FACT CHECK: More of the Same False Attacks to Distract From More of the Same Failed Policy
"DFL Party News"09/04/2008
FACT CHECK: More of the Same False Attacks to Distract From More of the Same Failed Policy
More of the Same False Attacks to Distract From More of the Same Failed Policy
Tonight you heard from several speakers at the Republican Convention all repeating the same false, discredited attacks on Senator Obama in order to distract from John McCain’s promise to continue George Bush’s failed policies of the last eight years for another four. Please find the facts below.
REPEATED FALSE ATTACK: TAXES
COLEMAN: We create jobs three ways: Number One. We make government more efficient. The biggest expense of struggling families is not energy or food or transportation. It's government! Yet,
Barack Obama wants to expand it! He thinks he can grow the economy by raising taxes, which is like using Roundup Ready to grow your garden. Taxes kill jobs! We need to keep ‘em low. Number Two.
COLEMAN: The main thing is jobs. Barack Obama will tax them away and John McCain will build them here at home.
MALDONADO: To get the money, he says he will tax the rich. There aren't that many rich! Watch out, America, when someone says he's going to tax the rich, you can always bet
the middle class will get hit.
WHITMAN: Our Democratic opponents view raising taxes as the measure of their compassion and fairness.
ROMNEY: Liberals would replace opportunity with dependency on government largesse. They grow government and raise taxes to put more people on Medicaid, to take work requirements out of welfare.
HUCKABEE: John McCain doesn’t want the kind of change that allows the government to reach deeper into your paycheck
REALITY: Obama has proposed three times the tax cuts for middle class families than McCain and passed the most important middle class tax break in Illinois
95.1% “Americans Will Not See Their Income Taxes Increased” Under Obama’s Tax Plan. Anne Mathias, an economist at the Stanford Group Company, “points out that 95.1% of the American people are in households that earn less than $200,000 -- so overwhelmingly most Americans will not see their income taxes increased, if Obama's math is correct.” [ABC News, 7/7/08]
David Leonhardt Of The New York Times Wrote That, "For Most People, Obama Is The Tax Cutter In This Campaign." Leonhardt wrote that, " The Tax Policy Center, a research group run by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, has done the most detailed analysis of the Obama and McCain tax plans, and it has published a series of fascinating tables. For the bottom 80 percent of the population -- those households making $118,000 or less -- McCain's various tax cuts would mean a net savings of about $200 a year on average. Obama's proposals would bring $900 a year in savings. So for most people, Obama is the tax cutter in this campaign.” [The New York Times, 8/24/08]
· Analysts Say That Obama’s Tax Cut Plan “Offers Three Times The Break For Middle Class Families Than Proposals” Of McCain. “The tax cut plan of Democratic nominee to be Barack Obama offers three times the break for middle class families than proposals of likely Republican nominee John McCain, according to analysts working for a left-leaning think tank. Families making between $37,595 and $66,354 of annual income with Obama would get an average tax cut of $1,042 per family while McCain’s tax cut for this group would be $319, the report states.” [Nashua Telegraph, 6/12/08]
· Under Obama’s Plan The Middle Of The Middle Class Would See Taxes Cut By $1,042 A Year; McCain’s Tax Plan Would Give Them Only A $319 Tax Cut. According to the non partisan Tax Policy Center’s computations, “under Mr. Obama’s plan, the middle of the middle class, or those earning $37,595 to $66,354, would see taxes cut by $1,042 a year. Under Mr. McCain’s plan, taxes for people in that category would also fall, but by $319; the largest chunk of the benefits would go to those making $2.8 million a year or more.” [New York Times, 6/13/08]
Obama Passed A Bill Creating $100 Million Earned Income Tax Credit. In 1999, Obama was the lead sponsor of a bill making Illinois the 11th state to adopt an earned income-tax credit. The bill provided that each individual taxpayer is entitled to a credit against the tax imposed by the Act in an amount equal to 5% of the federal earned income tax credit allowed. Then-Gov. George Ryan opposed the move, but an unlikely political alliance – including Republicans and Democrats – formed to reduce the tax burden on working poor families. The AP wrote, “The new law, which offers about $105 million in tax breaks over the next three years, gives a state income tax credit equal to 5 percent of a similar federal tax credit. For the average working family making less than $30,580, that amounts to about $55 a year, or 15 cents a day. The maximum credit for families with two or more children is $191 a year.” [91st GA, HB 3939, Added Co-sponsor (4/15/00); 4/14/00, 3R P; 59-0-0; P.A. 91-0700, 5/11/00; Tribune, 4/10/99]
· Chicago Defender: EITC “Most Important Tax Break” For Working Families. The EITC has been "the most important tax break targeted to working families in Illinois." [Chicago Defender, 2/17/03]
· Obama Passed A Bill To Renew and Make Permanent the EITC. In 2003, Obama was the chief sponsor and voted for bill reenacting the Earned Income Tax Credit. Also provides that TANF block grant funds designated by IDHS as reimbursement for expenditures made by the Illinois Department of Revenue for the refundable portion of the EITC shall be deposited into the Income Tax Refund Fund. [93rd GA; SB 1935; 3/27/03, 3R P; 32-16-2; PA 93-0653, 1/8/04]
· Obama Passed Law Removing Termination Date for Earned Income Tax Credit. Obama sponsored a bill and voted to amend the Illinois Income Tax Act. Removes language that terminates the earned income tax credit with taxable years ending on or before December 31, 2002. Exempts the credit from the sunset requirements. Previously, if the credit were greater than the taxpayer's tax liability, the amount owed was simply wiped out. Beginning with the 2003 tax season, the difference between the state tax credit and the tax liability will be "refunded" to the taxpayer. Additionally, residents who don't have to pay income taxes because of low earnings will be able to get a refund equal to the state tax credit. [SJR, 9/6/03; 93rd, SB0004, 2003, Third Reading: 5/31/2003, PA 93-0534 8/18/2003; 92nd GA; HB 4172; 2002; Session Sine Die 1/7/03]
REALITY: Obama has proposed tax cuts for small businesses and such attacks are “dishonest,” “false and preposterously inflated”
Washington Post: McCain’s Claim That Obama Would Raise Taxes On Small Business Is “Dishonest.” “The McCain ad continues in the same dishonest vein: ‘He promises more taxes on small business, seniors, your life savings, your family.’ Mr. Obama would increase taxes on small business -- but only the tiny sliver that earn more than $250,000 a year. He would -- unwisely, in our view -- lower taxes on seniors, excusing those making less than $50,000 a year from paying any tax whatsoever. As for going after people's ‘life savings,’ Mr. Obama would exempt 99.7 percent of households from paying the estate tax. He would tax the ‘life savings’ only of couples who leave a combined estate worth more than $7 million.’” [Editorial, Washington Post, 8/10/08]
FactCheck.org: McCain’s Claim That Obama Would Raise Tax Rates For 23 Million Small-Business Owners Is “A False And Preposterously Inflated Figure.” “McCain has repeatedly claimed that Obama would raise tax rates for 23 million small-business owners. It's a false and preposterously inflated figure. We find that the overwhelming majority of those small-business owners would see no increase, because they earn too little to be affected. Obama's tax proposal would raise rates only on couples making more than $250,000 or singles earning more than $200,000. McCain argues that Obama's proposed increase is a job-killer. He has a point. It's true that increasing taxes on those at the top would leave them less money for other purposes, including investment and hiring in the case of business owners. But the number of business owners who would see their rates go up would be only a small fraction of what McCain says. Many would see their taxes go down.” [FactCheck.org, 7/14/08]
REALITY: Obama will give tax breaks and incentives to companies that create and keep jobs in America, as he has been doing for years
Obama Passed Law To Extend Enterprise Zones, Calling Them An “Effective Economic Tool.” Obama was the chief sponsor of bill increasing the maximum number of years an enterprise zone may be in effect from 20 to 30. In an effort to help stagnant economies throughout Illinois, Obama sponsored Bill extending the enterprise zone program in January 2001. Originally created in 1983, the program offered tax breaks to companies for construction and remodeling as well as for investments and new jobs. Some enterprise zones in depressed areas were set to expire in 2003 and were still not thriving, so the new law extended the number of years a designated enterprise zone could exist from 20 to 30 years. “This is an issue that transcends city-suburb, upstate-downstate,” Obama said, noting that communities that had used the program had found it to be an “effective economic tool” that encouraged development. [91st GA, HB 1991, 11/30/00, 3R P; 51-3-1 (BO: Y); P.A. 91-0937, 1/11/01; Chicago Tribune, 1/12/01]
· Obama Passed Another Law Expanding Number of Enterprise Zones. Obama sponsored a bill and voted to amend the Illinois Enterprise Zone Act to provide that beginning in the calendar year 2004 and until December 31, 2008, a total of 5 additional enterprise zones may be certified by the Department of Commerce and Community Affairs. [93rd, SB0133, 2003, Third Reading: 3/25/2003, PA 93-0436 8/5/2003]
· Since 1981: 281,330 Jobs Have Been Created In Enterprise Zones; 458,250 Jobs Have Been Retained In Enterprise Zones. The Illinois Enterprise Zone Association wrote on their website, “The Illinois Enterprise Zone Act was signed into law in 1982, thereby creating the Enterprise Zone Program. Together, the IEZA and the Enterprise Zone Program have been very successful at attracting investments within Illinois enterprise zones.” 35,313 businesses invest in Illinois enterprise zones, which have invested $33.4 billion in those zones. 281,330 jobs have been created and 458,250 jobs have been retained in Illinois enterprise zones. [IEZA, Accessed 4/29/08]
Obama Passed Law To Allow Small Businesses Access To Credits If They Employed Five New Workers. Obama helped pass the Economic Development for a Growing Economy Tax Credit Act which provides that a business that has 100 employees or fewer may qualify for Credits under the Act if the applicant's project involves an investment of at least $1,000,000 in capital improvements to be placed in service and to employ at least 5 New Employees within the State as a direct result of the project. [93rd, HB4285, 3R: 58-0-0, 5/13/04; PA 93-0882, 8/6/04]
· Obama’s Bill Lowered The Threshold For Participation For A Program That In The Year The Bill Was Signed, Was Projected To Create 5,282 Jobs And Retain 7,833 Jobs. DCEO Director Jack Lavin wrote, “DCEO anticipates building upon the success of the current EDGE Program through implementation of PA 93-0882 (HB4285), signed into law by Governor Blagojevich on August 6, 2004, which expands the program to include additional Illinois small businesses by lowering the qualifying employment and investment thresholds.” The State Tax Incentives for Illinois Businesses reported, “Among the findings from the Corporate Accountability for Tax Expenditure’s latest report was that 101 Illinois companies have received an EDGE (Economic Development for a Growing Economy) credit between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2005.” >From January to December 2005, EDGE program was anticipated to create 5,282 jobs and retain 7,833 jobs. [State Tax Incentives For Illinois Businesses, 1/07; EDGE Annual Report, 2005]
· EDGE Tax Credit Offered Incentives For Growing Businesses In Illinois. “The EDGE program is designed to offer a special tax incentive to encourage companies to locate or expand operations in Illinois when there is active consideration of a competing location in another State. The program can provide tax credits to qualifying companies, equal to the amount of state income taxes withheld from the salaries of employees in the newly created jobs. The non- refundable credits can be used against corporate income taxes to be paid over a period not to exceed 10 years. To qualify a company must provide documentation that attests to the fact of competition among a competing state, and agree to make an investment of at least $5 million in capital improvements and create a minimum of 25 new full time jobs in Illinois. For a company with 100 or fewer employees, the company must agree to make a capital investment of $1million and create at least 5 new full time jobs in Illinois.” [DCEO, Accessed 4/29/08]
REALITY: Obama supported repealing tax breaks for companies that shipped jobs overseas, McCain didn’t
2005: McCain Voted Against And Obama Voted For Repealing Tax Incentives For Companies That Move Their Manufacturing Plants Overseas. In 2005, McCain voted against and Obama voted for an amendment that would repeal tax incentives for domestic companies that move their manufacturing plants to offshore locations; it would use the resulting revenue to reduce the federal deficit by $3.2 billion from 2006 to 2010. [Vote 63, SCR 18, Rejected 40-59: R 0-54; D 40-4 (ND 37-3, SD 3-1); I 0-1, 3/17/05]
REPEATED FALSE ATTACK: ENERGY
COLEMAN: We increase energy supply. The Democrats' energy plan tilts at windmills and ignores the technology and resources at our disposal that would enable us to increase domestic supply. We need drilling and oil shale and nuclear and clean coal and more conservation and renewables now.
WILLIAMS: With rising electricity rates and soaring gasoline prices, Democrats say "turn down the air in your home," and, "increase the air in your tires." That's not an energy policy ... that is an Obamanation!
REALITY: Obama has expressed support for a bipartisan compromise that would cut tax breaks for oil companies, invest in alternative energies, and allow for limited new offshore drilling
Obama Said He Would Be Open To Offshore Drilling If We Come Up With “A Genuine Bipartisan Compromise” To Get To Energy Independence. “Senator Barack Obama said Saturday that he would reluctantly consider accepting some new offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico in exchange for stripping oil companies of tax breaks and extending several tax credits to spur the search for alternative fuels. At the same time, Senate Republicans appear to have dropped their insistence on opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. Mr. Obama has until now opposed any offshore drilling. But in a news conference here, he noted that there had been ‘very constructive’ talks between Senate Republicans and Democrats on this issue in recent days, applauding a plan unveiled by a group of Republican and Democratic senators to permit drilling while supporting an effort to convert most vehicles to using alternative fuels in 20 years. ‘If we come up with a genuine bipartisan compromise, where I have to accept some things that I don’t like in order to get energy independence,’ Mr. Obama said, ‘that’s something I will have to consider.’ Still, he cautioned that he was not yet ‘ready to sign off on any approach.’” [New York Times, 8/3/08]
· Tapper: “This Strikes Me As Not A Complete And Utter Reversal “But Rather “A Recognition That Energy Legislation Requires Compromise.” “Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, now says he'd be willing to consider legislation including expanded off-shore drilling if part of a larger package, despite his long-time opposition to the idea. I'm with my friend Marc Ambinder -- this strikes me as not quite a complete and utter reversal, but certainly a shift in tone and language, indicating a softening of his opposition and a recognition that energy legislation requires compromise. Not unlike Sen. John McCain's statement that when it comes to Social Security reform, everything must be on the table, even though he personally opposes tax increases. (Though the back-peddling on that was confounding.).” [ABC News, 8/2/08]
· Ambinder: “This Strikes Me As Less Of A Shift And More As A Gesture Of Sorts To The Reality That The Major Cap And Trade Legislation Next Year…Requires The Participation Of And Compromise >From The Industry.” Marc Ambinder wrote, “In an interview yesterday, Obama said that he'd be willing to accept additional domestic oil exploration as part of a bipartisan compromise on energy reform. This strikes me as less of a shift and more as a gesture of sorts to the reality that the major cap and trade legislation next year that Congress will mark up -- legislation that will be introduced regardless of who's president -- requires the participation of and compromise from the industry. The oil industry has two cards, basically, in the negotiations. One: that windfall profits taxes would disincentivize further exploration somehow... two: that, as the staple source of energy, oil companies ought to have more land/water to figure out where oil is and then tap those pools. Democrats are more likely to compromise on the second, rather than the first. Note that Obama is still opposed to expanded drilling off the coasts of Florida.” [The Atlantic, 8/2/08]
· Stoller: Obama Supported A “Real Compromise” On Energy. Obama’s position on drilling is “actually a real compromise…the compromise put forward by Obama would in fact move us forward on sustainable energy while raising taxes on the oil companies. Since opening up new areas to oil companies is more about financial manipulation of oil leases than actually drilling, this is calling the oil company's bluff.” [Open Left, 8/5/08]
· Pelosi: Obama Position On Gang Of Ten Compromise Was Presidential. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said, “What Senator Obama said is what we want a president to say…Let's look at all of the options. Let's compare them. And let's see what really does increase our supply, protect our environment, save our economy, protect the consumer, instead of a single-shot thing that does none of the above.” [Washington Times, 8/4/08]
REALITY: While Obama’s position on drilling is premised on a compromise that sets America on a long-term path to energy independence, McCain’s plan would offer neither short-term relief nor long-term solutions
New York Times: The Bush-McCain Offshore Drilling Plan “Will Not Bring Short-Term Relief From 4$-A-Gallon Gasoline, Nor Can It Play Much More Than A Marginal Role In Any Long-Term Strategy For Energy Independence.” The Bush-McCain offshore drilling plan "will not bring short-term relief from $4-a-gallon gasoline, nor can it play much more than a marginal role in any long-term strategy for energy independence." [Editorial, NYT, 7/15/08]
McCain Says Offshore Drilling Will Not Have Short Term Impact; Will Only Have a “Psychological Impact.” At a town hall today in Fresno, CA, McCain said, “So I don’t see an immediate relief, but I do see that exploitations of existing reserves that may exist, in the view of many experts that do exists off our coasts, is also a way that we need to provide relief. Even though it may take some years, the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have a pyschological impact that I think is beneficial.” [CNN Live Feed, Speech (Fresno, CA), 6/23/08: ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dHbzkXFcK4]
Washington Post: McCain’s Offshore Drilling Advocacy “Polls Well…And Is Easy To Describe, If Not A Short-Term Solution To High Gas Prices.” “McCain, in case you missed it, has shifted over the last few months from being skeptical of offshore drilling to becoming one of its most vocal proponents, touting the idea during a forum that focused on values issues at an evangelical church in Orange County and in a speech to the VFW that was otherwise all about foreign policy issues and improving services for veterans… And McCain seems to have found an issue that polls wells, contrasts with his opponent and is easy to describe, if not a short-term solution to high gas prices: offshore drilling.” [Washington Post, 8/18/08]
REPEATED FALSE ATTACK: BIG GOVERNMENT
COLEMAN: We make government more efficient. The biggest expense of struggling families is not energy or food or transportation. It's government!
HUCKABEE: “John McCain doesn’t want the kind of change that allows the government to…pick your doctor, your child’s school, or even the kind of car you drive or how much you inflate the tires."
WHITMAN: Higher taxes encourage wasteful spending, demonstrate government's inability to choose among competing priorities, and destroy your prosperity.
REALITY: IT IS MCCAIN’S BUDGET PLAN THAT WILL BREAK THE BANK
Analysts Say McCain’s Plan Would Increase The Deficit More Than Obama’s. “Experts say that both the McCain plan and the Obama plan would increase the deficit, and that neither man has adequately explained how his proposals would be paid for. But several analysts have said they believe that Mr. McCain’s plan would increase the deficit more, because of the size of the tax cuts he is seeking.” [New York Times, 6/11/08]
McCain’s Tax Cuts Will Either Explode The Federal Deficit Or Require “Unprecedented Cuts” In Federal Spending On Domestic Programs. “Sen. John McCain is proposing tax cuts that would either cause the federal deficit to explode or would require unprecedented spending cuts equal to one-third of federal spending on domestic programs. Once thought of as a deficit hawk, the near-certain Republican presidential nominee is now putting more stress on the traditional Republican orthodoxy of tax cuts.” [Wall Street Journal, 4/22/08]
New York Times: McCain’s Budget Will Add $200 Or $300 Billion To The Deficit Per Year. “The Obama campaign claims it can pay for all this, and even reduce the deficit, through tax increases and spending cuts. I think a more skeptical look at its budget leaves you worried it may add something like $50 billion a year to the deficit. But applying the same arched brow to Mr. McCain’s stated plans leaves you worried that he will add $200 billion or $300 billion or, depending on his voluntary tax system, even more.” [New York Times, 6/18/08]
Tax Policy Center Report Said That McCain’s Budget Plan Would Add $5 Trillion To The Debt Over The Next Decade. “Obama's plan -- cuts targeted to middle- and low-income Americans and increases for the wealthy -- would increase the national debt by an estimated $3.4 trillion in the next decade, the center said. Under a similar analysis, McCain's plan -- largely a continuation of Bush's tax reductions -- would add $5 trillion.” [Los Angeles Times, 7/24/08]
· Ten Percent Corporate Tax Rate Cut Would Cost $100 Billion A Year. “The proposal to lower the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% would cost about $100 billion a year.” [Wall Street Journal, 4/16/08]
· Full Repeal Of The AMT Would Cost Over $150 Billion A Year. According to the Wall Street Journal, altering the Alternative Minimum Tax for middle class families at $91 billion annually. Eliminating the AMT for up-incomer earners would be an additional $60 billion per year. [Wall Street Journal, 4/16/08]
· Gas Tax Holiday Would Cost $10 Billion. An Arizona Republic editorial questions McCain’s summer gas tax holiday proposal, asking “do we really want to extract $10 billion from the nation’s woefully underfunded transportation infrastructure?” [Arizona Republic, Editorial, 4/16/08]
· Doubling The Dependent Tax Exemption Would Cost $65 Billion A Year. “Doubling the dependent exemption would cost $65 billion a year.” [Wall Street Journal, 4/16/08]
April 2008: McCain “Changed His Position” On Balancing The Budget, Said Economic Conditions Made It Unrealistic. John McCain had previously said he would balance the budget in four years, but changed his position in April saying that “economic conditions are reversed” and it would instead take eight years. [New York Times, 4/16/08]
REALITY: Obama supports the American peoples’ choices – in health care, education and supports incentives that foster innovation and energy independence
Obama’s Heath Care Plan Doesn’t Pick Your Doctor. Obama’s “plan will not tell you which doctors to see or
what treatments to get. Under the Obama health care plan, you will be able to keep your doctor and your health insurance if you want. No government bureaucrat will secondguess decisions about your care.” [Obama For America Health Care Plan]
Obama Was A Leader On School Choice In Illinois, Doubling The Number Of Charter Schools In Chicago. Obama said, “I think that on issues of education, I have been very clear about the fact, and sometimes I have gotten in trouble with the teachers union on this, that we should be experimenting with charter schools.” Obama was the co-sponsor of collective bargaining bill requiring Chicago Board of Education to enter into a partnership agreement with the Chicago Teachers Union regarding advancing student achievement. The Chicago Tribune reported, “Chicago can authorize 15 new charter schools under legislation signed Wednesday by Gov. Rod Blagojevich that also restores some bargaining powers city teachers lost under a 1995 school reform measure. Along with opening the door to doubling the number of charter schools in Chicago, the compromise bill signed by Blagojevich gives teachers the right to be heard on such issues as layoffs, privatization and class size…Chicago Teachers Union President Deborah Lynch said she was ‘absolutely thrilled’ that the bill was signed. Lynch said she received the good news in a phone call from one of the union's Downstate lobbyists late Wednesday. She said it caps more than a year's work on behalf of the teachers union. It was also necessary the bill be signed into law well before the summer so the union and school district can begin talks on a new union contract.” [Fox News, 4/27/08; 93rd GA, SB 0019, 2/6/3, 3R P; 55-0-0, PA 93-0003, 4/16/03; Chicago Tribune, 4/17/03]
Obama Supported Innovation In Automobiles And Providing Incentives To Buy Such Vehicles; McCain Proposed A $300 Million Prize For A Better Car Battery. Factcheck.org wrote, “The most glaringly inaccurate claim in the ad is that Obama opposes ‘innovation’ in general and ‘the electric car’ in particular. The claim is based solely on Obama's dismissal of McCain's proposal to award a $300 million prize for development of a battery package capable of powering plug-in hybrids or electric cars at a fraction of current costs. Obama called McCain's approach a gimmick, but it's not true that he opposes innovation or electric-powered cars. In fact, Obama was criticizing McCain for not going far enough.” [Factcheck.org, 6/26/08]