Posted on 10/31/2004 1:25:50 PM PST by Former Military Chick
Sunday, October 31, 2004
John Kerry For President
Title: "Orlando Sentinel"
|
Rhetoric |
NARRATOR: “The Orlando Sentinel has endorsed John Kerry, writing George Bush has utterly failed to fulfill our expectations. Mr. Bush has abandoned the core values we thought we shared with him. We believe Mr. Kerry would be a more bipartisan and effective leader. Mr. Kerry would bolster national security ... ”
|
The Facts |
In 1972 Congressional Campaign, Kerry’s Answer To Ensuring “Country’s Security” Was To Push For “Real Cuts” In Military Spending. QUESTION: “What are your views concerning military spending and your position concerning the country’s security?” SEN. KERRY: “It is very important that this country maintain an adequate posture. Threats do exist in the world and they are not going to disappear. But the question really revolves around adequacy. What is an adequate defense that permits the U.S. to defend itself against any real threat? There are very real cuts that can be made not only in future programs but in present procurement and administration costs in the Department of Defense. I truly believe that the U.S. is in a superior enough position that only our initiative can guarantee a world-wide mitigation and reduction of defense spending. Now is the time to take the initiative.” (“State Primary Candidates,” Bedford [MA] Minute-Man, 9/14/72)
As Lieutenant Governor, Kerry Wrote To Constituent: “What We As Citizens Can Tell Our Government Is That President Reagan Should Reorder His Priorities. We Don’t Need Expensive And Exotic Weapons Systems.” (Lt. Gov. John Kerry, Letter To Constituent, 4/83)
In 1984 U.S. Senate Campaign, Kerry Proposed Cutting $54 Billion From FY1985 Defense Budget As Part Of “Long-Range Proposal To Cut $200 Billion From The Defense Budget Over Four Years,” And Called For Cancellation Of At Least 27 Weapons Systems And Reductions In 18 Other Systems. “[Kerry] recommended cancellation of 27 weapons systems including the B1 bomber, the cruise missile, MX missile, Trident submarine, Patriot air defense missile, F15 fighter plane, Sparrow missile, stealth bomber and Pershing II missile. He recommended reductions in 18 other systems including the joint tactical air system, the Bradley fighting vehicle, the M1 Abrams tank and the F16 fighter plane.” (Chris Black, “Kerry Asks Cuts In Defense Outlay,” The Boston Globe, 5/30/84)
ü Kerry’s Foreign Policy Advisor Said Proposed Cuts Formed “Overall Defense Strategy.” “Joining Kerry was Michael Nacht, chairman of Kerry’s foreign policy task force and an instructor at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, who said Kerry’s proposal was ‘unique’ because it was an overall defense strategy, not just a pro or con statement about certain Reagan administration programs.” (“Kerry Asks $54 Billion Cut In Reagan Defense Budget,” Berkshire [MA] Eagle, 5/30/84)
Just Weeks After Being Sworn In, Kerry Was Already Attacking Reagan Administration Over Military Spending. “[W]e are watching an administration walk away from any sense of trying to deal with what weapons systems we need to really maintain a legitimate level of defense, versus what they are willing to simply fund and fund and fund, out of their willingness to fund any weapons system. They’ve never met one they don’t like.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks To Citizens For Participation In Political Action Convention, 1/19/85)
In 1993, Kerry Introduced Plan To Cut Numerous Defense Programs, Including:
ü Cut the number of Navy submarines and their crews
ü Reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one
ü Reduce tactical fighter wings in the Air Force
ü Terminate the Navy’s coastal mine-hunting ship program
ü Force the retirement of no less than 60,000 members of the Armed Forces in one year. (S.1163, Introduced 6/24/93)
In 1994, Kerry Proposed $45 Billion In Spending Cuts Largely Aimed At Defense And Intelligence Budgets. “[T]oday I am introducing a bill to cut almost $45 billion from the Federal deficit over the next 5 years. This proposal would achieve a radical reduction in the deficit without touching entitlements and without resorting to gimmicks. It would do so merely by cutting programs that are clearly pork-barrel boondoggles. … Cutting programs that no longer serve more than a narrow sub-section of the Nation is the only way to restore fiscal sanity to our Federal budget, restore the faith of the American people that their elected representatives can be responsible with their tax dollars, and free up funds for our real national priorities. The madness must end. And to end it, we each must be willing to vote to eliminate programs that we know are not in the national interest.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 2/3/94, p. S807)
ü Sen. Daniel Inouye Warned That We Were Confronted By Terrorists And Rogue Nations And Cannot Support Kerry’s Proposed Cuts. “As long as we are confronted with madmen, terrorists, and countries with strained agendas, I think it would be prudent on the part of the United States to maintain a ready force of men and women who are willing to stand in harm’s way.” (Sen. Daniel K. Inouye [D-HI], Congressional Record, 2/10/94, p. S1360)
ü Sen. Robert Byrd Noted Drastic Cuts Already Undertaken And Said Kerry’s Proposal Was “Unwise And Insupportable.” “We have already cut defense spending drastically. … Cutting another $4 billion is simply unwise and insupportable. I oppose it, and I hope that the Senate will either vote the amendment down or vote to table the amendment, whichever motion is voted on by the Senate.” (Sen. Robert Byrd [D-WV], Congressional Record, 2/10/94, p. S1360)
ü Sen. Dennis DeConcini Listed Threats To U.S. Interests That Necessitated Strong Defense. “We no longer face the same sort of threat to our survival that we faced during the cold war. But the world remains a dangerous place and an uncertain place. … There are still nuclear weapons out there which are targetted against the United States and whose control we worry about. There are countries not friendly to us which seem bent upon developing their own weapons of mass destruction. … We no longer seem immune from acts of terrorism in the United States and the scourge of narcotics has hardly abated.” (Sen. Dennis DeConcini [D-AZ], Congressional Record, 2/10/94, p. S1360)
Kerry Questioned Need For Defense Spending In “Post-Cold-War World.” “So you can look at all the potential threats of the world, and when you add the expenditures of all of our allies to the United States of America, you have to stop and say to yourself, ‘What is it that we are really preparing for in a post-cold-war world?’” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 5/15/96, p. S5061)
Kerry Has Voted To Cut, Transfer Or Otherwise Decrease Overall Defense Budget At Least Thirty-Eight Times. (S. Con. Res. 32, CQ Vote #52: Rejected 43-54: R 1-50; D 42-4, 5/8/85, Kerry Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 120, CQ Vote #88: Adopted 66-29: R 38-13; D 28-16, 5/1/86, Kerry Voted Nay; S.Con.Res. 30, CQ Vote #60: Motion Agreed To 64-31: R 38-5; D 26-26, 5/3/89, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2072, CQ Vote #72: Motion Agreed To 77-18: R 30-11; D 47-7, 6/1/89, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2884, CQ Vote #216: Motion Agreed To 51-48: R 34-11; D 17-37, 8/3/90, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 29, CQ Vote #49: Motion Rejected 22-73: R 1-39; D 21-34, 4/25/91, Kerry Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 106, CQ Vote #73: Motion Agreed To 53-40: R 38-1; D 15-39, 4/9/92, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 106, CQ Vote #69: Rejected 45-50: R 4-37; D 41-13, 4/9/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2403, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 61-38: R 7-36; D 54-2, 5/6/92, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 4990, CQ Vote #108: Adopted 90-9: R 34-9; D 56-0, 5/21/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1122, CQ Vote #156: Motion Rejected 16-81: R 8-45; D 8-36, 6/8/99, Kerry Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #46: Adopted 69-30: R 31-12; D 38-18, 3/23/93, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote #180: Rejected 40-60: R 37-17; D 3-43, 5/23/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1087, CQ Vote #389: Motion Agreed To 56-42: R 50-3; D 6-39, 8/10/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 57, CQ Vote #113: Rejected 42-57: R 6-47; D 36-10, 5/15/96, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1745, CQ Vote #172: Rejected 34-65: R 4-49; D 30-16, 6/26/96, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1745, CQ Vote #173: Rejected 45-55: R 6-47; D 39-8, 6/26/96, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 4278, CQ Vote #302: Passed 84-15: R 38-14; D 46-1, 9/30/96, Kerry Voted Yea; H. Con. Res. 68, CQ Vote #86: Adopted 54-44: R 54-0; D 0-44, 4/15/99, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2707, CQ Vote #182: Motion Rejected 28-69: R 3-39; D 25-30, 9/10/91, Kerry Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote #181: Rejected 28-71: R 2-51; D 26-20, 5/24/95, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2707, CQ Vote #182: Motion Rejected 28-69: R 3-39; D 25-30, 9/10/91, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2399, CQ Vote #56: Motion Rejected 50-48: R 3-40; D 47-8, 3/26/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 106, CQ Vote #70: Motion Rejected 36-62: R 3-39; D 33-23, 4/9/92, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 5677, CQ Vote #208: Motion Rejected 36-62: R 5-38; D 31-24, 9/16/92, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 5677, CQ Vote #209: Motion Rejected 30-67: R 6-37; D 24-30, 9/16/92, Kerry Yea; H.R. 5677, CQ Vote #211: Motion Rejected 43-53: R 14-28; D 29-25, 9/17/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #50: Motion Agreed To 58-41: R 6-37; D 52-4, 3/23/93, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1298, CQ Vote #253: Motion Agreed To 61-32: R 35-5; D 26-27, 9/9/93, 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; S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote #204: Rejected 31-68: R 1-53; D 30-15, 5/25/95, Kerry Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote #205: Rejected 26-73: R 2-52; D 24-21, 5/25/95, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 1944, CQ Vote #319: Motion Agreed To 57-40: R 47-5; D 10-35, 7/21/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1944, CQ Vote #320: Motion Agreed To 65-32: R 49-3; D 16-29, 7/21/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1745, CQ Vote #175: Motion Agreed To 60-40: R 50-3; D 10-37, 6/26/96, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1061, CQ Vote #229: Motion Rejected 27-72: R 2-53; D 25-19, 9/10/97, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2057, CQ Vote #173: Rejected 18-74: R 1-50; D 17-24, 6/25/98, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1077, CQ Vote #224: Motion Agreed To 77-22: R 48-0; D 29-21; I 0-1, 7/10/01, Kerry Voted Nay)
As Senator, Kerry Voted At Least Twelve Times Against Increasing Pay For America’s Hardworking Volunteer Military Personnel. (H.R. 4739, CQ Vote #320: Adopted 80-17: R 37-6; D 43-11, 10/26/90, Kerry Voted Nay; “Congress Cuts Bush Defense Request,” CQ Almanac, 1990, p. 671-687; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #46: Adopted 69-30: R 31-12; D 38-18, 3/23/93, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #73: Motion Agreed To 55-42: R 2-39; D 53-3, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 1335, CQ Vote #98: Motion Agreed To 51-49: R 0-43; D 51-6, 4/1/93, Kerry Voted Yea; S. Con. Res.18, CQ Vote #72: Motion Agreed To 54-44: R 2-40; D 52-4, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1087, CQ Vote #397: Passed 62-35: R 48-4; D 14-31, 9/5/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2126, CQ Vote #579: Adopted 59-39: R 48-5; D 11-34, 11/16/95, Kerry Voted Nay; “Defense Bill Enacted Despite Objections,” CQ Almanac, 1995, pp. 11-25; H.R. 1530, CQ Vote #399: Passed 64-34: R 50-3; D 14-31, 9/6/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1530, CQ Vote #608: Adopted 51-43: R 47-2; D 4-41, 12/19/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1124, CQ Vote #5: Adopted 56-34: R 42-3; D 14-31, 1/26/96, Kerry Voted Nay; “Goal Of Boosting Defense Budget Eludes GOP Lawmakers,” CQ Almanac, 1995, pp. 9-12; S. 1745, CQ Vote #187: Passed 68-31: R 50-2; D 18-29, 7/10/96, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 3230, CQ Vote #279: Adopted 73-26: R 50-3; D 23-23, 9/10/96, Kerry Voted Nay; “Clinton Signs GOP’s Fortified Bill,” CQ Almanac, 1996, pp. 10-33 - 10-38)
Kerry Was On Senate Select Intelligence Committee For Eight Years (1993-2000). (Michael Barone and Grant Ujifusa, The Almanac Of American Politics 2000, 1999, p. 1796; Michael Barone and Grant Ujifusa, The Almanac Of American Politics 1998, 1997, p. 1579; Michael Barone and Grant Ujifusa, The Almanac Of American Politics 1996, 1995, p. 1494; Michael Barone and Grant Ujifusa, The Almanac Of American Politics 1994, 1993, p. 1427)
ü While On Committee, Kerry Proposed At Least $7.5 Billion In Cuts To Intelligence Budget. (S. 1826, Introduced 2/3/1994; S. Amdt. 1452, Introduced 2/9/94; S. 1290, Introduced 9/29/95)
Asked About His Proposals To Cut Intelligence, Kerry Claimed: “What we were trying to do, some of us, was push the funding not into technical means. There was a fascination always with satellites, listening devices, not with human intelligence. I’ve always been somebody who has felt that we needed human intelligence, that’s our failure. … I wanted to reduce spending from The National Technical Means and change the culture of our intelligence gathering.” (Fox News’ “Fox News Sunday,” 1/25/04)
In Fact, None Of His Proposals Were Aimed At Any Specific Part Of Intelligence Budget:
ü 1995 Proposal: The entire provision in the bill reads, “Reduce the Intelligence budget by $300 million in each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000.” (S. 1290, Introduced 9/29/95)
ü 1994 Proposal (Introduced Twice): Kerry proposed a bill rescinding $1 billion from the FY1994 budgets of the National Foreign Intelligence Program and from Tactical Intelligence And Related Activities, and freezing their budgets through FY1998, effectively cutting another $5 billion from Intelligence funding. When the bill got stuck in committee, Kerry proposed it as an amendment to another bill. His amendment was soundly defeated. (S. 1826, Introduced 2/3/1994; S. Amdt. 1452, Introduced 2/9/94; H.R. 3759, CQ Vote #39: Rejected 20-75: R 3-37; D 17-38, 2/10/94, Kerry Voted Yea)
And Despite His Revisionist History, Kerry Questioned Need For Human Intelligence Gathering. “I would have liked to have asked [Acting CIA Director] Admiral Studeman, who I didn’t know we were not going to be able to questions of, whether the time has come for Congress and the executive branch to reevaluate when, where, and how we engage in some of these paid clandestine relationships and what their value is to his intelligence efforts. … I would have liked to have asked him about … whether we should use paid clandestine human assets in situations where the ramifications of discovery are so great and the risk of U.S. security is so minimal. I would like to know whether that particularly is important, measured against the fact that the embassy, reporting liaison relationship, signals intelligence, CNN and others provide most of the same information. I’d like to know from a policy perspective, without the Soviet threat, why we still need to have paid sources in almost every country in the world. … [I]t obviously gets the United States into hot water on occasion …” (Sen. John Kerry, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 4/5/95)
And Suggested Need To “Rein In” Intelligence Funding. “Now, with respect to that issue of reinvention, that can carry with it a duality - a negative as well as a positive - and the negative can be that there is an effort to reinvent for the sake of it in order to create a purpose where there may not be one. Many people are suggesting that without a Soviet Union to focus on, without the kind of insurgencies that were being spread throughout the world, and without the need to break codes and do the other things, that we really need to rein in and direct of intelligence gathering in a whole new way. I suppose less expensive is the bottom line.” (Sen. John Kerry, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 4/26/95)
»»»»
|
Rhetoric |
NARRATOR: “... strengthen environmental protections, …”
|
The Facts |
Water Quality Violations Have Fallen Under Bush Administration. “From 1998 to 2002 … water quality violations for fecal coliform bacteria fell 23 percent, for dissolved oxygen 12 percent, for total phosphorus 28 percent, and for cadmium 35 percent.” (U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, “Surprise: Air And Water Are Cleaner Under Bush Administration,” 6/1/04)
While GDP Has Increased 176 Percent, Total Emissions Of Principal Air Pollutants Have Fallen 51 Percent. “[B]etween 1970 and 2003, gross domestic product increased 176 percent, vehicle miles traveled increased 155 percent, energy consumption increased 45 percent, and U.S. population grew by 39 percent. During the same time period, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants dropped by 51 percent.” (Environmental Protection Agency Website, “Air Emissions Trends - Continued Progress Through 2003,” www.epa.gov/airtrends/ <>, Accessed 10/27/04)
Bush Administration Working For Cleaner Water
President’s FY ’05 Budget Includes $20 Million To Improve Water Quality Monitoring. “This will aid in prioritizing and evaluating current programs that help provide cleaner water to Americans and wildlife.” (“Environment,” White House FY ’05 Budget Fact Sheet, 3/04)
EPA Introduced New Rules On Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations To Protect Water. “According to agency estimates, the rules - which require CAFOs to develop comprehensive plans to management nutrient runoff - will reduce by 56 million pounds the amount of phosphorus, and by 100 million pounds the amount of nitrogen, entering U.S. waterways every year. The addition of those pollutants to rivers and streams has caused parts of Lake Erie, Chesapeake Bay, Gulf of Mexico and other water bodies to lose oxygen and become unsuitable for aquatic life. ... [EPA Administrator Christie] Whitman said the agency hoped to make the rules affordable to farmers while still providing environmental benefits. ‘States can go further [with stricter rules] if they want to,’ she said. ‘But our objective is not to put the family farmer out of business.’” (Damon Franz, “Clean Water: Whitman Unveils New Rules For Livestock Waste,” Greenwire, 12/17/02)
Administration Has 30 Programs Protecting And Restoring Nation’s Wetlands. “These include the Food Security Act’s ‘Swampbuster’ requirements and the Wetlands Reserve Program, both under the authority of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. EPA programs include its ‘Five-Star Restoration’ grant program, the EPA wetlands grants programs and the National Estuary Program. Other federal programs include: the Fish and Wildlife Service’s ‘Partners in Wildlife’ program, the National Marine Fisheries Service’s Coastal Wetlands Restoration Program and the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, composed of the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture, the Administrator of EPA, and Members of Congress.” (Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA And Army Corps Issue Wetlands Decision,” Press Release, 12/16/03)
Administration’s Water 2025 Program Working To Prevent Future Water Shortages In West. The Water 2025 Program concentrates “existing federal financial and technical resources in key western watersheds and in critical research and development, such as water conservation and desalinization, that will help to predict, prevent, and alleviate water supply conflicts. … The Water 2025 effort could help stretch existing water supplies by improving conservation, using more efficiencies, and better monitoring of water resources. Modernizing aging water supply structures - from dams and reservoirs to pumping stations, pipelines, and canals - can help stretch existing water supplies. In some cases, collaborative approaches and market-based transfers can use water banks or other means to meet emerging needs. Federal investments in research and development can provide more affordable water treatment technologies, such as desalination, to increase water supplies in critical areas.” (Department Of The Interior, “Water 2025: Preventing Crises And Conflict In West,” Press Release, 5/2/03)
Clear Skies Initiative Would “Create A Mandatory Program That Would Dramatically Reduce Power Plant Emissions Of Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) [By 73%], Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) [By 67%], And Mercury [By 69%] By Setting A National Cap On Each Pollutant.” (EPA Clear Skies Website, <>, Accessed 4/20/04; “Fact Sheet: President Bush Announces Clear Skies & Global Climate Change Initiatives,” White House Website, <>, Accessed 4/20/04)
Clear Skies Will Remove More Pollutants Than Clean Air Act. “Compared to the most stringent regulations allowed under current law, the President’s proposal will reduce SO2 emissions by at least an additional 25 million tons over the next decade, NOx emissions by at least an additional 10 million tons over the next decade, and mercury emissions by at least an additional 20 tons over the next six years from power plants.” (Environmental Protection Agency, “New EPA Data Shows Dramatic Air Quality Improvements From Clear Skies Initiative,” Press Release, 7/1/02)
National Research Council Study Endorses “Multi-State, Multi-Pollutant” Approach Of Clear Skies. “This new study from the National Research Council, a division of the National Academy of Sciences, finds that while air pollution is declining, the reduction could be accelerated by a ‘multi-state, multi-pollutant’ approach that sets broad overall reduction targets, then allows industrial facilities to trade reduction permits with each other. … Here’s what was missing from the coverage. The ‘multi-state, multi-pollutant’ approach just endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences is exactly what the Bush administration has proposed to adopt under its Clear Skies initiative.” (Gregg Easterbrook, Easterblogg, www.tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=1276 <>, Accessed 2/5/04)
National Governors Association Supports Flexible, Market-Based Approach. “Congress should pass legislation to establish a flexible, market based program to significantly reduce and cap emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury and to promote voluntary reductions of carbon dioxide from electric power generators. The legislation should provide regulatory certainty by establishing reduction targets for emissions, phase-in reductions over a reasonable period of time, and provide market-based incentives, such as emissions-trading credits, to help achieve the required reductions.” (National Governors Association, “Regulation Of Pollution From Electric Power Plants,” Legislative Update, 9/24/02)
Adirondack Council Supports Clear Skies. “The Adirondack Council … praised President George W. Bush for making acid rain legislation a top domestic priority for Congress in the 2003 session. … ‘By making deep cuts in sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury pollution from the nation’s smokestacks, we can protect our public lands and waters, and improve the lives of tens of thousands of Americans suffering from air pollution-related lung diseases,’ [said Adirondack Council Executive Director Brian Houseal].” (Adirondack Council, “Adirondack Council Praises President Bush For Making Acid Rain Legislation A Top Priority For 108th Congress,” Press Release, 1/29/03)
Bush Administration Implementing New Clean Air Regulations
Bush EPA Proposed Interstate Air Quality Rules. “The proposed Interstate Air Quality Rule would reduce emissions of SO2 and NOx in 29 eastern states and the District of Columbia in two phases. SO2 emissions would be reduced by 3.6 million tons in 2010 (approximately 40 percent below current levels) and by another 2 million tons per year when the rules are fully implemented (approximately 70 percent below current levels). NOx emissions would be cut by 1.5 million tons in 2010 and 1.8 million tons annually in 2015 (about 65 percent below today’s levels).” (Environmental Protection Agency Website, “Interstate Air Quality Rule: Basic Information,” www.epa.gov <>, Accessed 4/29/04)
New Diesel Rules Will Significantly Cut Pollution. “EPA is proposing a comprehensive national program to reduce emissions from nonroad diesel engines by treating engine controls and reduced sulfur fuel as a system to gain the greatest emission reductions. The proposed emission standards would apply to diesel engines used in most kinds of construction, agricultural, and industrial equipment. Because the emission control devices can be damaged by sulfur, EPA is also proposing to reduce the allowable level of sulfur in nonroad diesel fuel by more than 99 percent.” (Environmental Protection Agency Website, “Reducing Nonroad Diesel Emissions,” www.epa.gov/nonroad <>, Accessed 4/29/04)
EPA Issued New Ozone Transport Rules. “EPA’s regional ozone transport rule, known as the NOx SIP Call, will significantly reduce NOx emissions in 19 eastern states and the District of Columbia by approximately 600,000 tons starting in the summer of 2004 and by nearly 1 million tons when fully implemented.” (Environmental Protection Agency, “Ozone Trend Analysis Shows Continued Progress,” Press Release, 4/28/04)
New EPA Guidelines Will, For First Time In History, Regulate Mercury From Power Plants. “EPA Administrator Leavitt assured members of Congress today that proposed regulations to control mercury emissions from power plants would not be delayed and would be issued this year. ‘I feel confident that, for the first time in history, we will regulate mercury from power plants and we will do it this year,’ Leavitt told the Senate VA-HUD Appropriations subcommittee.” (Michael Posner, “Leavitt Vows EPA Rules Soon To Limit Mercury Emissions,” National Journal’s CongressDaily, 3/25/04)
»»»»
|
Rhetoric |
NARRATOR: “… and extend health care coverage.”
|
The Facts |
Kerry Opposes Important Health Care Reforms That Will Reduce Costs And Expand Coverage
Kerry 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 Opposes Health Savings Accounts; Twice Voted Against Last Year’s Bill Establishing HSAs. (John Kerry For President, “Kerry Campaign Statement On New Families USA Report,” Press Release, 6/16/04; H.R.1, CQ Vote #457: Motion Agreed To 70-29: R 47-3; D 22-26; I 1-0, 11/24/03, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R.1, CQ Vote #458: Motion Agreed To 61-39: R 49-2; D 11-37; I 1-0, 11/24/03, Kerry Voted Nay)
Kerry Opposes Letting Small Businesses Form Purchasing Pools To Get Discount Rates On Health Insurance. “The so-called association health plans ‘will place consumers at risk, as they are exempt from state patient protections and oversight,’ said Democratic Sen. John Kerry, an opponent of the measure who is campaigning for president.” (Libby Quaid, “Backers Of Small Business Plan Point To Uninsured Numbers,” The Associated Press, 9/30/03)
Kerry Plan Puts Washington Bureaucrats In Control Of Health Care Decisions
Kerry Would Transform Health Insurance From Current System Of Mostly Private Plans To A System That Relies Heavily On Managed Competition And Government Programs. “Mr. Kerry is seeking to completely transform the health-care system. The changes are far more radical than even he has let on. If he is successful, millions of middle-income families will enroll in Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor. Millions more will get their insurance through a system of managed competition, similar to what Hillary Clinton proposed more than a decade ago. Most people would be unable to remain in the private health plan they have today.” (John C. Goodman, Op-Ed, “Kerrycare,” The Wall Street Journal, 8/26/04)
Small Businesses Are Skeptical That “More Strings Are Probably Attached.” “The price tag is a big issue. ‘The thing that gets the attention of people are the giant dollars attached to the Kerry proposal,’ says Dan Danner, senior vice president for public policy at the National Federation of Independent Business, a small-business group that is often aligned with Republicans and helped defeat the Clinton health plan. ‘It’s a huge amount of money. But it’s got to come from somewhere, and we are always concerned that more strings are probably attached.’” (Sarah Lueck, “Businesses Are Wary Of Kerry Health Plan,” The Wall Street Journal, 7/26/04)
Two-Thirds Of Newly Insured Individuals Will Be In Government-Run Medicaid And SCHIP Programs. Kerry’s plan would insure 27.3 million additional people. Of these, about 18.5 million people would gain coverage under Kerry’s expansion of the Medicaid and SCHIP programs. (Joseph Antos, Roland King, Donald Muse, Tom Wildsmith And Judy Xanthopoulos, “Analyzing The Kerry And Bush Health Proposals: Estimates Of Cost And Impact,” American Enterprise Institute, 9/13/04)
ü “Fewer Choices Of Doctors, Longer Waits For Care, And Inevitable Health-Care Rationing” Will Affect Those Pushed Into Medicaid Under Kerry Plan. “Quality of care will suffer under the Kerry proposal. People who go from employer plans to Medicaid will have fewer choices of doctors, longer waits for care, and inevitable health-care rationing.” (John C. Goodman, Op-Ed, “Kerrycare,” The Wall Street Journal, 8/26/04)
Kerry’s Plan Is Not Focused On Consumer Choice. “There is little talk in the Kerry plan about individuals having control over their own choices. The words consumer choice and Health Savings Accounts don’t show up in any of his health proposals … Further, there is little acknowledgement that the world is changing and that insurance needs to be more portable, with costs and choices determined by consumers, not politicians.” (Grace-Marie Turner, “The Kerry Plan,” Galen Institute, 3/5/04)
Kerry’s Plan Will Result In Loss Of Private Health Care Coverage. “Kerry’s (i.e., Thorpe’s) estimates assume a 30 percent crowd-out. That is, for every 10 new Medicaid enrollees, three people lose private coverage. As a result, in order to insure 18 million new people (on net) through Medicaid expansion, Kerry would enroll about 26 million to make up for 8 million who lose private coverage. Kerry’s assumptions are much too optimistic, however. The evidence we have seen suggests the crowd-out rate will almost certainly be much higher, perhaps approaching 100 percent.” (John C. Goodman and Devon M. Herrick, “The Case Against John Kerry’s Health Plan,” National Center For Policy Analysis, 9/10/04)
»»»»
Rhetoric |
NARRATOR: “In this campaign he has put forth a moderate platform with fiscal discipline at its core.”
|
The Facts |
Third Parties Say Kerry Can’t Balance Budget
Kerry’s “Publicly Announced Proposals Would Actually Increase The Deficit.” (Editorial, “Fiscal Follies,” The Wall Street Journal, 8/9/04)
ü “Kerry Falls Far Short Of His Pledge To Trim The Deficit …” (Lee Walczak, et al, “Kerry’s Battle Plan,” BusinessWeek, 8/2/04)
ü “Deficit Reduction Appears To Be Taking A Back Seat To What Is Easily Mr. Kerry’s Most Significant Economic Proposal: An Expensive Expansion Of Government-Financed Health Insurance.” (Louis Uchitelle, “It’s The Economy, Right? Guess Again,” The New York Times, 7/4/04)
ü Democrat Economist Doesn’t Believe Kerry’s Numbers Add-Up. “Even economists who share Kerry’s concern that working-class wages are falling behind inflation wonder whether the challenger can reduce the deficit, roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent and offer new social programs. ‘I don’t think his numbers add up,’ said Dean Baker, with the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C.” (Tom Abate, “Kerry’s Clintonian Economic Plan,” San Francisco Chronicle, 6/20/04)
ü Kerry Would Deepen Deficits By “At Least” $130 Billion. “Proposals from Kerry since beginning his presidential campaign, including expanding health care insurance and helping families pay for college tuition, would deepen the deficit by at least $130 billion after four years, according to Bloomberg calculations using estimates provided by the Kerry campaign and William Gale, an economist at the Washington-based Brookings Institution. Bush’s plan to extend the income tax cuts he pushed through Congress would widen the gap by $77.2 billion through 2009, according to Gale’s analysis.” (“Kerry Says He Will Cut Back Campaign Proposals To Pare Deficit,” Bloomberg.com, 4/7/04)
ü Former McCain Advisor Says Kerry Can’t Balance Budget. “Also arguing that cutting ‘corporate welfare’ could reduce the deficit, Mr. Kerry cited his work with maverick Republican John McCain, who frequently targets subsidies paid to businesses. ‘We can do all of this, if we set clear national priorities and make the tough decisions,’ Mr. Kerry said. No, he can’t, Republicans replied - not while cutting the deficit. ‘His numbers just don’t add up,’ said Kevin Hassett, an economic adviser to the McCain presidential campaign in 2000. ‘He has proposed way more spending than revenue coming in through his tax increases. That includes repeal of tax cuts for the wealthy, Mr. Hassett said: ‘The middle class tax cuts are kind of where the money is.’” (David Jackson, “Deficit In Way Of Recovery, Kerry Says,” The Dallas Morning News, 4/8/04)
»»»»
Obviously you can see it is the page not the poster where it is tough to read. :)
i used work with someone whose fingers looked just like those sandwiches!!
Main Entry: meg·a·lo·ma·nia
Pronunciation: "me-g&-lO-'mA-nE-&, -ny&
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin
1 : a mania for great or grandiose performance
2 : a delusional mental disorder that is marked by infantile feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur
Great job!
I have recent issue experience with the Orlando "Slantinel" editorial staff which shows them to be vacuus, unstudied and self righteous. Liberal to the core, often they simply attack the personna of those with whom they disagree. I suppose this saves them from being confused by the facts. We quit reading it a long time ago and have judged it to be a worthless liberal rag.
mmmm, finger sandwiches
Now that's one hell of a thirty second ad.
Thank you for the post. I would have it no other way, I want to be beside someone such as yourself, with the same ideals that I have as opposed to, well you get the picture.
We have all the ammunition, the problem getting the facts like this out, other than through postings and on line. While both are helpful. In the end it is the voters who actually pull the lever and vote and those who are voting against Bush.
But, in the end if they do not get out to vote. If they assume that someone else can make up my difference and Bush loses, well, then they will get what they did not vote for.
The folks do not realize, the ones who feel Bush hasn't done his job will be voting for a liberal supreme court, do they not realize this?
What is really frightening is that nearly half of the likely voters in this country are FOR Kerry!
They sure make the rest of us look like geniuses!
You are right. It is disturbing that we could lose this election by who goes to the polls. I am telling you if my fellow conservatives do not vote, vote for Kerry I am going to become an independent. Think they hear my threat?
Living in Orlanda I "just" saw this ad (Sentinel endorsement) as a campaign commercial, quoting these very reasons for their endorsement. I didn't catch who sponsored the ad, but it was a disgusting thing to watch. They already lost me as regular subscriber...now they lose me for Sundays, as well. What do you expect from a Tribune owned rag.
Save the trees, BAN NEWSPAPERS!!!!!!
PS...the Libs are really hitting my area hard with campaign literature. I've been visited 3 times in the last week, alone...from MoveOn Pac and someone else, leaving literature on my front door. What disturbs me most, is that I haven't got ONE thing from the Republicans, despite having their Victory HQ not more than 5 minutes away. They did have a nice picnic/party last week, though:)
bttt
Indeed it does get the point across. Great ammo!
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.