Posted on 09/13/2004 6:36:06 PM PDT by RWR8189
|
Rhetoric |
JOHN KERRY: “It’s time for a President who understands that a stronger America begins at home. It’s time to stop rewarding companies for shipping jobs overseas …”
|
The Facts |
Outsourcing Not Cause Of Major Job Loss
Only Two Percent Of Layoffs Were Due To Foreign Outsourcing. “Shifting jobs overseas accounted for only a tiny fraction of U.S. job losses in the first three months of the year, according to a first-ever report released … by the Labor Department. … About 2 percent of the major layoffs in the first three months of the year stemmed from companies moving jobs offshore, either on their own or through hiring another firm to do the work, the Labor Department found.” (Ken Moritsugu, “Report: Offshoring Is Minor Factor In Job Loss,” San Jose Mercury News, 6/10/04)
Experts Say There Is Not “Serious Cause For Concern.” “Ravi Aron, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, says the numbers confirm that fears about a massive exodus of U.S. jobs are overblown. ‘This is not very surprising,’ says Aron, who studies the practice, commonly known as offshoring, in the services industry. He notes that moving operations abroad is not a simple activity and is risky. ‘I don’t think there is a real serious cause for concern’ for U.S. workers, he says. ‘There is a natural limit to outsourcing.’” (Barbara Hagenbaugh, “U.S. Layoffs Not A Result Of Offshoring, Data Show,” USA Today, 6/11/04)
Kerry Team Supports, Understands Outsourcing
“‘Kerry Is Not Against Outsourcing,’ Kerry Spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter Said.” (James Kuhnhenn and Ron Hutcheson, “Bush, Kerry Almost Meet In Iowa,” The San Jose Mercury News, 8/4/04)
Jason Furman, Kerry Economic Policy Adviser: “John Kerry Recognizes That We Live In A Global Economy And That We Cannot Keep All Jobs In America.” (Washington Post Website, “Economy: Kerry Economic Adviser,” Live Online Chat, http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/04/furman080604.htm, 8/6/04)
Kerry “Supports” American Businesses Taking Jobs Overseas. Kerry said, “Benedict Arnold does not refer to somebody who in the normal course of business is going to go overseas and take jobs overseas. That happens. I support that. I understand that.” (Jerry Seib, John Harwood and Jacob Schlesinger, “Excerpts From An Interview With John Kerry,” The Wall Street Journal, 5/3/04)
In December 2003, Kerry Recognized You Can’t “Just Stop” Outsourcing. “Well, any candidate for president who stands up and tells people, as some are, that they’re going to just stop [outsourcing] by getting tough on trade or whatever, is lying to the American people. Outsourcing is particularly painful at this moment because we haven’t been creating jobs, and we haven’t been creating jobs to some measure because of the overhang of the 1990s, the excess capacity that we were left with and the need to sort of burn it up.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Council On Foreign Relations, New York, NY, , 12/3/03)
Kerry Plan May Actually Hurt Job Creation
St. Louis Economist Said Kerry Tax Plan Will Hurt Job Creation. “How exactly would Kerry’s job-creation campaign, which begins by repealing the Bush tax cuts for Americans earning more than $200,000 a year, work? ‘A tax increase in the short run acts as a near-term drag on aggregate demand and slows the rate of increase in jobs,’ said Chris Varvares, president of Macroeconomic Advisers, a St. Louis-based consulting firm that maintains one of the large macroeconomic models of the U.S. economy.” (Caroline Baum, “Kerry’s Tax Plan To Create Jobs Doesn’t Add Up,” Bloomberg.com, 2/24/04)
Kerry Advisor Says Plan Would Create Few Jobs. “[P]eter R. Orszag, an economist at the Brookings Institution whom the Kerry campaign consulted about the plan … [said] the proposal would probably not create many U.S. jobs … ‘In terms of short-term employment growth, there’s very little effect,’ he said.” (Julie Hirschfeld Davis, “Kerry Offers Plan Designed To Curb Outsourced Jobs,” Baltimore Sun, 3/27/04)
Plan Wouldn’t Stimulate U.S. Hiring. “As for the Kerry plan, David Wyss, chief economist for Standard & Poor’s, says … it [is] unlikely that Kerry’s tax policy changes would bolster hiring here, even with major changes in the tax code.” (Peronet Despeignes, “Candidates Offer Competing Plans For Job Creation,” USA Today, 3/26/04)
ü Former Clinton Advisor Agrees. “[C]hristian Weller, senior economist for the liberal think tank the Center for American Progress, said he doesn’t know if the Kerry proposal will have much impact on a company’s decision about where to base a job. ‘Tax cuts typically are a very small component in company’s hiring decisions,’ said Weller, whose colleague Gene Sperling is a former National Economic Advisor in the Clinton administration and a key economic adviser to the Kerry campaign. ‘It won’t necessary slow the move of companies and jobs overseas,’ said Weller …” (Chris Isidore, “Economists Mixed On Kerry Plan,” CNN.com, 3/26/04)
Kerry Advisors Admit Plan Will Do Little To Stem Outsourcing, Third Parties Agree
Robert Rubin Said Kerry’s Plan Won’t Stop Outsourcing And Rubin Considers Outsourcing Part Of “Trade Liberalization” That Benefits “Economic Well-Being.” STEPHANOPOULOS: “Senator Kerry has said that he would take away the tax break that allows companies to not pay taxes as long as they keep the income overseas. Will that stop the outsourcing problem?” RUBIN: “No. I think that outsourcing is part of a much larger issue. It’s part of trade liberalization. And trade liberalization, as Senator Kerry has said and President Clinton used to say, is very much beneficial to the economic well-being.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 9/12/04)
Kerry’s Own Advisors Won’t Predict If Plan Will Reduce Outsourcing. “Mr. Kerry’s advisers wouldn’t predict whether his plan actually would reduce the flow of jobs outsourced from the U.S. …” (Bob Davis and John Harwood, “Kerry Targets Job Outsourcing With Corporate-Tax Overhaul,” The Wall Street Journal, 3/26/04)
ü “Campaign Officials Acknowledged That The New Plan Would Not Stop The Broader Trend Of Outsourcing Jobs To Low-Wage Countries.” (Edmund L. Andrews and Jodi Wilgoren, “Kerry To Propose Eliminating A Tax Break On U.S. Companies’ Overseas Profits,” The New York Times, 3/26/04)
Tax Expert: Kerry Plan “Not A Solution.” “But others were not so sure the effects would be that significant, partly because the change would affect companies only locating in countries with lower tax rates than the United States, such as Ireland or Singapore. Joel Slemrod, an international tax expert at the University of Michigan Business School … added that the change in tax incentives probably would not be large enough to overcome other factors encouraging companies to shift employment abroad, such as lower wages. ‘To those who see [outsourcing] as a problem, this is not a solution,’ he said.” (Ronald Brownstein, “Kerry Wants To End Tax Break For Corporate Profits Abroad,” Los Angeles Times, 3/26/04)
»»»»
|
Rhetoric |
JOHN KERRY: “… To get healthcare costs under control …”
|
The Facts |
Kerry’s Plan Will Not Lower Cost Of Health Care
Kerry’s Plan Would Shift More Health Care Costs To Taxpayers Without Reducing Spending. “Mr. Kerry would partly take the burden off employers by making government responsible for 75% of the cost of catastrophic cases, those running up more than $50,000 in bills. He says these cases account for nearly 20% of private insurers’ costs. But then what? The cost is just transferred to taxpayers but there’s no injection of efficiency into incentives, no reason to imagine total costs won’t continue to grow wildly.” (Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., Op-Ed, “Faint, Desperate Hope For Health Care Leadership,” The Wall Street Journal, 3/17/04)
ü President Of National Business Group On Health Said “Giving The Government Responsibility For Highest-Cost Medical Cases Shows A ‘Blank-Check Mentality.’” “The notion is to have taxpayers take the risk of very costly illnesses in exchange for companies’ agreeing to cover all workers, funnel savings to them and take steps to slow the growth of health spending. Mr. Thorpe estimates that companies would have to spend $68 billion over 10 years to provide the required coverage, resulting in a net savings of $222 billion for the companies. … Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health, a coalition of employers, said that the idea is appealing to business ‘if you were voting only on that particular provision.’ But, she adds, giving the government responsibility for highest-cost medical cases shows a ‘blank-check mentality.’ Once a worker’s bill hits the ceiling, she says, ‘there’s no reason for anyone to pay attention to costs.’” (Sarah Lueck, “Businesses Are Wary Of Kerry Health Plan,” The Wall Street Journal, 7/26/04)
ü Because Kerry Puts Mandates On Businesses In Order To Qualify For Reinsurance Pool, Large Employers With Many Part-Time Workers Probably Would Not Participate. “To qualify, companies would have to institute disease-management programs, which are designed to help reduce the long-term expense of such chronic illnesses as diabetes and heart disease. In addition, employers would have to offer health coverage to all workers, including part-timers. Employers, therefore, would have to weigh the cost of covering all workers against the benefit of the subsidy. Large employers with many part-time workers - such as Wal-Mart, for example - probably would pass, [health policy expert Ken] Thorpe said.” (Marilyn Werber Serafini, “Targeting The ‘Worried Insured,’” National Journal Magazine, 2/7/04)
Kerry Opposed Or Voted To Block Medical Liability Reform At Least Ten Times. (H.R. 956, CQ Vote #137: Motion Rejected 39-61: R 10-44; D 29-17; I 0-0, 5/2/95, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 956, CQ Vote #140: Motion Agreed To 65-35: R 24-30; D 41-5, 5/2/95, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 956, CQ Vote #141: Motion Agreed To 56-44: R 13-41; D 43-3, 5/2/95, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 956, CQ Vote #144: Passed 53-47: R 48-6; D 5-41, 5/2/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 956, CQ Vote #151: Motion Rejected 46-53: R 44-10; D 2-43; I 0-0, 5/4/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 956, CQ Vote #152: Motion Rejected 47-52: R 45-9; D 2-43; I 0-0, 5/4/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 956, CQ Vote #160: Motion Agreed To 54-44:: R 46-7; D 8-37, 5/10/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 956, CQ Vote #161: Passed 61-37: R 46-7; D 15-30, 5/10/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1052, CQ Vote #212: Motion Agreed To 52-46: R 2-45; D 49-1; I 1-0, 6/29/01, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 812, CQ Vote #197: Motion Agreed To 57-42: R 6-42; D 50-0; I 1-0, 7/30/02, Kerry Voted Yea)
Kerry Missed Both 2004 Votes, As Well As 2003 Vote, On Medical Liability Reform Legislation. (S. 2061, CQ Vote #15: Motion Rejected 48-45: R 47-3: D 1-41; I 0-1, 2/24/04, Kerry Did Not Vote; S. 2207, CQ Vote #66: Motion Rejected 49-48: R 48-3; D 1-44; I 0-1, 4/7/04, Kerry Did Not Vote; S. 11, CQ Vote #264: Motion Rejected 49-48: R 49-2; D 0-45; I 0-1, 7/9/03, Kerry Did Not Vote)
ü Medical Liability Reform Could Save Between $60 Billion And $108 Billion In Health Care Costs Annually, Making Health Insurance More Affordable For Millions. “The [medical malpractice] litigation system also imposes large indirect costs on the health care system. Defensive medicine that is caused by unlimited and unpredictable liability awards not only increases patients’ risk but it also adds costs. The leading study estimates that limiting unreasonable awards for non-economic damages could reduce health care costs by 5-9% without adversely affecting quality of care. This would save $60-108 billion in health care costs each year. These savings would lower the cost of health insurance and permit an additional 2.4-4.3 million Americans to obtain insurance.” (“Confronting The New Health Care Crisis: Improving Health Care Quality And Lowering Costs By Fixing Our Medical Liability System,” U.S. Department Of Health And Human Services, 7/25/02)
»»»»
|
Rhetoric |
JOHN KERRY: “… And to end America’s dependence on Mideast oil.”
|
The Facts |
On November 21, 2003, Senate Fell Three Votes Short Of Passing Energy Bill On Procedural Vote. Kerry skipped cloture vote on the energy bill, which required 60 votes to end Democrat filibuster. Failure to end the Democrat filibuster in effect killed the bill. (H.R. 6, CQ Vote #456: Motion Rejected 57-40: R 44-7; D 13-32; I 0-1, 11/21/03, Kerry Did Not Vote)
That Same Day, Kerry Was In New Hampshire Filing His Primary Candidacy Papers. (Garry Rayno, “Kerry, Kucinich Make Runs Official On Final Day,” The [Manchester, NH] Union Leader, 11/22/03)
Energy Bill (H.R. 6) That Kerry Opposed Would Have:
ü Required A 20% Reduction In Federal Building Energy Use By 2013;
ü Eliminated The Need For At Least 130 New Power Plants By 2020;
ü Authorized $300 Million For Solar Programs;
ü Provided For An Average Of $600 Million Per Year For Existing And New Coal-Based Research And Development;
ü Provided $1.8 Billion Authorization To Carry Out Clean Coal Power Initiative;
ü Mandated That At Least 60 Percent Of The $1.8 Billion Be Used For Coal-Based Gasification Technology Which Must Met Stringent Environmental Performance And Increase Efficiency Standards;
ü Launched Programs For Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Transit Buses And Hydrogen Fuel-Cell School Buses;
ü Increased Funding For The DOT To Work On Improving CAFE Standards;
ü Required NHTSA To Consider Vehicle Safety And Automobile Industry Jobs In Determining CAFE Standards;
ü Launched Hydrogen-Powered Automobile Program To Get Cars On Road By 2020;
ü Allowed For Increased Development In The Gulf Of Mexico For Oil And Natural Gas Drilling;
ü Allowed For Construction Of The Alaskan North Slope Natural Gas Pipeline;
ü Authorized Expansion Of The Strategic Petroleum Reserve;
ü Invested In Critical Electrical Transmission Capacity;
ü Authorized Over $2.9 Billion In Funding Over The Next Five Years For Renewable Energy Research And Development;
ü Instituted A Specific New Funding Category To Cleanup Tank-Related Releases Of Oxygenated Fuel Additives In Gasoline Like MTBE. (“Highlights Of Energy Policy Act Of 2003,” House Republican Conference, 11/22/03)
Kerry Says He Wants Alternative Energy Sources, But Won’t Weigh In On Cape Wind Farm Project In His Own Backyard. “Kerry insisted it’s proper to let the environmental review continue and not to short-circuit public comment. ‘I don’t think it is appropriate for me (to weigh in). I think the most appropriate thing to do is listen to the people on the Cape, listen to the people who have concerns, weigh the arguments,’ he said.” (Kevin Landrigan, “Kerry Offers Ways To Fight Pollution,” The [Nashua, NH] Telegraph, 4/23/03)
ü Kerry Ready To Support Project, But Waiting For Environmental Impact Statement? “Mr. Kerry has generally been an outspoken supporter of renewable energy, but he faces a tricky problem at his home in Nantucket, Mass., where some of his neighbors are trying to stop the construction of a large wind farm, which is supported by environmental groups. The neighbors say it will be too noisy and create an eyesore. Mr. Kerry says he is ready to support the project but with a big caveat: He is waiting to see the environmental impact statement.” (John Tierney, “Talking The Talk But Burning Big,” The New York Times, 4/25/04)
ü Kerry Wants Alternative Sites. “‘I’ve talked to the participants about whether or not there aren’t alternative sites. I think there is a way to work the process intelligently,’ Kerry told reporters.” (Kevin Landrigan, “Kerry Offers Ways To Fight Pollution,” The [Nashua, NH] Telegraph, 4/23/03)
Multiple Environmental Groups Are For Project. “In addition to Greenpeace, the Natural Resource Defense Council, the World Wildlife Fund, the Conservation Law Foundation and Friends of the Earth have spoken favorably of the project.” (Sam Dealey, “Wind Farm Is An Issue For Kerry,” The Hill, 6/18/03)
Greenpeace Has Criticized Kerry For His Silence. “‘Kerry is the one who really needs to be called out on this stuff,’ said Kert Davies, research director of Greenpeace. ‘He’s been pretty mum so far. We don’t know where he stands.’ Davies added, ‘He’s obviously very pro-renewable energy; he knows the climate better than almost anyone in the Senate. And by that logic, he should be in favor of this project being implemented.’” (Sam Dealey, “Wind Farm Is An Issue For Kerry,” The Hill, 6/18/03)
ü More Greenpeace Criticism Of Kerry’s Cape Wind Stance. “It’s not fair to stump about how scary global warming is one week, then oppose this the next. It’s not fair, in terms of environmental justice, for communities with cash to demand that projects they don’t want be built somewhere else.” (Elinor Burkett, “A Mighty Wind,” The New York Times, 6/15/03)
ü Competitive Enterprise Institute Castigated Northeast Senators, Including Kerry, For Supporting Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) But Not Cape Wind. “If renewable energy is going to be required by federal mandate, then people on Cape Cod or Martha’s Vineyard or Nantucket, as in South Dakota or Iowa or Minnesota, are just going to have to get used to it. Merely living in a very nice spot with high real estate values should not exempt anyone from sharing the renewable burden. Indeed, advocates of Environmental Justice would argue that since poor people will be paying a much larger share of their incomes in higher electricity prices because of the RPS than will the wealthy, wind farms, biomass generation facilities, and rights of way for transmission lines should be sited in wealthy neighborhoods. … In our view, continuing to support the RPS while opposing a wind farm off Cape Cod (and possible expansions along the New England coast) is an indefensible position. But if that is your position, we think the public would be interested in hearing how you defend it.” (Myron Ebell and Marlo Lewis, Jr., “An Open Letter To Selected Senators On Their Support For The Renewable Portfolio Standard,” Competitive Enterprise Institute, 9/25/02)
Meanwhile, Other “Upscale” Local Property Owners Oppose Project Too. “Many property owners on upscale Nantucket Island and Martha’s Vineyard object to the project, saying the 130 turbines planned would mar ocean vistas and harm property values.” (Chris Holly, “Wind Technology Said Help In Natural Gas Crisis,” New Technology Week, 7/14/03)
Third Parties Questions Kerry’s Energy Plan
Kerry’s Energy Independence Plan Not Feasible. “Bob Linden of PA Consulting, a group that analyzes energy markets, says: ‘In the abstract, it’s an intriguing goal. But there is nothing on the horizon out there now that could afford us the kind of lifestyle we have at the costs we now pay. There is no magic wand out there.’” (Jim Snyder, “Independence From Foreign Oil Unlikely, Analysts Say,” The Hill, 7/28/04)
Kerry’s “Manhattan Project” For Energy Independence Won’t Work. “Energy analysts say that while government can help in the search for solutions, it’s unlikely that a Manhattan Project-style effort will bear fruit. Government projects are ‘inevitably incomplete and premature’ and distort the market by favoring one technology or goal over another, [PA Consulting’s Bob] Linden says.” (Jim Snyder, “Independence From Foreign Oil Unlikely, Analysts Say,” The Hill, 7/28/04)
»»»»
|
Rhetoric |
JOHN KERRY: “The fundamental choice in this election is between a President who will fight for the middle class and a President who sides with the special interests in this country.”
|
The Facts |
Since 1989, Kerry Has Received $15,217,154 From Lawyers, Most Of Any Senator In That Time Period. (Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 8/16/04)
ü Kerry’s Presidential Campaign Has Received $12,335,930 From Lawyers. (Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 8/16/04)
Kerry Has Raised More From Lobbyists Than Any Senator Over Last 15 Years. “Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who has made a fight against corporate special interests a centerpiece of his front-running campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, has raised more money from paid lobbyists than any other senator over the past 15 years, federal records show. Kerry, a 19-year veteran of the Senate who fought and won four expensive political campaigns, has received nearly $640,000 from lobbyists, many representing telecommunications and financial companies with business before his committee, according to Federal Election Commission data compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. For his presidential race, Kerry has raised more than $225,000 from lobbyists, better than twice as much as his nearest Democratic rival.” (Jim VandeHei, “Kerry Leads In Lobby Money,” The Washington Post, 1/31/04)
Since 1989, Kerry Has Received $2,797,156 From Entertainment Industry Employees, Most Of Any Senator In That Time Period. (Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 8/16/04)
ü Kerry’s Presidential Campaign Has Received $1,928,472 From Entertainment Industry Employees. (Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 8/16/04)
Since 1989, Kerry Has Received $250,960 From HMO & Health Care Services Industry Employees, Most Of Any Senator In That Time Period. (Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 8/16/04)
ü Kerry’s Presidential Campaign Has Received $183,200 From HMO & Health Care Services Industry Employees. (Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 8/16/04)
Since 1989, Kerry Has Received $11,674,980 From Finance/Insurance/Real Estate Sector Employees, Most Of Any Senator In That Time Period. (Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 8/16/04)
ü Kerry’s Presidential Campaign Has Received $7,890,906 From Finance/Insurance/Real Estate Sector Employees. (Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 8/16/04)
Since 1989, Kerry Has Received $3,799,982 From Securities & Investment Industry Employees, Second-Most Of Any Senator In That Time Period. (Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 8/16/04)
ü Kerry’s Presidential Campaign Has Received $2,567,887 From Securities & Investment Industry Employees. (Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 8/16/04)
Since 1989, Kerry Has Received $2,465,869 From Health Professionals, More Than Any Senator In That Time Period. (Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 8/16/04)
ü Kerry’s Presidential Campaign Has Received $2,154,772 From Health Professionals. (Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 8/16/04)
»»»»
|
Rhetoric |
JOHN KERRY: “I’ll be a President who’ll stand up for the middle class. I’m John Kerry and I approved this message.”
|
The Facts |
Kerry Repeatedly Voted For Higher Taxes On Middle Class
Kerry Has Said He Voted For Budget Bills Because They Were Only Ones That Had “Any Hope” Of Passing. “I decided to support the [Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act] after much consideration. In the end I was swayed by … the fact that it is the only package with any hope of enactment into law … We have no choice but to support this bill.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 6/29/93, p. S8267)
Kerry Voted Against Senate Passage Of 2001 Tax Cut, Which Included Marriage Penalty And Child Tax Credit. (H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #165: Passed 62-38: R 50-0; D 12-38, 5/23/01, Kerry Voted Nay)
ü And Then Missed Final Passage Of 2001 Tax Cut To Deliver Commencement Address. (Kirk Victor, et al., “A Kerry Top 10,” National Journal, 1/30/04; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #170: Adopted 58-33: R 46-2; D 12-31, 5/26/01, Kerry Missed Vote)
Voted Against Final Passage Of 2003 Tax Cut, Which Included Acceleration Of Marriage Penalty Relief And Child Tax Credit. (H.R. 2, CQ Vote #196: Adopted 51-50: R 48-3; D 2-46; I 0-1, With Vice President Cheney Casting A “Yea” Vote, 5/23/03, Kerry Voted Nay)
ü Kerry Has Voted Against Marriage Penalty Relief At Least 22 Times. (S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote # 178: Rejected 31-69: R 31-23; D 0-46, 5/23/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1357, CQ Vote #552: Motion Agreed To 53-46: R 50-3; D 3-43, 10/27/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2491, CQ Vote #556: Passed 52-47: R 52-1; D 0-46, 10/28/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2491, CQ Vote #584: Motion Agreed To 52-47: R 52-1; D 0-46, 11/18/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1415, CQ Vote #154: Rejected 48-50: R 5-49; D 43-1, 6/10/98, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2312, CQ Vote #242: Motion Rejected 48-51: R 4-50; D 44-1, 7/29/98, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1429, CQ Vote #230: Rejected 46-54: R 45-9; D 0-45; I 1-0, 7/29/99, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1429 CQ Vote #247: Passed 57-43: R 52-2; D 4-41; I 1-0, 7/30/99, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2488, CQ Vote #261: Adopted 50-49: R 49-4; D 0-45; I 1-0, 8/5/99, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 101, CQ Vote #68: Rejected 44-56: R 5-50; D 39-6, 4/7/00, Kerry Voted Yea; H. Con. Res. 290, CQ Vote #79: Adopted 51-45: R 51-2; D 0-43, 4/7/00, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #82: Rejected 53-45: R 53-1; D 0-44, 4/13/00, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #83: Rejected 53-45: R 53-1; D 0-44, 4/13/00, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 290, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 50-48: R 50-4; D 0-44, 4/13/00, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R.4810, CQ Vote #213: Rejected 20-79: R 1-53; D 19-26, 7/18/00, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 4810, CQ Vote #214: Adopted 54-45: R 54-0; D 0-45, 7/18/00, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 4810, CQ Vote #215: Passed 61-38: R 53-1; D 8-37, 7/18/00, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #79: Adopted 50-50: R 49-1; D 1-49, With Vice President Cheney Casting A “Yea” Vote, 4/5/01, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #86: Adopted 65-35: R 50-0; D 15-35, 4/6/01, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #98: Adopted 53-47: R 48-2; D 5-45, 5/10/01, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #165: Passed 62-38: R 50-0; D 12-38, 5/23/01, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #36: Rejected 47-52: R 1-50; D 45-2; I 1-0, 3/10/04, Kerry Voted Yea)
ü And Against Expanding Child Tax Credit At Least 18 Times. (S. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #36: Rejected 47-52: R 1-50; D 45-2; I 1-0, 3/10/04, Kerry Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #108: Adopted 56-44: R 50-1; D 6-42; I 0-1, 3/26/03, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #134: Adopted 51-50: R 49-2; D 1-47; D 0-1, With Vice President Cheney Casting A “Yea” Vote, 4/11/03, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #196: Adopted 51-50: R 48-3; D 2-46; I 0-1, With Vice President Cheney Casting A “Yea” Vote, 5/23/03, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #179: Passed 51-49: R 48-3; D 3-45; I 0-1, 5/15/03, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #106: Rejected 48-52: R 47-4; D 1-47; I 0-1, 3/26/03, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #165: Passed 62-38: R 50-0; D 12-38, 5/23/01, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #86: Adopted 65-35: R 50-0; D 15-35, 4/6/01, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #98: Adopted 53-47: R 48-2; D 5-45, 5/10/01, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2014, CQ Vote #160: Passed 80-18: R 51-4; D 29-14, 6/27/97, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 57, CQ Vote #151: Motion Agreed To 57-43: R 50-3; D 7-40, 5/23/96, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con Res. 178, CQ Vote #159: Adopted 53-46: R 53-0; D 0-46, 6/13/96, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote #178, Rejected 31-69: R 31-23; D 0-46, 5/23/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 67, CQ Vote #296: Adopted 54-46: R 54-0; D 0-46, 6/29/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1357, CQ Vote #552: Motion Agreed To 53-46: R 50-3; D 3-43, 10/27/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2491, CQ Vote #556: Passed 52-47: R 52-1; D 0-46, 10/28/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2491, CQ Vote #584: Motion Agreed To 52-47: R 52-1; D 0-46, 11/18/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 63, CQ Vote #66: Rejected 42-58: R 42-2; D 0-56, 3/23/94, Kerry Voted Nay)
For Higher Taxes On Social Security Benefits At Least Eight Times:
ü Twice For Clinton’s $241 Billion Tax Hike On Social Security Benefits. (H.R. 2264, CQ Vote #190: Passed 50-49: R 0-43; D 49-6, With Vice President Al Gore Casting The Tie-Breaking Vote, 6/25/93, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2264, CQ Vote #247: Adopted 51-50: R 0-44; D 50-6, With Vice President Al Gore Casting The Tie-Breaking Vote, 8/6/93, Kerry Voted Yea)
ü Three Times To Keep Hike In Clinton Plan. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #57: Motion Agreed To 52-47: R 0-43; D 52-4, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #59: Motion Agreed To 55-44: R 0-43; D 55-1, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1134, CQ Vote #169: Motion Agreed To 51-46: R 1-41; D 50-5, 6/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea)
ü Three Times Against Repealing 1993 Increase. (S. Con. Res. 57, CQ Vote #142: Adopted 50-48: R 49-4; D 1-44, 5/22/96, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 8, CQ Vote #188: Adopted 58-41: R 54-1; D 4-40, 7/13/00, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #94: Rejected 48-51: R 48-3; D 0-47; I 0-1, 3/25/03, Kerry Voted Nay)
Kerry Supported Higher Gas Taxes 11 Times:
NUMBERS ONE AND TWO: Voted Twice For Clinton/Gore Btu Tax, Increasing Gas Prices 7.5 Cents Per Gallon. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #40: Rejected 46-53: R 43-0; D 3-53, 3/18/93, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #53: Motion Agreed To 55-44: R 0-43; D 55-1, 3/23/93, Kerry Voted Yea; Patrick Burns, “Activist Handbook 2000: Gasoline Tax,” Citizens For A Sound Economy, 7/20/00)
NUMBERS THREE AND FOUR: 1993 Clinton/Kerry Tax Plan Increased Gas Taxes. (H.R. 2264, CQ Vote #190: Passed 50-49: R 0-43; D 49-6, With Vice President Al Gore Casting The Tie-Breaking Vote, 6/25/93, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2264, CQ Vote #247: Adopted 51-50: R 0-44; D 50-6, With Vice President Al Gore Casting The Tie-Breaking Vote, 8/6/93, Kerry Voted Yea)
ü NUMBER FIVE: Voted To Kill An Amendment That Would Have Eliminated Gas Tax Increase From Budget Resolution. (S. 1134, CQ Vote #167: Motion Agreed To 50-48: R 0-43; D 50-5, 6/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea)
ü NUMBERS SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, AND NINE: Voted At Least Four Times Against Repealing Clinton 4.3-Cent Increase In Gas Tax. (H.R. 2937, CQ Vote #111: Motion Rejected 52-44: R 52-1; D 0-43, 5/9/96, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2937, CQ Vote #112: Motion Rejected 54-43: R 53-0; D 1-43, 5/14/96, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1173, CQ Vote #26: Motion Rejected 18-80: R 16-37; D 2-43, 3/11/98, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2285, CQ Vote #80: Motion Rejected 43-56: R 43-12; D 0-44, 4/11/00, Kerry Voted Nay; Senate Republican Policy Committee, “White House Unjust Firings/Gas Tax, Minimum Wage, Team Act,” 5/9/96)
NUMBER TEN: 1994: Supported Half-Dollar Increase In Gas Tax. (Jill Zuckman, “Deficit-Watch Group Gives High Marks To 7 N.E. Lawmakers,” The Boston Globe, 3/1/94)
NUMBER ELEVEN: In 2000, Kerry Voted Against Suspending The 18.4-Cent Gas Tax For 150 Days. (H.R. 8, CQ Vote #183: Motion Rejected 40-59: R 40-15; D 0-44, 7/13/00, Kerry Voted Nay)
Former Opponents, Including VP Pick, Criticized Middle Class Tax Plan
Sen. John Edwards Implies Kerry Tax Plan Will Only Work For Privileged Few. “I’ve been looking forward to the time when this is a two- person race and people will focus on Senator Kerry and myself. … I believe if that happens, the choice that I give voters, which is different than Senator Kerry, is somebody who comes from them, who understands the problems that they have in their life, who understands what the loss of a job means, who has both trade policy and tax policy that will work for all Americans and not just a privileged few. And I think there are real differences between us.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 2/17/04)
Former Opponent Wesley Clark Said Kerry Tax Credits Would Give Middle Class Less Than $100 In Relief. “Clark said Kerry’s proposal would help only middle-class families with kids in college. ‘Most middle-class families don’t have kids in college,’ Clark said. … ‘Senator Kerry … [doesn’t] have the leadership to stand up to millionaires,’ said Clark. ‘[He] talks about middle-class tax cuts, but it’s just rhetoric. The majority of families would not get any tax cut … and the average tax cut would be less than $100.’” (Mike Glover, “Clark Seeks Distinction On Taxes, Mettle,” The Associated Press, 2/8/04)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.