More inconsistencies..... : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

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,, 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.


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;


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.


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.]


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 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. 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.


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. 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. . .



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)


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 (, October 12, 2000


Details, details, details...


Bush, Gore Flub Details in Debate

WASHINGTON (AP) - For all the attention given to Republican George W. Bush's trouble identifying foreign leaders, it was Democrat Al Gore who got a title wrong during Wednesday night's presidential debate. For his part, Bush misstated the outcome of one of the most notorious crimes in his state.

In a minor flub during a debate in which both candidates picked their foreign policy words carefully, Gore talked about the new president of Serbia. He meant Yugoslavia.

He referred to attempts by supporters of ousted Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic to ``ignore the orders of the new president of Serbia.''

He meant Vojislav Kostunica, the Yugoslav president. Serbia is the largest republic of Yugoslavia.

For his part, Bush identified Haiti as one of the places in the world where he would withdraw U.S. troops. Actually, the Clinton administration, acting under pressure from Congress, brought nearly all U.S. troops home from Haiti earlier this year.

Gore picked up on this when his turn came, noting, there was ``only a handful'' of U.S. forces left in Haiti.

Bush wrongly stated during the debate that ``the three men who murdered James Byrd ... are going to be put to death.''

Byrd was a 49-year-old black man and father of three who was chained to the back of a pickup truck by three white men two years ago and dragged three miles to his death in east Texas. Only two of the defendants were sentenced to death; a third was sentenced to life in prison.

On other matters, Gore touted his support of former President Bush during the Gulf War, noting correctly he was one of a few Democrats to do so.

But he did not mention that during the 1992 campaign, he assailed the former president for his prewar policy regarding Iraq and declared the Gulf War ``never should have taken place.''


If details are the most important issue, then maybe we should just hire the guy who wrote Encyclopedia Brittanica to be president.

-- (details@for.morons), October 12, 2000.

For his part, Bush identified Haiti as one of the places in the world where he would withdraw U.S. troops.

The other was the Balkans. But not right away, of course!!!

And yet he claims that our military is overextended but can't give any examples of places where he would withdraw troops NOW.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), October 12, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ