Posted on 07/21/2004 12:57:44 PM PDT by RWR8189
|
Rhetoric |
JOHN KERRY: “I’m John Kerry and I approved this message.”
JOHN KERRY: ““I’ve proposed a new economic plan for America. It begins by putting an end to tax incentives that are encouraging American companies to ship jobs overseas.”
CHYRON: John Kerry
CHYRON: Protect American jobs
|
The Facts |
Kerry Plan May Actually Hurt Job Creation
St. Louis Economist Said Kerry Tax Plan Will Hurt Job Creation. “How exactly would Kerry’s job-creation campaign, which begins by repealing the Bush tax cuts for Americans earning more than $200,000 a year, work? ‘A tax increase in the short run acts as a near-term drag on aggregate demand and slows the rate of increase in jobs,’ said Chris Varvares, president of Macroeconomic Advisers, a St. Louis-based consulting firm that maintains one of the large macroeconomic models of the U.S. economy.” (Caroline Baum, “Kerry’s Tax Plan To Create Jobs Doesn’t Add Up,” Bloomberg.com, 2/24/04)
Kerry Advisor Says Plan Would Create Few Jobs. “[P]eter R. Orszag, an economist at the Brookings Institution whom the Kerry campaign consulted about the plan … [said] the proposal would probably not create many U.S. jobs … ‘In terms of short-term employment growth, there’s very little effect,’ he said.” (Julie Hirschfeld Davis, “Kerry Offers Plan Designed To Curb Outsourced Jobs,” The [Baltimore] Sun, 3/27/04)
Plan Wouldn’t Stimulate U.S. Hiring. “As for the Kerry plan, David Wyss, chief economist for Standard & Poor’s, says … it [is] unlikely that Kerry’s tax policy changes would bolster hiring here, even with major changes in the tax code.” (Peronet Despeignes, “Candidates Offer Competing Plans For Job Creation,” USA Today, 3/26/04)
ü Former Clinton Advisor Agrees. “[C]hristian Weller, senior economist for the liberal think tank the Center for American Progress, said he doesn’t know if the Kerry proposal will have much impact on a company’s decision about where to base a job. ‘Tax cuts typically are a very small component in company’s hiring decisions,’ said Weller, whose colleague Gene Sperling is a former National Economic Advisor in the Clinton administration and a key economic adviser to the Kerry campaign. ‘It won’t necessary [sic] slow the move of companies and jobs overseas,’ said Weller …” (Chris Isidore, “Economists Mixed On Kerry Plan,” CNN.com, 3/26/04)
Kerry Advisors Admit Plan Will Do Little To Stem Outsourcing, Third Parties Agree
Kerry’s Own Advisors Won’t Predict If Plan Will Reduce Outsourcing. “Mr. Kerry’s advisers wouldn’t predict whether his plan actually would reduce the flow of jobs outsourced from the U.S. …” (Bob Davis and John Harwood, “Kerry Targets Job Outsourcing With Corporate-Tax Overhaul,” The Wall Street Journal, 3/26/04)
ü “Campaign Officials Acknowledged That The New Plan Would Not Stop The Broader Trend Of Outsourcing Jobs To Low-Wage Countries.” (Edmund L. Andrews and Jodi Wilgoren, “Kerry To Propose Eliminating A Tax Break On U.S. Companies’ Overseas Profits,” The New York Times, 3/26/04)
Tax Expert: Kerry Plan “Not A Solution.” “But others were not so sure the effects would be that significant, partly because the change would affect companies only locating in countries with lower tax rates than the United States, such as Ireland or Singapore. Joel Slemrod, an international tax expert at the University of Michigan Business School … added that the change in tax incentives probably would not be large enough to overcome other factors encouraging companies to shift employment abroad, such as lower wages. ‘To those who see [outsourcing] as a problem, this is not a solution,’ he said.” (Ronald Brownstein, “Kerry Wants To End Tax Break For Corporate Profits Abroad,” Los Angeles Times, 3/26/04)
Kerry Supports, Understands Outsourcing
“Supports” American Businesses Taking Jobs Overseas. “Benedict Arnold does not refer to somebody who in the normal course of business is going to go overseas and take jobs overseas. That happens. I support that. I understand that.” (Jerry Seib, John Harwood and Jacob Schlesinger, “Excerpts From An Interview With John Kerry,” The Wall Street Journal, 5/3/04)
In December 2003, Kerry Recognized You Can’t “Just Stop” Outsourcing. “Well, any candidate for president who stands up and tells people, as some are, that they’re going to just stop [outsourcing] by getting tough on trade or whatever, is lying to the American people. Outsourcing is particularly painful at this moment because we haven’t been creating jobs, and we haven’t been creating jobs to some measure because of the overhang of the 1990s, the excess capacity that we were left with and the need to sort of burn it up.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Council On Foreign Relations, New York, NY, , 12/3/03)
Kerry’s New Protectionism Hurts American Workers
Kerry Has Been Labeled A “Primary-Conversion Protectionist.” (William Safire, Op-Ed, “The Edwards Surprise,” The New York Times, 2/18/04)
Alan Greenspan Said Protectionism “Will Make Matters Worse.” “‘The protectionist cures being advanced to address these hardships will make matters worse rather than better,’ [Greenspan] said.” (Martin Crutsinger, “Greenspan Warns Against ‘Protectionist Cures’ To Deal With U.S. Job Losses,” The Associated Press, 2/20/04)
Protectionism Could Cause Americans To Lose Jobs. “Greenspan said that, ‘protectionism will do little to create jobs and if foreigners retaliate, we will surely lose jobs.’” (Martin Crutsinger, “Greenspan Warns Against ‘Protectionist Cures’ To Deal With U.S. Job Losses,” The Associated Press, 2/20/04)
American Jobs Are Being Created Through Foreign Trade
Foreign Companies Are Bringing Jobs To America. “‘The debate about outsourcing is essentially about globalization,’ said Todd Malan, Executive Director of the Organization for International Investment. ‘The media has focused on one facet of globalization: outsourcing. But the flip side of “outsourcing” jobs abroad is “insourcing” jobs to the U.S. from companies based abroad,’ Malan stated.” (Organization For International Investment, “‘Insourcing’ American Jobs Lost In ‘Outsourcing’ Debate,” Press Release, 2/13/04)
ü In 2001, 6.4 Million American Jobs Were Supported By Insourcing. “U.S. units of foreign companies employed 6.4 million so-called insourced jobs in 2001, up from 5.1 million in 1996 and 4.9 million in 1991.” (Bureau Of Economic Analysis Website, “Employment of Affiliates, State by Selected Country of UBO, 2001,” www.bea.gov, Accessed 3/11/04; Joel Millman, “Foreign Firms Also Outsource -- To The U.S.,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/23/04)
Last Year, Foreign Investments In U.S. Businesses Doubled. “In addition to hiring more U.S. businesses to provide services, foreigners doubled last year the amount of money invested in U.S. companies, plants, offices, stores and other facilities. That foreign direct investment swelled to $81.98 billion in 2003, from $39.63 billion in 2002, the government said.” (Michael M. Phillips, “More Work Is Outsourced To U.S. Than Away From It, Data Show,” The Wall Street Journal, 3/15/04)
In 2003, U.S. Exported (Insourced) $131.01 Billion Of Services. “The value of U.S. exports of legal work, computer programming, telecommunications, banking, engineering, management consulting and other private services jumped to $131.01 billion in 2003, up $8.42 billion from the previous year, the Commerce Department reported …” (Michael M. Phillips, “More Work Is Outsourced To U.S. Than Away From It, Data Show,” The Wall Street Journal, 3/15/04)
The U.S. Imported (Outsourced) Only $77.38 Billion Of Services. “Imports of such private services – a category that encompasses U.S. outsourcing of call centers and data entry to developing nations, among other things – hit $77.38 billion for the year, up $7.94 billion from 2002. Measuring imports against exports, the U.S. posted a $53.64 billion surplus last year in trade in private services with the rest of the world.” (Michael M. Phillips, “More Work Is Outsourced To U.S. Than Away From It, Data Show,” The Wall Street Journal, 3/15/04)
Outsourcing Not Cause Of Major Job Loss
Only Two Percent Of Layoffs Were Due To Foreign Outsourcing. “Shifting jobs overseas accounted for only a tiny fraction of U.S. job losses in the first three months of the year, according to a first-ever report released … by the Labor Department. … About 2 percent of the major layoffs in the first three months of the year stemmed from companies moving jobs offshore, either on their own or through hiring another firm to do the work, the Labor Department found.” (Ken Moritsugu, “Report: Offshoring Is Minor Factor In Job Loss,” San Jose Mercury News, 6/10/04)
Experts Say There Is Not “Serious Cause For Concern.” “Ravi Aron, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, says the numbers confirm that fears about a massive exodus of U.S. jobs are overblown. ‘This is not very surprising,’ says Aron, who studies the practice, commonly known as offshoring, in the services industry. He notes that moving operations abroad is not a simple activity and is risky. ‘I don’t think there is a real serious cause for concern’ for U.S. workers, he says. ‘There is a natural limit to outsourcing.’” (Barbara Hagenbaugh, “U.S. Layoffs Not A Result Of Offshoring, Data Show,” USA Today, 6/11/04)
Robert B. Reich: “Offshoring Is Not At The Heart Of The Matter … I Don’t Think It Is A Major Part Of The Job Picture.” (Eduardo Porter, “Not Many Jobs Are Sent Abroad, U.S. Report Says,” The New York Times, 6/11/04)
»»»»
|
Rhetoric |
NARRATOR: “It invests in new technologies like alternative fuel sources that’ll be a job engine in the future.”
CHYRON: Invest in new technologies
|
The Facts |
On November 21, 2003, Senate Fell Three Votes Short Of Passing Energy Bill On Procedural Vote. Kerry skipped cloture vote on the energy bill, which required 60 votes to end Democrat filibuster. Failure to end the Democrat filibuster in effect killed the bill. (H.R. 6, CQ Vote #456: Motion Rejected 57-40: R 44-7; D 13-32; I 0-1, 11/21/03, Kerry Did Not Vote)
That Same Day, Kerry Was In New Hampshire Filing His Primary Candidacy Papers. (Garry Rayno, “Kerry, Kucinich Make Runs Official On Final Day,” The [Manchester, NH] Union Leader, 11/22/03)
Energy Bill (H.R. 6) That Kerry Opposed Would Have:
ü Required A 20% Reduction In Federal Building Energy Use By 2013;
ü Eliminated The Need For At Least 130 New Power Plants By 2020;
ü Authorized $300 Million For Solar Programs;
ü Provided For An Average Of $600 Million Per Year For Existing And New Coal-Based Research And Development;
ü Provided $1.8 Billion Authorization To Carry Out Clean Coal Power Initiative;
ü Mandated That At Least 60 Percent Of The $1.8 Billion Be Used For Coal-Based Gasification Technology Which Must Met Stringent Environmental Performance And Increase Efficiency Standards;
ü Launched Programs For Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Transit Buses And Hydrogen Fuel-Cell School Buses;
ü Increased Funding For The DOT To Work On Improving CAFE Standards;
ü Required NHTSA To Consider Vehicle Safety And Automobile Industry Jobs In Determining CAFE Standards;
ü Launched Hydrogen-Powered Automobile Program To Get Cars On Road By 2020;
ü Allowed For Increased Development In The Gulf Of Mexico For Oil And Natural Gas Drilling;
ü Allowed For Construction Of The Alaskan North Slope Natural Gas Pipeline;
ü Authorized Expansion Of The Strategic Petroleum Reserve;
ü Invested In Critical Electrical Transmission Capacity;
ü Authorized Over $2.9 Billion In Funding Over The Next Five Years For Renewable Energy Research And Development;
ü Instituted A Specific New Funding Category To Cleanup Tank-Related Releases Of Oxygenated Fuel Additives In Gasoline Like MTBE. (“Highlights Of Energy Policy Act Of 2003,” House Republican Conference, 11/22/03)
Kerry Says He Wants Alternative Energy Sources, But Won’t Weigh In On Cape Wind Farm Project In His Own Backyard. “Kerry insisted it’s proper to let the environmental review continue and not to short-circuit public comment. ‘I don’t think it is appropriate for me (to weigh in). I think the most appropriate thing to do is listen to the people on the Cape, listen to the people who have concerns, weigh the arguments,’ he said.” (Kevin Landrigan, “Kerry Offers Ways To Fight Pollution,” The [Nashua, NH] Telegraph, 4/23/03)
ü Kerry Ready To Support Project, But Waiting For Environmental Impact Statement? “Mr. Kerry has generally been an outspoken supporter of renewable energy, but he faces a tricky problem at his home in Nantucket, Mass., where some of his neighbors are trying to stop the construction of a large wind farm, which is supported by environmental groups. The neighbors say it will be too noisy and create an eyesore. Mr. Kerry says he is ready to support the project but with a big caveat: He is waiting to see the environmental impact statement.” (John Tierney, “Talking The Talk But Burning Big,” The New York Times, 4/25/04)
ü Kerry Wants Alternative Sites. “‘I’ve talked to the participants about whether or not there aren’t alternative sites. I think there is a way to work the process intelligently,’ Kerry told reporters.” (Kevin Landrigan, “Kerry Offers Ways To Fight Pollution,” The [Nashua, NH] Telegraph, 4/23/03)
Multiple Environmental Groups Are For Project. “In addition to Greenpeace, the Natural Resource Defense Council, the World Wildlife Fund, the Conservation Law Foundation and Friends of the Earth have spoken favorably of the project.” (Sam Dealey, “Wind Farm Is An Issue For Kerry,” The Hill, 6/18/03)
Greenpeace Has Criticized Kerry For His Silence. “‘Kerry is the one who really needs to be called out on this stuff,’ said Kert Davies, research director of Greenpeace. ‘He’s been pretty mum so far. We don’t know where he stands.’ Davies added, ‘He’s obviously very pro-renewable energy; he knows the climate better than almost anyone in the Senate. And by that logic, he should be in favor of this project being implemented.’” (Sam Dealey, “Wind Farm Is An Issue For Kerry,” The Hill, 6/18/03)
ü More Greenpeace Criticism Of Kerry’s Cape Wind Stance. “It’s not fair to stump about how scary global warming is one week, then oppose this the next. It’s not fair, in terms of environmental justice, for communities with cash to demand that projects they don’t want be built somewhere else.” (Elinor Burkett, “A Mighty Wind,” The New York Times, 6/15/03)
ü Competitive Enterprise Institute Castigated Northeast Senators, Including Kerry, For Supporting Renewable Portfolio Standard (RSP) But Not Cape Wind. “If renewable energy is going to be required by federal mandate, then people on Cape Cod or Martha’s Vineyard or Nantucket, as in South Dakota or Iowa or Minnesota, are just going to have to get used to it. Merely living in a very nice spot with high real estate values should not exempt anyone from sharing the renewable burden. Indeed, advocates of Environmental Justice would argue that since poor people will be paying a much larger share of their incomes in higher electricity prices because of the RPS than will the wealthy, wind farms, biomass generation facilities, and rights of way for transmission lines should be sited in wealthy neighborhoods. … In our view, continuing to support the RPS while opposing a wind farm off Cape Cod (and possible expansions along the New England coast) is an indefensible position. But if that is your position, we think the public would be interested in hearing how you defend it.” (Myron Ebell and Marlo Lewis, Jr., “An Open Letter To Selected Senators On Their Support For The Renewable Portfolio Standard,” Competitive Enterprise Institute, 9/25/02)
Meanwhile, Other “Upscale” Local Property Owners Oppose Project Too. “Many property owners on upscale Nantucket Island and Martha’s Vineyard object to the project, saying the 130 turbines planned would mar ocean vistas and harm property values.” (Chris Holly, “Wind Technology Said Help In Natural Gas Crisis,” New Technology Week, 7/14/03)
»»»»
|
Rhetoric |
JOHN KERRY: “And it focuses on educating our children.”
CHYRON: Invest in education
|
The Facts |
Kerry Weak On Accountability
USA Today: Kerry’s Website “Calls For Weakening Accountability Measures To Include Factors Other Than Student Academic Achievement, Such As Attendance And Parental Satisfaction.” (Editorial, “List Kerry As Absent On School Accountability,” USA Today, 7/15/04)
Los Angeles Times Columnist Ron Brownstein Writes: “Kerry’s Clear Intent Is To Loosen The Standard So That Fewer Schools Are Identified As Needing Improvement, Even If Student Test Scores Fail To Rise.” “During the Democratic primaries, Kerry echoed the teachers unions in deriding this system as ‘punitive’ and ‘arbitrary.’ Rather than judging schools on whether they improve student proficiency in reading and math, he said, they should also be measured by other indicators, like graduation rates, teacher attendance and parental satisfaction. Kerry’s clear intent is to loosen the standard so that fewer schools are identified as needing improvement, even if student test scores fail to rise. It’s easy to see why teachers and administrators worried about their public image like that idea. It’s more difficult to see how it helps parents or children.” (Ron Brownstein, Op-Ed, “Kerry Should Listen To His Own Advice On Education Reform,” Los Angeles Times, 4/5/04)
Third Parties Say Kerry “Waffler” On Education Issues
USA Today Editorial Says Kerry Bashing No Child Left Behind After Voting For It Reinforces “Portrait Of Him As A Waffler.” “Bridget Dean, principal of Barrister Elementary School in Baltimore’s impoverished Pigtown neighborhood, has something to say to critics who claim the federal school-accountability law is too harsh and unfair to poor and minority students: You’re wrong. Tough love, Dean says, is how Barrister catapulted off the state’s ‘watch list’ of troubled schools. In two years, reading scores more than doubled, and math scores nearly doubled. Dean’s formula: Use curriculums proven by research and embrace unpopular testing that prods all students to learn. Dean credits the strategies of the federal No Child Left Behind law, which President Bush championed, for the success of her students. But the law could face an uncertain future if Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry wins the White House. One of his key supporters, the 2.7-million-member National Education Association (NEA), opposes the law. In fact, the teachers union’s president, Reg Weaver, has declared war on it. Kerry bashed the law during the primaries and complains that it is underfunded, though he voted for it and says he favors the tough accountability provisions at its core. But he hasn’t campaigned for a principle advanced by Bush and rejected by the NEA, reinforcing critics’ portrait of him as a waffler.” (Editorial, “List Kerry As Absent On School Accountability,” USA Today, 7/15/04)
The Union Leader Says Kerry “Waffled” On NCLB Vote In Front Of New Hampshire NEA. “Speaking before the New Hampshire chapter of the National Education Association last week, John Kerry waffled on his vote for the No Child Left Behind Act, which the teacher lobby hates. He can’t pander to the group by bashing the bill because he voted for it. So he criticizes Bush for not fully funding it.” (Editorial, “Waffle House,” The [Manchester, NH] Union Leader, 8/11/03)
Kerry’s Education Record Is Thin
During His First Thirteen Years In Senate, Kerry Only Sponsored 5 Bills Relating To Education And Only One Passed Senate. From 1985 to 1998, Kerry was lead sponsor on 5 bills relating to education: S.1962 in 1989, which was “a bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to establish a technology fellowship program for the improvement of graduate instruction.” In 1989, S.1961 to “amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to establish a teacher fellowship program in the improvement of teacher education.” In 1991, S.1563 “to authorize appropriations to carry out the National Sea Grant College Program Act.” In 1997, S.756 to “provide for the health, education and welfare of children 6 years of age,” and S. 1309, similar legislation, to “provide for the health, education and welfare of children 6 years of age.” Only S.1563, the bill to carry out appropriations for the National Sea Grant College Program, actually passed the Senate. (S.1962, Introduced 11/21/89; S.1961, Introduced 1/16/90; S.1563, Became Public Law No: 102-186, 12/4/91; S.756, Introduced 5/15/97; S.1309, Introduced 10/22/97)
In 2003, Kerry Missed At Least 24 Important Education Votes. On the campaign trail, Kerry missed 292 votes in 2003, or 64%. Of those, 24 were education votes, including:
ü Increased Title I Funding By $666 Million And $2.2 Billion For Special Education. “Passage of the bill that would appropriate $472.2 billion … for the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education departments and related agencies. It would include $2.2 billion for special education and would increase Title I funding by $666 million.” (H.R. 2660, CQ Vote #347: Passed 94-0: R 49-0; D 44-0; I 1-0, 9/10/03, Kerry Did Not Vote)
ü Democrat Amendment For Excess $6 Billion For NCLB. “Kennedy, D-Mass., amendment that would provide $6 billion for provisions of the 2001 education overhaul law (PL 107-110).” (H.J. Res. 2, CQ #5: Rejected 46-51: R 0-50; D 45-1; I 1-0, 1/16/03, Kerry Did Not Vote)
ü Democrat Amendment For Excess $1 Billion For School Construction Projects. “The Harkin amendment would provide an additional $1 billion for school construction projects through the Fund for the Improvement of Education.” (H.R. 2660, CQ Vote #329: Motion Rejected 43-36: R 1-46; D 41-0; I 1-0, 9/5/03, Kerry Did Not Vote)
Voted Against President’s 2001 Tax Relief Bill, Which:
ü Made it easier to use state prepaid tuition plans, such as allowing tax-free distributions from plans when used for college tuition.
ü Expanded and simplified Roth IRAs, which can be used for higher education expenses;
ü Provided above-the-line tax deduction for higher education expenses;
ü Expanded and made education IRAs (“Coverdell” IRAs) easier to use by preventing income from education IRAs from counting against eligibility for HOPE education tax credits. (H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #165: Passed 62-38: R 50-0; D 12-38, 5/23/01, Kerry Voted Nay)
Voted Six Times Against Expanded Education Savings Accounts, Which Would Have Provided $4 Billion In Tax Savings. Voted to filibuster this bill four times. (H.R. 2646, CQ Vote #288: Rejected 56-41: R 54-1; D 2-40, 10/30/97, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2646, CQ Vote #291: Rejected 56-44: R 54-1; D 2-43, 11/3/97, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2646, CQ Vote #38: Rejected 55-44: R 55-0; D 0-44, 3/19/98, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2646, CQ Vote #46: Rejected 58-42: R 55-0; D 3-42, 3/26/98, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2646, CQ Vote #102: Passed 56-43: R 51-3; D 5-40, 4/23/98, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2646, CQ Vote #169: Adopted 59-36: R 51-2; D 8-34, 6/24/98, Kerry Voted Nay; Senate Republican Policy Committee, “A-Plus Education Savings Accounts/Cloture,” 10/31/97)
»»»»
|
Rhetoric |
JOHN KERRY: “You can read the whole plan yourself at JohnKerry.com. Jobs aren’t just statistics, they’re the lifeline for America’s families.”
CHYRON: Learn more about John Kerry’s plan for America
CHYRON: JohnKerry.com
CHYRON: Approved by John Kerry and paid for by John Kerry For President, Inc.
|
The Facts |
Democrat Commentator Said Bush Economic Policy “Stunning Empirical Success.” “I’m a Democrat … But I’m also an objective financial commentator. With stocks at two-year highs and interest rates … near all-time lows, I can’t help reach a different conclusion from Mr. Bush’s critics: The economic policies pursued by this president have been a stunning empirical success. … The Bush economic policies have worked beyond what anyone could have hoped for. Or, to put it in parlance my party might understand, This time it’s not the economy stupid.” (James J. Cramer, Op-Ed, “Bush’s Rising Stock” The Wall Street Journal, 1/15/04)
Economy Has Created More Than 1.5 Million Nonfarm Payroll Jobs In Last 10 Months. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics Website, “National Employment, Hours And Earnings,” www.bls.gov , Accessed 7/15/04)
ü Factcheck.org Says Economy Creating More Jobs In High-Paying Industries. “Now that the economy is growing and creating new jobs, John Kerry has been saying that the quality of those jobs is ‘much lower’ than the quality of jobs that have been lost. A recent ad by some Kerry allies even shows a middle-aged man reporting for his new job wearing a paper hat at a seedy-looking burger joint. Well, hold on –there’s strong new evidence to the contrary. A new set of numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics actually shows solid growth in employment in relatively higher -paying occupations including construction workers, health-care professionals, business managers, and teachers, and virtually no growth at all in relatively lower-paying occupations including office clerks and assembly-line workers. It’s the most detailed breakdown yet -- looking at 154 different job and industry groupings. These statistics are a FactCheck.org exclusive – supplied to us by BLS at our request and not previously published.” (“Economy Producing Mostly Bad Jobs? Not So Fast,” Annenberg Public Policy Center’s Factcheck.org, 7/9/04)
After-Tax Income Is Up Under President Bush. While there are a variety of ways to measure how much workers are being paid, the more relevant measurement is how much money they actually take home. Real disposable personal income is adjusted for inflation and measures how much income workers have after taxes.
ü Real disposable personal income increased at a 4.9% annual rate in the first quarter of 2004, faster than its annual pace in 2001, 2002, and 2003.
ü Since President Bush has been in office, real disposable personal income has increased 10% versus 7% for the same period of President Clinton’s first term. (“Personal Income And Outlays: April 2004,” Bureau Of Economic Analysis, 5/28/04)
Gap Between Rich And Poor Narrowed Between 2001 And 2002. “Using money income only, income inequality – the gap between rich and poor – showed no change … However, using the four alternative income definitions, income inequality declined over the 2001-2002 period.” (United States Department Of Commerce, “Poverty, Income See Slight Changes,” Press Release, 9/26/03)
Kerry Claims To Fight For Causes, But Little Legislation Bears His Name. “Almost immediately, Kerry also can expect the media - probably with assists from his Democratic rivals and the GOP - to shine a scrutiny laser on his political career. Although in speeches he claims to have ‘fought for’ various causes in Congress, it’s hard to name a major piece of legislation that bears his name.” (Morton M. Kondracke, “‘Comeback Kerry’ Now Faces Intense Scrutiny Of Record,” Roll Call, 1/29/04)
Kerry “Fought For” Legislation Of Little Consequence. “[C]ritics assert that he lacks legislative accomplishments, for all his talk of ‘leading fights’ on issues like health care. They note that much of the legislation that became law, for which he was chief sponsor, involves matters like ocean research, protecting marine mammals from commercial fishing and providing grants to small businesses owned by women -- hardly the fuel that drives presidential campaigns.” (David E. Rosenbaum and Robin Toner, “In Senate, Kerry Focused On Inquiries, Not Bills,” The New York Times, 2/8/04)
Kerry’s Career In Kennedy’s Shadow. “Despite his long career, Kerry has been in the shadow of Massachusetts’ other senator, Edward M. Kennedy, and is little known outside his home state or Washington.” (Steven Thomma, “Kerry Plans Presidential Campaign,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, 12/2/02)
Kerry Hasn’t “Been A Real Leader.” “‘There isn’t a particular issue on which I have a real problem with Kerry,’ says Bob Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan group that advocates fiscal restraint. ‘But there isn’t an issue he’s been a real leader on, either.’” (Dan Gilgoff, “Resisting Labels,” U.S. News & World Report, 2/16/04)
Kerry Said To Be Show Horse, Not Work Horse
The Boston Globe: Kerry Has “Long Had A Reputation As More Of A Show Horse Than A Workhorse.” (Scot Lehigh, “Weld vs. Kerry? Pow!” The Boston Globe, 9/10/95)
Kerry Is Known As “Live Shot” In Massachusetts. “By the time John F. Kerry began his second term as US senator in 1991, his nickname among Massachusetts political insiders was ‘Live Shot,’ a reference to his relentless courting of reporters, especially those with TV cameras in tow. In the Senate, where seniority and decorum still mattered, Kerry was seen as an impatient new breed, more interested in generating headlines than mastering the sometimes tedious process of lawmaking.” (John Aloysius Farrell, “At The Center Of Power, Seeking The Summit,” The Boston Globe, 6/21/03)
Good analysis...Kerry's record and plan for the future are abysmal...MUD
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.