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.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Sen. Clinton Talks Economics at Simpson College
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?
