bush-Cheney '04 Ad Facts - 'Troubling' " News Release 1 April 2004.

John Kerry for President " Bush Releases Misleading and "Troubling" Ad " News Release 1 April 2004.

Democratic Presidential Debate Detroit 27 Oct 2003.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 106th Congress - 2nd Session S.Amdt. 3875 to H.R. 4810 (Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000 ) Vote #213 18 July 2000.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 106th Congress - 2nd Session S.Amdt. 2914 to S.Con.Res. 101 Vote #53 5 April 2000.

Taxing Social Security & Gasoline: Bush Attack Lacks Context
Kerry supported an increased tax on Social Security benefits, but he also supported a repeal and Bush didn't.

March 26, 2004
Modified: March 30, 2004

Summary

Bush's new attack ad says Kerry voted for higher taxes on Social Security benefits in 1993. That's true, but the proceeds went to shore up Medicare, and Bush didn't propose to repeal the increase in any of his own tax-cut bills.

The ad faults Kerry for voting against proposed tax credits for small businesses that buy health insurance for their workers, which he did. But Kerry has since proposed his own, larger tax credits for the same purpose.

The ad says Kerry supported a 50-cent-a-gallon increase in gasoline taxes, which is also true. But that was a decade ago and Kerry's support was lukewarm at best.

Bush's ad claims Kerry's "plan" will increase taxes by $900 billion, which Kerry denies.

Analysis

The Bush-Cheney TV spot made public March 25 is a good example of why 30-second ads are a poor way to learn about complex policy matters such as taxes. What's left out is the context needed for understanding.

Bush-Cheney '04 Ad "Differences" Bush: I’m George W. Bush and I approve this message. Announcer: John Kerry’s economic record:  Troubling. Kerry voted to increase taxes on Social Security benefits. And, he voted against giving small businesses tax credits to buy health care for employees. Kerry even supported raising taxes on gasoline 50-cents a gallon. Now John Kerry’s plan will raise taxes by at least 900 billion dollars his first hundred days in office.  And that’s just his first 100 days.

Taxing Social Security

It's true as the ad states that Kerry voted to increase taxes on Social Security benefits, but that's far from the whole story. The vote was actually for a massive deficit-reduction package in 1993 that included tax increases falling almost exclusively on the highest-earning 1 percent of households.

Included was an increase in the amount of Social Security benefits subject to income taxation, true enough. But the increase was only for those with relatively high income -- over $44,000 a year for a married couple. The large majority of Social Security recipients are not affected. The Treasury Department estimates that 8.3 million taxpayers will be hit by the increases Social Security levy in 2004 -- and there are 47 million who get Social Security benefits.

Also not mentioned in the Bush ad is the fact that proceeds from the 1993 increase on Social Security benefits go exclusively to the Medicare trust fund -- $8.3 billion last year, according to the just-released report of the Medicare trustees. That's one reason neither party is itching to repeal the increase. Bush didn't propose a repeal in either his 2001 tax-cut bill or his 2003 tax-cut bill. And all but two Senate Republicans voted against repeal in 2003 when Democrats proposed it as an alternative to cutting the tax rate on stock dividends to 15%, and speeding up reductions in the top income-tax rates. Kerry voted for the repeal, which was defeated 49-51 on May 15, 2003.

Taxing Gasoline?

Kerry's support for a 50-cent-per-gallon increase in the federal tax on gasoline was so brief and lukewarm that it was barely noted at the time -- a decade ago. One Boston Globe news story from 1994 quotes Kerry as complaining that the Concord Coalition's scorecard had not rated him highly enough as a deficit-cutter: "It doesn’t reflect my $43 billion package of cuts or my support for a 50-cent increase in the gas tax," the Globe quoted Kerry as saying. But neither the Bush-Cheney campaign nor FactCheck.org turned up any direct report of how and when Kerry had actually backed the 50-cent increase. Kerry sponsored no such bill in the Senate, and did not add his name to a bill offered by Sen. Charles Robb in 1993, to increase the gasoline tax 10 cents per gallon each year for five years.

Health Insurance Incentive?

The Bush ad faults Kerry for voting against tax credits for small businesses to purchase health insurance for their employees. It's true that Kerry voted against such a measure in 2001, as did all other Senate Democrats except Georgia's Zell Miller, who's now backing Bush.

But the Bush ad fails to mention that Kerry now supports bigger tax incentives of his own, as part of his health-care plan. What he voted against in 2001 was a proposal by Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine to provide $70 billion over 10 years in tax credits to small business. But Kerry's own health-care plan says: "Refundable tax credits for up to 50%of the cost of coverage will be offered to small businesses and their employees to make health care more affordable." Emory University professor Kenneth Thorpe estimates that those tax credits alone amount to $79 billion over 10 years, and says other portions of Kerry's health plan would benefit small-business employees by even more.

A $900-billion Increase?

The Bush ad once again says Kerry will raise taxes $900 billion in his first 100 days in office, something Kerry denies. We've dealt with this before . Kerry has proposed no such increase. However, he has said he'd repeal Bush tax cuts for persons making more than $200,000 a year, but hasn't disclosed details of how he would do that or how much revenue he would expect to gain that way. Kerry has yet to explain how he can pay for his spending proposals, cut the deficit in half in four years as he has promised to do, and grant further tax cuts to middle-income taxpayers as he has also promised to do.

Sources

US Department of Health and Human Services, "2004 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds," Table I.C1.-Medicare Data for Calendar Year 2003 Washington DC 24 March 2004: p3.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 108th Congrees - 1st Session S.Amdt 556 to S. 1054 Vote #149 15 May 2003.

Jill Zuckman, “Deficit-Watch Group Gives High Marks To 7 N.E. Lawmakers,” The Boston Globe, 1 March 1994.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congrees - 1st Session S.Amdt. 349 to S.Amdt. 170 to H.Con.Res. 83 Vote #83 5 April 2001.

John Kerry, "JOHN KERRY’S PLAN TO MAKE HEALTH CARE AFFORDABLE TO EVERY AMERICAN" Undated.

Telephone interview with Prof. Kenneth Thorpe, Emory University, 26 March 2004.

Bush Ad "Doublespeak" Leaves Out Some Context
It quotes negative comments from newspapers, but doesn't mention that they are editorial expressions of opinion.

May 24, 2004
Modified: May 24, 2004

Summary

A Bush ad that's been running heavily quotes various newspapers as saying Kerry engaged in "doublespeak" on Iraq, advocates tax increases that would "kill the recovery" and "waffled" on education reforms. The quotes are mostly accurate. Not mentioned, however, is that those statements are editorials -- not news reports. In other words they are opinions, not facts.

One bit of exaggeration in the ad: Kerry's stand on Bush's education reforms isn't the total flip-flop it portrays. The ad says Kerry now "opposes" the reforms he once voted for. In fact, Kerry says he still supports the goals of Bush's No Child Left Behind Act but wants some changes to improve it, and more money than Bush has provided.

One article quoted is not an editorial. The National Journal rated Kerry's voting record in 2003 the most liberal of any senator. The ad gets that right.

Analysis

This ad was released April 21 but has been running heavily of late. We've had queries about it from our subscribers. It doesn't contain any blatant deceptions, but it does raise questions that call for elaboration and additional context.

Bush Cheney '04 Ad "Doublespeak"

Bush: I'm George W. Bush and I approve this message.

Announcer: John Kerry says, "A lot of people don't really know who I am."

Well, actually, a lot of people do.

Kerry's hometown paper says, "In his continuing effort to be all things to all voters . . . John Kerry is engaging in a level of doublespeak that makes most voters wince."

The Wall Street Journal said Kerry's tax plan "would mean increasing the tax burden again, which would likely kill the recovery."

On Iraq, The Washington Post said "Kerry's attempts to weave a thread connecting and justifying [his] positions are unconvincing."

The Union Leader says Kerry has "waffled" on historic education reforms he supported in 2001, but now opposes.

And the non-partisan National Journal magazine ranks Kerry the most liberal member of the Senate - more liberal than Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy.

John Kerry's problem is not that people don't know him. It's that people do.

"Kerry's Hometown Paper"

Not mentioned in the ad is that the "hometown paper" it quotes, the Boston Herald, endorsed Bush in the 2000 election, and that the same newspaper at other times has had glowing things to say about Kerry's leadership.

It is also a bit misleading to call the Herald "Kerry's hometown paper" in the first place. Actually, the Herald is the smaller of Boston's two daily newspapers. According to the Audit Bureau of Circulation, the Herald's average weekday circulation for the six months ended March 31 was 248,988. The larger Boston Globe's weekday circulation for the same period was 452,109. And on Sundays, the Globe outsells the Herald four-and-a-half to one.

The ad does quote the Herald editorial accurately and in context. The Herald was referring to Kerry's labored explanation of his vote against an $87-billion emergency supplemental appropriation for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan. Kerry voted for a Democratic proposal, which was defeated, to fund the $87 billion by scaling back Bush's tax cuts. Then he voted against the appropriation itself.

Boston Herald editorial: (T)he Massachusetts senator slipped into Kerry-speak: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it," he said. If that isn't enough to convince voters that Kerry is talking out of both sides of his mouth, we can't imagine what is.
In his continuing effort to be all things to all voters - for the Iraq war and against it; for providing support to the military and against it; for providing for an adequate defense and against it - John Kerry is engaging in a level of doublespeak that makes most voters wince.

Worth noting, however, is that even the Herald has had nice things to say about Kerry at times. It endorsed him last year for the Democratic nomination, saying:

Boston Herald editorial: Those of us in Massachusetts who know him best, have never doubted that Kerry is as capable a political leader as any who have sat in the U.S. Senate. . . . John Kerry as a presidential candidate remains a work in progress. But John Kerry as a solid, thoughtful political leader is a well-known commodity around these parts. It is that man, that leader, the Boston Herald is pleased to endorse for his party's presidential nomination.

Naturally, the Bush ad doesn't quote any of that editorial.

"Kill the Recovery?"

The statement that Kerry's tax plan "would likely kill the recovery" comes from the editoral page of the Wall Street Journal , which regularly expresses conservative, pro-Bush views and consistently opposes any tax increases. The editiorial is quoted accurately and in context. Here's a part of it:

Wall Street Journal editorial: The Clinton tax increases and the speculative fever drove government receipts to a peak of 20.8% of GDP. The Bush tax cuts and the bursting of the bubble have brought that figure down to about 16%. If rates are left as they are, as the economy accelerates revenues should stabilize near their postwar average of 18% of GDP.
Mr. Kerry's "fiscal responsibility" would mean increasing the tax burden again, which would likely kill the recovery. And by ruling out the reform of Social Security and Medicare, he makes it inevitable that the long-term fiscal situation will deteriorate rapidly after 2008, when baby boomers start to retire. At that, the call for tax hikes will become a roar.

Of course, it's a matter of opinion whether it would "kill the recovery" to repeal Bush's tax cuts for taxpayers earning over $200,000 a year, as Kerry proposes. The Journal gives no authority for that sweeping prediction. Another view is that continuing large deficits that have materialized under Bush now pose a threat to future economic growth. For example, in remarks May 6 to a banking conference, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan spoke of "our yawning federal deficit" and said it poses "a significant obstacle to long-term stability." Greenspan noted that the budget deficit is currently projected to equal more than 4% of US economic output, after being in surplus a few years ago. There was no mention of that in the Bush ad either, naturally.

Kerry's Iraq Position "Unconvincing?"

The Washington Post editorial criticizing Kerry's stands on Iraq is also quoted accurately in context. And this one comes from a newspaper that leans generally in favor of Democrats. The editorial appeared Feb. 15:

Washington Post editorial: The most important confusion surrounds Mr. Kerry's position on Iraq. In 1991 he voted against the first Persian Gulf War, saying more support was needed from Americans for a war that he believed would prove costly. In 1998, when President Clinton was considering military steps against Iraq, he strenuously argued for action, with or without allies. Four years later he voted for a resolution authorizing invasion but criticized Mr. Bush for not recruiting allies. Last fall he voted against funding for Iraqi reconstruction, but argued that the United States must support the establishment of a democratic government.

Mr. Kerry's attempts to weave a thread connecting and justifying all these positions are unconvincing. He would do better to offer a more honest accounting.

"Waffled" on Education?

The Bush ad relies on the Manchester, New Hampshire Union Leader -- one of the nation's most conservative newspapers -- for the charge that Kerry "waffled" and now "opposes" the education reforms he once supported. Actually, Kerry doesn't oppose Bush's No Child Left Behind Act, and states that he still supports its goals of greater accountability. What Kerry has often criticized is what he calls Bush's failure to provide enough money to fund the new requirements that the law places on states. Kerry also is calling for "changes" in the law that would rate school performance on "more than just test scores" and create "rewards" for states that set high standards to shoot for. Kerry says such states are now penalized if they fail to reach the standards, creating an incentive to set standards low.

The Union Leader did indeed accuse Kerry of having "waffled" to appease a large teachers union, but stopped short of accusing him of opposing the Bush reforms themselves, as the ad claims:

Manchester Union Leader editorial: Speaking before the New Hampshire chapter of the National Education Association last week, John Kerry waffled on his vote for the No Child Left Behind Act, which the teacher lobby hates. He can't pander to the group by bashing the bill because he voted for it. So he criticizes Bush for not fully funding it.

"Most Liberal?"

It is a fact as the ad states that the National Journal, a politically neutral periodical focusing on policy-makers in Washington, rated Kerry the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate based on his voting record in 2003. In fact, it was the fourth time in his Senate career that Kerry has been rated as having the most liberal voting record. The three other "most liberal" ratings came during his first Senate term, in 1986, 1988, and 1990. The National Journal has been rating members of both House and Senate on a liberal-conservative scale since 1981.

It's true that Kerry was absent (due to his presidential campaign schedule) for 37 of the 62 votes that the National Journal selected for their analysis. However, the publication said those missed votes were all in the areas of social policy and foreign policy, where Kerry "consistently took the liberal view within the Senate." On economic policy votes, the National Journal said Kerry earned a "perfect liberal score" last year.
Summing up: Overall, this ad rates fairly high for accuracy, in contrast with other Bush ads we've criticized as misleading. But it could lead voters to confuse editorial opinions with statements of fact.

Sources

Audit Bureau of Circulation, figures for Boston newspapers accessed from website on 24 May 2004.

Editorial; "How's that again, Senator?" Boston Herald 18 March 2004: A36.

Editorial: "Kerry as Fiscal Conservative," Wall Street Journal 9 April 2004: A8.

Alan Greenspan "Globalization and Innovation," remarks at the Conference on Bank Structure and Competition, sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 6 May 2004.

Editorial endorsement: "Sen. John Kerry Dems' best leader," Boston Herald 22 Jan 2004: A30.

Editorial: "Waffle house: Democrats pander to special interests," The Union Leader 11 Aug. 2003: A10.

John Kerry, "Detailed Plan to Strengthen Public Schools," statement of education policy on campaign website, accessed 24 May 2004.

Richard Cohen, "How They Measured Up," 2003 VOTE RATINGS, National Journal 28 Feb 2004.