Here are a few key state polls:
Oregon: Kerry 49, Bush 44 (ARG)
Iowa: Kerry 47, Bush 47 (ARG)
Iowa: Kerry 50, Bush 46 (Rasmussen)
Wisconsin: Kerry 47, Bush 43 (Chicago Tribune)
Ohio: Kerry 49, Bush 45 (Chicago Tribune)
Minnesota: Kerry 48, Bush 43 (Star Tribune)
Minnesota: Kerry 45, Bush 43 (Chicago Tribune)
Florida: Kerry 49, Bush 47 (Hamilton Beattie & Staff)
Pennsylvania: Kerry 49, Bush 46 (American Research Group)
New Mexico: Kerry 49, Bush 45 (Hart Research)
To name a few.
Oregon: Kerry 49, Bush 44 (ARG)
Iowa: Kerry 47, Bush 47 (ARG)
Iowa: Kerry 50, Bush 46 (Rasmussen)
Wisconsin: Kerry 47, Bush 43 (Chicago Tribune)
Ohio: Kerry 49, Bush 45 (Chicago Tribune)
Minnesota: Kerry 48, Bush 43 (Star Tribune)
Minnesota: Kerry 45, Bush 43 (Chicago Tribune)
Florida: Kerry 49, Bush 47 (Hamilton Beattie & Staff)
Pennsylvania: Kerry 49, Bush 46 (American Research Group)
New Mexico: Kerry 49, Bush 45 (Hart Research)
To name a few.
Haven't you guys heard the news? The voters of America no longer get to decide, the media just logs on to tradesports and checks their electoral college predictions.
I get all of my political insight from Gameface
Bush will win by 99% of the popular vote 50 to zero states.
G W Bush is the greatest man to walk the face of the earth including : Jesus Christ, Moses, JJ Gold, 2 Pac, Ray Lewis, Scott Peterson, Shrink, and Marino Rivera.
Peace out
I get all of my political insight from Gameface
Bush will win by 99% of the popular vote 50 to zero states.
G W Bush is the greatest man to walk the face of the earth including : Jesus Christ, Moses, JJ Gold, 2 Pac, Ray Lewis, Scott Peterson, Shrink, and Marino Rivera.
Peace out
Going to be very interesting night on Nov. 2 as I have said before. This is a good article from a great publication,,,required reading in the White House Comm Dept. and Most Upper tier colleges that are law related.
<TABLE height=62 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=bottom align=left width=278 height=60 rowSpan=3>
</TD><TD vAlign=bottom align=right width="100%" height=60><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=100 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=bottom><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=100 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=bottom>E-mail Author
Author Archive
Send to a Friend
Print Version
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=baseline align=left width="100%" bgColor=#666666 height=1>
</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=baseline width="100%" bgColor=#ffffff height=1>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- ARTICLE BODY -->
October 12, 2004, 8:33 a.m.
Follow the Yellow-State Road to the White House
Battling in the powdered blue.
George W. Bush was opening a significant lead over John Kerry until that fateful Thursday night when he slouched at his podium and appeared disgruntled and tired. The national polls then started to tighten and Bush's second debate performance, along with that of his running mate, seems to have been good enough to stop the bleeding and freeze the race.
<TABLE cellPadding=0 width=1 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><IFRAME marginWidth=0 marginHeight=0 src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adi/N568.247realmedia/B1254185;sz=300x250;ord=[timestamp]?" frameBorder=0 width=302 scrolling=no height=252 bordercolor="#000000"> <script language='JavaScript1.1' src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N568.247realmedia/B1254185;abr=!ie;sz=300x250;ord=[timestamp]?"> </script> <noscript>
Click Here </noscript> </IFRAME></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Whatever the national polls may say, though, a simple national plurality won't elect a president this year. A series of concurrent majorities in states all over the nation will choose the next president and that race is not quite as tight as the national polls indicate. The battle for the electoral college is close enough that either candidate has the possibility of winning, but Kerry has a hard row to hoe to get there.
After consulting numerous state polls and historical trends, here is where I see the race going into the final presidential debate.
Bush Red: Bush seems to have wrapped up 21 states with 176 electoral votes. Not surprisingly, most of these states spread through Dixie and up into the upper Midwest and mountain states.
Kerry Blue: Kerry seems to have insurmountable leads in 10 states and the District of Columbia, worth a combined 153 electoral votes. More than half of Kerry's solid votes come from just California and New York. The remainder of the Kerry states come from the northeast corridor, except for Hawaii and Illinois.
Looking only at the states solidly in one camp or another gives the impression of a rather tight electoral-college battle. However, the race in the paler states demonstrates Bush's significant advantage.
Bush Pink: Bush seems likely to win another 8 states worth 88 electoral votes.
Kerry Powder Blue: Kerry is poised to win 5 more states worth 67 electoral votes, including the essential states of Pennsylvania and Michigan.
Toss-up Yellow: Six states are toss-ups and represent 53 electoral-college votes. Additionally, this year Maine's rural 2nd congressional district seems to be up for grabs. Maine has never split its electoral-college votes but this year it seems possible that Bush could win the district but lose the state to Kerry.
In the states that are clearly leaning one way or another, Bush is ahead 264 electoral votes to 221 for John Kerry. That means that as of right now, if he holds his leads in red and pink states, Bush only needs six electoral votes from the yellow states that have not yet made up their minds. That means Bush can actually do what many have thought impossible for a Republican — win without Ohio. Bush could win New Hampshire, which he won in 2000 and New Mexico, which he only lost by 366 votes in 2000 and win the presidency with 273 electoral votes. If he wins Ohio, he can win the presidency handily without taking any other of the Yellow toss-up states. Indeed, if Bush wins Ohio's 20 electoral votes, which I assume in the end he will, he can afford to lose up to 14 of the electoral votes now showing pink and leaning his way.
Kerry's road to the presidency is much more difficult. Starting from a base of only 220 electors, he has to win almost all the yellow toss-up states while holding all those leaning his way today. In fact, as things stand now, the only yellow state he can afford to lose is New Hampshire, which would give him exactly the 270 needed to win. Kerry has almost no room for error. Unless he can cut into the states leaning Bush's way, he has to run the table in every toss-up state except the Granite State. If he loses Ohio, which is likely, he would have to find 17-20 electoral votes from the pink states leaning Bush. He can do it, but a strategy for Kerry to win without Ohio could almost only come about by pulling off a victory in that state we remember so well from 2000 — Florida.
Even after his poor debate performance, the electoral map tilts Bush's way with Kerry still trying to firm up the Gore states of 2000 so he can move aggressively to take the battle to Bush on his home turf. Rather than the national polls, follow the yellow-state road to the White House in 2004.
— Gary L. Gregg is editor of Securing Democracy: Why We Have an Electoral College and Considering the Bush Presidency (with Mark Rozell). A faculty associate with the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, Gregg is also NRO's official electoral-college dean.
<TABLE height=62 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=bottom align=left width=278 height=60 rowSpan=3>
Author Archive
Send to a Friend
Print Version
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
October 12, 2004, 8:33 a.m.
Follow the Yellow-State Road to the White House
Battling in the powdered blue.
George W. Bush was opening a significant lead over John Kerry until that fateful Thursday night when he slouched at his podium and appeared disgruntled and tired. The national polls then started to tighten and Bush's second debate performance, along with that of his running mate, seems to have been good enough to stop the bleeding and freeze the race.
<TABLE cellPadding=0 width=1 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><IFRAME marginWidth=0 marginHeight=0 src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adi/N568.247realmedia/B1254185;sz=300x250;ord=[timestamp]?" frameBorder=0 width=302 scrolling=no height=252 bordercolor="#000000"> <script language='JavaScript1.1' src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N568.247realmedia/B1254185;abr=!ie;sz=300x250;ord=[timestamp]?"> </script> <noscript>
After consulting numerous state polls and historical trends, here is where I see the race going into the final presidential debate.
Bush Red: Bush seems to have wrapped up 21 states with 176 electoral votes. Not surprisingly, most of these states spread through Dixie and up into the upper Midwest and mountain states.
Kerry Blue: Kerry seems to have insurmountable leads in 10 states and the District of Columbia, worth a combined 153 electoral votes. More than half of Kerry's solid votes come from just California and New York. The remainder of the Kerry states come from the northeast corridor, except for Hawaii and Illinois.
Looking only at the states solidly in one camp or another gives the impression of a rather tight electoral-college battle. However, the race in the paler states demonstrates Bush's significant advantage.
Bush Pink: Bush seems likely to win another 8 states worth 88 electoral votes.
Kerry Powder Blue: Kerry is poised to win 5 more states worth 67 electoral votes, including the essential states of Pennsylvania and Michigan.
Toss-up Yellow: Six states are toss-ups and represent 53 electoral-college votes. Additionally, this year Maine's rural 2nd congressional district seems to be up for grabs. Maine has never split its electoral-college votes but this year it seems possible that Bush could win the district but lose the state to Kerry.
In the states that are clearly leaning one way or another, Bush is ahead 264 electoral votes to 221 for John Kerry. That means that as of right now, if he holds his leads in red and pink states, Bush only needs six electoral votes from the yellow states that have not yet made up their minds. That means Bush can actually do what many have thought impossible for a Republican — win without Ohio. Bush could win New Hampshire, which he won in 2000 and New Mexico, which he only lost by 366 votes in 2000 and win the presidency with 273 electoral votes. If he wins Ohio, he can win the presidency handily without taking any other of the Yellow toss-up states. Indeed, if Bush wins Ohio's 20 electoral votes, which I assume in the end he will, he can afford to lose up to 14 of the electoral votes now showing pink and leaning his way.
Kerry's road to the presidency is much more difficult. Starting from a base of only 220 electors, he has to win almost all the yellow toss-up states while holding all those leaning his way today. In fact, as things stand now, the only yellow state he can afford to lose is New Hampshire, which would give him exactly the 270 needed to win. Kerry has almost no room for error. Unless he can cut into the states leaning Bush's way, he has to run the table in every toss-up state except the Granite State. If he loses Ohio, which is likely, he would have to find 17-20 electoral votes from the pink states leaning Bush. He can do it, but a strategy for Kerry to win without Ohio could almost only come about by pulling off a victory in that state we remember so well from 2000 — Florida.
Even after his poor debate performance, the electoral map tilts Bush's way with Kerry still trying to firm up the Gore states of 2000 so he can move aggressively to take the battle to Bush on his home turf. Rather than the national polls, follow the yellow-state road to the White House in 2004.
— Gary L. Gregg is editor of Securing Democracy: Why We Have an Electoral College and Considering the Bush Presidency (with Mark Rozell). A faculty associate with the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, Gregg is also NRO's official electoral-college dean.
More good stuff!
An Electoral Surge for Kerry
Momentum has swung back to the Dem, and Bush no longer holds enough votes to lock in a win. Will the second debate change the map?
By Richard S. Dunham
Updated: 8:00 p.m. ET Oct. 11, 2004
This is BusinessWeek Online's second look at how the Electoral College map is shaping up in the 2004 Presidential race. In our first look, President George W. Bush had taken a commanding lead in the race after the GOP convention in New York. Polls had showed him ahead in 30 states with 284 electoral votes -- 14 more than the 270 necessary to win the White House.
<TABLE style="PADDING-LEFT: 15px" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=textSmallGrey vAlign=top align=middle>advertisement
<SCRIPT language=JavaScript1.1 src="http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/js/4050-23640-2252-2?mpt=[CACHEBUSTER]&mpvc="></SCRIPT>
<NOSCRIPT>
</NOSCRIPT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>But a week of Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates has scrambled the electoral map again. Massachusetts Senator John F. Kerry has closed Bush's lead in the popular vote and taken a tiny edge in the Electoral College.
THREE TOSS-UPS. Bush is clearly ahead in 28 states with 237 electoral votes, having lost a decisive edge in the pivotal battlegrounds of Florida and Ohio. Kerry leads in 19 states and the District of Columbia, which account for 247 electoral votes. The three toss-up states -- Florida, Ohio, and Iowa -- with their 54 electoral votes will determine the winner.
The senator must win just one of those three states to reach the 270 electoral votes necessary to capture the White House. Bush must win a megastate and at least two states captured by Al Gore in 2000, including Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Oregon.
Kerry strongly leads Bush in states with 164 votes, while the incumbent has a wide lead in states with 152. But Bush's occasionally halting performance in the Sept. 30 encounter at the University of Miami cost him support across the board, while consolidating Kerry's backing among core Democrats.
BATTLEGROUNDS. That moved six previous toss-ups [all won by Gore in 2000] back into Kerry's camp -- at least for now. The new Kerry-leaning states are Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, and Pennsylvania. That gives the senator an edge in eight of the 20 original battleground states, compared to nine for Bush and three dead even.
Though Kerry has momentum, he shouldn't take anything for granted. Just as the first debate reshuffled the Electoral College lineup, his appearances in St. Louis and Tempe, Ariz., could change the current political landscape. And in this roller-coaster election year, the only constant has been constant change.
Alabama 9 Alaska 3 Arizona 10 Arkansas 6 California 55 Colorado 9 Connecticut 7 Delaware 3 D.C. 3 Florida 27 Georgia 15 Hawaii 4 Idaho 4 Illinois 21 Indiana 11 Iowa 7 Kansas 6
Kentucky 8 Louisiana 9 Maine 4 Maryland 10 Massachusetts 12 Michigan 17 Minnesota 10 Mississippi 6 Missouri 11 Montana 3 Nebraska 5 Nevada 5 New Hampshire 4 New Jersey 15 New Mexico 5 New York 31 North Carolina 15
North Dakota 3 Ohio 20 Oklahoma 7 Oregon 7 Pennsylvania 21 Rhode Island 4 South Carolina 8 South Dakota 3 Tennessee 11 Texas 34 Utah 5 Vermont 3 Virginia 13 Washington 11 West Virginia 5 Wisconsin 10 Wyoming 3
Copyright © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.
An Electoral Surge for Kerry
Momentum has swung back to the Dem, and Bush no longer holds enough votes to lock in a win. Will the second debate change the map?
By Richard S. Dunham
This is BusinessWeek Online's second look at how the Electoral College map is shaping up in the 2004 Presidential race. In our first look, President George W. Bush had taken a commanding lead in the race after the GOP convention in New York. Polls had showed him ahead in 30 states with 284 electoral votes -- 14 more than the 270 necessary to win the White House.
<TABLE style="PADDING-LEFT: 15px" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=textSmallGrey vAlign=top align=middle>advertisement
<SCRIPT language=JavaScript1.1 src="http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/js/4050-23640-2252-2?mpt=[CACHEBUSTER]&mpvc="></SCRIPT>
<NOSCRIPT>
THREE TOSS-UPS. Bush is clearly ahead in 28 states with 237 electoral votes, having lost a decisive edge in the pivotal battlegrounds of Florida and Ohio. Kerry leads in 19 states and the District of Columbia, which account for 247 electoral votes. The three toss-up states -- Florida, Ohio, and Iowa -- with their 54 electoral votes will determine the winner.
The senator must win just one of those three states to reach the 270 electoral votes necessary to capture the White House. Bush must win a megastate and at least two states captured by Al Gore in 2000, including Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Oregon.
Kerry strongly leads Bush in states with 164 votes, while the incumbent has a wide lead in states with 152. But Bush's occasionally halting performance in the Sept. 30 encounter at the University of Miami cost him support across the board, while consolidating Kerry's backing among core Democrats.
BATTLEGROUNDS. That moved six previous toss-ups [all won by Gore in 2000] back into Kerry's camp -- at least for now. The new Kerry-leaning states are Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, and Pennsylvania. That gives the senator an edge in eight of the 20 original battleground states, compared to nine for Bush and three dead even.
Though Kerry has momentum, he shouldn't take anything for granted. Just as the first debate reshuffled the Electoral College lineup, his appearances in St. Louis and Tempe, Ariz., could change the current political landscape. And in this roller-coaster election year, the only constant has been constant change.
Alabama 9 Alaska 3 Arizona 10 Arkansas 6 California 55 Colorado 9 Connecticut 7 Delaware 3 D.C. 3 Florida 27 Georgia 15 Hawaii 4 Idaho 4 Illinois 21 Indiana 11 Iowa 7 Kansas 6
Kentucky 8 Louisiana 9 Maine 4 Maryland 10 Massachusetts 12 Michigan 17 Minnesota 10 Mississippi 6 Missouri 11 Montana 3 Nebraska 5 Nevada 5 New Hampshire 4 New Jersey 15 New Mexico 5 New York 31 North Carolina 15
North Dakota 3 Ohio 20 Oklahoma 7 Oregon 7 Pennsylvania 21 Rhode Island 4 South Carolina 8 South Dakota 3 Tennessee 11 Texas 34 Utah 5 Vermont 3 Virginia 13 Washington 11 West Virginia 5 Wisconsin 10 Wyoming 3
Copyright © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=758 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=headline colSpan=2>New And Recycled Distortions At Final Presidential Debate
<!--END Factcheck Title--></TD></TR><TR><TD><!--BEGIN FactCheck Meta Info-->Bush claims most of his tax cuts went to low- and middle-income persons. Kerry says Pell Grants were cut. Don't believe either.
October 14, 2004
Modified: October 14, 2004
<!--END FactCheck Meta Info--><!--BEGIN Tools-->
eMail to a friend
Printer Friendly Version
<!--END Tools--><!--BEGIN FactCheck Body-->Summary
[font=Arial, Helvetica]The debates are over and the results are clear: both candidates are incorrigible fact-twisters.[/font]
Bush said most of his tax cuts went to "low- and middle-income Americans" when independent calculations show most went to the richest 10 percent. Kerry claims Bush "cut the Pell Grants" when they've actually increased. Both men repeated misstatements made in earlier debates, and added a few new ones.
Analysis
<TABLE borderColor=#ffffff cellPadding=10 width="45%" align=left bgColor=#c5f9fc><TBODY><TR><TD>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
In fact, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center recently calculated that most of the tax cuts -- 53% to be exact -- went to the highest -earning 10% of US individuals and families.Those most affluent Americans got an average tax cut of $7,661.
And as for the "low- and middle-income Americans" Bush mentioned -- the bottom 60% of individuals and families got only 13.7% of the tax cuts, according to the Tax Policy Center, a far cry from "most" of the cuts as claimed by Bush.
[font=Arial, Helvetica]The President came closer to the mark, but still got it wrong, when he said in the same breath that the top 20% of earners pay "about 80% of the taxes in America today." That's incorrect.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]In fact, as we reported only that morning, the Congressional Budget Office calculates that the top 20% now pay 63.5% of the total federal tax burden, which includes income taxes, payroll taxes and other federal levies. It's true that the top 20% pays nearly 81% of all federal income taxes, but the president spoke more expansively of "taxes in America," not just income taxes.[/font]
<TABLE borderColor=#ffffff cellPadding=10 width="45%" align=left bgColor=#c5f9fc><TBODY><TR><TD bgColor=#fcd6c5>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>[font=Times New Roman, Times]Bush: He said we cut Pell Grants. We've increased Pell Grants by a million students. That's a fact.[/font]
</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#fcd6c5>[font=Times New Roman, Times]Kerry: But you know why the Pell Grants have gone up in their numbers? Because more people qualify for them because they don't have money. [/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times]But they're not getting the $5,100 the president promised them . They're getting less money.[/font]
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Department of Education figures show the number of Pell Grants awarded the year before Bush took office was 3.9 million. The number grew to 5.1 million for the most recent academic year -- an increase of 1.3 million, actually.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Spending for Pell Grants grew from just under $8 billion in the academic year that was underway when Bush took office to nearly $12.7 billion three years later, a jump of nearly 60%. That's some "cut."[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]It is true that during the 2000 presidential campaign Bush promised to increase the maximum size of Pell Grants to $5,100 for first-year students, a promise that remains unfulfilled. The maximum grant has risen from $3,300 at the time Bush made that promise, but only to $4,050. Under Bush's proposed 2005 budget the maximum grant would remain frozen there for most students for the third year in a row.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]In April Bush proposed an increase of as much as $1,000 in the maximum award, but only for those students who prepare for college with demanding courses in high school, which would allow only a small fraction of Pell Grant recipients to qualify for the maximum. So Kerry was correct when he said students are "not getting the $5,100 the president promised them."[/font]
<TABLE borderColor=#ffffff cellPadding=10 width="45%" align=left bgColor=#c5f9fc><TBODY><TR><TD bgColor=#fcd6c5>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>[font=Times New Roman, Times]Bush: Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations.[/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times]Of course we're worried about Osama bin Laden. We're on the hunt after Osama bin Laden. We're using every asset at our disposal to get Osama bin Laden.[/font]
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
[font=Arial, Helvetica]In fact, Bush said almost exactly what Kerry quoted him as saying. It was in a news conference at the White House on March 13, 2002, after US forces had overturned the Taliban regime in Afghanistan:[/font]
<TABLE borderColor=#ffffff cellPadding=10 width="45%" align=left bgColor=#c5f9fc><TBODY><TR><TD>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE borderColor=#ffffff cellPadding=10 width="45%" align=left bgColor=#fcd6c5><TBODY><TR><TD>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
[font=Arial, Helvetica]And in fact, Bush met with the caucus a few days after taking office, on Jan. 31, 2001. "This will be the beginning of, hopefully, a lot of meetings," Bush told them. "I hope you come back, and I'll certainly be inviting." But it was more than three years before the next meeting, on Feb. 25, 2004. Bush met with members of the caucus after they paid an impromptu visit to the White House to discuss the crisis in Haiti, according to a statement issued by the White House press secretary.[/font]
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!--END Factcheck Title--></TD></TR><TR><TD><!--BEGIN FactCheck Meta Info-->Bush claims most of his tax cuts went to low- and middle-income persons. Kerry says Pell Grants were cut. Don't believe either.
October 14, 2004
Modified: October 14, 2004
<!--END FactCheck Meta Info--><!--BEGIN Tools-->
eMail to a friend
Printer Friendly Version <!--END Tools--><!--BEGIN FactCheck Body-->Summary
[font=Arial, Helvetica]The debates are over and the results are clear: both candidates are incorrigible fact-twisters.[/font]
Bush said most of his tax cuts went to "low- and middle-income Americans" when independent calculations show most went to the richest 10 percent. Kerry claims Bush "cut the Pell Grants" when they've actually increased. Both men repeated misstatements made in earlier debates, and added a few new ones.
Analysis
<TABLE borderColor=#ffffff cellPadding=10 width="45%" align=left bgColor=#c5f9fc><TBODY><TR><TD>
[font=Verdana, Helvetica]Who Got Tax Cuts?[/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times]Bush: He talks about middle-class tax cuts. That's exactly where the tax cuts went. Most of the tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans. And now the tax code is more fair. Twenty percent of the upper-income people pay about 80 percent of the taxes in America today because of how we structured the tax cuts.[/font]
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Wrong on Tax Cuts[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Bush could hardly have been farther off base when he said most of his tax cuts "went to low- and middle-income Americans." That's just not true.[/font]
In fact, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center recently calculated that most of the tax cuts -- 53% to be exact -- went to the highest -earning 10% of US individuals and families.Those most affluent Americans got an average tax cut of $7,661.
And as for the "low- and middle-income Americans" Bush mentioned -- the bottom 60% of individuals and families got only 13.7% of the tax cuts, according to the Tax Policy Center, a far cry from "most" of the cuts as claimed by Bush.
[font=Arial, Helvetica]The President came closer to the mark, but still got it wrong, when he said in the same breath that the top 20% of earners pay "about 80% of the taxes in America today." That's incorrect.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]In fact, as we reported only that morning, the Congressional Budget Office calculates that the top 20% now pay 63.5% of the total federal tax burden, which includes income taxes, payroll taxes and other federal levies. It's true that the top 20% pays nearly 81% of all federal income taxes, but the president spoke more expansively of "taxes in America," not just income taxes.[/font]
<TABLE borderColor=#ffffff cellPadding=10 width="45%" align=left bgColor=#c5f9fc><TBODY><TR><TD bgColor=#fcd6c5>
[font=Verdana, Helvetica]Pell Grants[/font]
[font=Verdana, Helvetica][font=Times New Roman, Times]Kerry: They've cut the Pell Grants . . .[/font] [/font]
</TD></TR><TR><TD>[font=Times New Roman, Times]Bush: He said we cut Pell Grants. We've increased Pell Grants by a million students. That's a fact.[/font]
</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#fcd6c5>[font=Times New Roman, Times]Kerry: But you know why the Pell Grants have gone up in their numbers? Because more people qualify for them because they don't have money. [/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times]But they're not getting the $5,100 the president promised them . They're getting less money.[/font]
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Wrong on Pell Grants[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Kerry claimed the Bush administration had cut Pell Grants for low-income students to attend college. Bush said Pell Grants have been increased by a million students. Bush was correct.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Department of Education figures show the number of Pell Grants awarded the year before Bush took office was 3.9 million. The number grew to 5.1 million for the most recent academic year -- an increase of 1.3 million, actually.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Spending for Pell Grants grew from just under $8 billion in the academic year that was underway when Bush took office to nearly $12.7 billion three years later, a jump of nearly 60%. That's some "cut."[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]It is true that during the 2000 presidential campaign Bush promised to increase the maximum size of Pell Grants to $5,100 for first-year students, a promise that remains unfulfilled. The maximum grant has risen from $3,300 at the time Bush made that promise, but only to $4,050. Under Bush's proposed 2005 budget the maximum grant would remain frozen there for most students for the third year in a row.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]In April Bush proposed an increase of as much as $1,000 in the maximum award, but only for those students who prepare for college with demanding courses in high school, which would allow only a small fraction of Pell Grant recipients to qualify for the maximum. So Kerry was correct when he said students are "not getting the $5,100 the president promised them."[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Wrong on After-School Programs[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Kerry claimed that "500,000 kids lost after-school programs," which isn't the case. A cut was proposed but Congress rejected it. The Department of Education's 2004 budget proposal called for a nearly 40% cut in funding for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program, or a drop of nearly $400 million from about $1 billion in 2003. According to a [/font] [font=Arial, Helvetica]report[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica] by the Afterschool Alliance, "More than 550,000 children would lose access to afterschool programs." But even assuming that projection would have turned out to be correct, it never happened because Congress kept funding at about $1 billion.[/font]
<TABLE borderColor=#ffffff cellPadding=10 width="45%" align=left bgColor=#c5f9fc><TBODY><TR><TD bgColor=#fcd6c5>
[font=Verdana, Helvetica]Not That Concerned?[/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times]Kerry: Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, "Where is Osama bin Laden?" He said, "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned."[/font]
</TD></TR><TR><TD>[font=Times New Roman, Times]Bush: Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations.[/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times]Of course we're worried about Osama bin Laden. We're on the hunt after Osama bin Laden. We're using every asset at our disposal to get Osama bin Laden.[/font]
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Wrong on Osama[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Bush stumbled when he denied making some remarks about Osama bin Laden that Kerry had accurately paraphrased. Bush accused Kerry of "one of those exaggerations."[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]In fact, Bush said almost exactly what Kerry quoted him as saying. It was in a news conference at the White House on March 13, 2002, after US forces had overturned the Taliban regime in Afghanistan:[/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times]Q (March 13, 2002): Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? . . .[/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times]Bush: So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him , Kelly, to be honest with you.[/font] . . .
[font=Times New Roman, Times]Q: But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?[/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times]Bush: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.[/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times]Bush: So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him , Kelly, to be honest with you.[/font] . . .
[font=Times New Roman, Times]Q: But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?[/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times]Bush: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.[/font]
[font=Verdana, Helvetica]Who Blocked Vaccine?[/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times]Bush: Bob, we relied upon a company out of England to provide about half of the flu vaccines for the United States (sic) citizen, and it turned out that the vaccine they were producing was contaminated. And so we took the right action and didn't allow contaminated medicine into our country.[/font]
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Wrong on Flu Vaccine[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]It's not true, as Bush claimed, that "we took the right action" in blocking "contaminated" influenza vaccine from entering the US.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Actually, it was the British and not the US that blocked shipment. The British Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, according to an Oct. 6 news release, suspended the license of Chiron Corp., the manufacturer of approximately 50% of the U.S. supply.[/font]
In fact, the Bush administration seems to have been caught by surprise when Chiron Corp. notified the US Center for Disease Control Oct. 5 that the company wouldn't be shipping the vaccine due to the British action. The US Food and Drug Administration didn't begin an investigation until five days later, according to an FDA news release .
[font=Arial, Helvetica]It's also not clear how much of the vaccine is actually contaminated. The British agency said it suspended Chiron's license because of "concerns of possible microbial contamination." And the FDA news release refers to "findings concerning the contamination of some lots."[/font]
<TABLE borderColor=#ffffff cellPadding=10 width="45%" align=left bgColor=#fcd6c5><TBODY><TR><TD>
[font=Verdana, Helvetica]The "Black Congressional Caucus"[/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times]Kerry: This is a president who hasn't met with the Black Congressional Caucus. This is a president who has not met with the civil rights leadership of our country.[/font]
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Wrong on The Black Caucus
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Kerry wrongly claimed Bush "hasn't met with the Black Congressional Caucus." He garbled the organization's name, for one thing. It's actually the Congressional Black Caucus, made up of 39 African-American members of the House.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]And in fact, Bush met with the caucus a few days after taking office, on Jan. 31, 2001. "This will be the beginning of, hopefully, a lot of meetings," Bush told them. "I hope you come back, and I'll certainly be inviting." But it was more than three years before the next meeting, on Feb. 25, 2004. Bush met with members of the caucus after they paid an impromptu visit to the White House to discuss the crisis in Haiti, according to a statement issued by the White House press secretary.[/font]
Wrong on the Surplus
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Kerry claimed Bush "has taken a $5.6 trillion surplus and turned it into deficits as far as the eye can see." But the country never actually had a $5.6 trillion surplus. The projected surplus Kerry was referring to was a 10-year figure that was already made dubious by a weakening economy and a pent-up Congressional urge to spend. The largest annual surplus actually realized was $236 billion in fiscal year 2000, which ended a month before Bush was elected.
[/font]
[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Recycled Bunkum[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Both men recycled a number of distortions and falsehoods that we've reported on before:[/font]
- Kerry twice claimed 1.6 million jobs have been lost under Bush, which is 1 million too high.
- Bush said that in Iraq "We'll have 125,000 troops trained by the end of this year," which is wrong. Actually, the security forces being trained are a "mixed bag" of soldiers, border guards and even three-week "shake and bake" police officers, according to House testimony by Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.
- Kerry again claimed "The jobs the president is creating pay $9,000 less than the jobs that we're losing," a fanciful figure based on industry averages that don't actually compare wages of jobs lost to those of newer jobs.
- Bush claimed fear of lawsuits drives doctors to "the defensive practice of medicine that costs the federal government some $28 billion a year and costs our society between $60 billion and $100 billion a year," which is contrary to nearly all academic studies of the matter.
- Kerry repeated that "I have a plan to cover all Americans" for health care. Actually, his plan wouldn't cover all Americans. It would increase the percentage who have coverage from 84% currently to an estimated 92% to 95%. But several million would still be left uninsured.
- Bush again said Kerry "voted to increase taxes 98 times." But that total includes up to 16 votes on a single tax bill, and 43 votes on budget measures that set targets but don't actually legislate tax increases.
We Note Some Improvement
The candidates did show improvement on a few matters, however. Kerry didn't repeat his inflated claim that the Iraq war has cost $200 billion. Instead he stated, correctly, "America now is paying, already $120 billion, up to $200 billion before we're finished and much more probably." And Bush stopped short of talking of his support for creating the Department of Homeland Security, something he actually opposed for nearly nine months before switching to support it. This time Bush confined himself to saying "I signed the homeland security bill," which is quite accurate.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
