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.

Read More...

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.

Read More...

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.


Read More...

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.

Read More...

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!

Read More...

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.

Read More...

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.

Read More...

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.

Read More...

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.

Read More...

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 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.”

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?

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.


Read More...

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Sen. Clinton Talks Economics at Simpson College

by Emily Schettler and Ali Jepsen

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:

“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 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.


Read More...

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?

Read More...

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.

Read More...

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
politically achievable.”
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.

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.

Read More...

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.


Read More...

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.

Read More...

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.


Read More...

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.

Read More...

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.

Read More...

"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?

* 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?
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.

Read More...