by Kristin Simpson and Alyssa Keninger
A commercial paid for by the Democratic National Committee claims that McCain’s policy is to stay in Iraq for 50, or maybe even 100, years. But on CNN’s “Larry King Live,” McCain said his opponents were taking his quote out of context.
The commercial, called “100 Years” and featured by the Museum of the Moving Image, begins with the voice of an unidentified journalist asking, “President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years?” McCain is then quoted as saying, “Maybe a hundred” and “That’d be fine with me.” “5 Years, $500 Billion Spent, Over 4,000 Dead” is flashed in text. The question and McCain’s first response are repeated, followed by a statement by a male narrator: “If all he offers is more of the same, is John McCain the right choice for America’s future?” The latter part of that question is also displayed in text, accompanied by a statement saying the ad was paid for by the Democratic National Committee.
At a town hall meeting in New Hampshire in January of 2008, McCain answered a crowd member’s question about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years. “Maybe 100,” McCain said. “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.” According to CNN, McCain later defended his statement by saying he was referring to a military presence similar to what the nation already has in places like Japan, Germany and South Korea. He also said that any long-term troop presence in Iraq would be based on an agreement with the Iraqi government.
ABC News claims that McCain had shrugged off the attacks by his opponents on his “100 years” statement. “As we know, all’s fair in politics,” he said in Aurora, Ill. “But the fact is as everybody knows, and the media who follows me and spends a lot of time with me knows, I was talking about after the war is over.” He went on to defend his statement in Columbus, Ohio, saying, “The point is the surge is succeeding. We can bring our troops home with honor and we can bring them all home or we can have an arrangement, a security arrangement [with Iraq] much along the lines that we have with other countries.”
Although he has refrained from creating a specific timetable for withdrawing troops, arguing that timetables should be set in private discussions among Iraqi and American leaders, McCain he has made a statement on his plans should he assume the presidency. According to The New York Times, he said in May that most American troops would be home from Iraq by 2013 and that the nation would be a functioning democracy with only “spasmodic” episodes of violence. However, after his comment about the projection for 2013, McCain and his aides stressed that his remarks should not be interpreted as a timetable for withdrawal. Instead, McCain insists that he was simply projecting a victory, saying, “I am certainly not putting a date on it.”
Since McCain’s statement, Obama has said that McCain had not given a clear definition of success in Iraq. McCain rebutted by saying Obama “displays a fundamental misunderstanding of history and how we’ve maintained national security, and what we need to do in the future to maintain our security in the face of the transcendent challenge of radical Islamic extremism. And I understand that because he has no experience or background in any of it.”
Whether or not Obama has experience or background in the issue, he does have a plan for Iraq, which includes residual forces similar to those of McCain. The first step in Obama’s plan is to end the war. The removal of troops will take place in phases and will be in consultation with the Iraqi government. Unlike McCain, he gives a specific timetable for withdrawal. According to Obama’s website, military experts believe the U.S. can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of one to two brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010—more than seven years after the war began. The site goes on to say, “Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.”
According to Fox News, in March of 2008 Obama said that the difference between his and McCain’s plans lies in the length of time. “What I said was I would have a strike force in the region, perhaps in Iraq, perhaps outside Iraq so we could take advantage of or we could deal with potential problems that might take place in the region,” Obama said. “That’s very different from saying we'd have a permanent occupation in Iraq. And it’s certainly different from saying we would have a high level of combat troops inside Iraq for a decade or two decades or, as John McCain said, perhaps 100 years.” However, Obama has acknowledged the U.S. has maintained forces in South Korea as well as other places for extended periods, which McCain supporters say is proof of Obama twisting McCain’s words.
So yes, McCain wants to stay in Iraq, possibly for 100 years. But he doesn’t want to stay there in the manner he has been accused of. It all amounts to an implied falsehood by the Democratic National Committee and Barack Obama. By saying McCain’s policy is to stay in Iraq for 100 years, they are implying he wants to continue waging war for 100 years. And that’s not what McCain said. McCain wants to keep residual forces (much like Obama’s) in Iraq to maintain the peace, similar to the U.S. forces that remained in places after WWII. McCain and Obama agree on one thing: the notion of residual forces in Iraq does not necessarily mean keeping the war going for another century.
The lesson? Investigate extreme claims. When McCain said he wanted to stay in Iraq for 50, maybe even 100, years, what did he mean? Creating a message by twisting someone else’s words is an implied falsehood—a way to confuse the public without flat-out lying. Both sides pick a statement and then take it out of context to attack their opponents. And if you only listen to opponents’ side of the statement, you miss out on the real meaning, and the "full story."
Friday, October 31, 2008
Will the U.S. "Stay in Iraq for 100 Years"?
Barack Obama...Friend to Terrorists?
by Sara Kirsch and Leah Grothe
John McCain’s vice presidential running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, alleged that Barack Obama associates with terrorists. At a campaign event in Carson California on October 4 Palin alleged;
“One of his [Obama’s] earliest supporters is a man who, according to the New York Times, was a domestic terrorist … part of a group which launched a campaign to bomb the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol. . . These are the same guys who think that patriotism is paying higher taxes.”
Is there truth to Palin’s attacks on Obama’s patriotism, or is this a “guilt by association” smear?
First of all we must figure out who Palin was referring to when she says Obama associates with terrorists.
By terrorist she meant a man by the name of Bill Ayers. Bill Ayers is a man who acted as a domestic terrorist in the 1970s, as part of an anti-Vietnam War group known as the “Weather Underground.” The group protested U.S. policies by bombing the Pentagon, the U.S. Capitol and a series of other government buildings. No one was injured in the string of bombings, but this now defunct organization was labeled a “domestic terrorist group” by the FBI.
Next we must find out what the connection is between Obama and Ayers. In Chicago they served on a board, the Woods Fund of Chicago, together. The board deals with welfare reform, acquiring affordable housing, and reducing poverty through tax policy changes. Another issue concerning the Woods Fund of Chicago Board was a controversial connection with a community organization association, know as ACORN. According to their website:
“Since 1970, ACORN has been building community organizations that are committed to social and economic justice, and won the victories on thousands of issues of concern to our members, through direct action, negotiation, legislative advocacy and voter participation. ACORN helps those who have historically been locked out become powerful players in our democratic system.”
The controversy is found in Obama’s endorsement by ACORN and he recently spent $832,000 of his campaign money in support of the organization’s activities. Recent investigation uncovered that ACORN was involved in a registration scandal. Obama had no involvement in the scam. Just because he associated with this group, that does not mean he is responsible for their actions.
In order to judge the validity of Palin’s claim, it is necessary to see Obama’s side of the story. During the Second Presidential Debate on Wednesday, October 15, Obama addressed Palin’s statements. He discussed both his connection with Ayers and the controversy involving ACORN;
“Forty years ago, when I was 8 years old, he engaged in despicable acts with a radical domestic group. I have roundly condemned those acts. Ten years ago he served and I served on a school reform board . . . Now, with respect to ACORN, the only involvement I’ve had with ACORN was I represented them alongside the U.S. Justice Department in making Illinois implement a motor voter law that helped people get registered at DMVs.”
Obama also stated the Ayers would have no involvement in his campaign or presidency, should he win the election. The fact that Obama was very young when Ayers engaged in domestic terrorism makes Palin’s claim less believable. The fact that Ayers is now a professor at the University of Illinois and is an active citizen of Chicago makes the claim less intimidating.
Lesson: Palin’s claim that Barack Obama "pals around with terrorists" plays on the fears of Americans in the post-9/11 world. Palin’s claim, and the implication that Obama is not patriotic, is very misleading. When claims appeal to your emotions rather than logic, remember to dig deeper and see if the appeal is justified. While Obama has worked with Ayers on community projects, he by no means ‘pals around’ with him. When Ayers was carrying out his acts of domestic terrorism, Obama was 8 years old; it is obvious that he was not involved. In the end, we all believe what we want to believe, but remember, "if it’s scary, be wary."
McCain, Obama, and Future Vacancies on the Supreme Court
by Sara Crouse and Brittany Friesth
There has been much speculation about the potential for future Supreme Court justice nominations drastically changing key decisions from the past 30 years. In a recent article by USA Today, former U.S. solicitor generals Walter Dellinger stated,
“People don't realize how much is at stake. It is highly likely there will be (up to) three vacancies in the next president's first term. Justices serve on average 25 years. That's six presidential terms. They make life or death decisions.”
Could the upcoming justices have the potential to take the Supreme Court in an ideologically different direction than seen in previous years?
While Obama’s and McCain’s political ideologies vary, understanding what lies in selecting a nominee for the Supreme Court is a different matter. It is almost inevitable that one and perhaps even two or three new nominees will be confirmed during the next presidency.
It is possible that Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and David H. Souter are all approaching retirement age, despite the fact that they could hold their positions for life. Justice Stevens was appointed in 1975 by President Ford, and is 88 years old. Justice Ginsburg has stated she may want to retire at the age of 75. Lastly, Justice Souter also mentioned retirement and possibly returning home to New Hampshire.
How would the makeup of the Supreme Court change with the absence of Stevens, Ginsburg, and Souter? The three justices make up 75% of the so-called ‘liberal bloc’ of the Supreme Court. This would leave the court with four remaining justices on the conservative side, one swing vote, and one on the liberal side. Therefore, the next president’s political ideology will determine the future composition of the Supreme Court, which could lead to a rethinking of many liberal-leaning decisions of the past 20 years.
Senator John McCain speaks directly on his website about what constitutes a great Supreme Court justice, noting that his selections would be similar ideologically to current conservative justices. The website reads,
“As President, John McCain will nominate judges who understand that their role is to faithfully apply the law as written, not to impose their opinions through judicial fiat.”
That statement can best be interpreted as saying McCain believes in interpreting the Constitution in keeping with the original document. He feels the document should not change merely based on changing opinions in society. One decisions conservatives have targeted is Roe v. Wade.
When asked in an interview, with Tim Russert in January 2000, whether he supported a constitutional amendment to ban all abortions John McCain responded,
“Yes, sir.”
In 2006 his position had changed to,
“I don’t think a Constitutional amendment is probably going to take place. But I do believe that it’s very likely or possible that a Supreme Court should – could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support that.”
Senator Barack Obama’s criteria for Supreme Court justice nominees are not listed on his official website, though he has voiced his opinion during interviews over the past few years. In one such interview Obama stated,
“We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”
Senator Obama seems to mean a liberal judge who is in touch with current social issues and would expand civil rights for disadvantaged groups. He believes in the Constitution as a living document that should change with and adapt to society.
During the last presidential debate Obama responded to moderator Bob Schieffer’s questions on abortion by stating,
“Ultimately what I believe is that women in consultation with their families, their doctors, their religious advisers, are in the best position to make this decision. And I think that the Constitution has a right to privacy in it that shouldn’t be subject to state referendum.”
Senators McCain and Obama have very different ideas about Supreme Court justices, abortion, and constitutional law, which would mean vast differences in the nominees they might appoint in the next four years.
Lesson: As a voter, one should be aware that the next President may make severall lifelong appointments to the Supreme Court. Selecting conservative or liberal judges will change the makeup of the Supreme Court. It is important to identify cases that could potentially remain the same or be overturned in the hands of the future Supreme Court.
Who has "More" Negative Ads: Obama or McCain?
by Josh Dahlin and Russell Place
In the final presidential debate John McCain stated:
“And it's a matter of fact that Senator Obama has spent more money on negative ads than any political campaign in history.”
Is this claim true? Has Obama spent the most on negative ads in history? Maybe he has simply spent the most on ads overall.
An article by Alexander Mooney from CNN politics on October 12, 2008, states that Obama is spending far more money on his campaign than McCain is, but while McCain is nearly 100% negative with his ads, Obama has about ½ positive ads and ½ negative ads throughout the campaign. This was from data collected by a University of Wisconsin Advertising Project study. The spending by McCain and Obama is roughly equal, according to CNN.
The University of Wisconsin Advertising Project, using data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group, has an article saying the claims that Obama and McCain have been making are true in different time frames. When Obama claims McCain has been all negative, he is citing numbers about ads run from September 28th till October 4th, which directly attack either Obama or the Democratic Party. However, from June 4th to October 4th, 47% of his ads were negative, 26% were positive, and 27% were contrast ads, which are a mixture of positive and negative. As for Obama, 35% of his ads have been negative, 35% have been positive, and 25% fall into the contrast ad category. This article finds that on pure negative ads McCain leads, but if contrast ads are considered negative, the campaigns are nearly equal on negative ads.
Some examples of these ads can be found here. There are different kinds of ads there from McCain and Obama.
Spending in presidential campaigns has been climbing each year. Evan Tracey, CMAG’s chief operating officer and CNN’s consultant on political ad spending, says that in 2000 one billion dollars were spent in total on political ads, but that number rose to 1.7 billion in 2004, and 2.4 billion in 2006. This year won’t be any different, with predicted spending of over three billion dollars.
An article by Jim Rutenberg for the International Herald Tribune states that Obama will set a record. He won’t set a record for the most spent on negative ads in the history, but he will set a record for the most spent on ads period, surpassing the $188 million spent by George W. Bush in his reelection campaign of 2004. By the looks of the campaign, Bush’s record will be obliterated by Obama, who declined to take public financing so he could raise more money from private donors. McCain on the other hand has spent around 91 million, only about ½ what Obama has spent.
Lesson: Does Barack Obama have the most negative ad spending in history? It appears that McCain is relying more on negative campaign advertising as a percentage of his ads. It is a fact, however, that Obama will surpass Bush’s spending record of 188 million dollars, with McCain finishing far behind. McCain has less money, but is more focused on negative ads, while Obama has so much money to spend that he can run plenty of negative and positive ads.
Is John McCain a "Maverick" Republican?
by Ryan Napoli and Sebastian Hoffmann
At the Republican National Convention in St. Paul on September 4th, presidential candidate John McCain said in his acceptance speech:
“I’ve been called a maverick; someone who marches to the beat of his own drum. (…) I don’t work for a party. I don’t work for a special interest. I don’t work for myself. I work for you.”
Is Sen. McCain really a maverick? The answer is not that simple.
The Almanac of American Politics states about Sen. McCain: “it appears to be his view that members of Congress, like members of the military, should serve the national interest honorably and without reference to political consideration” (Almanac of American Politics 2008, page 95).
A quick look at Congressional statistics, however, gives us a different impression. In 2007 he voted 95% of the time with President George W. Bush and 88.1% of the time with the majority of the Republicans during the current Congress.
These numbers may seem high, yet his 88.1% party voting only makes him the 63rd most party loyal U.S. senator together with Elizabeth Dole and Lindsey Graham. Moreover, Sen. McCain’s support for the president has already been as low as 77% (in 2005) and for the party 67% (in 2001).
Furthermore, according to the Washington Post, Sen. McCain’s “loyalty score” on “the most important bills, nominations and resolutions” since the 109th Congress ranks at the relatively low level of 67.74%. His best-known maverick key vote might have been in 2001 when he was one of two Republican senators to vote in the negative on Bush’s major tax cuts even though the package was extraordinarily popular with the Republican base. As a 2008 presidential candidate Sen. McCain has quit his opposition to the Bush tax cuts though.
Nevertheless, Claremont McKenna College congressional expert Jack Pitney predicts significant differences between a possible McCain administration and president Bush’s: "John McCain's position on the environment, for instance, is very different from that of the Bush administration, and one would expect a lot more attention to issues such as global warming." On the other hand he has regularly supported Republican policies on issues such as defense, social security, and abortion (Almanac of American Politics 2008, page 96).
While in Congress from 2003 - 2006, Sen. McCain’s voting records (as taken from the Almanac of American Politics 2008) support his claim of being a maverick. Based on the National Journal’s ratings on the issues of economic, social, and foreign issues, Sen. McCain on average voted liberal 39.5% of the time and a mere 50.6% of the time with his conservative party. Moreover, Sen. Obama’s average on the same issues in 2005-2006 is 81.5% liberal and only 13.1% conservative. In those same two years McCain’s averages were 40.1% liberal and 53.3 % conservative. Liberal McCain key votes of the 109th Congress include a no on “bar same sex marriage” and a yes on both “pathway to citizenship” and “stem cell research.”
Lesson: There is no clear answer as to whether John McCain is a maverick or not because there are different ways of measuring party loyalty. For instance, one can evaluate his voting record by concentrating on his most important votes or one can take all of his votes into account – his key voting record lets John McCain appear much more liberal than his overall voting record. One can also consider different time periods: in 2007 McCain voted significantly more often with president Bush than in 2005 for example. Moreover all numbers are relative, i.e. without comparisons to other numbers they are meaningless when it comes to interpretation. For instance, McCain’s 88.1% party voting during the current Congress seems to be a high number but in fact 62 senators have an even higher level of loyalty! So all in all, one can say that John McCain has been a “relative maverick” in his political career, even though he became more loyal to the party last year.
Obama Says Education System is Falling Behind
by Sebastian Hoffman and Ryan Napoli
In an article published on the 3rd of October 2008 the Washington Post quotes Obama saying that:
“The next president is going to have (…) an education system that has fallen behind.”
Is he right that the U.S. education system is not competitive any more?
(For more information about Obama’s stance on education, visit: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/
http://www.ontheissues.org/social/Barack_obama_Education.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-09-obama-education_N.htm )
The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which is sponsored by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), is a widely accepted survey that measures and compares the academic level of 15-year old students in reading, science, and mathematics in all 30 OECD member countries and several non-member countries. The latest assessment (conducted in 2006) ranks the United States 21st in science and 25th in mathematics among the 30 OECD countries. That means the U.S. finds itself in the last third in both categories. The U.S. clearly performed below OECD average, scoring 489 in science compared to the 500 average, and 474 in mathematics compared to the 499 average. Both in science and math the United States has 74 points less than Finland, the leading nation. The reading part of the PISA study could not be counted in the U.S. due to errors in the carrying out of the tests.
On the 2nd of August in 2006 USA TODAY reported that “U.S. 12th-graders recently tested below the international average for 21 countries in mathematics and science. About one-third of the fourth-graders and one-fifth of the eighth-graders cannot perform "basic mathematical computations," according to the National Center for Education Statistics.”
While the sources mentioned above undoubtedly support Obama’s claim, the 2006 Progress in Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) gives us a different impression. This evaluation conducted in 45 different education systems lists the average U.S. 4th-grader 40 points above international average (540pts. vs. 500pts.).
Moreover the 1999 Civic Education Study (CivEd) carried out in 28 countries by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) shows U.S. 9th-graders considerably performing above average on the total civic knowledge scale. This measures the “knowledge and understanding of key principles that are universal across democracies” and ranks the United States 6th, scoring 106 points, which is 6 points above international average and 5 points below the score of Poland, the leading nation.
If one takes a look at higher education, the Shanghai Jiao Tong University’s 2007 Academic Ranking of World Universities lists 17 U.S. universities among the world’s top 20. Yet this American domination diminishes as one increases the number of universities in the “top group” – while there are 54 U.S. universities among the top 100, one can “only” find 166 American universities among the top 500. This still significantly exceeds the amount of top 500 universities of the UK (42), the 2nd best country in the ranking.
Lesson: Barack Obama’s claim that the American “education system has fallen behind” is not specific enough and thus only partly correct. He needs to clarify which part of the U.S. education system he talks about, i.e. which grade and which subject. Concerning science and mathematics skills of 15-year old students and 12th-graders he definitely seems to get the facts straight. But, for instance, when it comes to civic knowledge of 9th-graders, or reading skills of 4th-graders, Obama’s statement does not hold true, at least not in the years the tests above were taken.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
McCain Overstates Obama’s Ties to Indicted Businessman Rezko
by Meagan Gamble
Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama has been under fire recently for his alleged ties to indicted Illinois businessman Antoin “Tony” Rezko, who was convicted in June 2008 on 16 charges of corruption related to his ties with Illinois governor, Rod Blagojevich.
A recent political ad from the McCain campaign claims that Obama is “born of the corrupt Chicago political machine”, and calls Rezko Obama’s “money man.” But just how tight are these alleged “ties” between Obama and Rezko?
Not as tangled as McCain would like you think.
Obama and Rezko met in 1990, when Rezko, then a low-income housing developer, offered Obama a job. He turned it down. However, Obama took a job in 1993 at a small law firm in Chicago, Davis Miner Barnhill, that represented the Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp., which later partnered with Rezko’s firm in a 1995 deal to convert an abandoned nursing home into low-rent apartments. Reports from Davis Miner Barnhill say that Obama spent a total of 32 hours on the project, only 5 of which came after the partnership. The rest of Obama’s time was spent trying to solidify the deal between WPIC and Rezko’s company, Rezmar Corp. Rezko partnered with other clients of the firm in later deals, but none of them involved Obama.
Then, following Obama’s election to the US Senate, Rezko’s wife Rita bought adjacent lots of property in the Kenwood neighborhood in Chicago. The property was sold to Obama for $1.65 million, about 300 grand below the asking price. Rita Rezko paid the full market price, $625,000, for the property next door. (When questioned why he had not paid the full market price for his property, Obama attributed it to the real estate market and the fact that his property had been on the market for quite some time, which tends to bring down the asking price.) The deals were both made in June 2005. In December 2006, Obama paid Rita Rezko $104,500 for a strip of her property so that he could have a bigger yard. At the time, Rezko was under intense media scrutiny for the federal investigation into his career, and questioned later about the decision, Obama has called it “a mistake”:
“With respect to the purchase of my home, I am confident that everything was handled ethically and above board. But I regret that while I tried to pay close attention to the specific requirements of ethical conduct, I misgauged the appearance presented by my purchase of the additional land from Mr. Rezko. It was simply not good enough that I paid above the appraised value for the strip of land that he sold me. It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business deal that would allow him, or anyone else, to believe that he had done me a favor.”
Since then, Rezko has contributed funds to Obama’s campaign throughout his political career. Obama has said that Rezko raised close to $60,000, and when Rezko was indicted in 2006, the presidential candidate donated about $11,500 to charity, an amount that represents what Rezko contributed personally.
In regards to Obama’s personal relationship with Rezko, in an interview with the Chicago Sun-Times, Obama has clarified that they were far from old friends: “I have probably had lunch with Rezko once or twice a year and our spouses may have gotten together on two to four occasions in the time that I have known him.”
Obama has also asserted that neither he nor his wife, Michelle, have participated in any other transactions of any kind, financial or legal in nature, with Rezko, and maintains that the real estate deal was a lapse in judgment on his part.
Furthermore, the McCain ad was released on September 22, the same day that news broke that Rick Davis, McCain’s campaign manager, was paid $2 million dollars to lobby against tougher regulations for the mortgage empires Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The timing of this is a little too convenient to be a coincidence.
Lesson: In any presidential campaign, a candidate will latch on to any hint of a scandal to sling mud at an opponent. McCain took a small connection between Rezko and Obama and tried to blow it out of proportion to cast Obama as having faulty judgment and ethics. In reality Obama and Rezko are just acquaintances. It is up to the public to discern fact from spin and realize when the innuendo is just that – innuendo.
McCain Distorts Biden's Plan for a New Iraq
by Alyssa Keninger and Kristin Simpson
In an interview on CNN’s “American Morning” John McCain said,
“Joe Biden said Iraq had to be broken into three different countries. One of the more cockamamie ideas that I’ve heard in a long, long time.”
Did Joe Biden really propose that Iraq should be split into three different countries?
The story starts back on May 1, 2006. Joe Biden, along with Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council of Foreign Relations, worked together to develop a plan for Iraq dividing the nation into three regions, not countries.
A New York Times op-ed article written by Biden and Gelb sheds light on the origins of their plan as well as some of the details of their plan for Iraq. Their idea originated from the splitting of Bosnia into sections for Muslims, Croats, and Serbs. The Bosnian government still existed; it was just broken into these smaller regions under the central government. Over the past ten years, Bosnia has developed into a more peaceful nation, and the central government is gaining strength.
Biden’s actual plan for Iraq is similar to this plan from Bosnia. It does not split Iraq into three countries; it simply splits it into three regions. There is one region for each major religious group, Shiite, Kurds, and Sunni. These regions would be in charge of their own domestic laws, internal security, and administration, much like our states. These separate regions all fall under one central Iraqi government that controls foreign policy, border control, and oil revenues. The plan also included laws protecting women and other religious minorities as well as creating a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq.
Biden believes this plan is a good option that should be considered, but he says there is evidence that it is already taking place in an effective manner. On board his plane, he told reporters,
“They may not want to call it what I was talking about. But the end result is, there is a lot of autonomy in the Anbar province today. There is a lot of autonomy up in the Kurdish area today. And there is increasing autonomy in the Shia regions.”
There have been many U.S. and Iraqi officials that have supported the Biden-Gelb plan for Iraq. Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State, supported the Biden-Gelb plan, saying Iraq needed,
“more efficient regional government leading to substantial decrease in the level of violence, to progress towards the rule of law and to functioning markets could then, over a period of time, give the Iraqi people an opportunity for national reconciliation — especially if no region is strong enough to impose its will on the others by force.”
The National Security Advisor to Iraq, Muwaffaq al-Rubaie, said the following of Senator Biden and his proposed plan for Iraq in a CNN interview,
“I don't think Senator Biden has said that Iraq should be divided into three sections. What I think – and I can't agree more with Senator Biden and his article, and I think he is a very well-informed person. What we are talking here – and he’s talking about Iraqi constitution. The constitution of Iraq has said very clearly that you can form provinces, regions, federal – this is a democratic federal system, and any two or three or nine or 10 provinces can get together and form a region, and form a federal unit. And this is exactly what Joseph Biden is saying, or I believe when I read his article… I think Biden’s idea is a good idea, with some modification because it’s very compatible with our permanent constitution, which was ratified on the 15th of October last year.”
Lesson: John McCain stating that Biden called for separate countries in Iraq is stretching the truth. There is a large difference between separate regions and separate countries. John McCain and Joe Biden obviously have different opinions on what is the right move to make in Iraq, but he has made a crucial misquote of Biden’s plan, drastically changing the way his audience would judge the Biden-Gelb Plan.
Biden Skews McCain's Voting Record on Veterans' Health Care
by Leah Grothe and Sara Kirsch
John McCain describes himself as America’s Maverick, defending the military and Iraq War. This enthusiasm is criticized by some veterans, as well as his opponents. On September 22nd, Joe Biden, Barack Obama’s running mate, condemned John McCain for his position on veteran issues at the National Guard Association Conference in Baltimore, Maryland. He explained,
“John McCain voted against billions of dollars in additional funding for veterans’ health care- against $2 million for TBI [Traumatic Brain Injury] research…against $500 million for mental health issues…against $400 million for inpatient and outpatient care. John wants to ration veterans’ health care to those with combat injuries, which would mean that millions fewer veterans would have access to VA medical care.”
Biden had much to say about McCain’s voting record on veteran’s health care, and did not hesitate to mention McCain’s plan for veterans’ healthcare. Are Biden’s claims correct, or is he distorting McCain’s position on veterans’ healthcare?
McCain did vote to table a Senate bill that would fund, with an offset, an additional $2 million for research, development, test and evaluation improvements of imaging for traumatic brain injuries. He voted this way because there was no proposal of how to fund the bill. He voted against a plan providing an additional $500 million to be used for readjustment counseling, relieving mental health services and treatment/rehab services. McCain also voted against granting $430 million for medical services and outpatient care for veterans.
Biden was actually correct on these three claims, but McCain does have an explanation for voting against the bills. The Army Times writes that Senator McCain believes there would be enough money available to treat veterans if the VA (Veteran Affairs) were to operate more efficiently. McCain opposes wasteful spending that goes over the executive branch’s budget. These bills, he explained, did just that. It seems that fiscal responsibility is the issue for McCain, not limiting veteran’s healthcare.
Biden also claimed that McCain wants to ration veteran’s health care; placing those with combat injuries at the top of the list and leaving millions of veterans without access to VA medical care. Unlike the other claims presented by Biden, this one is a bit farfetched. McCain has recently proposed a plan that would give vouchers to veterans with non-combat injuries. They may then receive care more quickly at private, for-profit hospitals rather than through the VA. McCain explained,
“The new card I propose will offer better alternatives, to provide the benefits they have earned. For many veterans, the closest VA facility isn't close enough…Often, all that prevents them from receiving local care is a system for sharing medical records among VA, DOD, and civilian hospitals and doctors.”
McCain further explained that his plan does not force anyone to go to a non-VA hospital and that it would not prevent any further expansion of the VA network. McCain is proposing options; therefore, millions of veterans will not be left out of VA care.
Though the proposal had initial appeal, it received much criticism from American veterans. They argued that McCain does not fully explain his definition of a combat injury, which could lead to conflict if the proposal was enacted. Others provide additional concerns that McCain’s proposal excludes non-combat veterans, who are equally important as those that served in time of war. McCain’s proposal did give vouchers for non-combat veterans to seek care outside of the government system, but it did not exclude millions from VA care. Veterans would still have access to the system.
Lesson: Joe Biden was correct about Senator McCain’s voting record on Veteran’s healthcare, but there is more to the story. Biden never explained why McCain voted against the bills, which left us to find that out from other sources. Watch out for the wording of claims made by both parties. Biden’s claim about rationing veteran healthcare was questionable. The less that is explained in a claim, the more skeptical you should be. Dig into it and uncover the facts for yourself.
Nader's Harsh Words for Biden on Criminal Justice
by Adrienne Gathman and Jessica Eufers
Ralphs Nader’s statement released August 13 had some strong words in reaction to Barack Obama’s choice for vice president Joe Biden. Nader claimed Bien was “highly regressive on criminal justice issues.” It was said that Biden could also be “credited with the world record U.S. prison population.”
Nader’s statement made many jabs at Joe Biden, but a particularly unforgiving segment claimed:
“Biden is highly regressive on criminal justice issues. He was the architect of the modern drug war (i.e., the Anti-Drug Abuse of 1986) including mandatory minimum sentencing that can be credited with the world record U.S. prison population.”
How much truth is there in Nader’s comments?
The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 is a bill that set out to strengthen Federal efforts to encourage foreign cooperation in eliminating illegal drug crops and bringing an end to international drug traffic, improve the enforcement of Federal drug laws, provide strong Federal leadership in establishing effective drug abuse prevention and education programs. Although Nader is correct regarding Biden’s part in the act,
Biden clearly admits to his part. However, Nader neglects to mention that Biden has released statements asking for elimination of certain parts of the bill. The Vice Presidential nominee also states that with the information the legislature had in 1986 regarding crack this bill made a lot of sense, but since that time, the information has been proven false and not reliable.
Biden is open on his Senate website about his part in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. However, Obama’s presidential website makes no mention of Biden’s part in the Act in its issues section regarding the crack and cocaine disparity. It instead makes remarks that both Obama and Biden will fight to repeal the mandatory minimum sentence and feel it is wrong. Biden has since called for the passing of the Drug Sentencing Reform and Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act which would eliminate the disparity between crack and cocaine, repeal the mandatory minimum sentence, and improve drug treatment for offenders. Said bill has not been passed, but it is co-sponsored by Obama and past presidential candidates John Kerry, Chris Dodd, and Hillary Clinton.
The other part of the statement that is questionable is the claim that the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 can be “credited with the world record U.S. prison population.” It is true that the United States has the world’s largest prison population and currently has the largest it ever has been. It is also said that the drug policies have had the single greatest impact on criminal justice policy, but there is no possible way to determine for sure that it is the only cause for the huge prison population.
Lesson: All of the claims made in this part of the statement are true, but have a bit of a twist to them. It is true Biden was a major part of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, but Nader failed to mention that Biden himself has said the act is faulty. It is also true that the United States has the greatest prison population it ever has, and it can be partly attributed to the changes in drug policy. However, it is one of many causes.
Obama, McCain Skewing the Facts on Social Security and Taxes
by Meagan Gamble
As November draws closer, the candidates get louder. At a campaign stop in Daytona Beach, Florida on September 20th, Senator Barack Obama criticized Senator John McCain’s social security plan: “If my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would’ve had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week.”
In a campaign ad entitled “Promise”, Obama also claims that the McCain plan will be “cutting benefits in half.” But according to McCain’s actual stance on Social Security, this isn’t entirely accurate.
While it’s true that McCain supports allowing citizens to invest portions of their Social Security into the stock market, the Arizona senator has never claimed or stated that he will cut benefits for seniors. At the GOP Primary debate in Orlando, Florida on Oct 21, 2007, McCain said: “And you have got to the American people and say we don't -- we won't raise your taxes. We need personal savings accounts, but we got to fix this system.”
The Obama “Promise” ad goes on to quote John McCain from a March, 2008 interview with the Wall Street Journal, in which he said that he “campaigned in support of George Bush’s proposal,” referring to a 2005 proposal from George Bush which planned for “progressive price indexing.” This plan has nothing to do with privatization of social security. It was instead an attempt to stabilize Social Security benefits for future retirees – under the current plan, the rate of inflation would make it impossible for the budget to cover benefits for anyone by 2041.
Furthermore, a 2005 study by Jason Furhman (who is now an economic advisor for Obama), found that the 2005 Bush proposal would in fact cut benefits substantially, but only for future retirees – it would do nothing to impact those who currently receive benefits. The Social Security Network had similar findings.
But Obama is not the only candidate skewing the facts. Time and time again, McCain has misrepresented Obama’s tax proposal, going so far as to even claim that Obama would “voted in the United States Senate to increase taxes on people who make as low as $42,000 a year” in the first presidential debate. This is not true. While Obama voted twice this year on budget resolutions to allow tax cuts proposed by George W. Bush to expire in 2010, the budget resolutions do not have the force of law and would not specifically raise taxes at all.
In an ad entitled “Expensive Plans,” John McCain claims that Obama’s plan will include “painful tax increases on working American families,” which has been a repeated line throughout his campaign. But according to Obama’s actual proposed tax plan, no American family making less than $250,000 a year would see taxes increase.
Furthermore, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that: “Senator McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those tax cuts would be small as a share of after-tax income.”
As for Obama’s plan? “Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise significantly.” This is almost the exact opposite of what McCain claims that Obama is planning.
Lesson: in the fervor of the last leg of the election, each candidate attempts to gain last minute supporters, often by misleading and even outright lying about their opponent. In order to get the true story on each candidate, extra research outside of campaign speeches and debates is essential.
Palin Trumps Obama in Earmarks
by Alyssa Keninger and Kristin Simpson
The McCain-Palin campaign has made attacks on Obama’s earmark spending. But after a look at the numbers, the claims don’t match up.
It all started when Obama accused Sarah Palin of lobbying for the Bridge to Nowhere and then later hiding her original stance on the project when it became unpopular, according to the Wall Street Journal. “You can’t just make stuff up. You can’t just recreate yourself. The American people aren’t stupid,” Obama said.
McCain spokesman Brian Rogers responded with, “The only people ‘lying’ about spending are the Obama campaign. The only explanation for their hysterical attacks is that they’re afraid that when John McCain and Sarah Palin are in the White House, Barack Obama’s nearly $1 billion in earmark spending will stop dead in its tracks.” At a rally on September 9, John McCain also claimed that Obama had requested nearly a billion dollars in earmarks.
The non-partisan, non-profit organization Citizens Against Government Waste has devoted themselves to eliminating waste, mismanagement and inefficiency in the federal government. They have defined a pork project as a line-item in an appropriations bill that designates tax dollars for a specific purpose in circumvention of established budgetary procedures.
So where does Obama fall in the pork game? Obama’s 54 projects for fiscal year 2008 total $97.4 million. When ranked from most pork to least, Obama comes in at number 70. McCain sits in a five-way tie for last place, with a total of $0. USA Today says Palin is sitting on $155 million for 2008. If Palin was a senator, she would come in 44th, sitting well above Obama.
But in terms of residents, Palin takes the prize in the pork-spending contest. According to the Associated Press, Palin has requested $750 million in her two years as governor—the largest per-capita request in the nation. When you break the numbers down per resident, Palin’s 2008 earmarks come out to about $231 per capita, compared with earmarks of roughly $22 per person in Illinois.
CNN claims that indeed Obama has requested $1 billion in pork in his nearly four years as senator. That’s an average of $250 million a year. Apply the same means to Palin’s record and she ends up with $375 million per year.
McCain, the fearless leader of anti-earmark spending, has spent much of his career fighting the special spending system that allows politicians to gather cash for pet projects back home and has even published lists of these financial gifts. And Alaska’s most recent governor has not gone unnoticed by her presidential running mate. In recent years, McCain’s inventory of “objectionable spending” has included the small Alaskan town of Wasilla three times. All three of those porky projects were requested by the mayor at the time, who just so happens to be Palin.
To add to all of the pork-talk, in September McCain claimed that Palin didn't take any earmarks as governor—false! She took $198 million in February alone. When talking about Palin, a McCain spokesperson quotes McCain as saying she has a “record of reforming government, which includes cuts in wasteful spending in the Alaska state budget.” The spokesperson also said that McCain didn’t mean to give people the wrong impression: “it certainly wasn’t intentional or without some basis in fact.”
What does Palin say? That depends on when you ask her. In an interview, Palin first said she approves of the elimination of earmarks. Later on, in the same interview, she said she just wants to reform the process, saying she wanted it “to be in the light of day, not behind closed doors, with lobbyists making deals with Congress to stick things in there under the public radar.” But as recently as this year, Palin has shown support for earmarks in a column in the Fairbanks News-Miner, calling her earmark request “a responsible approach.”
Lesson: You can’t heed every claim you hear. McCain’s campaign attacked Obama’s earmark spending. But the same campaign also attacked Palin’s earmark spending, and then falsely denied that she had any pork projects as governor. And then there’s Palin, who changes her mind on her stance on earmarks. Through the melee of all of the accusations, one thing stands clear. Obama has less earmark spending than Palin, both per constituent and per year. When the claims don’t add up, look at the figures. Numbers don’t lie.
“Maverick” McCain is Right on Boeing Scandal
by Sara Kirsch and Leah Grothe
Presidential hopeful, Senator John McCain spoke on CNBC’s "Squawk Box" September 16 about the need to control excess government spending. When asked how he would promote change in the current Republican party on this issue, he responded,
"I fought against spending and I think the problem has not been taxes, the problem has been out of control spending . . . I broke a scandal on Boeing that was going to cost taxpayers an additional $6 (billion), $7 billion where people went to jail."
Is McCain exaggerating his role in the Boeing scandal? Or is he telling the truth?
In 2003, the New York Times reported that the Air Force presented Congress with a $20 billion plan to lease 100 Boeing 767’s as replacements of Vietnam war-era airplanes currently used in Iraq. The Air Force claimed that this was the fastest way to acquire new and updated aircrafts. They made this claim despite the fact that the Vietnam-era tankers could be upgraded for a lower cost.
The lease deal between the Air Force and Boeing was extremely lucrative for Boeing. Leasing 100 Boeing tankers was equivalent to the profit of selling approximately 1000 commercial airliners. Senator McCain was an opponent of this deal from the beginning. He led the Senate Commerce Commission in a hearing where he acquired important documents from Boeing that clearly showed Boeing, not the Air Force, controlled the acquisition. McCain stated that the committee’s review showed,
"an extremely aggressive sales pitch not only by a company whose mission is to protect its shareholders and to make profitable deals, but by the United States Air Force whose mission is very different."
The interests of Boeing clearly differed from those of the Air Force; Boeing’s interest was self profit, while the Air Force’s aim was to increase national security.
McCain went on to release the documents to the Senate in hopes that the revelation would kill the deal between Boeing and the Air Force. Instead, he hesitantly voted for the National Defense Authorization Act for the 2004 Fiscal Year, which allowed the Air Force to lease only 20 tankers from Boeing and buy the other 80. The bill in effect did save taxpayers approximately $6.7 billion, the committee concurred. This would make McCain’s claim about saving taxpayers between 6 and 7 billion dollars true.
As to McCain’s claim about people going to jail, this was in effect true but underlined with exaggeration. Two top Boeing executives did go to jail; Vice President of Missile Defense Systems Darleen Druyun was sentenced to nine months in prison, while Chief Financial Officer Mike Sears was only sentenced to four. While information uncovered by John McCain may have proven beneficial to the company, the two employees were arrested for negotiating Druyun’s possible employment at Boeing while she was still considering the contract. The two faced no hard time and McCain overstated his role in the arrests.
Lesson: Do not take everything at face value. While Senator McCain’s claim was mostly true, he discussed the facts in a way that place himself in a better light, and as the "law and order," anti-corruption candidate.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Giuliani’s Definition of Sanctuary City is Shaky
by Emily Schettler
Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani has been under fire since the recent YouTube Republican Presidential Candidate Debate.
The first question of the night was directed at Giuliani, accusing him of running New York City as a “sanctuary city.” Ever since that night, Giuliani has been trying to shake the idea that he supports illegal immigration.
The debate question was posed by Ernie Nardy, a resident of Brooklyn, New York:
“Under your administration as well as others, New York City was operated as a sanctuary city, aiding and abetting illegal aliens. I would like to know, if you become president of the United States, will you continue to aid and abet the flight of illegal aliens into this country?”Giuliani said that New York City was not a sanctuary city. Is he right?
The heart of Giuliani's debate reply was that there were three narrow exceptions where he (and the city) gave illegal immigrants a break:
“New York City allowed the children of illegal immigrants to go to school. If we didn’t allow the children of illegal immigrants to go to school, we would have had 70,000 children on the streets at a time in which New York City was going through a massive crime wave, averaging 2000 murders a year, 10,000 felonies a week…Emergency care in the hospital and being able to report crimes. If we didn’t allow illegals to report crimes, a lot of criminals would have gone free because they’re the ones who had the information.”Giuliani now defends his record, claiming that “we reported thousands and thousands of names of illegal immigrants who committed crimes to the immigration service.”
So, what constitutes a sanctuary city? Did aiding undocumented immigrants to enroll in school and receive health care establish New York City as a safe haven for those who are here illegally?
A Congressional Research Service Report from August 2006 defined a sanctuary city as a place that has “utilized various mechanisms to ensure that unauthorized aliens who may present in their jurisdiction illegally are not turned in to federal authorities.” New York was one of 31 cities listed in the report.
A 2003 article from the New York Times reported that Michael Bloomberg changed the city’s longstanding immigration policy. That policy, which was in place when Giuliani was in office, prohibited city agencies from reporting a person’s immigration status to federal authorities, an approach that was meant to protect undocumented but otherwise law-abiding immigrants who need police aid, medical treatment, or other services.
In 1996 Congress put into place the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which made it illegal for states to take action to prevent reporting illegal immigrants to federal authorities. The policies in place in New York City while Giuliani was mayor did just that. By refusing to take any information, city employees could not determine if those they were working with were here legally.
While Mayor of New York City, Giuliani clearly stated that he welcomed even illegal immigrants, saying: "If you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you're one of the people who we want in this city."
It is understandable that Giuliani would want to maintain good relations with immigrants in his city. According to a New York Times article, immigrants account for 37 percent of the city's population, and 14 percent of families have at least one undocumented person. Ruining relations with a group that large could certainly end anyone’s political career.
However, sanctuary cities have created several problems for cities like New York, and the nation as a whole. According to the American Medical Association, illegal immigrants dry up billions of tax dollars in medical treatments, including child birth and emergency room trips.
As mayor, Giuliani opposed welfare reform, because it would require government employees to document the immigration status of those who applied for aid.
Lesson: When Giuliani was Mayor of New York, his constituency was made up of many immigrants and people close to them. Now that he’s running nationally, Giuliani’s immigration position has "morphed" to fit with conservative Republicans, who are a large share of primary voters.
Edwards Gets His Facts Straight on Poverty
by Blair Boyd and David Albrecht
At the Democratic Debate in Las Vegas on November 15th, former Senator John Edwards presented several statistics involving hunger, poverty, and health care in the United States. His claim:
“Thirty-five million Americans last year went hungry. Thirty-seven million people in this country live in poverty every day. Forty-seven million Americans have no health care coverage.”
Is Edwards exaggerating the problem, or is he entirely correct?
Statistics from reliable sources back up Edwards’ claim, beginning with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The USDA said that in 2006, a total of 12.65 million households suffered from “food insecurity”. These 12.65 million households include 35.52 million people, 12.63 million of them children. The USDA measures “food insecurity” as “having difficulty acquiring enough food for the household throughout the year.” This survey conducted represented 294 million people. With the government's estimate of the 2006 population just shy of 300 million, the survey from which Edwards draws his statement gains credibility and accuracy.
According to the Institute for Research on Poverty, in 2006it was measured in that 36.5 million people (12.3 percent of the total U.S. population) lived in poverty. Poverty is measured by comparing pretax income with the poverty threshold, which is determined by family size and composition. These thresholds were developed by taking the cost of a minimum adequate diet for families of different sizes and multiplying the cost by three to allow for other expenses. Families that fall below that threshold are then considered poor.
The U.S. Census Bureau’s most recent data on those without health care puts figures at an estimated 47 million. This number has risen from 2005, putting it at an all time high.
Lesson: Presidential candidates need to make sure the facts they are presenting to the public are the correct information. Edwards has done a good job here of presenting the correct facts on this important issue. He has done the research to present accurate figures, lending credibility to his experience on povery issues.
Biden Paints Bleak Picture on Retirement Income
by Ali Jepsen
Democratic presidential candidate, Joe Biden, went straight for the jugular a few weeks ago when proposing a plan for the current issue of retirement savings. The topic has been especially prevalent in this campaign since the current administration is now experiencing the first influx of retiring Baby Boomers, with millions to go in the next 20 years. The senator from Delaware cited dismal statistics about our current workforce and left much doubt as to whether the nation can handle such a huge amount of retirees. In hopes that these statistics were incorrect, this "fact check" looked into them further.
In an effort to alert the public to the severity of the problem, Biden claimed that, currently, only 20% of workers have pension plans. This contrasts with an earlier statement that over 80% of Americans in the workplace had these plans in the 1980s. While the source for the latter statistic is still unknown, an article in CNN Money (quoting the Bureau of Labor Statistics) does show that only 21% of workers are currently covered by defined-benefit plans. If you choose to forgive Biden the 1% difference, his claim istrue. With only 21% of workers covered, this does not account for the millions of Baby Boomers, let alone those in the workforce who will retire after them.
If these statistics aren’t disheartening enough, Biden went on to comment on retirement plans, or the lack thereof, in the U.S. According to Biden, half of the American workforce is without such a plan. This claim in supported by an article on the Retirement Security Project’s web site.
Finally, Biden explained that part of America’s problem with retirement savings is a result of a lack of savings in general. He claimed that the average savings rate in the United States is less than 1%. While this number seems shockingly low, the current data (provided by the Bureau of Economic Analysis) speak volumes about the short-term perspective of many U.S. consumers.
Lesson: Biden seems to be somewhat lost in the present muddle of the Democratic race, but his numbers on retirement security are on track. His policies and plans to reverse these depressing trends are what will define his success in the caucus.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Rudy Takes Iran's Ahmadinejad to Task
by Molly Mishler and Katie Thielen
In an interview with a Maine television station WMTW on Monday September 24, 2007, Rudy Giuliani said of Iranian President Ahmadinejad:
“He’s the leader of one of the governments that’s one of the biggest supporters of terrorism in the world. He denied the Holocaust; he’s threatened the future survival of Israel. I believe he’s even threatened at various times American interests and he keeps threatening to develop nuclear capacity.”The subject was brought about after Ahmadinejad was invited by Columbia University to speak to the college. Many Americans (and their leaders) were outraged that the university would invite such a controversial figure to campus to openly promote his views. In his speech, Ahmadinejad defended his controversial remarks over Holocaust and Israel, saying he’s an academic who just posed questions.
Are Giuliani’s claims about Ahmadinejad “on target”?
“He’s the leader of one of the governments that’s one of the biggest supporters of terrorism in the world.”
In a testimony before the U.S.-Israeli Joint Parliamentary Committee, Paula A. DeSutter, Assistant Secretary for Verification and Compliance for the U.S. State Department testified,
“Iran is the most active state sponsor of terrorism. Its Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and Ministry of Intelligence and Security continue to be involved in the planning and support of terrorist acts and continue to support a variety of groups that use terrorism to pursue their goals. Iran's support includes funding, providing safe haven, training, and weapons to a wide variety of terrorist groups including Lebanese Hizballah, HAMAS, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Liberation Front for Palestine-General Command. Its support of HAMAS and Palestinian Islamic Jihad is of particular concern, as both groups continue their deliberate policies of attacking Israeli citizens with suicide bombings.”“He’s threatened the future survival of Israel.”
In a recent speech discussing Israel’s possible attack on Lebanon, Ahmadinejad said,
“If this year you repeat the same mistake of the last year, the ocean of nations of the region will get angry and will cut the root of the Zionist regime from its stem.”Ahmadinejad warned Israel that “60 years of invasion and assassination is enough. If you do not cease invasion and massacre, soon the hand of power of the nations of the region will rub you criminals with earth.”
Ahmadinejad’s views are part of his extreme religious and ideological beliefs. He evidently believes that his government must prepare for the Imam’s imminent return and that it is his duty to trigger a period of chaos, war, and bloodshed that will lead to the coming of the Mahdi.
“I believe he’s even threatened at various times American interests.”
In an article in the New York Daily Times, staff writer, Adam Nichols, stated:
“On the eve of his trip to New York City, Iranian President Ahmadinejad stood before a banner blaring ‘Death to America,’ showed off his military might and declared his extremist regime will not bow to Western pressure.”In addition, Deputy State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said of Iran in a recent interview:
"We view Iran's efforts to further develop its missile capabilities as a threat to the region and to the United States' interests."Ereli made the remarks after Iran announced on Tuesday that it has the power to launch a missile with a 2,000 km range.
Lesson: The claim by Rudy Giuliani about Amhadinejad is well within the realm of factual information, based on statements by Amhadinejad and intelligence sources.
Richardson Laments Science & Math Education
by Jamie Corey and Amanda Yanchury
In a debate on ABC news on August 19th, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said the following:
“…you know we are 29th in the world in math and science. We need to have 100,000 new math and science teachers. We have to be number one again.”
Is he correct that the U.S. lags far behind other nations in math and science education?
From our research, we found no study for K-12 education that encompasses all countries; this is not surprising, given that some nations do not have full secondary education systems, and others do not test or keep records in the same way developed nations do. We found a fairly comprehensive, authoritative source in the “Trends in Mathematics and Science Study” by the National Center for Education Statistics. All of the studies on the group’s web site include limited numbers of countries for their collection of data.
According to an NPR article on how the U.S. measures up in math and science, the data do not match up with Richardson’s claims. The article explained that a team of experts compared American students’ rates of success in math and science to that of students in other countries. According to the study, in math and science, “American students are no worse, and often score better, than students from many leading countries.”
Another report on how the United States measures up in math and science, this one written by the Urban Institute, reaches a similar conclusion. The two researchers, Salzman and Lowell, found that, “the United States is one of only a handful of nations that maintained or improved test performance in all subjects, grades, and years tested.”
Lesson: We found statistics that conflict with Gov. Richardson’s claim about education in the U.S. We tried to contact the campaign for information on where Richardson obtained his data, but the campaign did not respond to repeated inquiries. For now, the evidence for his claim mixed and inconclusive.
Update: FactCheck has posted an article on Richardson's claim that the U.S. is 29th in the world in math and science. The claim is debunked in the article, with ample evidence. Check it out!
Giuliani Plays Up NYC Tax Cuts and Crime Drop
by Alex Bardole
In a television ad (“Leadership”) that ran in Iowa recently, Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani makes claims about his record as mayor of New York City. The context of the ad is the voice of Giuliani, with text on the screen reinforcing his various claims. Are his claims accurate?
The first claim Rudy made was the following: “I cut taxes dramatically…” (TEXT ON SCREEN: “cut taxes 23 times”). Upon further inspection, the non-partisan group FactCheck.org ran an article about this very same statistic in recent weeks. According to FactCheck, eight of the 23 tax cuts came either from the city council or from the state government.
In a recent New York Daily News article, former councilman Peter Vallone weighed in on the claim: “The correct nomenclature would be ‘we cut taxes’ instead of ‘I cut taxes’”.
It seems Giuliani is taking credit for what was, in some cases, a collective effort. This helps him win points among voters as a fiscal conservative, or as he puts it in his ad, “a candidate that has fiscal discipline.”
Another claim in his ad is that he “cut crime in half” in New York City. According to the Citizens Budget Commission, a civilian budget watchdog, this claim is correct. From the time Giuliani took office to the time he left, violent crimes in New York City decreased by more than 50%. Just to add context to that record, however, it is important to note that the national crime rate decreased by 32%. In addition, whereas the crime rate decreased, the rate of civilian complaints against New York Police Department officers increased by 41%.
Lesson: Giuliani, like many other candidates, is selectively highlighting his record as mayor of New York City to play up his strengths and gloss over weaknesses. We leave it up the voters to decide whether it is right for him to claim credit for tax cuts proposed and pushed by other players in local government.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Romney Defines His Record on Taxes/Fees
by Blair Boyd and David Albrecht
At a Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan, former governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney got into a heated discussion with former mayor of New York City Rudolph W. Giuliani. The controversy centered on the issue of the handling taxes during each candidate’s time in office. Giuliani criticized Romney, saying that per capita taxes and spending under Mr. Romney had increased while per capita taxes and spending under him as mayor had fallen. Romney responded by saying,
“It’s a nice line, but it’s baloney. I did not increase taxes in Massachusetts. I lowered taxes.”So who is right in this squabble? We look at the context of taxes and fees in Massachusetts.
While this statement is literally true in the sense that he did not “raise taxes”, he did take other measures which can be interpreted as an increase in taxes. These measures included: raising fees upwards of $400 million by increasing costs for getting married, buying a house, bringing a case to court, and using a public golf course. Romney also quintupled the per gallon delivery charge for gasoline.
In addition to raising multiple fees, Romney also raised more than $300 million by closing so-called corporate loopholes, what the business community considers the same as a tax increase.
According to John Berthoud, president of the National Tax Payers Union, “Closing tax loopholes and not cutting rates concurrently—that’s a tax increase.”
Eric Fehrnstrom, a spokesperson for Governor Romney countered this concept of closing loopholes by stating that they were more about tax enforcement than tax increases. He goes on to define one of those loopholes by saying,
"The biggest loophole closing involved banks that were calling themselves real estate companies in order to avoid bank taxes. Those were the types of abuses we stopped. That's called tax enforcement."Steven Slivinski, director of budget studies at Cato agrees with the business side of the loophole concept.
“Romney’s people are trying to spin this by saying he kept his ‘No new taxes’ pledge. I guess if you consider only personal income taxes and sales taxes, he’s within bounds. If you take a broader view, he is not.”Lesson: Former governor Romney has sugarcoated his record a bit, only presenting one angle to how he handled taxes in the state. He approved of policies that in the public eye might not be considered the same as tax increases, but anti-tax groups beg to differ. We leave it up to your judgment whether closing loopholes equates to raising taxes.
Gov. Richardson Points to Home State Job Growth
by Casey Johnson
On his website, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson boasts that he has overseen the creation of 80,000 jobs in New Mexico, many of them good, high-paying jobs. Is it true?
FactCheck.org, a respected political “watchdog” group, offers this summary of Bill Richardson’s claim:“Democratic presidential contender Bill Richardson boasts of creating 80,000 jobs since becoming governor of New Mexico. Not yet, he hasn't. The state has gained fewer than 76,000 payroll jobs since he took office, and official figures showed a mere 68,100 gain when he first started making his inflated boast last year.”
The Albuquerque Tribune recently ran an article on their website that was critical of Richardson’s jobs claim. In the article, “Richardson's people dispute that his numbers are off and apparently have different numbers and a different definition of ‘jobs.’”
And according to the popular website, politifact.com (an affiliate of the St. Petersburg Times),“the latest employment report from the New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions, a group that tracks job data, said the state ranked 14th for job growth in August 2007. The state hasn't ranked sixth since August 2006.”
Lesson: It is clear that Richardson’s claim is mostly true. New Mexico has, undoubtedly, not fared as well as Richardson has claimed (according to the most recent data), but the state has experienced a substantial amount of job growth in recent years.
Tancredo's Basic Immigration Facts are Correct
by Katherine Hanson
Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) makes the following statement about immigration on his web site:
“There is no doubt that America is facing an illegal immigration crisis. Currently, there are at least 12 million illegal aliens living in America. I am absolutely opposed to amnesty. In addition to rewarding those who broke our laws, amnesties simply do not solve the problem of illegal immigration. The only realistic solution to the problem of illegal immigration is a strategy of attrition, which seeks to reduce the flow of the illegal alien population over time by cutting off the incentives for coming to and staying in America - most importantly by eliminating the jobs magnet. America must also reexamine its legal immigration policies. Since 1990, that number has been roughly one million yearly - and that doesn't count illegal aliens. America should reduce legal immigration to 250,000 people a year, which will allow the newcomers to assimilate.”
Is Tancredo factually correct in the statements he has made about illegal immigration? This fact check takes a closer look.
“Currently, there are at least 12 millions illegal aliens living in America.”
Estimates on the amount of illegal immigrants are hard to calculate because there isn’t a way to track them; they are, after all, undocumented. Several sources provide different numbers, but Tancredo’s 12 million figure is reasonably accurate given the range of current U.S. estimates.
According to the United States International Information Programs in a 2003 article,
“the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service estimates that some 5 million people are living in the United States without permission, and the number is growing by about 275,000 a year.”For more information click here. Other resources give numbers that are closer to Tancredo’s. For example, a popular public policy textbook (Issues for Debate in American Public Policy) states, “more than 10 million immigrants are living illegally in the United States.” Also, an article on the National Public Radio website concludes there is an estimated range of 8 to 20 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., and that the number most commonly cited is between 11 million and 12 million.
“I am absolutely opposed to amnesty.”
Looking at his voting record via the Washington Post congressional database, it seems that he supported House Resolution 4437, a bill to clamp down on illegal immigration and toughen border security. It did not include any new avenue for current illegal immigrants to gain legal status.
Project VoteSmart has a list of other Tancredo votes on stopping immigration; there are no votes for so-called “amnesty” or anything like it. For example, he voted yes to HR 6095, which affirmed the inherent authority of State and local law enforcement to assist in the enforcement of immigration laws, to provide for effective prosecution of alien smugglers, and to reform immigration litigation procedures. To view other bills Tancredo voted for dealing with immigration and other issues, visit Project VoteSmart.
“America must also reexamine its legal immigration policies. Since 1990, that number has been roughly one million yearly – and that doesn’t count illegal aliens.”
Tancredo effectively used the word "roughly" to describe the one million of legal immigrants coming into America. According to the Department of Homeland Security (2006 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics), only two years show legal immigration at over one million, three years show over 900,000 and two years show about 800,000. Tancredo’s statement here is mostly true, depending on how you define “roughly.”
Lesson: Tancredo is right of the specific facts, according to groups and agencies with the recent numbers, and he accurately pitches his opposition to "amnesty" policies.
Romney Accurate on Illegal Immigrants and Tuition
by Desiree Jackson
On November 13, 2007, while campaigning in Sioux City, Iowa, Mitt Romney accused opponents Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee of supporting tuition breaks for children of illegal immigrants.
According to the Des Moines Register,
Romney also claimed that as governor he vetoed legislation to give a tuition break at state schools to children of illegal immigrants. Is Romney telling the whole truth in this matter?“Romney contended that Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, fought for tuition breaks for children of illegal immigrants in his state, while Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, provided tuition breaks at City University for illegal immigrants.”
According to The Chronicle of Higher Education,
“The City University of New York will raise tuition next semester for students who are illegal immigrants, ending a 12-year-old policy of allowing foreigners who have attended New York State high schools to pay lower in-state tuition. Until now, such students have been allowed to pay in-state tuition rates at CUNY as long as they could prove that they had attended high school in New York for at least a year before enrolling in college.”The article was published in 2001 and Rudy Giuliani was elected as Mayor of New York in 1993. The policy of allowing illegal immigrants was in place before Giuliani took office but it did continue under his leadership as well. Students who had graduated from a New York State high school at least one year before entering college were allowed to attend New York state colleges at the in-state tuition rate, rather than paying more for out-of-state tuition.
According The Deseret News,
“Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee tried -- and failed -- this spring to extend state-funded scholarships to the children of illegal immigrants. His spokesman Rex Nelson said the proposal recognized that immigrants' children are likely to remain in the state and that Arkansas needs a well-educated work force.”As recently as November, Huckabee defended his position on illegal immigration. At the CNN-YouTube Debate held on November 28, 2007, Huckabee defended his support of providing state-funded scholarships to children of illegal immigrants.
“I supported the bill that would've allowed those children who had been in our schools their entire school life the opportunity to have the same scholarship that their peers had, who had also gone to high school with them and sat in the same classrooms. They couldn't just move in in their senior year and go to college. It wasn't about out of state tuition. It was an academic, meritorious scholarship called the Academic Challenge Scholarship. This bill would've said that if you came here, not because you made the choice but because your parents did, that we're not going to punish a child because the parent committed a crime. That’s not what we typically do in this country....It accomplished two things that we knew we wanted to do, and that is, number one, bring people from illegal status to legal status. And the second thing, we wanted people to be taxpayers, not tax- takers. And that's what that provision did.”Mitt Romney also claims that he vetoed similar legislation when he was serving as Massachusetts Governor. According to the Boston Globe,
“A bill currently being considered by the Legislature would provide in-state tuition at our public colleges and university to individuals who are in the United States illegally. Governor Romney vetoed a similar provision last June, and he is prepared to do so again.”Lesson: Giuliani supported illegal immigrants paying in-state tuition at state colleges for students who graduated from a New York State high school. Huckabee supported state-funded scholarships for children of illegal immigrants. Mitt Romney did not allow tuition breaks for illegal immigrants while he was governor of Massachusetts. Romney’s claims are correct.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Sen. Clinton Talks Economics at Simpson College
by Emily Schettler and Ali Jepsen “Right now, insurance companies have free reign to cherry pick the healthiest patients and shut out everyone who seems like a 'bad risk.' In fact, they spend $50 billion a year on elaborate underwriting calculations and schemes to figure out how not to cover people or that not to pay you for what you do once you’ve delivered the service.”
In a speech on November 3rd at Simpson College, Senator Hillary Clinton presented her goals for the United States, focusing on the middle class and the state of our economy. Clinton provided a wealth of facts and figures to support several attacks on President Bush’s economic record. Here we try to help the audience sort through these claims to see what was accurate and what was not.
According to our research, Clinton was on target in talking about our current economy. She made the claim that the general public’s income has dropped $1,000 dollars in the last six years. Looking at the U.S. Census Bureau’s most recent report, we found this fact to be fairly accurate.
Clinton provided more disheartening statistics with the claim that the nation is experiencing its greatest income disparity since 1929. This seems to be true based on an article in The New York Times Business section, which cited the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.
Clinton also noted the lack of job growth during Bush’s presidency. She stated that during Bill Clinton’s administration, a total of 22 million were created by 2000. This statistic is accurate, based on U.S. Department of Labor data listed on a Democratic web site. During Bush’s presidency, approximately 3.8 million jobs have been created, compared with 20 million jobs during Bill Clinton’s time in office. This puts President Clinton’s job growth rate at 2.6 percent and Bush’s growth rate at .5 percent.
Of course, whether Hillary Clinton would be able to replicate her husband’s success in job creation and economic grown is uncertain.
Clinton’s most surprising claim of the night came during a lengthy discussion of education reform. She stated that America has one dropout every 29 seconds. This translates to about 2,880 dropouts per day, a grand total of 1,051,200 dropouts per year. The term “dropout” is somewhat ambiguous. Clinton did not specify whether she meant the dropouts were high school students, in college, or a combination of the two. When Clinton has discussed dropout rates in the past, she has discussed it in the context of secondary, not postsecondary education, and this is the most common usage of the term.
As such, Clinton’s claim of 1,051,200 dropouts per year seems high. The National Center for Education Statistics lists the number of secondary public school students at 14,338,000. Clinton’s projection of one dropout every 29 seconds would give the U.S. a dropout rate of seven percent. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the dropout rate for America stands at five percent. In this case, Clinton’s projection is higher than the actual dropout rate.
Finally, Clinton stated, as she has frequently during this campaign, that insurance companies spend tens of billions of dollars each year to avoid providing health care for patients. The exact quote from a similar Clinton speech at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center reads:
In researching this statistic, we have been unable to find any credible information supporting or refuting Clinton’s claim. We have contacted Clinton’s campaign several times asking where they got this statistic, but our calls were not returned.
Lesson: Clinton’s basic claims are accurate, but one is slightly exaggerated, and her campaign has provided no information to support another. The larger question is whether voters will buy the idea that she can replicate her husband’s economic record.
Gov. Richardson is Right on U.S. Obesity Issue
by Katherine Hanson and Kayte Hennick
On September 19, 2007, Governor Bill Richardson made the following statement to the Obesity Society,
“As we all know, the prevalence of obesity in this country has skyrocketed in recent years. Nearly 200 million Americans- two thirds of our population – are now considered overweight or obese. The effects of this disease are not cosmetic. Millions of Americans are suffering from the effects of obesity-related illnesses. We spend at least $97 billion per year on health care needs to combat obesity.”Was his information on Americans’ health status correct, or was he just pandering to his audience?
“As we know, the prevalence of obesity in this country has skyrocketed in recent years. Nearly 200 million Americans – two-thirds of our population – are now considered overweight or obese.”
This statement made by Bill Richardson is accurate. The following graphic from the National Center for Health Statistics shows that the obesity rate has skyrocketed from about 15 percent in the late 1970s to 32 percent in 2003-2004. In less than thirty years, obesity has more than doubled.
Richardson’s next claim (nearly 200 million Americans are overweight or obese) is basically correct. According to the Weight-Control Information Network, about two-thirds of American adults (or 133 million) are overweight or obese. This figure was calculated by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from the years 2001-2004.
A measure called the body mass index (BMI) is used to calculate whether someone is overweight or obese. BMI is calculated by dividing a person’s weight in kilograms by height in meters squared. The mathematical formula is: weight (kg)/height (m²).
“We spend at least $97 billion per year on health care needs to combat obesity.”
Richardson’s information here is also correct, and even a little under the actual cost, according to our research. The total cost of combating obesity in 2001 was $117 billion. With the increase in obesity since 2001 and the changing economy, the figures are probably higher. In 2002, medical spending related to overweight and obese Americans accounted for 9.1% of U.S. health expenditures.
And obese adults incur annual medical expenditures that are 36% higher than those of a normal weight.
Lesson: Governor Bill Richardson has his facts right. There is an obesity epidemic in the United States today, and Richardson is well informed about the statistics on this situation. The question is: what would he do as President to put an end to this epidemic and reduce medical costs?
Obama and the Iraq War: Consistent Opposition?
by Nick Vilmain and Andy Hansen
During a speech in Chicago on October 2nd, 2007, Senator Barack Obama made the following statement about his consistent opposition to the Iraq War:
“In this campaign, we’ve seen who has leadership to lead the country during difficult times—I did not only oppose the war but laid out reasons that turned out to be prescient over time, and I think that says something about my judgment.”
Obama has made the Iraq War a major tenet of his campaign because he sees other Democratic candidates are vulnerable on the issue. Is he being truthful in framing his position on the war?
What’s missing from the statement is that it leaves out specifically what his reasons were for opposing the war and when he voice those views publicly. His original speech was at an Anti-War Rally in Chicago on October 10th, 2002. In his speech he correctly predicted that:
“even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather then the best, impulses of the Arab world and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.”Senator Obama deserves credit for coming out against the war and forecasting some of the big concerns that would later surface, especially when 64% of Americans (at that time, anyway) favored the war in Iraq.
Obama was vocal in his opposition to the war in Iraq. At the time, however, that was his only option because he was only a state senator. As Obama was not in the U.S. Senate in 2002, and therefore was not under the same political pressures as those who voted for the war, it is a bit speculative to guess how he would have voted on the war if he had held that office.
While there is no doubt Senator Obama made an impassioned anti-war speech, it went largely unnoticed by news outlets. In fact, we were able to find only two Illinois newspapers that made note of his speech at all.
What was the political environment in Illinois when the conflict began? In 2002 the two Illinois senators split their vote on Iraq in 2002. Democrat Dick Durbin was one of the 23 senators who voted against the war. Republican Peter Fitzgerald voted for the war and with the majority.
Lesson: Senator Obama deserves credit for his early and vocal positions on the Iraq War. But he was not yet in the U.S. Senate at the time of the vote (making his comparisons with other Senators a bit shaky), and his public opposition went largely unnoticed in the news media.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Clinton Overly Optimistic on Alternative Energy
by Desiree Jackson and Brittany McLean
Hillary Clinton claimed on October 8, 2007 that she would create a $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund that would help create millions of new jobs and rebuild the economic prosperity of the 1990s. Clinton was doing a six-city, two-day bus tour through Iowa on the “Middle Class Express” when she discussed the future of alternative energy. What do energy experts have to say about job prospects in this industry?
According to the Des Moines Register article cited above,“under her Strategic Energy Fund plan, oil companies could choose to invest in alternative energy, or pay a portion of their earnings into the government fund. The fund would pay for tax incentives for homeowners and businesses that make their houses and offices more energy efficient. Investment in alternative energy will help create new, well-paying jobs in the United States.”
According to an AP report by Mike Glover, Senator Clinton claimed:"It will unleash a wave of innovation, create millions of new jobs, enhance our security and lead the world to a revolution in how we produce and use energy."
Claim: The $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund would help create millions of new jobs.
According to USA Today,“The Apollo Alliance, a coalition of labor unions and environmental advocates, is advocating a $300 billion, 10-year public-private program to create ‘clean energy’ industries. They project the program would create 3.3 million new jobs and free the United States from imported oil. Is that a realistic goal? Economist John Urbanchuck of the consulting firm LECG LLC desciribes it as a ‘laudable’ objective that would require some new technological breakthroughs and may not be
It appears that creating millions of new jobs in alternative energy, given the smaller amount of investment Clinton is calling for, is a bit of a stretch.
politically achievable.”
From the same article,“Urbanchuck, whose specialties are agriculture and renewable fuels, estimates the ethanol industry currently employs only about 5,000 and is directly responsible for about another 100,000 jobs in associated fields such as transportation. Biodiesel employs even fewer people. He estimates 1,500 are directly employed in manufacturing another 25,000 in associated jobs. Wind and solar energy, meanwhile, are produced passively and require very few maintenance employees. Jobs in those fields involve mostly manufacturing windmills and solar panels. The United States has about 20,000 windmills that produce electricity.”
The total number of jobs in alternative energy today number less than 200,000. This makes Clinton’s claim of creating a million of jobs a “long shot.”
Lesson: New technology would be needed for the alternative energy industry to support millions of new jobs. Even with the new emphasis on alternative energy and greater funding, the field employs less than 200,000 people to date. Creating a million new jobs may not be feasible.
Giuliani's Tax Cut Claims Basically Accurate
by Chris Richert and Casey Johnson
For weeks Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney have been fighting over who is the more fiscally conservative. These arguments seem to stem from a debate in Michigan on October 9th when the former Mayor and the Governor entered into a battle of statistics. During this conversation, Mayor Giuliani touted the fact that he had reduced taxes:
“I brought taxes [in New York City] down 17 percent…”Despite some questions raised about this claim by his opponents, most of the evidence seems to support Giuliani’s contention. A compilation of statistics of New York City by National Review contributing Editor Deroy Murdock shows that between 1993 and 2001 (Giuliani’s tenure as mayor), the overall tax burden in the city did go down by 17%.
While the 17% claim sounds good, let’s put it in context. Yes, the overall drop was 17%. But what did this reduction mean to the average person? In 1993, the average New Yorker spent $8.80 out of every $100 on city taxes. In 2001, that number only dropped to $7.30 out of every $100. Put into perspective, the 17% drop is less impressive, equaling a $1.50 tax cut on every $100 that New Yorkers earned.
What about the 23 tax cuts cited by Giuliani? The 17% reduction consisted mainly of 23 tax cuts Giuliani pushed through the city council during his time in office. Of the 23, however, eight were initiated by the state, not the city. So it is not fully accurate for him to take credit for these tax cuts. Second, the Mayor actually fought hard to keep one major tax (the non-resident income tax) when other officials s sought to repeal it. The tax cut was eventually approved, but only because Giuliani backed down.
Lesson: Rudy Giuliani’s claim that he reduced taxes while mayor of New York is basically supported by the evidence, but he simplifies the context to take as much personal credit as possible for these cuts.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mitt Romney: Consistent Gun Rights Advocate?
by Emily Schettler and Ali Jepsen
Has Mitt Romney been consistent on the issue of gun control? This fact check takes a look…
In an interview with Townhall.com, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney spoke about gun control and the 2nd Amendment in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy.
About the shooting, Romney stated:“I realize people will always take the occasion of a major news event to push their own agenda. There are people in the country who fundamentally believe that people in our country should not be allowed to have guns. They’re wrong. The Second Amendment protects the rights of individual citizens to bear arms or protect themselves, and I will defend the Second Amendment. I think efforts to politicize this tragedy are mistaken and misdirected...we’ve gotta fundamentally recognize the need to protect the right to bear arms and the fact that there are people who are trying to remove that right inch by inch, and we’re gonna have to defend against that.”
However, Mitt Romney has not always held this position. In 1994 when he was running for the U.S. Senate, Romney supported the Brady Bill and a ban on assault-style weapons. These measures for gun control were opposed by gun owners and high-visibility gun rights groups like the NRA. Romney maintained this stance on the issue when he became governor of Massachusetts in 2002.
As governor, he took measures to tighten gun laws by making it difficult to obtain a weapon. In one gubernatorial debate, he announced his strong convictions on guns:"We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them….I won't chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety."
In 2004, he helped permanently ban “assault weapons” in Massachusetts when it became apparent that national laws would become more lax.
In 2005, Romney refused to pardon a military man, Anthony Circosta, who had been charged with a felony firearm offense for shooting a friend with a BB gun when he was thirteen. Romney claimed that he did not want to overturn a jury decision, but a spokesman for Romney’s campaign, Eric Fehrnstrom, also said a pardon was not given because Circosta was charged with “felony assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.” Circosta requested a pardon to obtain a license to carry so he could become a police officer in his hometown.
In June of this year, Fehrnstrom reiterated:“Our executive clemency guidelines discouraged pardons for felony firearm offenses if the purpose of the pardon was to obtain a license to carry.”
Considering Romney’s current support for gun rights, it seems odd that Romney would not pardon a man for misusing a BB gun as a thirteen-year-old.
Since beginning his presidential run, Romney’s views on gun control seem to have shifted. While he still supports the banning of all assault weapons, he now refuses to take a position on the Brady Bill – a bill he stood behind in his 1994 Senate bid. In that same campaign, he was quoted as saying, “I don’t line up with the NRA.” In August of 2006, Romney applied for membership to the NRA and now claims to be a “lifelong member” (a top membership “level” in the group).
Lesson: Voters on either side of the gun control issue should take care in examining Romney’s current stance on the issue. In this presidential nomination race, Romney has contradicted some of his prior views and aligned himself with the gun rights lobby, a core constituency in the Republican Party base.
Romney Promises Spending Cuts, "Likes Vetoes"
by Katherine Hanson and Kayte Hennick
At The Mackinack Republican Leadership Conference on September 22, 2007, Governor Mitt Romney made the following statement:
“If I am elected President, I will cap non-military discretionary spending at inflation minus one percent. If I get appropriations above that amount, I will veto them. And I like vetoes. I’ve vetoed hundreds of items already. Let’s put some fresh ink in the Presidential veto pen.”How credible is this promise? Let’s look at the context.
“If I am elected president, I will cap non-defense discretionary spending at inflation minus one percent.”
First, what is non-defense discretionary spending? Non-defense discretionary spending refers to spending set by annual appropriation levels decided by Congress (and later signed into law by the President). It includes programs like education, public highway funds, and national parks. With the growth of entitlements (i.e. social security, Medicare, Medicaid) every year, it will become increasingly difficult to find non-defense discretionary spending to cut (without running up more deficits).
Romney recently stated, “America has seen an embarrassing spike in non-defense discretionary spending” and “[capping non-defense discretionary spending at inflation minus 1 percent] would save $300 billion - $300 billion - in 10 years. And if Congress sends me a budget that exceeds that cap, I will veto that budget."
Another site provides more information about Romney’s statement. According to non-partisan watchdog FactCheck.org, what Gov. Romney is promising is literally true, but voters need more context to properly evaluate the claim. Based on interviews with Romney’s staff, FactCheck.org reports that
"Romney would make no exception for those popular programs [non-discretionary], nor would he spare law enforcement, farm aid or scientific research. The Romney campaign says he would make an exception only for "one-time spending for natural disasters and other catastrophic situations."“I like vetoes. I’ve vetoed hundreds of items already.”
Romney has made this claim a number of times and even went so far as to make a television ad to show how strongly he feels about vetoes. What he doesn’t say is that the Massachusetts legislature overturned more than 700 of Romney’s vetoes. (In Romney’s four years as Governor he issued more than 800 vetoes in total.)
Romney promises to veto, as President, any bill he believes constitutes out of control spending. In Massachusetts, the process of vetoing a bill is easier because portions of a bill can be vetoed. This is called a line item veto. The president of the United States only has two options, sign the bill or send it back to Congress.
Lessons: Mitt Romney is promising to cap non-defense discretionary spending and we have no reason to doubt his intention to do this. Romney does like vetoes and he is truthful in saying that he has vetoed hundreds of items. He doesn’t say that most of his vetoes did not stand. Romney’s voting record follows in suit with his statements. For a history of Romney’s vetoes and budget statements, click here.
Brownback Flubs in Use of Gay Marriage Stats
By Blair Boyd and David Albrecht
Is there a relationship between gay marriage laws and out-of-wedlock births? Senator Sam Brownback says yes. Further research brings his claim into question.
At the Republican Party Presidential Primary Debate, Senator Sam Brownback addressed issues dealing with family values and structures. He discussed Northern European countries that are accepting same-sex marriage as a part of a changing culture. Brownback then made the following argument:“… the marriage rates in those [nations] have plummeted to where you have ounties now in northern Europe where 80 percent of the first-born children are born out of wedlock.”
This was not the first time that Senator Brownback had used this statistic. His remarks on the U.S. Senate floor in June 2006 contained the same argument, including the exact same statistic.“You have counties in Norway where over 80 percent of the first-born children are born out of wedlock and two-thirds of the second children are. The institution no longer means much of anything. It is defined away.”
Senator Brownback is citing a specific county in Norway, a nation that he claims has redefined marriage. In the quote at the Republican Presidential Primary Debate, he instead uses the phrase “counties in northern Europe,” making the claim more broad, instead of one specific county in a particular nation.
Senator Brownback also uses the idea “redefined” when speaking about nations in northern Europe where births out of wedlock have increased. Yet, the county from which this favored statistic (the “80 percent” increase) comes is in Norway, a country where same sex marriage is actually illegal. Norway has accepted the idea of civil unions, which are registered partnerships. However, individuals joined in civil unions are not defined as part of a same-sex marriage. Brownback’s “redefined” terminology implies that Norway has changed the law to accept same sex marriage.
So is it the case that there is a relationship between definitions of marriage and out-of-wedlock births? The evidence for this claim is less than clear. A discussion of the research on this question can be found in the Washington Post’s Fact Checker column here. The basic finding is this: out-of-wedlock births have increased in places like Holland, for example, that have recently moved to accept domestic partnerships. But other nations that made the same move at the same time (Sweden and Denmark, for example) have seen no increase in the rate of out-of-wedlock births. In fact, rates of out-of-wedlock births in Europe began to rise before contemporary debates in these nations about same sex marriage.
Lesson: Senator Brownback took a limited statistic and generalized it to a larger population of Europeans. His choice of words communicated the idea that the increase in out-of-wedlock births is prevalent in northern Europe, when in fact it is not. Brownback’s key statistic, one he used repeatedly, comes from a nation where civil unions (but not same-sex marriages) are legal.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Medicare Drugs: Be Wary of Cost Estimates
by Desiree Jackson and Brittany McLean
Thomas Beaumont, a reporter from the Des Moines Register, wrote an article on Oct. 2, 2007, describing Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson’s opinion on the costs of the Medicare prescription drug benefit. In his article, Beaumont reported that,
“Thompson referred to a recent report by the U.S Social Security and Medicare Trustees that showed an estimated shortfall of $72 trillion in the nation’s entitlement programs. According to the report, $61 trillion of that involves Medicare spending. In May, the Bush administration projected that the prescription drug program would cost $734 billion over the next 10 years, billions less than previously estimated.”The issue with this statement is that the reporter says that the prescription drug program, now costing “$734 billion over the next 10 years, would cost billions less than previously estimated.” [italics added]
The fact is that this program is now costing hundreds of billions more than previously estimated. This bill’s projected cost has continuously increased throughout the past four years.
The Medicare bill (see link for full saga) originally passed by Congress in November 2003 was projected by the Bush administration to cost $395 billion over 10 years. President Bush signed the bill into law in December of 2003. Less than two months after the bill was signed, Bush announced that the bill would actually cost $534 billion, 35% more than projected. In a subsequent investigation by the U.S. Congress, the Medicare program’s actuary testified that executive branch officials had ordered him to withhold the “true” cost estimate from Congress during the debate over the bill.
In February 2005, the White House released figures that estimated the cost of the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit would cost $1.2 trillion in the coming decade.
So although the current projected cost of $734 billion (quoted in the Des Moines Register) is lower than the 2005 estimate, it is still much higher than the original cost projections for the Medicare drug benefit.
Lesson: Whether the program at issue is Medicare prescription drugs or other federal benefits, it pays to be skeptical of cost projections, especially when officials are (a) claiming to project total spending more than five or 10 years out, or (b) making these claims in the highly political climate of a closely-fought debate and vote on major legislation.
"Straight Talk" and Sen. Clinton's 2002 Iraq Vote
by Kedron Bardwell and POSC 255
In the Yahoo! News Election ’08 Democratic Candidate Mashup, an online debate, moderator Bill Maher asked Senator Hillary Clinton a question about the 2002 Iraq resolution:
“Senator Clinton, all the senators here, except Senator Obama, voted for the Iraq resolution in 2002, saying that their decision was based on intelligence that they believed to be accurate at the time. In other words, George Bush fooled you. Why should Americans vote for someone who can be fooled by George Bush?"
Clinton replied:
“Well, Bill, it was a little more complicated than that. I sought out expert opinions from a wide variety of sources. People inside and outside the government, people in my husband's administration. And I think it is fair to say that, at the time, I made it very clear I was against a pre-emptive war. And I believed that giving the president authority to go back to the United Nations and put in inspectors was an appropriate designation of authority. That is not what we have seen him do, and I've said that had I known then what I know now, obviously, I would never have voted to give [President Bush] the authority.” [italics added]
There is plenty of room for confusion here. Clinton’s use of the word “authority” seems to refer to two different types of presidential power. If the first use of the word only meant authority to go back to the U.N., then it would be odd for Clinton to say she “would never have voted” to give Bush that authority. Few Senators opposed that step. In fact, the word “authority” is probably not the right word to use here; Bush did not need Congress’ approval to go to the U.N. -- all presidents have the inherent power to do so. In this context, the meaning of Clinton’s second use of the term becomes clearer. The 2002 Iraq resolution did more than give the President a mandate to work with the U.N. It set guidelines for the possible use of military force. What follows is an in-depth look at the resolution to cut through confusion about the vote.
********
Clinton’s defense of her vote on the 2002 Iraq resolution raises three questions: (A) What did the Iraq resolution authorize, and how was this understood at the time of the vote? (B) How did President Bush interpret this authority in 2002? (C) What did Senator Clinton say about the vote in 2002, and is this different from her campaign rhetoric defending the vote today?
(A) What did the bill (H. J. Res. 114) authorize, and how was the vote understood at the time?
News reports in 2002 overwhelmingly called the authorization a “war resolution.” CNN coverage of the October 11, 2002, vote on the joint resolution (headlined “Senate Approves Iraq War Resolution”) began:
“In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.”
The title of the Iraq resolution (“Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002”) leaves little doubt about what was at stake in the vote. That being said, let’s dissect the vote in detail to reveal the nuance in Clinton’s quote. From the resolution’s “Authorization for Use of U.S. Forces” section:
“The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and (2) enforce all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.” [italics added]
The resolution clearly put the decision about war with Iraq in the hands of President Bush, by giving him the authority to use force to defend the U.S. against an existing threat, and to back up existing U.N. Security Council mandates on Iraq.
The 77-23 vote badly divided Democrats in the U.S. Senate over this very issue. Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), quoted in the above CNN report, warned that this first point of the resolution represented a “blank check” that would enable President Bush to use military force in Iraq.
In fact, two Democrats fought for amendments to limit the President’s authority: the Levin Amendment (the “Multilateral Use of Force Authorization Act,” requiring President Bush to secure U.N. Security Council approval before the use of force in Iraq could be authorized) and the Durbin Amendment (to limit the use of force authorization to cover only an “imminent” threat from Iraq’s potential WMDs, rather than a broad “continuing” threat from Iraq). Both amendments were soundly defeated. Of the Democratic Senators running for president who were in the Senate in 2002, only Senator Dodd voted for even one of the two amendments (the latter).
This second point of the authorization (enforce all U.N. Security Council resolutions) refers to the introductory section of the Iraq resolution, which catalogued the infractions of the Iraqi regime, including Iraq’s continued non-compliance with terms of a 1991 Gulf War cease fire.
Despite many concerns, the Iraq resolution that came to the U.S. Senate floor did not restrict the use of U.S. forces by requiring Bush to get U.N. approval (as Levin’s Amendment would have mandated). Congress put the power to use force in Iraq in President Bush’s hands, and gave him flexibility to, consistent with the resolution, set the time and terms of a use of force.
This is explained in a section called “Presidential Determination”. In layman’s terms, this part of the Iraq resolution relied on the President’s judgment (“determination”; it stopped short of a mandate) that peaceful, diplomatic efforts would be exhausted BEFORE U.S. armed forces would be sent against Iraq. This leads to Point B.
(B) How did President Bush interpret the Iraq resolution and his authority in 2002?
This question is best answered by looking at President Bush’s statement about the Iraq resolution when he signed it on October 16, 2002. In that press release, Bush declared:
“I sought an additional resolution of support from Congress [H.J. Res 114] to use force against Iraq, should force become necessary. While I appreciate receiving that support, my request for it did not, and my signing this resolution does not, constitute any change in the long-standing positions of the executive branch on either the President’s Constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats to U.S. interests.”
and
“Iraq will either comply with all U.N. resolutions, rid itself of weapons of mass destruction, and its support for terrorists, or it will be compelled to do so.”
This clarifies what we learned from the resolution’s text and from press coverage of the debate and vote: Bush sought Congressional authorization to move against Iraq in the case that it was (in his judgment) a continuing threat and still violating U.N. resolutions.
What the excerpt also offers is a full view of the electoral politics of the Iraq resolution, from the viewpoint of Senators who had to vote up or down on it in a tough political environment. Bush is arguing here in no uncertain terms (like his father before him) that even WITHOUT a congressional authorization, presidential power includes using force to protect U.S. interests.
In that sense, Senator Clinton could make a strong argument that her hand in the matter was “forced” by Bush. But is that her argument today in defense of the vote? This leads to Point C.
(C) How did Senator Clinton frame the vote in 2002, and is this different from her campaign rhetoric defending the vote today?
Again, the best place to find an answer is the record of Clinton’s own statements in 2002. At the time, she made a speech on the Senate floor explaining her support for the Iraq resolution. This rhetorical record in 2002 is clear (again, with some nuance). Her speech begins:
“Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq, should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein’s chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.”
She continues,
“I believe the best course is to go to the U.N. for a strong resolution that…calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization [from the U.N.] to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement
for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 U.N. resolution…”
and
“Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a U.N. resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible…” [italics added]
Finally,
“I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of the President and we say to him – use these powers wisely and as a last resort.”
Are Sen. Clinton’s arguments in 2002 different from how she is "spinning" them today? Readers will judge her by her own words. When pressed to explain her 2002 vote earlier this year, an April 11 USA Today report quoted Clinton as saying she voted for “coercive diplomacy.” She explained,
"When somebody disagrees with me, or if they want somebody who has apologized for their judgment about the use of coercive diplomacy and the role that that plays in furthering American national interests, they have other people to vote for."
In a speech to the National Association of Black Journalists on October 9, 2007 -- in reply to a question about whether the Iraq resolution authorized war -- she noted:
“I voted for diplomacy and inspection…People don't usually put it in that larger context, as what many of us thought we were voting for and what Bush did with the vote he was given. At the time, I said my vote was not a vote for pre-emptive war."
Understandably, many questions about the vote continue to dog Senator Clinton on the campaign trail.
* If she was concerned about U.N. approval (a “global coalition”) for any use of force, why did she vote against the Levin Amendment requiring it? Did she fear that the move would give up U.S. sovereignty?Lesson: This issue will not be answered in a sound bite or by a short fact-checking article. Voters who want to know more about Senator Clinton’s vote on the 2002 Iraq resolution can read an in-depth article on the issue in the New York Times Magazine here. It is clear her campaign’s intent is to minimize damage on the Iraq vote with Democratic primary voters, by framing the resolution as a vote for inspections. She is under heavy pressure from contenders who spoke out against the resolution from the start (Sen. Obama) or who more clearly labeled their votes in favor of it as “mistakes” (most of the rest). We will continue to listen to Clinton’s rhetoric explaining her 2002 vote on Iraq.
* Why does Clinton minimize what the Iraq resolution did? Could she argue instead that the President’s will to use force (with our without congressional approval) forced the hand of the Senate? Is her strategy meant to preserve this prerogative for future presidents in the area of national security and war powers?
