billgerat
The Harvester of Eyes
Registered: Aug 2000
Location: In a Blue, Blue State
Posts: 12547 |
 Debate Fact Check
After reading the threads tonight after I came home from work, I wanted to put my two cents worth in about last nights debate.
(Following compiled by Ken Moritsugu & ron Hutcheson of Knight Ridder, and Laura Meckler of The Associated Press)
(Edge comments are mine.)
Here are some clarifying facts and context.
Tax cuts
Gore said that "nearly half" of benefits from Bush's proposed $1.3 trillion tax cut would go to "the wealthiest 1 percent" of Americans.
Gore didn't cite a source for his numbers, but a study by Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal group, estimates that 42.6 percent of Bush's proposed tax cut would go to that top 1 percent. That calculation includes Bush's proposed elimination of the estate tax.
Bush has said every taxpayer should get a break. And because the richest Americans pay the most taxes, his across-the-board tax cut would benefit them most. The richest 1 percent of taxpayers - those earning $319,000 a year or more -- pay about 30 percent of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Bush said that no American would pay more than a third of his or her income in federal taxes. He didn't say that virtually no one pays that much now.
Gore also repeatedly charged that Bush's tax cut would give the richest 1 percent more money than Bush proposes to spend on "health care, prescription drugs, education and national defense, all combined."
That is not clear, because Bush hasn't said how much he would spend. He proposes to increase spending in those areas by $423 billion over 10 years, but that is not a complete number because he has not specified some increases, such as how much he would spend on a missile-defense system. At least $450 billion from his tax cut would go to the richest 1 percent, according to the Citizens for Tax Justice analysis.
Gore declared that every middle-class American was eligible for a tax cut under his program. That's true only if every American participates in the activities that he has targeted for tax breaks, such as college tuition or retirement savings.
(Edge: Gore, slightly.)
Prescription drugs
Both candidates promised prescription-drug coverage to elderly Americans, but in different ways - Gore through Medicare, Bush through tax incentives for private insurers. Neither man's plan would force anyone into a health-maintenance organization, and drug coverage would be optional under both.
Gore's proposal is far more generous and far more expensive: $253 billion over 10 years, to Bush's $158 billion.
Bush proposes $48 billion for immediate help to seniors earning up to about $14,600 a year, but his plan relies on the states to provide drug coverage - and fewer than half of them have taken steps to do so. Also, his plan relies upon private insurers, who show little interest.
The candidates argued over whether Bush's proposal would provide immediate help to a couple earning about $25,000 a year. Although Bush accused Gore of using "fuzzy math," the vice president was right: Bush's proposal phases out at $19,700.
(Edge: Gore.)
Social Security
Gore warned that Bush's plan to use Social Security revenues to finance individual retirement accounts in stocks and bonds would jeopardize future benefits.
There is some uncertainty about Bush's plan. He counts on the individual accounts to grow enough to make up for any loss in traditional Social Security benefits. Historic stock-market returns give reason for confidence but vary by year and carry no guarantees.
Also, the transition to individual accounts would be costly, because existing Social Security benefits must be maintained while the new accounts are funded.
Bush responds that Gore doesn't have a plan to rescue Social Security, which could run short of revenues to pay benefits as soon as 2015.
Gore proposes taking money from the rest of the budget to pay for Social Security benefits when needed.
Bush accused Gore of "loading up" Social Security with "IOUs for future generations." But this is how the program has operated since it was created in 1935, with current workers funding current retirees' benefits.
(Edge: Gore.)
The 'lockbox'
Gore promised to "put Medicare and Social Security in a lockbox and protect them."
Social Security revenues are projected to run a $2.4 trillion surplus over the next 10 years. Both men say they will put that into a so-called "lockbox." Gore would put an additional $360 billion from Medicare surpluses into a separate lockbox.
In reality, there are no lockboxes. Each man would spend the money elsewhere anyway.
Gore would spend the surplus to reduce federal debt. That would cut government payments for interest, which he would urge Congress to spend on Social Security.
Bush said he would tap the surplus to pay Social Security benefits to cover revenue shifted to his individual accounts --a solution he hasn't proposed before. The rest would go to debt reduction. The problem is, the tax cuts and spending programs he's already proposed would eat up the entire projected budget surplus.
(Edge: Gore.)
Budget surplus
Gore said Bush's tax cut would "squander" the surplus.
Bush countered that Gore's spending would "bust the budget."
In fact, taken together, Bush's tax-cut and spending plans add up to more than Gore's. Both men's ideas are risky, however, because they rely on estimates of what the federal budget will be over the next decade.
There is no guarantee that the $2.2 trillion surplus projected to flood the Treasury over the next 10 years - not counting Social Security - will materialize. Gore would set aside $300 billion as a security blanket; Bush has no such proposal.
(Edge: No one.)
Energy
Bush said Gore has no energy policy and implied that the Clinton administration allowed the country to become more dependent on foreign oil.
The nation relies on imports for more than 50 percent of its oil supply, a trend of dependence that has been growing for more than 30 years. Economists say energy independence is undesirable economically so long as cheap oil is available abroad.
Bush proposes to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. That could reduce the country's dependence modestly, but would not end it.
Gore said Bush would "destroy precious parts of America's environment" by allowing exploration of oil in Alaska. But such exploration wouldn't automatically destroy Alaska's resources.
Bush accuses the Clinton administration of playing politics with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which holds 570 million barrels of oil. The reserve was created as a hedge against major interruptions in oil supply, a condition not present now.
At Gore's request, President Clinton recently released 30 million barrels over 30 days to stabilize nervous markets. The price fell from nearly $38 a barrel to about $32.
(Edge: No one.)
Campaign spending
Bush made a misstatement when he claimed that "this man has outspent me" in the campaign. In fact, Bush spent more than $93 million on his primary campaign, compared with $46 million by Gore.
And while the two men each received $67.6 million in federal funding for the fall campaign, Bush had spent nearly twice as much of his allotment in the first month as the vice president.
(Edge: Gore.)
Education
Gore accused Bush of supporting a plan that leaves children in failing schools for three years before giving parents vouchers to help pay for private schools. He didn't mention that his own plan would keep schools that don't meet federal standards open for three years before closing them and reopening them under new leadership.
(Edge: Bush.)
The economy
Gore suggested that the nation had been through a "triple-dip recession" under President Bush, which occurs when economic growth stalls twice or turns negative after experts thought that a recession had ended. In fact, while some feared a triple-dip recession in 1992, it never happened.
(Edge: Bush.)
'A lightweight'
Gore found himself on the defense right from the opening question when moderator Jim Lehrer asked what he meant when he questioned whether Bush has the experience to be president.
"I have actually not questioned Bush's experience. I have questioned his proposals," Gore said last night.
But in an April 13 interview with The New York Times, Gore said Bush's call for a large tax cut "raises the question, `Does he have the experience to be president?' " Gore's spokesman has also called the Texas governor "a lightweight."
(Edge: Bush.)
Not covered in above article: Judicial Appointments.
Gore said he would appoiont judges to the Supreme Court that would view the Constitution to be a growing and re-interpretable document. Bush said he would appiont strict interpretational types, because he does not believe in "liberal judicial activism" from the bench. Bush claims he has appointed good judges to the Texas Supreme Court. However, these same appointees have ruled that a defense lawyer in a death penalty case who literally SLEPT through the trial was "adequate representation". If that is considered adequate, God help us all under Bush.
(Edge: Gore.)
------------------
The Word of the Day is Angary (n.) - The right of a warring nation to use or destroy a neutral's property, subject to full indemnification (International Law).
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
![[new thread]](/images/vb/button_newthread_off.png "Post New Thread")
![[post reply]](/images/vb/button_newreply_off.png "Post A Reply")
10-05-2000 03:48 AM
