THE GULF WAR
GORE RHETORIC
Well, when I when I got to be a part of the current
administration, it was right after I was one of the few
members of my political party to support former President
Bush in the Persian Gulf War resolution.
GORE REALITY
Gores Gulf War Vote Was No Profile In Courage. Gores
Description Of His January 12, 1991 Senate Vote In Favor
Of Authorizing The Use Of Military Force In The Persian
Gulf Is Another Al Gore Reinvention:
I was one of only a handful of senators in the
Democratic Caucus in the Senate when Saddam Hussein was
in Kuwait. And the argument was made that sanctions
would suffice to push him out of Kuwait and get rid of
that threat that he was posing to virtually all of the
Middle East. And I voted to authorize the use of force.
And it felt like a lonely vote at the time. And it was
tough. But I was glad that I did it. And I think, in
retrospect, it definitely turned out to be the right
thing. (Democratic Presidential Debate, University of
New Hampshire, Federal News Service, January 5, 2000)
[B]efore the mission in the Persian Gulf, opinion was
sharply divided in the country. There was very strong
opposition to it. I remember as one of the Democrats who
supported that mission that it was a very unpopular thing
to do. (PBS The Newshour with Jim Lehrer, December
13, 1995)
Gore Shopped His Vote, According To Then-Senate Minority
Leader Bob Dole:
As late as the night before the vote, Gore was shopping
around for the best deal for his vote. Gore came to me
and said, If I vote with you, how much time will you
give me tomorrow morning? This was late in the evening
he came to me. Then he went to [Senate Majority Leader
George] Mitchell to see how much time he could get if he
voted against it. . .
He said I'm anguishing over this. Ive got to decide
in the morning, and I don't know whether to vote with the
President or against the President, can you give me 20
minutes of prime time? Now, if thats commitment, it's
a new kind of commitment. . .
He was shopping. He was seeing where he could get the
most prime time on television if he voted for or against
the Gulf. He ended up voting for it. I mean that's kind
of the inside joke around the Senate, the way he played
it. (CNNs Evans and Novak, July 24, 1992)
Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) Was An Eyewitness To This
Interaction And Confirmed Senator Doles Account:
That was the most troubling thing I had ever seen with
any colleague. . . [Gore] came to the cloakroom, and Dole
and I were sitting there. Wed agreed on two hours on
each side. And [Gore] said Bob, how much time will you
give me if I support the President on this vote. And
[Dole] said, How much time did they give you on the
other side? And Al said, they said 7 minutes. And
Bob said, well give you 15. And then I said, maybe
we can get you another five, so youd have 20 minutes,
Al.
And then [Gore] said, Well, Ill think about it all
night. And he went back to his office, and we sent word
over there that he could speak during the news cycle in
the debate because we on our side of the aisle called him
Prime Time Al.
And then he called the Secretary of the Senate that
night, Howard Green, and said, I want to know if
expletive deleted [sic] that if I dont get 20 minutes,
Im going to vote the other way.
The next day. . . he said, if Ive got 20 minutes, Im
going to go with the President. And thats what he did.
I always felt he might have had two speeches written.
(CNBCs Hardball, February 1, 2000)
Gores Shopping Of His Vote Was Widely Known Among His
Colleagues:
Everybody in the Senate knows he sold his vote for TV
time, former Vice President Dan Quayle is quoted as
saying. George Mitchell doesnt deny it. He went to
Bob Dole and said If I vote with the Republicans, how
much of your allotted time will you give me on C-Span?
and he went to Mitchell and said, If I vote with the
majority, how much time will you give me?
Dole gave him 20 minutes, and Mitchell gave him 10
minutes, which got his vote. (Stan Slusher, The
Ombudsmans Report, The Louisville Courier-Journal,
November 18, 1992)
Flip-Flop On Intervention: Prior To The Vote, Gore Had
Opposed Military Intervention:
Local Tennessee papers captured Gores position: Sen.
Albert Gore, Jr. (D-TN). . . favors waiting for economic
sanctions to work instead of a military strike. (James
W. Brosnan, War Fear, Recession Mean Uncertainty for New
Congress, The Commercial Appeal, December 31, 1990)
On January 30, 1991, on the Senate floor, Gore addressed
U.S. goals toward Iraq, urging caution and limited
objectives, especially regarding the Iraqi opposition:
When will the fighting stop?. . . We are not seeking the
surrender of Iraq. . . No one in a position of
responsibility is talking about the conquest of Iraq. . .
It is doubtful that the conquest of Iraq is anything that
this Nation would ever want to seek. Even if it were
adopting that as a stated goal, it would be a terrible
mistake, for reasons we can all certainly see clearly.
Any effort to expand our objectives so as to include the
military conquest of Iraq would certainly blow apart the
core of international consensus upon which all else
depends. Arab public opinion would be inflamed to a
point endangering not only the ability of moderate Arab
governments to cooperate with us, but also their ability
to survive. That much seems clear and accepted. . .
Let me be clear then about what we want. The removal of
Iraqi forces from Kuwait is enough to warrant a
suspension of combat operations. . .
Doubtless, among the exiled Iraqis, one can find
survivors who are people of virtue and wisdom, but it is
hard to see how these individuals might come to power
unless we were to install them, and that would require
the conquest and occupation of Iraq, which is not in
prospect and should not be in prospect. (Al Gore,
Congressional Record, January 30, 1991)
MILITARY READINESS
GORE RHETORIC
And we have to keep our military strong, we have the
strongest military. And I will do whatever is necessary
if Im president, to make sure that it stays that way. .
. .
GORE REALITY
Lieberman Expresses Concern The Clinton/Gore
Administration Is Endangering Americas Future War
Fighters. Concerned about cuts in defense research
funding, eight Democrats on the Senate Armed Services
Committee have written the White House urging the
administration to request increased defense R&D funding
for Fiscal Year 2001. The lawmakers, led by Senator Joe
Lieberman (D-CT), recommended to White House Chief of
Staff John Podesta that President Clinton reconsider
plans to reduce defense-related science and technology
spending. The Senators asked the administration to
request that Congress allocate in excess of $8.4 billion
for FY01 - a $1 billion increase from what the President
requested in FY2000. The letter noted the growing
concern of the Defense Science Board, as well as leaders
in industry and academia, that the United States has been
under-funding defense R&D, endangering Americas future
war fighters. Frankly, in the view of most thoughtful
defense R&D observers, the senators wrote, the
Administrations request should be increased
significantly. (Sen. Joe Lieberman, Press Release,
November 30, 1999)
Lieberman Says The Clinton/Gore Administrations Defense
Budget Is Not Enough To Modernize. . . Aging Military
Equipment. The President recently took action to add
money to the defense budget, halting a 14-year slide.
That slide seriously stressed the ability of our armed
forces - which are almost 40 percent smaller now than
they were during the Cold War - to meet present-day
commitments. The Presidents increase is enough to stop
the decline in the readiness of our forces, but it is not
enough to modernize the aging military equipment that is
so important to ensuring that our forces are ready in the
future. The additional money this budget adds to the
defense budget is an essential investment for the
future. (Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Congressional Record,
March 25, 1999)
Eight Years of Decline and Neglect. Gore has said that
he participated in all major decisions of the
Clinton/Gore Administration. If he is taken at his word,
it was on his watch that readiness levels fell as the
defense budget was repeatedly slashed and the number of
overseas troop deployments soared. Although the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Henry Shelton, has
been quoted as defending the current state of readiness,
his actual comments are quite critical of the
Clinton/Gore record. Shelton noted that, Spending and
resources have been cut 40 percent, while worldwide
commitments have increased by 300 percent. . . We are
doing much more than we were doing 10 years ago, and we
are doing it with much less. (R. G. Ratcliffe,
Between Gore and Bush, Who Is Telling The Truth? The
Houston Chronicle, August 28, 2000) (emphasis added)
These acute problems are why Army Lt. Gen. Larry Ellis,
the services deputy chief of staff for operations and
plans, . . . said that the Army currently lacks the
capability to enter a conflict quickly and sustain
operations. . . . (Frank Wolfe, Pentagon Comptroller
Defends Clinton Procurement Plan, Defense Daily,
September 22, 2000) (emphasis added)
At Least The Chaplains Are Ready For Combat. A May 2000
report from the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command
reveals that More than half of Army combat and support
training centers have plunged to the lowest possible
readiness level, with some commanding generals warning
they risk not being able to turn out qualified soldiers,
internal documents say.
The sensitive Army reports show that of 20 schools for
such critically important skills a field artillery,
infantry, and aviation, 12 have dipped to a C-4 rating,
the militarys lowest. . . . Six were rated C-3. The
highest rating, C-2, went to chaplain training and
special warfare. (Rowan Scarborough, Army Training
Centers Get Failing Grades, The Washington Times, August
29, 2000) (emphasis added)
Clinton/Gore Defense Budgets Below Carters Hollow
Force Funding Levels. According to the Clinton/Gore
White Houses own Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
in 1997 the Clinton/Gore Administration proposed a
defense budget below even that of President Carters FY
1981 Hollow Force military. Under President Reagan,
the decline in Americas defense budget was reversed,
growing from $258.8 billion (all figures are in 1996
dollars) in 1981, President Carters last budget, to
1989s peak of $369.6 billion. Following the collapse of
the Soviet Union, the 1992 budget then dropped 10 percent
to $331.7 billion. (Table 8.2 Outlays By Budget
Enforcement Act Category In Constant (FY 1996) Dollars:
1962-2005, The Budget For Fiscal Year 2001, OMB, 2000)
Upon taking office in 1993, the Clinton/Gore
Administration deepened the cuts in the defense budget.
By 1997, the Clinton/Gore defense budget proposed
reducing defense spending to just $254.4 billion, $4.4
billion below Carters final budget proposal. (Table
5.1 Budget Authority By Function And Subfunction:
1976-2002, The Budget For Fiscal Year 1997, OMB, 2000)
Even more alarming, in 1997 the Clinton/Gore
Administration proposed a projected 2001 defense budget
that, had it been accepted by Congress, would have
dropped military spending to a level below that of 1977
(in constant 1996 dollars), the worst of Carters defense
budgets. (Table 8.2 Outlays By Budget Enforcement Act
Category In Constant (FY 1987) Dollars: 1962-2002, The
Budget For Fiscal Year 1997, OMB, 1996)
Republicans Added Back Over $60 Billion To The
Clinton/Gore Military Budget Since 1996. The
Clinton/Gore Administration has been quick to take credit
for the recent uptick in funding for the military. But
the truth is that since 1996, halting the decline in
defense spending of the Clinton/Gore years and increasing
funding has been the work of the Republican-led Congress,
which has pushed through $63.7 billion in additional
military funding over the objections of the
Administration:
RUSSIAN CORRUPTION
GORE RHETORIC
I think one of the big issues here that doesn't get
nearly enough attention is the issue of corruption. The
Governor mentioned it earlier, I've worked on this issue,
it's an enormous problem, and corruption in official
agencies like militaries police departments around the
world, customs officials, that's one of the worst forms
of it. And we have got to, again, lead by example and
help these other countries that are trying to straighten
out their situations, find the tools in order to do it.
GORE REALITY
Gore Was Blind to Corruption. Gore often uses lofty
rhetoric on the perils of international corruption:
Tragically, our best world-wide efforts to build
stronger economies and stronger democracies are sometimes
undercut by corruption -- and no corruption is more
destructive than corruption among government officials.
(Al Gore, Vice President Gore Announces
First-of-Its-Kind International Conference to Fight
Corruption Among Justice and Security Officials, Press
Release, December 7, 1998.) But Al Gore has turned a
blind eye to corruption by Russian officials, even though
key economic reforms were never made:
Fritz Ermarth, the CIAs former national
intelligence officer for Russia, said that senior
Clinton/Gore Administration officials, including Vice
President Al Gore, definitely didnt want to know about
corruption around Yeltsin. That was politically
uncomfortable. (Christopher Marquis, Clinton
Administration Unveils Plan to Combat Money Laundering,
Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service, September 23, 1999)
Gore Ignored CIA Information on Corruption. Despite the
overwhelming evidence, Gore has demonstrated a remarkable
tolerance of corruption among Russian officials. For
example:
When the CIA sent Gore a report of conclusive
evidence of the personal corruption of then-Prime
Minister Chernomyrdin, Gore scrawled a barnyard epithet
on it and sent it back to the CIA. To the CIA, the
message seemed clear: The Vice President did not want to
hear allegations that Mr. Chernomyrdin was corrupt and
was not interested in further intelligence reports on the
matter. (James Risen, Gore Rejected C.I.A. Evidence of
Russian Corruption, The New York Times, November 23,
1998 (emphasis added)
Overseeing Corruption and Waste. The record of the
Clinton/Gore Administrations engagement with Russia is
not one to be proud of: almost $6 billion of U.S.
taxpayers money has been poured into that country, along
with over $20 billion in loans from international
financial institutions, and much of it has been stolen or
squandered, even as the Russian economy and social
conditions have continued to deteriorate. According to
Benjamin Gilman (R-NY), Chairman of the House
International Relations Committee:
. . . that generosity has apparently gone hand in hand
with a willing disregard for the high-level corruption
within the Yeltsin government and the alleged squashing
of internal dissent to the Administrations Russia policy
within the State Department as far back as 1993. (House
Committee on International Relations, Citing the
Administrations Willing Disregard for High-Level
Corruption in Russia, Gilman Announces Hearings on
Clinton/Gore Policy, Press Release, September 14, 1999.)
No Area Untouched by Corruption. Russian corruption has
had a serious impact in all areas of U.S. assistance to
Russia, including cooperation in space. The U.S.-Russian
space partnership includes government-to-government
programs as well as commercial ventures, with Gore
overseeing both in his capacity as Co-Chairman of the
U.S.-Russian Bilateral Commission. This partnership
has been characterized by repeated Russian inability to
meet stated goals, with increasingly severe consequences
for the U.S. space program. One of the principal causes
for this failure has been pervasive corruption:
[V]ast amounts of Western money meant for the
space program appeared to be winding up in the pockets of
top officials, while ordinary workers were severely
underpaid, often months late.
Uses of U.S. assistance include the construction
of half-million-dollar mansions for top officials at
Star City, the cosmonaut training center near Moscow.
As a consequence of these and other abuses, by
1998, the five-year-old partnership had seen the
transfer of more than $2 billion of American money (some
from NASA but most from commercial enterprises) into the
Russian aerospace industry, where most of it vanished
utterly without a trace. (James Oberg, NASAs Russian
Payload, The American Spectator, August 1998.)
FOREIGN AID
GORE RHETORIC
Jim Lehrer: In the nonmilitary area of influencing
events around the world, the financial and economic area,
World Bank President Wolfenson said recently U.S.
contributions to overseas development assistance is lower
now almost than it has ever been, is that a problem for
you? Do you think -- what is your idea about what the
united states obligations are? I'm talking about
financial assistance. And that sort of think to other
countries, the poor countries.
Vice President Gore: No, I would make change. . . I
just think, Jim, that this is an absolutely unique period
in world history. The world is coming together, as I
said, they're looking to us, and we have a fundamental
choice to make. Are we going to step up to the plate as a
nation, the way we did after World War II? [the Marshall
Plan years]
GORE REALITY
Under The Clinton/Gore Administration, Much Of Our
Foreign Aid Goes To Questionable Sources, Directly And
Indirectly Fund The Development Of Weapons Of Mass
Destruction, And In The Case Of North Korea, Prop-Up Our
Enemies:
North Korea
. . . the United States has replaced the Soviet Union as
the primary benefactor of North Korea with some $645
million in aid over the past five years. We supply half
of North Koreas heavy fuel oil needs and feed one third
of the population. It is as if some foreign power fed 90
million Americans each day. (House Committee on
International Relations, Press Release, 11/3/99)
Russia
Gore has taken a leading role in U.S.-Russian relations,
including supervising programs totaling over $700 million
per year that are focused on reducing the vast arsenal of
weapons Russia inherited from the Soviet Union. But the
non-partisan General Accounting Office (GAO) has
concluded that the design and oversight of these U.S.
programs is so poor that in some cases, instead of
helping to reduce Russias weapons stockpile, they are
actually supplementing the salaries of some Russian
scientists currently working on weapons of mass
destruction. (Nuclear Nonproliferation: Concerns with
DOEs Efforts to Reduce the Risks Posed by Russias
Unemployed Weapons Scientists, GAO, 2/99) In fact,
oversight of Russian aid was so poor that when the GAO
questioned the Administration about its management of
this program:
. . . the Department agreed that program guidance is
unclear on whether funds should be going exclusively to
former, or previously employed, weapons scientists or
whether scientists currently working in weapons of mass
destruction programs are eligible for program funding.
(Nuclear Nonproliferation: Concerns with DOEs Efforts
to Reduce the Risks Posed by Russias Unemployed Weapons
Scientists, GAO, 2/99)
In other words, the Department of Energy does not know
how much of the $700 million the American taxpayer is
paying each year to fund Russian nonproliferation
efforts is actually being used to develop weapons of mass
destruction.
THE ROCK MUSIC HEARINGS
GORE RHETORIC
We do have a serious problem in our culture. Tipper and
I have worked on the problem of violence and
entertainment aimed at children.
GORE REALITY
Gore Was An Advocate Of The Senate Hearings On Rock
Lyrics In 1985. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
would like to thank you and commend you for calling this
hearing. Because my wife has been heavily involved in
the evolution of this issue, I have gained quite a bit of
familiarity with it, and I have really gained an
education in what is involved. (Sen. Albert Gore Jr.,
U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation hearing on record labeling, 9/19/85)
(emphasis added)
In 1987, While Running For President, Gore Told Hollywood
Big Wigs That The Senate Hearings On Rock Lyrics Were A
Mistake. Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Albert
Gore Jr. (D-Tenn.) and his wife, Tipper, told top
entertainment industry executives in a private
peacemaking session in Los Angeles last week that the
controversial hearings on rock music lyrics in which they
participated were a mistake that sent the wrong
message. (Gwen Ifill, Gores Change Tune On Rock-Lyric
Hearings, The Washington Post, November 5, 1987)
(emphasis added)
Gore Also Stated He Was Not In Favor Of The Hearing.
Gore told Hollywood elites at an October 28, 1987 meeting
that the 1985 Senate rock hearings were not a good
idea. He attempted to exculpate himself from the
hearings, placing the blame on Republicans on the
committee. Gore told the Hollywood group I did not ask
for the hearing and I was not in favor of the hearing.
(Henry Schipper, Gores Polishing Showbiz Apple, Daily
Variety, November 3, 1987) (emphasis added)
Was The Hollywood Cash Source The Reason For Gores
Flip-Flop? The effort to make peace with the
entertainment industry could affect Gores fundraising in
California, where wealthy and politically active actors,
recording artists and business people often lend glamour
- and money - to a campaign. (Gwen Ifill, Gores Change
Tune On Rock-Lyric Hearings, The Washington Post,
November 5, 1987) (emphasis added)
SMALLER GOVERNMENT
GORE RHETORIC
"But Im not for a government run system, in fact,
Im for shrinking the size of government, I want a
smaller and smarter government. I have been in charge of
this reinventing government streamlining project that is
reduced sides of government by more than 300,000 people,
in the last several years."
GORE REALITY
Gore's Proposals Will Add Up To 30,000 Bureaucrats In
Washington. "By looking at the relationship between
factors such as outlays, employees, and administrative
costs for the agencies today that would also be involved
in the Vice Presidents proposals and applying these
ratios to the new programs that have been proposed, the
Bulletin estimates that if these proposals were fully in
place today, they would require 20,000-30,000 new
employees to carry them out. This range is comparable to
two to three armored divisions of military troops."
(Budget Bulletin, Senate Budget Committee, October 2,
2000)
Gores Dramatic Spending Is Like Nothing Since LBJ
Years. These are very, very, very large spending
increases. The vice president really has proposed a
dramatic expansion in the role and cost of the federal
government, said Carol Cox Wait, president of the
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Theres
really nothing like it until you go back to the spending
programs of LBJs Great Society social-welfare spending.
. . (Donald Lambro, Federal Role Big In Gore
Proposal; Spending Increase Largest Since LBJ, The
Washington Times, September 20, 2000)
Al Gore Proposes $2.9 Trillion in Spending -- 3 Times
More Spending Than Bill Clinton! Gores Spending
Promises Run 32% Over The Budget Surplus. The
Congressional Budget Office estimates the non-Social
Security surplus over the next 10 years will be nearly
$2.2 trillion. According to a recent estimate by the
National Taxpayers Union, Gores budget proposals will
cost $2.9 trillion creating a deficit of $700 billion.
(How Presidential Candidates Proposed Spending Has
Progressed, National Taxpayers Union Foundation,
September 26, 2000; The Budget and Economic Outlook: An
Update, Congressional Budget Office, July 2000)
Al Gore Falsely Claims That His Reinventing Government
Initiative (REGO) Has Saved Taxpayers $137 Billion,
Helping To Make It Possible To Balance The Federal Budget
For The First Time In 30 Years. According to Gore, NPR
has eliminated more than 16,000 pages of regulations, and
640,000 pages of internal rules, and reduced the federal
workforce by more than 350,000 positions, to its smallest
size since John F. Kennedy was President. (Gore 2000
Website, March 7, 2000)
Al Gores False Savings Claim Is The Result Of Utilizing
Creative Accounting Techniques. In 1999, the
nonpartisan General Accounting Office (GAO) reviewed
Gores reinventing government initiative and found
Gores claimed savings of $137 billion to be exaggerated
and unsubstantiated. The GAO looked at a random $33
billionand found that two-thirds could not be verified.
Instead, GAO uncovered a variety of creative accounting
techniques used by the Clinton/Gore Administration:
Double Counting -- taking credit for
cost-cutting well under way before the initiative was in
place;
Failure To Factor In Offset Costs such as
employee buyouts. (NPRs Savings: Claimed Agency
Savings Cannot All be Attributed to NPR, United States
General Accounting Office, July 1999)
Al Gores Promised 25 Percent Cut In The Executive Office
Of The President Came From The Office Of National Drug
Control Policy. In 1992, Clinton/Gore made a campaign
promise to reduce the Executive Office of the President
by 25 percent. However, Frank Reeder, Director of the
Office of the President, admitted that the vast majority
of the reductions in White House staff were made in the
Office of National Drug Control Policy. In addition, the
Clinton/Gore Administration subsequently requested that
Congress restore such cuts. (Treasury Postal Services
and General Government Subcommittee of the Appropriations
Committee hearing, May 15, 1996)
A GAO Audit Refutes Al Gores Claim Of Eliminating
Federal Regulations. According to the GAO, only 11,569
pages of federal regulations were eliminated. In
addition, the GAO found that the page elimination totals
reported by agencies did not take into account the pages
that were added to the regulations while the eliminations
were taking place. In some cases, agencies added more
pages than they removed during the page elimination
initiative. (Christopher Mihm, General Accounting
Office, Testimony Before the Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of
Government Management, Restructuring and the District of
Columbia, May 4, 2000)
THE TOP 1% OF TAXPAYERS UNDER GOV. BUSHS TAX REFORM
PLAN
GORE RHETORIC
. . . By his own budget numbers, his proposals for
spending on tax cuts, for the wealthiest of the wealthy.
Are more than the new spending proposals that he has made
for health care and education, and national defense, all
combined . . .
REALITY
The Truth About Gov. George W. Bushs Tax Reform Plan:
First of all, only someone like Al Gore who has
spent his entire career in Washington would consider
income not taken from somebody in taxes to be government
spending.
Second, the fact is that Governor Bush's budget
spends $9.9 trillion on education, defense, Medicare and
other health, versus $1.3 trillion in tax relief. In
other words, Gov. Bush would spend seven times more on
these areas than the tax relief in his entire tax
package-and that tax relief goes to all income taxpayers,
not just the top 1%.
Third, the Bush tax plan is more progressive
than the current income tax code. The top 1% would
pay a greater share of income taxes under his plan than
they pay now, and he would remove 6 million families with
children from the rolls completely.
Governor Bush Would Invest More Money On Health,
Education, and Defense Together Than On Tax Relief For
The Top Income Bracket. Governor Bush proposes to invest
in providing Prescription Drugs to Seniors, Medicare
Reform, Education, and Defense. The total of these
priorities is $445 billion, twice as much as the amount
of money being returned to the taxpayers at the top tax
rate. By reducing the top tax rate from 36% and
39.6% to 33%, Governor Bush would return $223
billion to the American taxpayers over 10 years (12%
of the proposed $1.3 trillion tax cut). Governor Bush is
committed to the belief that no one should pay more than
1/3 of their income to the government. (George W. Bush
For President Website, www.georgewbush.com, October 5,
2000)
Governor Bush Would Give Back 5% Of The $25 trillion
That Government Will Collect From Hard Working Taxpayers.
Governor Bushs tax relief plan would represent only 5
percent of the $25 trillion in total federal tax revenues
over [the coming decade]. (Donald Lambro, Gore Tax
Strategy Akin to Mondales, The Washington Times,
October 5, 2000)
The Wealthiest Taxpayers Will Pay A Larger Percent Of The
Nations Total Tax Burden Under The Bush Plan. . . .
one cannot truthfully say the plan benefits the wealthy
at the expense of the middle class or poor. In fact, an
objective reading of the plan comes closer to revealing
just the opposite. . . . the lower a familys income,
the bigger its percentage tax cut. Furthermore, the
national share of federal taxes paid by people earning
more than $100,000 would increase to 64 percent, from 62
percent. Thats perhaps not much of a shift (unless you
are the one paying it), but it clearly goes in the
opposite direction from what Gore would have you believe.
But still Gore continues to misrepresent the truth.
(editorial, Ignoring The Numbers: Gores Tactics
Divisive, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, September 8,
2000) (emphasis added)
Governor Bushs Tax Relief Does Not Favor The Rich. The
Bush tax cut does not favor the rich. . . . Rather,
higher income families get lower percentage reductions.
Those earning $50,000-$75,000 a year would see an average
cut of 30%; families earning $75,000-$100,000 would
see an average cut of 18%; and those earning more
than $100,000 would have an average reduction of
10%. (editorial, Truth On Tax Cuts, The Wall
Street Journal, September 5, 2000)
The Governors Tax Relief Favors Lower Income People.
The Bush plan offers a reduction in the bottom rate to
10% from 15% and doubles the child credit to
$1,000 from $500. This translates into relief with
capital letters. It means . . . that the six million
two-parent, two-children families earning less that
$35,000 a year would have zero tax liability; thats a
100% reduction. Those families earning between
$40,000 and $50,000 a year would see an average reduction
of 55%. (editorial, Truth On Tax Cuts, The Wall
Street Journal, September 5, 2000)
The Wall Street Journal, Using Non-Partisan Joint
Committee On Taxation Figures, Says Gore Attack Is Wrong
And That Only One-Fifth Of Tax Cut Goes To Top One
Percent, Who Pay One-Third Of All Taxes. Mr. Gores
charge that the Bush tax plan gives nearly half of the
tax cut to the wealthiest 1%. And its also hard
to believe that a total policy wonk like Mr. Gore could
be so mistaken. But the fact is that, according to the
nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation (also cited
approvingly by Mr. Gore), the top 1% will get about
one-fifth -- not nearly half -- of the benefit under
Mr. Bush's tax proposal. (editorial, Speaking Of
1%, The Wall Street Journal, October 10, 2000)
Mr. Gores mistake rests on two confusions. First, he
confused the notion of wealth with the notion of income
-- two entirely different categories. . . . Second, Mr.
Gore included estate taxes in his calculation. Estate
taxes show up in the year that the heirs receive their
bequest. Not only does that mean that many of them make
the top 1% category for only one year, but the
bequest itself is most usually the result of a lifetime
of accumulation. For example, the heir of an estate could
be earning $50,000 a year and receive, as a bequest, a
house, farm, small business or Aunt Mopsies collection
of Impressionists. We doubt that these were honest
mistakes. Mr. Gore was using figures generated by the
left-leaning Citizens for Tax Justice, not figures
provided by the source of choice, the IRS Statistics of
Income Bulletin or data provided by the Joint Committee
on Taxation. Indeed, we suspect that these were not
mistakes at all, but part of Mr. Gores unremitting
rhetoric of class warfare. (editorial, Speaking Of
1%, The Wall Street Journal, October 10, 2000)
GORE MISREPRESENTS BUSHS RECORD ON HEALTH COVERAGE TO
CHILDREN IN TEXAS
GORE RHETORIC
. . . But what my friends there tell me is that the
Governor opposed a measure put forward by democrats in
the legislature to expand the number of children that
would be covered. . . But, as of year ago 600,000 of
them were actually eligible for it, but they couldn't
sign I I -- sign up for it because of barriers that they
had to surmount.
GORE REALITY
BUSH SUPPORTED AND SIGNED CHIP LEGISLATION IN TEXAS
Governor Bush Supported And Signed CHIP Legislation In
Texas. In 1999, Governor Bush supported and signed
legislation creating the Texas' State Children's Health
Insurance Program (CHIP) program to provide insurance for
more than 423,000 children in Texas. (Senate Bill
445,76th Legislature)
Governor Bush Provided $25 Million In State Funds So That
Children Of Legal Immigrants Could Be Eligible For CHIP.
Governor Bush and the Texas Legislature also recognized
the importance of providing healthcare to the children of
legal immigrants by providing an additional $25 million
in state funds to make them eligible for CHIP insurance.
Under current federal law, children of legal immigrants
were not eligible for federal funding. (Appropriations
Bill, 76th Legislature)
Texas Outpaces Similar States In Enrolling Children In
The CHIP Program. At the earliest opportunity provided
by state law, Texas enacted the CHIP program and began
aggressively enrolling children. In fact, Texas outpaced
similar states in enrolling children in the S-CHIP
program. In the first five months of the CHIP program,
Texas enrolled more than 17 percent of all eligible
children.
#of Children Eligible % of Est. Eligible # of
Children
California 43,900 7.33% 599,000
Florida 20,514 7.92% 259,000
Michigan 182 0.39% 47,000
Arizona 10,578 16.76% 63,100
Texas 83,592 17.49% 478,000
SOURCE: Texas Health and Human Services Commission;
CLINTON-GORE ADMINISTRATION HAS CREATED MORE BUREAUCRATIC
REGULATIONS UNDER CHIP
National Governors Association Criticizes Clinton-Gore.
The Department of Health and
Human Services has instituted new regulations that have
made the CHIP program all but unworkable. The National
Governors' Association (NGA) has argued that the current
rules governing the CHIP program have made it harder to
deliver health coverage to uninsured children. In a
statement last January, the bipartisan NGA asserted that
these new regulations "make it more difficult, if not
impossible, for states to create new and innovative
health care delivery systems for the 21st Century."
(National Governors Association, Comments to the Proposed
Rule, "State Child Health: Implementing Regulations
for the State Children's Health Insurance Program,"
64 Fed. Reg. 60882, January 7, 2000)
Rules Issued By The Clinton-Gore Administration Have Made
It Difficult To Develop Long Term Strategies To Provide
Coverage To More Children. Despite the fact the CHIP
program was created in 1997, states are still operating
from interim rules issued by the Clinton-Gore
administration, making it difficult for states to develop
long-term strategies to provide coverage to more children.
CLINTON-GORE BLOCKED TEXAS' EFFORT TO INSURE MORE TEXANS
Governor Bush Worked To Expand Health Care Coverage To
The Uninsured. In 1995, Governor Bush signed legislation
directing the Health and Human Services Commission to
submit a Section 1115 waiver application to the
Clinton-Gore Administrations Health Care Financing
Administration (HCFA). The waiver would have expanded
eligibility to the child and adult uninsured population,
implemented more effective care statewide, and created
state and local partnerships for health care delivery.
(Senate Bill 10, 74 Legislature)
The Clinton-Gore Administration Said No Twice To Helping
Texas Insure More Children! HCFA refused to approve the
waiver, claiming it gave too much authority to local
governmental authorities to manage the program. In
November 1996, Texas modified the waiver to meet HCFA's
concerns, but it was again rejected in August 1997 for
technical reasons concerning the number of available
health plans in each region of the state.
TEXAS MEDICAID LAWSUIT
GORE RHETORIC
"There is now a federal judge's opinion, about the
current management of this program. Ordering the state of
Texas, to do and shup read that judge's language about
this I believe there are 1.4 million children in Texas,
who do not have have health insurance. . ."
GORE REALITY
[IMPORTANT NOTE: The suit only concerns children already
enrolled in Medicaid and does not address the issue of
children eligible for Medicaid.]
BACKGROUND ON LAWSUIT FILED WHEN DEMOCRAT ANN RICHARDS
WAS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS
Lawsuit Was Initiated Under A Democratic Administration.
In 1993, a class action lawsuit was filed to address
abuses in a Medicaid-related health program during the
previous administration. In 1996, the State entered into
an agreement to take 148 remedial actions as a result of
the lawsuit. The motion to enforce, filed by Judge
Justice on August 14, 2000, only addresses 9 of the 148
remedial actions, in recognition of Texas' compliance
with the 139 other provisions. The remaining issues
largely centered upon the Texas Department of Health
(TDH) and the plaintiff having different interpretations
of the requirements.
TEXAS OUTPACES NATION IN MEDICAID-RELATED HEALTH PROGRAMS
Texas Dramatically Increases Participation In Early
Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT).
Texas has improved EPSDT participation rates every year,
moving from a 29% rate in 1993 to a 61% rate in
98 (latest figure). Texas has moved from the bottom
third of the states nationally to among the highest in
the country (national participation 54% and Texas is
61%).
Texas Nearly Doubles The Nation's Rate Of Dental Care Use
For Poor Children. The Texas utilization rate for dental
care is almost double the national average (20%
nationally and 38% in Texas). (Texas Health and
Human Services Commission)
Texas Improves Medical Transportation Services For The
Poor. Between 1993 and 1999, the Medical Transportation
Program (MTP) increased transportation usage by more than
250% and increased in size from 60 employees to more
than 140 employees today. A statewide study by Texas A&M
University in 1999 found an 89% approval rating among
users.
Managed Care Program Approved By Clinton-Gore. The
Medicaid Managed Care program began in 1993, based upon
Clinton-Administration (HCFA) approval. Governor Bush
signed legislation in 1999 placing a voluntary moratorium
on further Medicaid managed care rollouts so the state
could assess the effectiveness of managed care in
Medicaid. Many of the criticisms outlined in the report
were based on technical reporting requirements that
changed when Texas moved from an outdated fee-for-service
program (outlines each specific treatment to be
individually charged) to a managed care program (based on
flat treatment rates).
TEXAS PROVIDING CARE TO ABUSED KIDS
Texas Providing Care To Abused Kids. Each of the 13,200
children under direct state care are assigned a case
manager. Every child under the direct care of the Texas
Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (TDPRS),
is assigned a case manager who ensures that every
guardian of an EPSDT-eligible child is encouraged to
utilize the program's services.
The Judges Claim Is Not Accurate. The judge's assertion
that children under state supervision are not receiving
care is based on unsubstantiated data that does not take
into consideration that many foster care children receive
medical and dental services through the County Child
Welfare Services Program as they transition into
Medicaid.
UNDER BUSH, TEXAS LEADS THE NATION IN HEALTH CARE
OUTREACH EFFORTS
Texas Pursues Aggressive Health Care Outreach Efforts.
Texas' EPSDT outreach effort is $15 million annually,
which is the largest in the country and exceeds all
federal requirements. In 1993, only 10 staff worked on
outreach; today there are almost 600 outreach workers.
Medicaid enrollees are contacted on average 3 times a
year to encourage use of the EPSDT benefit.
AL GORE CHAIRED THE MEETING TO DISCUSS ELIMINATING
MEDICAID
Al Gore Chaired The Meeting To Discuss Eliminating
Medicaid. When Al Gore chaired the first meeting of the
White House Task Force on National Health Care Reform,
among the topics of discussion during the 13-hour hearing
was the idea and feasibility of gradually eliminating
Medicaid as well as reducing the benefits of some
Medicare recipients. (Edwin Chen, Lid on Health Costs
Needed, Gore Says Los Angeles Times, March 30, 1993):
Under Clintons bill. . . Medicaid patients would
receive the same benefits package as other Americans.
That would mean fewer services for some Medicaid
beneficiaries who currently receive assistance with
transportation, translation and rehabilitation. . .
.overall, spending for Medicaid would be sharply
reduced. (Alissa J. Rubin, Clintons Health-Care
Bill, CQ Weekly, February 26, 1994, p. 499)
THE REAL CLINTON/GORE RECORD ON THE ENVIRONMENT
GORE RHETORIC
I'll tell you this, I will fight for a clean
environment. . .
GORE REALITY
AL GORE HAS CONSISTENTLY BROKEN HIS WORD TO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE ON THE ENVIRONMENT:
POLLUTION
In 1992, Al Gore Promised America He Would Work To
Prevent And Reduce Pollution. Yet According To The Boston
Globe, The United States Government, Which Acts As
Steward And Protector Of The Nations Environment, Is
Itself The Worst Polluter In The Land. Federal agencies
have contaminated more than 60,000 sites across the
country and the cost of cleaning up the worst sites is
officially expected to approach $300 billion, nearly five
times the price of similar destruction caused by private
companies. But the real cost is likely tens of billions
of dollars more. (Bill Clinton and Al Gore, Putting
People First, 1992, p. 97; David Armstrong,
Environmental Injustice: Government as Polluter, The
Boston Globe, November 14, 1999)
In 1992, Al Gore Promised The Nation He Would Get Tough
With Dirty Polluters But During His Tenure As Vice
President, His Administrations Own Federal Prosecutors
Declined To Pursue 70 Percent Of The Cases Referred By
The Environmental Protection Agency And Other
Investigators Against US Companies For Possible Criminal
Violations. (Bill Clinton and Al Gore, Putting People
First, 1992, p. 96; David Armstrong, US Declines to
Prosecute Most Corporate Polluters, Study Finds, The
Boston Globe, November 30, 1999)
In 1992, Al Gore Pledged That He Would Work To Increase
The Phase Out Of Substances Harmful To The Ozone Layer
But As Vice President, The Clinton/Gore Administration
Signed A Law To Extend The Use Of The Dangerous Pesticide
Methyl Bromide Until 2005. Methyl Bromide destroys ozone
at 50 times the rate of CFCs, according to the EPA.
(Bill Clinton and Al Gore, Putting People First, 1992, p.
97; Danielle Knight, Environment: U.S. Government Delays
Ban on Toxic Pesticide, Inter Press Service, October 28,
1998)
CLEAN DRINKING WATER VIOLATIONS
A 1997 Study By Public Interest Research Groups (PIRG)
Concluded That One In Every Five Major Wastewater
Discharges Violated The Clean Water Act During A 15-Month
Period. The EPA reported that one in four drinking water
systems in the nation is in violation of public health
standards. Half of the countrys wastewater treatment
facilities failed to comply with clean-water laws during
at least one quarter of fiscal 1998. (David Armstrong,
US Lagging on Prosecutions, The Boston Globe, November
16, 1999)
Gore Broke His Pledge To Keep Offshore Oil And Gas
Drilling Away From The Florida Coastline. (Editorial,
St. Petersburg Times, September 29, 1999)
Gore Vowed To Stop A Highly Controversial Waste
Incinerator In East Liverpool, Ohio In 1992, But The
Project Continued And Today Operates Near An Elementary
School. (Francis X. Clines, Gores 92 Promise on
Incinerator Propels Ohio Demonstrators in 00, The New
York Times, January 13, 2000)
Gore Broke His 1992 Campaign Promise To Protect The
Wetlands When The Clinton/Gore
-- OpenMind (someone@somewhere.net), October 12, 2000