|
|||
As the Associated Press wrote recently, “Politicians usually modify or drop claims when a string of newspaper and TV news accounts concludes they are untrue or greatly exaggerated.” But this campaign is seeing something different: A campaign that tells a falsehood, sees that falsehood corrected in the press, and continues to repeat the falsehood.
In recent days, John McCain’s campaign has continued to make claims in ads and stump speeches that have been widely discredited. While much of the back-and-forth of campaigns consists of the contenders arguing about what is true and what isn’t, the claims cited here are not open to interpretation. The statements are clearly and objectively false.
This poses a direct challenge to the press. If they are to be the referees of the claims made by the two campaigns, they must impose some sort of cost on a campaign when it persists in spreading falsehoods. This document details some of the McCain campaign’s recent falsehoods, where and when they were debunked, and how the campaign has continued to repeat them nonetheless.
|
Contact your local Media / Public Relations / News Services or any of the ones listed here and hold them accountable.
|
Details
Lie: “I told Congress, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’ on that Bridge to Nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge, I said we'd build it ourselves.”[1]
Truth: Sarah Palin’s claim that she said “no” to Congress on the Bridge to Nowhere is false.
The nearly $400 million bridge was supposed to connect the city of Ketchikan to Gravina Island, which has just 50 residents and an airport.[2] The bridge became a symbol for out-of-control pork-barrel spending and was eventually abandoned.
But Palin did not tell Congress, "’Thanks, but no thanks' on that Bridge to Nowhere,” as she claimed in her speech. First, she was not in a position to do so. A year before Palin was elected governor, Congress abdicated responsibility for determining how the money would be spent. After authorizing funds to be spent specifically on the bridge project in August 2005, Congress earmarked the money for Alaska in an appropriations bill in November 2005, but specified that it did not have to be spent on the bridge. Second, Palin did not refuse the funds or reimburse the federal government; Alaska kept the federal funds. Indeed, the state allocated the funds to other projects, and even devoted some of it to the bridge. Even though the bridge was not fully funded, the state began road construction related to it.
Moreover, while running for governor in 2006, Palin expressed support for getting federal funding for the bridge. When asked by the Anchorage Daily News about continuing state funding for the bridge, she replied, “Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now -- while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.” She also defended the project, telling the Ketchikan Daily News, “We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge, and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that's so negative.”[3]
By the time Palin formally killed the project in 2007, the Bridge to Nowhere was all but dead. Apparently, Palin was in favor of the bridge when the federal taxpayers were footing the bill, but not when Alaska had to pay for it on its own -- precisely the opposite of what she has claimed.
The claim is debunked: Reporting on Palin’s claim about the Bridge to Nowhere in her first campaign speech on August 29, The New York Times noted in an August 31 article that “Palin’s history with the infamous bridge -- and earmarks, which many critics call pork -- is more complicated.” The article stated that Palin had “expressed support for the Bridge to Nowhere earmark” and included two quotes from Palin supporting the bridge in 2006 when she was running for governor. Following the Times, the Los Angeles Times (in three separate items) and The Washington Post (in four separate articles) noted that Palin’s claim was false. Indeed, the Post reported on September 2 that Palin “does not mention that she endorsed the bridge when she was a candidate for governor. And the money did not go back to Washington. It stayed in Alaska for a different road project."
Yet the lying continues: Despite being revealed as false by numerous media outlets after the first time she mentioned it, Palin has continued to tout her alleged opposition to the project.
“And as the senator said, I told the Congress thanks but no thanks for that bridge to nowhere. If our state wanted to build a bridge, we would build it ourselves.” -- Sarah Palin, O’Fallon, Missouri, 8/31/08
“I told the Congress ‘thanks, but no thanks,’ for that Bridge to Nowhere.” -- Sarah Palin, Republican National Convention, 9/3/08
“I championed reform of earmark spending by Congress, and I told the Congress thanks but no thanks on that ‘Bridge to Nowhere.” -- Sarah Palin, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 9/6/08
“I told Congress thanks but no thanks for that bridge to nowhere. If the state wanted to build a bridge we would build it ourselves.” -- Sarah Palin, Lee’s Summit, Missouri, 9/8/08
“I told Congress, ‘Thanks, but no thanks’ for that bridge to nowhere.” -- Sarah Palin, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 9/9/08
“I told Congress, ‘Thanks, but no thanks’ for that bridge to nowhere.” -- Sarah Palin, Lebanon, Ohio, 9/9/08
“I told Congress, ‘Thanks, but no thanks’ for that bridge to nowhere.” -- Sarah Palin, Fairfax, Virginia, 9/10/08
"We told Congress, 'thanks, but no thanks. If we want a bridge we'll build it ourselves.' " -- Sarah Palin, Golden, Colorado, 9/15/08
“She stopped the Bridge to Nowhere.” -- McCain-Palin campaign ad, 9/8/08
Lie: “Obama voted to raise taxes on people making just $42,000 dollars.” [4]
Truth: On August 8, the McCain campaign began running a television ad that made the following claim: “Life in the spotlight must be grand. For the rest of us, times are tough. Obama voted to raise taxes on people making just $42,000.”
But that claim was false. Obama did not vote to raise taxes on people making $42,000, and his actual tax plan lowers taxes for all taxpayers making less than $250,000.
Any fair observer would agree that in order to accurately say that a politician “voted to raise taxes,” the legislation in question would have to have raised taxes. But this is not the case with the legislation to which this claim refers -- a budget resolution -- and the fact that most people don’t know how such resolutions work helps the lie go unnoticed.
What Obama voted for was a budget resolution that, in calculating future revenue, assumed that the Bush tax cuts would begin to expire in 2010, as under current law they will. (The lowest level of income affected by the reversion to Clinton-era tax rates is $42,000.) That is the entirety of the basis of McCain’s claim. As Congressional Quarterly wrote in criticizing the ad, “But voting for a congressional budget plan is quite different from voting for a tax increase. Budget resolutions are nonbinding, don't have the force of law and don't include precise details on taxes or spending. They're different from legislation that actually raises or lowers tax rates.”[5]
Budget resolutions have no effect on anyone’s taxes. They do not raise taxes, and they do not lower taxes. They set targets for government spending. To repeat, one cannot honestly say that a vote for any budget resolution is “a vote to raise taxes,” particularly when the budget resolution in question merely assumes that the Bush tax cuts will proceed exactly as the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress wrote them.
The claim is debunked: News organizations identified the claim as false immediately after it first aired on August 8. The Associated Press wrote at the time that the ad’s claim about Obama’s tax plan was based “on outdated material that has been widely debunked.”[6] Nonpartisan fact-checking websites FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com also debunked the claims the same day the ad aired.
Yet the lying continues. Despite its debunking, the McCain campaign continues to stand by its false claim.
“The perks are amazing, like a tax increase for everyone earning more than $42,000 a year.” -- McCain campaign Web ad “The One,” aired August 11, 2008
“Barack Obama has voted in support of higher taxes 94 times in just 3 years, including higher taxes for Americans making just $42,000 a year.” -- Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain 2008 senior policy adviser, August 14, 2008
“When the temple comes down, the fireworks end, and the words are over, the facts remain: Senator Obama still has no record of bipartisanship, still opposes offshore drilling, still voted to raise taxes on those making just $42,000 per year, and still voted against funds for American troops in harm's way.” -- Tucker Bounds, McCain 2008 spokesman, August 28, 2008
Lie: “Senator Obama ... wants to nearly double the capital gains tax. Nearly double it, which 100 million Americans have investments in -- mutual funds, 401(k)s -- policemen, firemen, nurses. He wants to increase their taxes.”[7]
Truth: Obama’s plan does NOT raise taxes on 100 million Americans.
This claim rests on the fact that Obama has proposed raising capital gains taxes for those individuals who earn over $200,000 or couples making $250,000. In order for McCain’s claim to be true, it would have to be the case that 100 million Americans both earn over this minimum and have investment income on which they pay capital gains taxes. Neither is true.
According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, only 13.4 million tax returns -- or less than 10 percent of the total 138 million returns -- contained taxable net capital gains in 2006. Of those, only 3 percent were from taxpayers earning over $200,000. In other words, only about 400,000 taxpayers -- not 100 million -- would pay higher taxes under Obama’s proposed increase in the capital gains tax.
So where did McCain come up with his 100 million figure? He apparently included every American who holds any investments in the stock market, including 401(k) accounts. But 401(k)s, of course, are not subject to capital gains taxes, no matter what a person’s income.
The claim is debunked: PolitiFact.com quickly debunked the 100 million taxpayer claim, writing that McCain’s April 20 comment “significantly inflates the number of people who pay capital gains taxes” and clarifying that capital gains tax hikes “would not directly affect most working people saving for retirement.”
Yet the lying continues: The line has been repeated by both McCain and his surrogates since it was shown to be false.
“[Obama] wants to raise taxes on everything from Social Security to investment income. Remember, there 100 million people out there, including a lot of those working-class Pennsylvanians and Ohioans, who do have capital gain income. In fact, about 25 percent of those folks make less than 50,000 bucks a year. So they do care. Their taxes are going to go up.” -- Rob Portman, former Ohio Republican representative, Fox News Sunday, June 29, 2008
“The fact is that Senator Obama wants to raise taxes on a large number of Americans, whether they have something to do with capital gains, which 100 million Americans do.”[8] -- John McCain, Kansas City Star, July 31, 2008
“What John McCain is saying is that with the economy, Barack Obama would raise taxes on 100 million Americans who own stocks. They would have their taxes raised. That's 100 million Americans.”[9] -- Rep. Peter King (R, N.Y.), September 9, 2008
Lie: John McCain has repeatedly claimed that Barack Obama’s health-care plan would force Americans into a “government-run health-care system,” recently stating that Obama’s “plan will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages, and force families into a government-run health-care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor.”[10]
Truth: As nonpartisan groups have verified, Obama’s plan allows people to keep the insurance they have now or enroll in a plan similar to what members of Congress have, which gives people a choice between a variety of private insurers. Obama’s plan would offer a government plan similar to Medicare, but enrollment in that plan would be completely voluntary. Under Obama’s plan, neither the health care system (as in Canada and Great Britain) nor the health insurance system (as in most European countries) would be “government run.” If it passed in its current form, Obama’s plan would not place a government bureaucrat “between you and your doctor,” as McCain has asserted.
The claim is debunked: The New York Times reported as early as May 3 in an article by Michael Cooper and Julie Bosman that McCain was "inaccurately describ[ing] the Democrats' health care proposals, using language that evokes the specter of socialized medicine" and quoted McCain asserting of Hillary Clinton's and Obama's plans: "[B]efore you decide to sign on to that kind of a program, go to Canada, or go to European countries that have government-run health care systems." Cooper and Bosman wrote that McCain's "suggestion is incorrect" and noted that "Both [Obama and Clinton] would maintain the existing private insurance system, providing government subsidies or tax credits to help the low-income uninsured afford premiums. And they would give consumers a new option to buy insurance from the federal government, with policies along the lines of Medicare."
Yet the lying continues: Despite being debunked by journalists, McCain continues to depict Obama’s health-care plan as a government-run system. [11]
“The solution, my friends, isn't a one-size-fits-all, big-government takeover of health care.”[12] April 28, 2008
“The wrong course for our country would be to follow Senators Obama and Clinton and their siren songs of higher taxes, bigger government, greater isolationism and a government-run health care system.”[13] May 2, 2008
“The wrong change for our country would be an economic agenda based upon the policies of the past that advocate higher taxes, bigger government, government-run health care and greater isolationism. To help families at this critical time, we cannot afford to go backward as Senator Obama advocates.”[14] June 6, 2008
“My friends, we’ve seen this movie before. It was called ‘HillaryCare’ back in 1993, and we’re not going to do it again. We’re not going to have the government take over the health-care system in America.”[15] July 17, 2008
“My health care plan will make it easier for more Americans to find and keep good health care insurance. His plan will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages, and force families into a government-run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor.”[16] September 4, 2008
Lie: A McCain television ad asserts that Sen. Barack Obama’s “one accomplishment” in education was “legislation to teach ‘comprehensive sex education’ to kindergarteners.”
Truth: The Illinois Senate bill in question would have allowed only "age and developmentally appropriate" material[17] and allowed parents to opt their children out.[18] According to Carol Ronen, the state legislator who sponsored the bill, the intent of the bill was to make sure teenagers were given information that was “medically accurate.” It also sought to expand age-appropriate sex education to lower grades to allow for teaching things like avoiding sexual predators. Further, the bill was not an “accomplishment” of Obama’s -- he was not a co-sponsor of the bill (he merely voted for it in committee), and the bill never left the state Senate.[19]
In addition, Obama has several legislative achievements in education to his credit. In the Illinois Senate, he co-sponsored[20] what became the Chicago Education Reform Act of 2003[21] In the U.S. Senate, he co-sponsored three amendments to the America COMPETES Act of 2007.[22]
The false attack against Obama was first advanced by Alan Keyes, Obama’s opponent in a 2004 Senate race in Illinois.
The claim is debunked: The McCain campaign launched the “Education” ad on September 9. The nonpartisan FactCheck.org analyzed the ad on September 10 and stated that the claim that Obama's "one accomplishment" in the area of education was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners” is “simply false.” The Washington Post's "Fact Checker," Michael Dobbs, wrote on September 11 that "[t]he McCain ad is wrong when it claims -- in a voice dripping with sarcasm -- that Obama's 'one accomplishment' in the education field was a sex education bill for kindergartners." The item’s headline described the ad as "dishonest" and "deceptive."
Yet the lying continues: Despite denunciations from the Obama campaign and debunking from nonpartisan organizations, the McCain campaign continues to stand by the ad, with spokesman Tucker Bounds saying that “the Obama campaign did not and cannot dispute a shred of the content in the ad.”[23]
Lie: Sarah Palin “championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress.”[24]
Truth: As mayor of Wasilla, Sarah Palin hired a lobbyist to obtain earmarks for the town. As governor, she has requested hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks.
Palin served as mayor of Wasilla between 1996 and 2002. Under her stewardship, Wasilla received around $27 million in federal earmarks with the help of a lobbying firm, Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh (now named Hoffman Silver Gilman & Blasco P.C.) and Steven Silver, a partner at the firm and the former chief of staff for Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), longtime chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.[25] According to a post on Newsweek’s Stumper blog, the town had never received earmarks until Palin’s tenure.[26] To put Wasilla’s earmark windfall in perspective, Wasilla in 2002 took in $6.1 million in earmarks. By contrast, Boise, the capital of Idaho, took in $6.9 million in 2008.[27] Boise has a population of 190,000. Wasilla has a population of under 10,000.
Among the projects that were funded by those earmarks for Wasilla were $1.9 million for a transportation hub, $900,000 for sewer repairs, and $15 million for a rail project.[28] Indeed, Wasilla’s earmarks requests were so egregious that Sen. John McCain in 2001 criticized $3 million in “objectionable” earmarks for Wasilla.[29]
As governor, Palin was no less effective in bringing federal money to Alaska. For fiscal 2008, Palin sought $256 million in earmarks. For fiscal 2009, she sought $197 million.[30] Although under Palin, Alaska’s appropriations requests have gone down from the levels of the previous governor, Frank Murkowski, who requested $350 million in his last year, Alaska still receives more earmark dollars per person than any other state. Among the programs that Gov. Palin’s earmarks have funded are $3.2 million to research seals and sea lions, $2 million to research sea crabs, and nearly $500,000 to research halibut.[31]
The claim is debunked: The Washington Post reported on September 2 that Palin requested federal earmarks as both mayor of Wasilla and governor of Alaska, citing many of the facts outlined above.
Yet the lying continues: Despite news accounts documenting Palin’s requests for federal earmarks as mayor and governor, Palin and the McCain campaign have continued to assert that she “championed earmark reform.”
“And I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending: nearly half a billion dollars in vetoes. I suspended the state fuel tax and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress.” -- Sarah Palin, Republican National Convention, 9/3/08
“I championed reform of earmark spending by Congress. And I told the Congress, thanks, but no thanks for that bridge to nowhere.” -- Sarah Palin, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 9/6/08
“I championed earmark reform -- you're going to hear about this from the senator -- to stop Congress from wasting public money on things that don't serve the public interest. I told Congress, thanks but no thanks for that bridge to nowhere. ... Just the other day, our opponent brought up earmarks. And, frankly, I was surprised that he would even raise the subject at all. I thought he wouldn't want to go there. In just three years, our opponent has requested nearly $1 billion in earmarks. That's about a million dollars for every working day. So we've reformed the abuses of earmarks in our state. And I'm ready to help president John McCain end these corrupt practices once and for all.” -- Sarah Palin, Lee’s Summit, Missouri, 9/8/08
“You're going to hear a lot about the abusive practice of earmarks in Congress from our good senator here. We championed in Alaska reform of the old earmark process.” -- Sarah Palin, Lebanon, Ohio, 9/9/08
“I championed earmark reform, also, to help Congress stop wasting money on those things that do not serve the public interest. We reformed the abuses of earmarks in our state, and it was while our opponent was requesting a billion dollars in earmarks as a senatorial privilege. What I was doing was vetoing half a billion as an executive responsibility.” -- Sarah Palin, Fairfax, Virginia, 9/10/08
“No, not as governor she didn't.” -- John McCain, responding to a comment about Palin taking earmarks as governor, ABC’s The View, 9/12/08
[1] First public appearance with McCain in Dayton, Ohio, August 29, 2008 <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/us/politics/29text-palin.html> (accessed September 12, 2008).
[2] “’Bridge to Nowhere’ abandoned,” Associated Press, September 22, 2007 <http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/22/alaska.bridge.ap/> (accessed September 12, 2008).
[3] As reported in Ken Dilanian, “Palin backed ‘bridge to nowhere’ in 2006,” USA Today, September 1, 2008 <http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N.htm> (accessed September 12, 2008).
[5] McCain 2008 television ad, “Painful,” aired August 8, 2008.
[6] “Tax Hike Claims Overblown,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly, August 28, 2008.
[7] “Adwatch: McCain Ad Claims Obama Bad for Families,” Associated Press, August 8, 2008.
[8] John McCain, This Week, ABC, April 20, 2008.
[9] “Candidates Query Each Other Over Taxes, Iraq War,” Kansas City Star, July 31, 2008, p. A11.
[10] “Hardball,” MSNBC, September 9, 2008.
[11] http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/conventions/videos/transcripts/20080904_MCCAIN_SPEECH.html?scp=1&sq=mccain%20acceptance%20speech&st=cse
[12]http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=09&year=2008&base_name=ap_praises_mccain_speech_that
[13]http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/Speeches/5e30a29e-6e89-4cb2-9035-aacd094fbd86.htm
[14] http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/PressReleases/cb163dec-ec8a-4926-9c6a-6396beff95fa.htm
[15] http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/PressReleases/8403e45a-dd55-489d-85c1-196255ff1f5c.htm
[16] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIywQYycSl8
[17] http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/conventions/videos/transcripts/20080904_MCCAIN_SPEECH.html?scp=1&sq=mccain%20acceptance%20speech&st=cse
[18] “SB99: Course material and instruction shall discuss and provide for the development of positive communication skills to maintain healthy relationships and avoid unwanted sexual activity. ... Course material and instruction shall teach pupils ... how to say no to unwanted sexual advances ... and shall include information about verbal, physical, and visual sexual harassment, including without limitation nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual physical sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The course material and instruction shall contain methods of preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that impairs one's judgment.” http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=99&GAID=3&LegID=734&SpecSess=&Session=
[19] “SB99: No pupil shall be required to take or participate in any family life class or course on HIV or family life instruction if his parent or guardian submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of such pupil.and a no-questions-asked opt-out policy for parents.” http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=99&GAID=3&LegID=734&SpecSess=&Session=
[20]http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=99&GAID=3&DocTypeID=SB&LegId=734&SessionID=3&GA=93
[21]http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=0019&GAID=3&GA=93&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=100&SessionID=3&SpecSess=
[22] http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=093-0003
[23] http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ069.110 One amendment created a mentoring program for women and minority groups during their studies in Department of Energy programs. Another supported summer learning programs and boosting math curricula. The third required that women and minorities be represented in the President's Science and Technology Summit. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html
[24] Larry Rohter, “Ad on Sex Education Distorts Obama Policy,” New York Times, September 11, 2008 <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/us/politics/11checkpoint.html> (accessed September 12, 2008).
[25] First public appearance with McCain in Dayton, Ohio, August 29, 2008 <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/us/politics/29text-palin.html>
[26] “Wasilla, Alaska Benefited from Nearly $27 Million in Earmarks from 1996 to 2002,” Taxpayers for Common Sense, September 2, 2008.
[27] Andrew Romano, “Memo to the Candidates: Stop Talking About Earmarks. Please.” Newsweek.com, September 11, 2008 <http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/11/why-all-this-talk-of-earmarks-is-nonsense.aspx> (accessed September 12, 2008).
[28] Paul Kane, “Palin’s Small Alaska Town Secured Big Federal Funds,” Washington Post, September 2, 2008, p. A1.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Randi Kaye, “McCain criticized Wasilla earmarks in 2001,” CNN.com, September 10, 2008 <http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/10/palin.earmarks/#cnnSTCText> (accessed September 12, 2008).
[31] Erika Bolstad, “Palin’s take on earmarks evolving,” Anchorage Daily News, September 8, 2008 <http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/516743.html> (accessed September 12, 2008).
[32] Ben Smith, “Palin’s earmarks: Not just for the halibut,” Politico, September 10, 2008 http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13353.html (accessed September 12, 2008).