Monday, April 26, 2004
TV Ad: Again distorting Kerry's record on defense
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
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
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
Friday, April 16, 2004
Speech: Clinton's Increase WASN'T The Biggest
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
Analysis
Sources
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.
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
TV Ad: Troubling Indeed
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
Analysis
Sources
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.
