Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In |

"I want to campaign the same way I govern, which is to respond directly and forcefully with the truth,"
~ Barack Obama, 11/08/07

Boehner's Inaccurate, Irresponsible Claim That Obama Called Israel a "Sore" On Foreign Policy

May 12, 2008

"In his dishonest and ridiculous distortion, John Boehner has shown us the new depths that a truly desperate Republican leadership will sink to in its attempt to smear Barack Obama's strong and unshakeable record of support for Israel. This absurd parsing would be laughable if it wasn't so sad to see the U.S.-Israel relationship used as a political wedge instead of a cause to unite all Americans around a common purpose." --Rep. Robert Wexler, D-FL

OBAMA WAS CLEARLY REFERRING TO THE "LACK OF A RESOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM"

Goldberg: Do you think that Israel is a drag on America’s reputation overseas?

Obama: No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced of that, and some of the tensions that might arise between me and some of the more hawkish elements in the Jewish community in the United States might stem from the fact that I’m not going to blindly adhere to whatever the most hawkish position is just because that’s the safest ground politically.

I want to solve the problem, and so my job in being a friend to Israel is partly to hold up a mirror and tell the truth and say if Israel is building settlements without any regard to the effects that this has on the peace process, then we’re going to be stuck in the same status quo that we’ve been stuck in for decades now, and that won’t lift that existential dread that David Grossman described in your article.

The notion that a vibrant, successful society with incredible economic growth and incredible cultural vitality is still plagued by this notion that this could all end at any moment -- you know, I don’t know what that feels like, but I can use my imagination to understand it. I would not want to raise my children in those circumstances. I want to make sure that the people of Israel, when they kiss their kids and put them on that bus, feel at least no more existential dread than any parent does whenever their kids leave their sight. So that then becomes the question: is settlement policy conducive to relieving that over the long term, or is it just making the situation worse? That’s the question that has to be asked.

OBAMA IS "PRO-ISRAEL. PERIOD."

Haaretz Columnist: "Obama Passed Any Test Anyone Might Have Wanted Him To Pass. So, He Is Pro-Israel. Period." Schmuel Rosner wrote, "Barack Obama's big speech on Israel is now over, and as expected, the candidate made no secret of his support and dedication to the special relationship between the U.S. and Israel. "My view is that the United States' special relationship with Israel obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting Israel in defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction," were Obama's words to Haaretz last week. Today, he sounded as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush, as friendly as Giuliani. At least rhetorically, Obama passed any test anyone might have wanted him to pass. So, he is pro-Israel. Period." [Haaretz, 3/07]

New York Sun: Obama's "Commitment To Israel...Is Quite Moving" Which "Israel's Friends In America...Can Warmly Welcome." The New York Sun wrote in an editorial, "At least by our lights, Mr. Obama's commitment to Israel, as he has articulated it so far in his campaign, is quite moving and a tribute to the broad, bipartisan support that the Jewish state has in America...But as a candidate, he has chosen to put himself on the record in terms that Israel's friends in America, at least those not motivated by pure political partisanship, can warmly welcome." [New York Sun, 1/9/08]

Friedman: All The Candidates "Have Demonstrated Their Support For A Strong US-Israel Relationship." The New York Sun reported, "On just the question of Mr. Obama's support for Israel, however, the president of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Howard Friedman, minimized any differences between the candidates. 'All of the leading candidates, Senators Clinton, Obama, and McCain, and Governor Huckabee, have demonstrated their support for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship,' Mr. Friedman said." [New York Sun, 2/21/08]

Wexler: Obama Has "An A-Plus" On Israel. The Cleveland Plain-Dealer reported, "As he did in Iowa and Maryland, U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, an Obama adviser, addressed the Jewish community here Sunday afternoon at Anshe Chesed Fairmount Temple. 'Look at his record,' the Florida congressman told a crowd of about 500, a handful of whom wore yarmulkes stamped with "Obama '08." 'If you gave it a grade, it would be an A-plus.'" [Cleveland Plain-Dealer, 2/26/08]

Schorer: Obama Or Clinton Would "Offer A Sympathetic Ear And A Helping Hand To Israel." Sheldon Schorer wrote, "What does this mean for Israel? The good news is that both in Hillary Clinton and in Barack Obama, the Democrats are proposing candidates who are good for Israel. Both candidates understand the importance of Israel as a strong and reliable ally in this volatile region, Israel's need for security and the need for a Palestinian partner who earnestly desires peace and is capable of carrying out its commitments. Either candidate, if elected president, will offer a sympathetic ear and a helping hand to Israel. The excitement generated in the Democratic race thus far augurs well for a Democratic victory in November." [Jerusalem Post, 2/11/08]

Cohen: Obama "Feels Israel In His Kishkas." Roger Cohen wrote, "Foreign policy will roar back once this is a straight Republican-Democrat fight. A Democrat who's going to win has be strong on core American defense principles, which include Israel's security. Obama feels Israel in his kishkas, all right. Equally, he feels dialogue, which has been his way of getting things done since he became a Chicago community organizer in the 1980s. There would be no six-year time-outs on Israel-Palestine under an Obama presidency. "He'd be actively involved from day one," said Axelrod. Jews should get over the scaremongering: Obama is no Manchurian. Nor is he blind to the fact that backing Israel is not enough if such U.S. backing provides carte blanche for the subjugation of another people." [New York Times, 2/11/08]

Pinkas: "If Barack Obama Is Not 'Pro-Israel,' Then Neither Are Most Israelis." Alon Pinkas wrote, "Trying to refute the ridiculous allegations on their merits is relatively easy: Obama's voting record on issues pertaining to Israel is impeccable. Amongst his supporters and contributors are prominent Chicago and New York Jewish community and civic leaders, and I assume there are many more in Los Angeles, Miami and elsewhere. He has never outlined a policy that Israelis may find incompatible with what they believe a pro-Israeli Mid-East policy should be. In fact, Sen. Obama's essay in Foreign Affairs is balanced and contains absolutely no policy prescriptions anyone in their right mind can define as 'anti-Israeli'...The point is, an American president is 'Pro-Israel' when he profoundly appreciates the basic friendship with Israel, when he respects Israel as a democracy, when he truly believes in Israel as an idea and an enterprise. When his core value system and strategic outlook is similar to that of Israelis. In this respect, if Barack Obama is not 'pro-Israel', then neither are most Israelis." [Jerusalem Post, Alon Pinkas, 1/16/08]

Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf: Obama "Offers What America, Israel, And The Jewish Community Need." Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf, a rabbi emeritus at Chicago's KAM Isaiah Israel said, "I've worked with Obama for more than a decade, as has my son, a lawyer who represents children and people with disabilities. He has admired Obama's dedication and skill as he worked on issues affecting our most vulnerable citizens. Obama is no anti-Semite. He is not anti-Israel. He is one of our own, the one figure on the political scene who remembers our past, and has a real vision for repairing our present. Barack Obama is brilliant and open-hearted; he is wiser and more thoughtful than his former minister. He offers what America, Israel, and the Jewish community need: a US President willing to ask hard questions, and grapple with difficult answers. I am very proud to be his neighbor. I hope someday to visit him in the White House." [The Jewish Week, 3/19/08]

OBAMA HAS A LONG HISTORY OF SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL

2000: Obama Said That The US Must Be Israel's Ally In Her Quest For Peace And That "Israel Can Take Risks For Peace Only Because Of Unwavering American Support." A CityPAC questionnaire read in part, "Throughout its history, Israel has been anxious to make peace with its Arab neighbors. If successful, the current peace process is a potential opportunity for Israel to increase its security, normalize relations with its neighbors, and create a more stable and prosperous Middle East. Resolution of the conflict depends on direct negotiations between the parties based on mutual respect and recognition. The United States' commitment to Israel must continue so Israel can negotiate with its former and current adversaries from a position of strength. Senator Obama believes that Israel can take risks for peace only because of unwavering American support." [CityPAC Questionnaire, 2000 Congressional Primary]

2002: Obama Passed A Resolution That Condemned Terrorist Attacks Against Israel; Called On Arafat To Put An End To Terrorist Attacks "Which Emanate From Areas Under His Jurisdiction." Obama sponsored and passed a resolution that stated that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has entered a new phase of terrorism against Israeli civilians; and whereas The United States of America is committed to the safety and security of its citizens everywhere; and whereas the United States of America has made it a national priority to put an end to the scourge of such barbaric terror attacks; therefore, be it resolved that the Members of the Illinois State Senate wish a speedy recovery to the above-mentioned citizens as well as the others wounded in the recent barbaric attack; and be it further resolved that we express our collective outrage at the encouragement, support, and praise given to such terrorists and terror attacks; and be it further resolved that we call upon Palestinian Authority Chairman, Yassar Arafat, to put an end to all such encouragement, support, and praise for these terror attacks, which emanate from areas under his direct jurisdiction; and be it further resolved that the Members of the Illinois State Senate support the policy of the United States government in resisting terrorism throughout the world, and in seeking peace for Israel and its neighboring nations seeking a permanent peace accord; and be it further. [92nd GA, SR 346, Adopted 4/18/02]

2002: Obama Voted To Allow The State Of Illinois To Invest In Israeli Bonds. Obama voted to amend the Deposit of State Moneys Act to provide that the State Treasurer may invest in bonds, notes, debentures, or other similar obligations of a foreign government that are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of that government as to principal and interest, but only if the foreign government has not defaulted and has met its payment obligations in a timely manner on all similar obligations for a period of at least 25 years immediately before the time of acquiring those obligations. HB4159 gives the state treasurer increased flexibility in the investment of money in the state treasury that is not needed for current expenditures. According to a press release, "HB4159 provides more stringent requirements for foreign investments than domestic government investments, providing additional guides to the state treasurer while increasing the opportunity for the development of international economic partnerships. While the language of HB4159 allows investments in all foreign governments who meet the specified criteria, HB4159 was designed to provide the constitutional authority for the treasurer to invest in Israeli bonds. [92nd GA, HB 4159, 3R P 49-1-4, 5/8/02; PA 92-0546, 6/13/02; Press Release, 6/13/02]

2004: Obama Said "Our First And Immutable Commitment Must Be To The Security Of Israel." The Chicago Daily Herald reported, "'Our first and immutable commitment must be to the security of Israel, our only true ally in the Middle East and the only democracy,' Obama said in a July speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations." [Chicago Daily Herald, 10/18/04]

2006: Obama Cosponsored And Passed A Resolution Endorsing Israel's Right To Self-Defense And Condemning Hamas And Hezbollah. In 2006, Obama cosponsored a resolution condemning Hezbollah and Hamas and their state sponsors and supporting Israel's exercise of its right to self-defense. The resolution (1) reaffirmed steadfast support for Israel, (2) supports Israel's right of self-defense and its right to take appropriate action to deter aggression by terrorist groups and their state sponsors, (3) urges the President to continue to fully support Israel in exercising its right of self-defense in Lebanon and Gaza, (4) calls for the immediate and unconditional release of Israeli soldiers held captive by Hezbollah or Hamas, (5) condemns the governments of Iran and Syria for their continued support for Hezbollah and Hamas and holds these governments responsible for the acts of aggression carried out by Hezbollah and Hamas against Israel. [S. Res 534, Passed/agreed to in Senate, 7/18/06]

2006: Obama Cosponsored And Passed The Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act Which Would Discourage International Aid To Hamas Unless It Recognizes Israel, Disarms And Renounces Violence. In 2006, Obama cosponsored the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, which: (1) States that it shall be U.S. policy to support a peaceful, two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians in accordance with the Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (Roadmap), and oppose those organizations, individuals, and countries that support terrorism and violently reject such two-state solution; (2) provides assistance to the Hamas-controlled PA only during a period for which a presidential certification has determined that no PA ministry, agency, or instrumentality is controlled by Hamas unless the Hamas-controlled PA has publicly acknowledged the Jewish state of Israel's right to exist and the Hamas-controlled PA has made demonstrable progress toward purging from its security services individuals with ties to terrorism. [S. 2370, Became Public Law No: 109-446, 12/21/06]

2007: Obama Spoke With Prime Minister Olmert As Annapolis Talks Began, Reiterated His Commitment To Israel's Security As The Basis For Peace Negotiations. Obama said in a release, "Annapolis is a hopeful development because Israelis and Palestinians are engaged in serious discussions again and the countries of the region are involved, and I commend Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas for making the effort. I spoke with Prime Minister Olmert today, and assured him of my strong support for this effort and my unshakeable commitment to Israel's security as a core principle as negotiations move forward. The Administration deserves credit for finally trying to use presidential diplomacy to bring the parties together. It's a big change from the last six and a half years, when President Bush badly neglected this conflict. Recognizing the complexity of the issues under discussion and the importance of the conflict, it is my hope that this conference is just the start of a sustained push by the United States, the Israelis and the Palestinians to achieve the goal of two states living side-by-side in peace and security." [Press Release, 11/27/07]

2008: Obama Said Israel Was Among America's "Most Important Allies And Their Security Is Sacrosanct." The Jerusalem Post reported, "While discussing issues of anti-Semitism, Obama said: 'One of the reasons why so many of my supporters come from the Jewish community...is that I have been a stalwart friend of Israel and supported the special relationship we enjoy with it... They are among our most important allies and their security is sacrosanct.'" [Jerusalem Post, 2/27/08]

Fact Check on Clinton ad

April 29, 2008

SCRIPT: The economy's in trouble. When the housing crisis broke, Hillary Clinton called for action—a freeze on foreclosures. Barack Obama said no. Barack Obama said no to a freeze on foreclosures. Wall Street Journal, 1/11/08

OBAMA'S MORTGAGE PLAN RECEIVED PRAISE OVER CLINTON'S FORECLOSURE FREEZE, WHICH WAS CALLED "DISASTROUS" AND "A FAIRY TALE"

New York Times Editorial: "Obama Has Endorsed The Best Idea Currently On The Table To Prevent Foreclosure." The New York Times wrote in an editorial, "Mr. Obama has endorsed the best idea currently on the table to prevent foreclosure: amending the law so that troubled borrowers can have their mortgages modified in bankruptcy court. That would give lenders a big incentive to work with borrowers — reducing interest or lowering principal balances — before they opted for bankruptcy protection. Mrs. Clinton has not endorsed bankruptcy reform. She has called for $30 billion in federal funds to bolster state and local foreclosure-prevention efforts and has proposed a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures and a rate freeze on subprime adjustable mortgages. Those measures also could help, but as the crisis has developed, the problem has become less one of resetting interest rates and more one of borrowers owing more than their homes are worth. Bankruptcy reform is a better way to deal with that problem." [New York Times, 3/27/08]

New York Sun: Some Critics Say That Clinton's Plan "Could Actually Make Market Conditions Worse." Clinton's "plan to rescue homeowners with a $30 billion federal aid package on top of a 90-day ban on foreclosures and a five-year freeze on interest rates for subprime mortgages could actually make market conditions worse, critics say. Private companies may be less likely to lend if they know the government can come in and override the deal, some conservative scholars warn, or they may add costly premiums to account for the uncertainty." [NY Sun, 3/25/08]

Fortune Writer Jon Birger: Clinton's Mortgage Plan Freeze Is "The Dumbest Solution To The Current Mortgage Mess I've Heard From A Top Presidential Contender" And "Would Be Disastrous." "Hillary Clinton is no dummy. Even her detractors know that. And yet in last night's Democratic presidential debate in Nevada, Clinton floated what is perhaps the dumbest solution to the current mortgage mess I've heard from a top presidential contender. 'I have a plan - a moratorium on foreclosures for 90 days [and] freezing interest rates for five years, which I think we should do immediately,' Clinton announced at what was the last Democratic debate before the Nevada Caucus on Jan. 19. A 90-day moratorium on foreclosures would throw a lifeline to some deserving homeowners, though I suspect it would only delay the inevitable for most. That's not my beef. Where Clinton goes awry is her proposal to freeze mortgage rates for five years, which is essentially a much broader version of a deal President Bush recently hammered out with lenders to assist some subprime borrowers. If Clinton's only goal were to bail out homeowners facing steep rate resets on adjustable mortgages, her plan would work just fine. For everyone else though, such a freeze would be disastrous. ... Then there's the long-term impact such a bailout would have on behavior. While Clinton's plan would no doubt save some legitimate victims who were duped into taking out bad loans, she'd also be saving the flippers and speculators who knew the risks of low teaser rate mortgages but figured (wrongly) that they could always sell their house for a profit if the reset mortgage rate proved unaffordable. Bailing out these folks now would only encourage them to take even bigger risks down the line." [Jon Birger, Fortune, 1/16/08]

Thaler and Woodward: Clinton's Foreclosure Proposal Looks Too Good To Be True: "Promising The American People That You Can Fix Things By Just Lowering Their Interest Rates Is Dishonest, A Fairy Tale That Wont' Come True." "Senator Clinton's foreclosure proposal might appeal to homeowners with adjustable rate mortgages scheduled for a rate increase. But, as with most offers that look too good to be true, this one comes with many problems. The first is its enormous scope. The plan is essentially to repudiate, revoke, or compel the revision of millions of contracts. There are approximately eleven million mortgages in America with adjustable rates, with a total value of more than $2 trillion dollars--a lot of money, even by Washington standards. Even restricting the plan to the 3.4 million subprime ARM loans (roughly $700 billion) would require an intervention of massive scale. An even more serious problem with Hillary's proposal is the nature of the solution it proposes. When someone takes out a loan with a low, so-called 'teaser rate' that is scheduled to increase in a couple years, the investors who put up the money for that loan are counting on at least some of the borrowers to hold on to their mortgage long enough to start paying the higher rates. Without the promise of this increase, the initial rate would have had to be much higher. As economists like to say, there is no such thing as a free lunch...Senator Clinton's policy amounts to a command-and-control approach to economic policy in which the government announces prices and tells suppliers what to produce. Undertaking such an intervention can only raise interest rates on mortgages (and maybe other interest rates as well) as markets attempt to incorporate risk premiums to cope with possible future interventions. Promising the American people that you can fix things by just lowering their interest rates is dishonest, a fairy tale that won't come true." [Richard Thaler/Susan Woodward, TNR, 2/4/08]

SCRIPT: Now gas prices are skyrocketing and she's ready to act again. Hillary's plan: use the windfall profits of the oil companies to pay to suspend the gas tax this summer. Barack Obama says no... again. People are hurting. It's time for a president who's ready to take action now. Barack Obama says no to suspending the gas tax

CLINTON SAYS SHE WILL USE THE WINDFALL PROFITS TAX TO PAY FOR SUSPENDING THE GAS TAX

...But She's Already Spent That Money on "A Clean Energy Future." "Hillary believes it is time for oil companies to do their share in funding clean energy technologies. She will give oil companies a choice: invest more in clean energy technology or pay a portion out of their windfall profits into a Strategic Energy Fund. The Strategic Energy Fund will also eliminate oil company tax breaks and make sure that oil companies pay their fair share in royalties when drilling on public lands. This fund will jumpstart a clean energy future by injecting $50 billion over ten years into research, development and deployment of renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean coal technology, ethanol and other homegrown biofuels." [Clinton Plan for Energy Security, 4/6/08]

PUNDITS AND ECONOMISTS AGREE THAT GAS TAX HOLIDAY IS POLITICAL PANDERING

Oregonian Editorial: Clinton and McCain are Pandering on the Gas Tax, "We Agree With Obama on This Issue. He Calls it a Short-Term Fix." An Oregonian editorial wrote, "The two presidential contenders can't resist the chance to pander to voters and, as a bonus, paint Sen. Barack Obama as an elitist....This is an election-year sop, not a plan for the future....We agree with Obama on this issue. He calls it a short-term fix that benefits oil companies rather than consumers, and says it creates the illusion of leadership without actual change. But we also expect more from McCain, an independent thinker who rarely resorts to such political gimmicks. Most of all, voters deserve better. They deserve candidates who will concede that the federal gas tax hasn't budged for 15 years -- and that the nation's roads, bridges and railways are suffering as a result. They need candidates who will look beyond the nation's borders and address the falling dollar and the global demand for oil, two factors that are far more powerful than an 18-cent tax. In other words, voters need candidates who will acknowledge what's at stake after the next election -- and the next summer vacation. [Oregonian Editorial, 4/29/08]

Washington Post Fact Checker: Temporary Illinois Gas Tax Holiday Showed that Economic Benefit Was Minimal and the Majority of Consumers Didn't Feel They Were Paying Less. "The gas tax moratorium proved politically popular in Illinois, but economically questionable. The Illinois Economic and Fiscal Commission estimated that the state lost $175 million in revenues during the six-month period. A subsequent study by the National Bureau of Economic Research showed that gas prices fell by 3 percent, meaning that only three fifths of the savings from reduced taxes was passed on to consumers. "It turned out to have a pretty small effect," said Joseph Doyle, an assistant economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "Consumers were slightly better off, but the benefits were spread very thinly, and the government was a lot worse off." A poll by the Chicago Tribune showed that only 28 percent of motorists believed that they were actually paying less for gas as a result of the temporary suspension of the tax. Obama has changed his mind dramatically on the tax cut since voting for it back in 2000 in Illinois. On the campaign trail Monday in North Carolina, he described the proposal as a "short-term quick fix that we can say we did something even though we're not really doing anything." [Washington Post Fact Checker, 4/29/08]

Economists Agree: Most Savings from Gas Tax Holiday Are Passed on to Producers, Not Consumers. "James Hamilton, professor of Economics at the University of California-San Diego, said that most of the benefits from a temporary tax moratorium would likely go to producers rather than consumers. He said that states that suspend gas taxes are able to respond to rising demand more efficiently than the country as a whole, because gasoline supplies can be easily moved from one state to another. "Prices would certainly rise to the market-clearing level," said Hamilton. "I would expect the price [of gas] to go back to very close to where it was before [the tax cut], in which case consumers would not see any benefit." Another economist, Jeffrey Perloff, of UC-Berkeley, agreed that a federal tax moratorium would likely have less impact on consumer gas prices than a state moratorium. He said his models showed that a suspension of the 18.4-cent federal tax on gasoline would likely result in a temporary 9 to 12 cent reduction in the cost of a gallon of gas to the consumer, with the remainder of the reduction coming in wholesale prices." [Washington Post Fact Checker, 4/29/08]

Economist Gelbach: "The Price Paid by Consumers Would Change Relatively Little, If at All." Economist Jonah Gelbach wrote, "one point that has gone largely unreported in the regular media is that a brief gas tax holiday would likely do little to reduce prices for consumers simply because in the short run the supply of gasoline is relatively fixed (in econese, the short run supply curve is close to vertical). As a result, a cut in the gas tax of brief duration will simply cause the pre-tax price of gas to rise. This would mean that the price paid by consumers would change relatively little, if at all (tho James Hamilton's post, linked below, suggests the consumer price might fall by as much as half the gas tax, which I think would be about 9 cents). Instead, the price received by oil companies would simply rise, providing them with windfall profits." [Gelbach blog, 4/21/08]

OBAMA OPPOSES A FEDERAL GAS TAX HOLIDAY BECAUSE HE DEALT WITH ONE AS A STATE LEGISLATOR AND SAW THAT SAVINGS WERE NOT PASSED ON TO THE CONSUMER

Today: Obama Said A Gas Tax Holiday Is Not An Idea To Get You Through The Summer But Designed To Get Clinton And McCain Through An Election. "Now, the two Washington candidates in the race have been attacking me lately because I don't support their idea of a gas tax holiday. This is an idea that, when all is said and done, will save you – at most – half a tank of gas over the course of the entire summer. That's about $28. It's an idea that some economists think might actually raise gas prices. And without a plan to pay for it right away, it means that the money would come directly out of the fund we use to pay for construction projects, which could cost the state of North Carolina up to 7,000 jobs. This is the problem with Washington. We are facing a situation where oil prices could hit $200 a barrel. Oil companies like Shell and BP just reported record profits for the quarter. And we're arguing over a gimmick that would save you half a tank of gas over the course of the entire summer so that everyone in Washington can pat themselves on the back and say that they did something. Well let me tell you – this isn't an idea designed to get you through the summer, it's designed to get them through an election. The easiest thing in the world for a politician to do is to tell you exactly what you want to hear. But if we want to finally solve the challenges we're facing right now, we need to tell the American people what they need to hear. We need to tell the truth." [Time, 4/29/08]

Federal Government Levies A Tax Of 18.4 Cents Per Gallon Domestic Gasoline Sales. Excise taxes on highway fuels have been a dedicated source of funding for the Federal Highway Trust Fund since its creation in 1956. The Federal Government levies a tax of 18.4 cents per gallon on domestic gasoline sales and 24.4 cents per gallon on diesel fuel. The tax levels were last adjusted in 2003. Since 1932, when the first Federal excise tax on gasoline was imposed, it has been adjusted by Congress almost 20 times. Because the statutes do not specify that the Federal excise taxes on highway fuels will be adjusted for inflation, and because they have not been adjusted at regular intervals in the past, they are assumed to remain at current levels in nominal terms through 2030. This assumption can, however, result in seemingly inconsistent results [eia.doe.gov, accessed 4/23/08]

Obama Voted For A Gas Tax Holiday Which Required That Gas Retailers Had To Indicate That Retailers Post On The Pump That "The Price On This Pump Should Reflect The Elimination Of The Tax," Which Obama Specifically Called Attention To In The Press. Obama voted in favor of amending the Use Tax Act, the Service Use Tax Act, the Service Occupation Tax Act, and the Retailers' Occupation Tax Act. The bill provided that beginning October 1, 2000, the tax imposed by the Acts on the sale of motor fuel and gasohol shall be reduced to 1.25% from the rate of 6.25%. The bill provided for the reversion of the rate to 6.25% if a certain tax revenue growth is not attained. Within 14 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 91st General Assembly, each retailer of motor fuel and gasohol shall cause the following notice to be posted in a prominently visible place on each retail dispensing device that is used to dispense motor fuel or gasohol in the State of Illinois: ‘As of July 1, 2000, the State of Illinois has eliminated the State's share of sales tax on motor fuel and gasohol through December 31, 2000. The price on this pump should reflect the elimination of the tax.' The notice shall be printed in bold print on a sign that is no smaller than 4 inches by 8 inches. The sign shall be clearly visible to customers. Any retailer who fails to post or maintain a required sign through December 31, 2000 is guilty of a petty offense for which the fine shall be $500 per day per each retail premises where a violation occurs. Chicago Defender reported, "Obama (D-13th) said the bill gives customers needed temporary relief from high gas prices. ‘Gas retailers must post on each pump a statement that indicates that the state tax has been suspended and that this temporary elimination of the tax should be reflected in the price per gallon of gas,' said Obama." [91st GA, SB 1310, 3/8/00, 3R P; 50-0-6 (BO: Y); PA 91-0872, 6/29/00; Chicago Defender, 7/1/2000]

Obama Voted Against Permanently Eliminating Illinois' Gas Tax, Saying That The Temporary Elimination Of The Tax Had "Not Been Passed Onto The Consumer." In 2000, Obama voted against a bill to make permanent the elimination of the State's portion of the tax on motor fuel and gasohol (now, the tax reverts to 6.25% on January 1, 2001). Obama said on the floor that there was an organization called "the Illinois Tax Accountability Project, that is in the process of trying to track the gap between wholesale prices and prices at the pump during the period since we took this – we removed this tax, and what they have found so far –and the study is not yet complete, but apparently it appears that any decline in prices at the pump have been perfectly matched by declines at the wholesale level...That would indicate, at least at this point, that the elimination of the tax has not been passed on to the consumer." [91st GA, SB 1867, 11/15/00, 3R P; 46-12-0; Session Sine Die, 1/9/01]

Ø 2001: The Hill Noted Illinois' Experiment With Gas Tax Repeal Had Failed In Article About Calls For Gas Tax Cut. "Even though Dick Morris overlooks the fact that a bipartisan Senate voted against cutting the federal gas tax three times in 2000 ("Gas tax is the real tax cut issue," May 23), here are 10 good reasons why cutting the gas tax remains a bad idea this year: 1. The federal gas tax, unchanged since 1993, has nothing to do with the increase in gasoline prices in 2001; 2. The federal government cannot guarantee that gas prices would drop at the pump with a tax suspension. Temporary state gasoline sales tax repeals in Illinois and Indiana last summer offered little relief for motorists. The average price of gasoline in both states continued to increase during the period the tax cuts were in place - about 20 cents per gallon; 3. If the savings were passed on to motorists, what happens when the suspension is lifted? Americans would experience, in one day, the largest spike in the price of gasoline - 18.4 cents per gallon - in U.S. history. Think of the outrage that would cause; 4. Suspending the federal gas tax places billions of dollars in future funding for state highway and mass transit programs at risk. Uncertainty about the federal government's financial commitment will disrupt state programs, jeopardizing several hundred thousand American jobs." [The Hill, 5/30/01]

Fact Check on ALP Jobs Ad

April 29, 2008

SCRIPT: Our economy is in trouble, rising prices, unemployment, foreclosures. So what's Barack Obama's plan? The Associated Press reported that Obama's proposals to clean up financial markets had no specifics. And the Washington Post wrote what Obama would actually do remains a mystery in too many areas. Call Barack Obama and tell him to give Hoosiers a real plan to fix our economy. Paid for by the American Leadership Project which is responsible its content not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

OBAMA'S STIMULUS PACKAGE RECEIVED MORE PRAISE OVER CLINTON'S

New York Times: Clinton's Stimulus Plan "Has Generally Received Lower Marks From Economists Than Mr. Obama's Plan." The New York Times reported, "Mrs. Clinton's approach involves programs narrowly focused to deal with specific problems, a strategy that economists say has pluses and minuses. Her proposal for short-term economic stimulus, centered more on home-heating and mortgage subsidies than a broad tax rebate, has generally received lower marks from economists than Mr. Obama's plan, which emphasizes immediate tax rebates to most workers. The Clinton plan 'has moving parts' and is 'more complicated,' said Robert D. Reischauer, president of the Urban Institute and former director of the Congressional Budget Office. 'It's not as clear the stimulus would get into the system rapidly.'" [New York Times, 1/21/08]

The Economist: Obama's Stimulus Plan Is "Reasonably Sensible," While Clinton and the Republicans' "Look More Like a Fiscal Christmas Tree." The Economist reported, "So far, the only politicians to weigh in with detailed plans are people who cannot enact them this year: presidential candidates. Some are reasonably sensible. Barack Obama, for instance, wants everyone to get a $250 tax cut, which would double if economic indicators continue to worsen. Others look more like a fiscal Christmas tree. Hillary Clinton wants a $70 billion package: $30 billion in housing assistance, $25 billion in home-energy subsidies, $10 billion on expanding payments to the unemployed and $5 billion for environmental projects. The Republican presidential candidates want to make Mr. Bush's tax cuts permanent—an odd priority just now since they don't expire until 2010." [Economist, 1/17/08]

Brad DeLong: Clinton's Plan Is "Less Effective... This Is Not A Bill That Can Be Passed Quickly—The Housing Provisions, At Least, Are One Of Those Things Where The Devil Is In The Details... And Clean Passage And Implementation Is Almost Impossible." Brad DeLong: "Obama's plan looks pretty good...The plan is clean: there is no place for lobbyists to hang ornaments on it--which means that quick passage is possible. The first $45 billion of checks could be cut and sent out with this April's tax refunds. ... John Edwards's and Hillary Rodham Clinton's plans look, to me, likely to be less effective. ... These are all worthy causes--things that the government should be spending more money on. But this is not a bill that can be passed quickly--the housing provisions, at least, are one of those things where the devil is in the details of the drafting and where quick, clean passage and implementation is almost impossible. Funds to train and put to work people making public buildings more energy efficient--well, those aren't timely. The proposal is not Obama's: we are going to stimulate demand by cutting a lot of identical checks via a refundable tax credit--a thing that the government can do well and quickly. And this, I think, matters a lot. ... The best way to keep a stimulus bill from becoming a lobbyist-pleasing ineffective and destructive Christmas tree in which a lot of the money goes to people who won't spend it and a lot more to people who shouldn't get it is to keep the legislative vehicle simple and clean." [Economist Brad DeLong blog, 1/15/08]

Reich: "Obama's Stimulus Package Seems To Me To Be The Most Reasonable." Robert Reich wrote, "As I've noted several times over the past year, a fiscal stimulus is necessary if the economy is to avoid recession. We may be in recession already. We can't rely soly on monetary policy. A bold fiscal stimulus is necessary, and must be done quickly in order to prevent millions of people from losing their jobs -- and catapulting us into a deeper recession. ... The easiest way to do this is through a refundable tax credit, effective as soon as possible. I've looked at what the candidates are offering. Obama's stimulus package seems to me to be the most reasonable. It would give a direct, immediate boost to the economy. In my view, its tax cuts for workers and extra social security payments for seniors offer the fastest and most efficient way to get more purchasing power into the economy." [Robert Reich, 1/13/08]

Ruth Marcus: Obama's Economic Stimulus Plan Is At The Head Of The Class And More Likely Than Clinton's To Jump-Start The Economy. Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post wrote that Obama's economic stimulus package "is at the head of the class with an intelligently designed, $120 billion stimulus plan. He would speed a $250 tax credit to most workers, followed by another $250, triggered automatically, if the economy continues on its sour path. Obama would direct a similar rebate to low- and middle-income seniors, who are also apt to spend and could get checks quickly...Clinton said she would immediately implement a $40 billion tax rebate plan she had put in reserve in her first draft. Fine, but overall, the Obama plan devotes a far greater percentage to spending that is more likely to jump-start the economy." [Washington Post, 1/23/08]

OBAMA'S MORTGAGE PLAN RECEIVED PRAISE OVER CLINTON'S

Fortune Writer Jon Birger: Clinton's Mortgage Plan Freeze Is "The Dumbest Solution To The Current Mortgage Mess I've Hear From A Top Presidential Contender" And "Would Be Disastrous." "Hillary Clinton is no dummy. Even her detractors know that. And yet in last night's Democratic presidential debate in Nevada, Clinton floated what is perhaps the dumbest solution to the current mortgage mess I've heard from a top presidential contender. 'I have a plan - a moratorium on foreclosures for 90 days [and] freezing interest rates for five years, which I think we should do immediately,' Clinton announced at what was the last Democratic debate before the Nevada Caucus on Jan. 19. A 90-day moratorium on foreclosures would throw a lifeline to some deserving homeowners, though I suspect it would only delay the inevitable for most. That's not my beef. Where Clinton goes awry is her proposal to freeze mortgage rates for five years, which is essentially a much broader version of a deal President Bush recently hammered out with lenders to assist some subprime borrowers. If Clinton's only goal were to bail out homeowners facing steep rate resets on adjustable mortgages, her plan would work just fine. For everyone else though, such a freeze would be disastrous. ... Then there's the long-term impact such a bailout would have on behavior. While Clinton's plan would no doubt save some legitimate victims who were duped into taking out bad loans, she'd also be saving the flippers and speculators who knew the risks of low teaser rate mortgages but figured (wrongly) that they could always sell their house for a profit if the reset mortgage rate proved unaffordable. Bailing out these folks now would only encourage them to take even bigger risks down the line." [Jon Birger, Fortune, 1/16/08]

Thaler and Woodward: Clinton's Foreclosure Proposal Looks Too Good To Be True: "Promising The American People That You Can Fix Things By Just Lowering Their Interest Rates Is Dishonest, A Fairy Tale That Wont' Come True." "Senator Clinton's foreclosure proposal might appeal to homeowners with adjustable rate mortgages scheduled for a rate increase. But, as with most offers that look too good to be true, this one comes with many problems. The first is its enormous scope. The plan is essentially to repudiate, revoke, or compel the revision of millions of contracts. There are approximately eleven million mortgages in America with adjustable rates, with a total value of more than $2 trillion dollars--a lot of money, even by Washington standards. Even restricting the plan to the 3.4 million subprime ARM loans (roughly $700 billion) would require an intervention of massive scale. An even more serious problem with Hillary's proposal is the nature of the solution it proposes. When someone takes out a loan with a low, so-called 'teaser rate' that is scheduled to increase in a couple years, the investors who put up the money for that loan are counting on at least some of the borrowers to hold on to their mortgage long enough to start paying the higher rates. Without the promise of this increase, the initial rate would have had to be much higher. As economists like to say, there is no such thing as a free lunch...Senator Clinton's policy amounts to a command-and-control approach to economic policy in which the government announces prices and tells suppliers what to produce. Undertaking such an intervention can only raise interest rates on mortgages (and maybe other interest rates as well) as markets attempt to incorporate risk premiums to cope with possible future interventions. Promising the American people that you can fix things by just lowering their interest rates is dishonest, a fairy tale that won't come true." [Richard Thaler/Susan Woodward, TNR, 2/4/08]

MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG PRAISED OBAMA'S INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN

Bloomberg Said Obama's "Doing The Right Thing" On Infrastructure. The AP reported, "In his answer, he praised Democrat Barack Obama for the plan the Illinois senator outlined on Wednesday that would create a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to rebuild highways, bridges, airports and other public projects. Obama projects it could generate nearly 2 million jobs. Last month, Bloomberg and Govs. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania announced a coalition that would urge more investment in infrastructure. 'I don't know whether Senator Obama looked to see what I've been advocating, or not -- you'll have to ask him -- but he's doing the right thing,' Bloomberg said." [AP, 2/14/08]

RENOWNED ECONOMISTS HAVE PRAISED OBAMA'S ECONOMIC PLANS

Nobel Prize Winner Joseph Stiglitz: "President Obama Will Do A Better Job On The Economy" Than Clinton Or McCain. 2001 Nobel Prize winner for Economics, Joseph Stiglitz who worked under the Clinton Administration was asked who he thought would be better for the economy, President Clinton, President Obama, or President McCain. He responded, "I actually think that President Obama will do a better job on the economy. I think one of the problems is that the world changes. And you have to change your economic framework, your economic philosophy. And the Clinton administration...is too tied to a set of policies that were appropriate in 1992." [CNBC, 4/25/08]

Nobel Prize Winner Edmund Phelps: "It Would Be A Good Idea To Bet On President Obama" To Be Best On The Economy. The 2006 Nobel Prize winner for Economics, Edmund Phelps, was asked who he thought would be better on the economy, President Obama, President Clinton, or President McCain. He responded "I think that it's a good time to get a new set of players with the hope of some new ideas. And so I think from that point of view, it would be a good idea to bet on President Obama. He would be the new voice, and he would probably be receptive to other new voices." [CNBC, 4/25/08]

Former Reserve Chair Volcker: Obama is Offering a "Credible Approach" on the Economy. Obama, 46, is offering a "credible approach,'' former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, an Obama supporter who attended the speech, said in an interview. "You can't solve this problem overnight, but you've got to have a thoughtful review of it and accept the logic that regulatory authority has to be extended and strengthened.'' [Bloomberg, 3/27/08]

Financial Times: "Democrats Must Choose Obama." Under the headline "Democrats must choose Obama," the Financial Times wrote, "The Democrats should move quickly to affirm Mr Obama's nomination. That is not just because his lead in elected delegates is already unassailable and the contest should be brought to a swift conclusion. It is also because he is, in fact, the better candidate. The contenders' differences on policy look small and in reality are even smaller. Their disagreement on healthcare mandates, for instance, frequently emphasised by Mrs Clinton, is of little practical significance. A mandate to obtain insurance, as proposed by Mrs Clinton, does not achieve universal coverage unless enforced with punitive sanctions, which she does not advocate." [Financial Times, 4/20/08]

Fact Check on Clinton Claim That They Are Ahead in Popular Vote Total

April 23, 2008

ABC NEWS: Clinton Camp Misrepresents ABC News Report, April 23, 2008 10:09 AM

In today's edition of "The Note," ABC News' Rick Klein wrote that "By one (rightly disputed) metric -- the popular vote, including Florida and Michigan -- Clinton has pulled ahead of Obama. But without the rogue states, Obama is still up by 500,000 -- and if you can find another objective measurement by which she's in the lead, let us know."

Including the popular votes from Florida and Michigan -- which were not sanctioned Democratic National Committee primaries, where the candidates did not compete, where Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois was not even on the ballot in Michigan -- is a sketchy notion, and Rick was conveying that with the proper air of skepticism.

Somehow, the Clinton campaign took his report and twisted it into this: "ABC News reported this morning that 'Clinton has pulled ahead of Obama' in the popular vote."

That is a false reflection of what ABC News reported.

Clinton Camp Cites Real Clear Politics To Say They Are Ahead in Popular Vote--Counts FL and MI, Which the Clinton Camp Was Clear Don't Count. The Clinton campaign claims that the popular vote stands at 14,973,720, or 47.4% for Obama, and 15,095,663, or 47.8% percent for Clinton.

Real Clear Politics Makes Clear This is Wrong--Obama Leads by 500,000 in the Overall Popular Vote; 600,000 When Caucus State Estimates are Included
• These totals count Florida and Michigan, which the Clinton campaign was clear, until they began to lose, do not count
• The raw popular vote tally is 14,397,506, or 49.2% for Obama, and 13,896,368, or 47.5% for Clinton
• These totals do not include the caucus states of Iowa, Nevada, Maine or Washington, which do not report popular vote totals. Real Clear Politics' estimate with those states is 14,731,590, or 49.3% for Obama, and 14,120,230 or 47.2% for Clinton [RCP Popular Vote Tally]

BUT IT'S A RACE FOR THE DELEGATES

Harold Ickes Said "It's Useful To Win States, But States Don't Vote--Delegates Do" And Said "This Is Very Much A Race For Delegates At This Point." "It's useful to win states, but states don't vote -- delegates do," said Harold Ickes, who is heading up the delegate operation for New York Sen. Hillary Clinton. "This is very much a race for delegates at this point," said Ickes, a longtime Clinton insider and aide to President Bill Clinton. [Reuters, 1/31/08]

Wolfson: This Is a Race for Delegates, Not Individual States. "This is a race for delegates," said Howard Wolfson, communications director for Clinton. "It is not a battle for individual states. As David knows, we are well past the time when any state will have a disproportionate influence on the nominating process." [Washington Post, 1/16/08]

CLINTON SAID "IT'S CLEAR" THAT THE MICHIGAN PRIMARY WON'T "COUNT FOR ANYTHING"

Clinton Said "It's Clear" That The Michigan Primary Won't Count For Anything. Clinton, on why she stayed on the ballot for the Michigan primary said, "Well, you know, people in Michigan are flat on their backs. They have the highest unemployment rate in America. They are now grappling finally with what they are going to do with the auto industry. 1 in 10 jobs in America is tied to the auto industry which is – the American auto industry, which as we know is centered in Michigan. You know, it's clear this election they're having isn't going to count for anything. But I just personally didn't want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever. And then after the nomination we have to go in and repair the damage and be ready to win Michigan in November 2008." [NHPR Interview, 10/11/07]

Clinton Campaign Said She Was "Not Participating in the Michigan Primary." Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee said, "Clinton signed a pledge saying she will not campaign. She is not participating in the Michigan primary because she is not campaigning there. She is honoring the pledge." [New Hampshire Union Leader, 10/11/07]

CLINTON BACKER BOB KERREY, ON WHETHER TO COUNT FL AND MI, SAID "YOU DON'T CHANGE THE RULES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME"

Clinton Backer Bob Kerrey, Asked If the Delegates From FL And MI Should Count, Said "You Don't Change The Rules In The Middle Of The Game. Period...No New Vote And No New Caucuses, Either. Just Stick To The Rules They Agreed To." "You don't change the rules in the middle of the game. Period," said former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey, The New School's president, when asked if the delegates from the Florida and Michigan primaries should be represented at the Democratic National Convention in August. Scoopy ran into Kerrey on Sunday at Chelsea Piers, where Kerrey had taken his young son and a friend bowling. "No new vote and no new caucuses, either. Just stick to the rules that they agreed to," Kerrey said firmly. The Democratic National Committee stripped both Florida and Michigan of all their delegates because, defying party rules, they held their primaries before Feb. 5. The candidates all agreed to abide by that decision and not campaign in those states. Barack Obama withdrew his name from the ballot in Michigan and didn't compete in Florida. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in both states and now says their delegates should be counted toward the total. Although Kerrey endorsed Clinton in December, he clearly doesn't endorse her position on the Michigan and Florida delegates. [The Villager, 2/13/08 ]

POLITICIANS AND EDITORIAL BOARDS ARE CLEAR THAT MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA DELEGATES DO NOT COUNT

Nancy Pelosi Said That Florida And Michigan Delegates Should Not Be Seated If Those Delegates Would Decide The Nomination. Nancy Pelosi had one more stunner in the interview: She said the Florida and Michigan delegates should not be seated if those delegates would decide the nomination. "Well, I don't think that any states that operated outside the rules of the party can be dispositive of who the nominee is. That is to say they can't make the difference because then we would have no rules," she said. Pelosi added, "But I do think that the best outcome for us is if one of the candidates pulls ahead and this issue is disposed of long before we get to the convention. We certainly don't want to ignore Florida and Michigan, but we can't ignore the rules which everyone else played by." [San Francisco Chronicle, 2/15/08 ]

Tom Harkin Said He Staunchly Opposed Seating The Delegates From Michigan And Florida. Tom Harkin said he will staunchly oppose seating delegates chosen in the Michigan and Florida primaries for the same reason he will uphold the superdelegates' independent vote: It's the rules. Michigan and Florida Democrats broke the rules when they moved their primaries ahead of Feb. 5 without permission, Harkin said. "No way I'd ever be in favor of seating them," the senator said. [TH, 9/17/08]

Al Sharpton Said Seating Delegates From Florida And Michigan At The DNC Would Be A Grave Injustice. Seating delegates from Florida and Michigan at the Democratic National Convention would be a grave injustice, the Rev. Al Sharpton said Wednesday in a break with prominent civil rights leaders. "I firmly believe that changing the rules now, and seating delegates from Florida and Michigan at this point would not only violate the Democratic Party's rules of fairness, but also would be a grave injustice," Sharpton said in a letter to Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. [AP, 2/13/08 ]

TNR: As Soon As It Became Clear That Clinton Potentially Faced An Extended Battle For Delegates, She Began To Demand The Rules Be Changed In The Middle Of the Game And Her Campaign Has Been Arguing That The Non-Contest Elections In Michigan And Florida Should Be Made Retroactively Meaningful And That Clinton Should Be Handed A Gift Of Nearly 200 Delegates. "But as soon as it became clear, in the wake of Iowa and on the eve of South Carolina, that Clinton potentially faced an extended battle for delegates, she began to demand that the rules be changed in the middle of the game. Her campaign has been arguing that the non-contested elections in Michigan and Florida should be made retroactively meaningful--and, therefore, that Clinton should be handed a gift of nearly 200 delegates. The Clinton team has wrapped its case in the logic of voter disenfranchisement. ‘I hear all the time from people in Florida and Michigan that they want their voices heard in selecting the Democratic nominee,' Clinton has said. There is a perfectly cogent case to be made that Floridians and Michiganders deserve their say. (Some of our best friends and elderly relatives reside in those states.) The way to address this complaint is to schedule new elections so that candidates can advertise, make speeches, organize voters, distribute yard signs--you know, do ‘democracy,' a concept Clinton seems not to understand. The DNC, if it does decide to redress Clinton's complaint, needs to do so immediately." [Editorial, TNR, 2/8/08 ]

Ø TNR: "Knowing That Their Ballots Meant Nothing, Many Voters [In Michigan And Florida] Stayed Home." "Without ads and stump speeches--Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan--the actual primary votes in these states were meaningless beauty contests, and perhaps not even that. Knowing that their ballots meant nothing, many voters stayed home. And, as everyone expected, Hillary romped to victory on the basis of her brand name and voters' lack of familiarity with the alternatives." [Editorial, TNR, 2/8/08 ]

NY Post: "No Changing The Rules In The Middle Of The Game." "No changing the rules in the middle of the game. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean must be prepared to deliver that message to Sen. Hillary Clinton and her allies. With a razor-thin delegate margin separating them and ever-fewer states left on the campaign calendar, Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama are working all angles to get to 2,025 - the number needed to win their party's presidential nomination. Which is why the Clinton forces are looking at Michigan and Florida." [Editorial, NY Post, 2/11/08 ]

Austin American Statesman: Clinton Wants To Seat The Delegates From Michigan And Florida. "That Would Be Patently Wrong" and "Grossly Unfair To Obama...The Only Fair Thing For Democratic Officials To Do Is Stick To Their Guns And Ignore The Michigan And Florida Delegations Or Redo The Primaries." "Clinton, who won the most votes in the outlaw primaries in Michigan and Florida, now wants those delegates recognized and seated at the Democratic Party national convention in Denver in August. One of her top advisers, Harold Ickes, a Democratic National Committee member who voted to strip delegates from those states, now wants them seated. That would be patently wrong. Party officials told the legislatures in both states they would lose their delegates if they moved their primaries ahead of Super Tuesday, Feb. 5. And the party's presidential candidates agreed not to campaign in states being punished by the Democratic National Committee for setting early primaries. ... Seating the 156 Michigan and 210 Florida delegates would be grossly unfair to Obama, who, unlike Clinton, didn't go to Florida...The only fair thing for Democratic officials to do is to stick to their guns and ignore the Michigan and Florida delegations or redo the primaries." [Editorial, Austin American Statesman, 2/18/08]

Cleveland Plain Dealer: Clinton Wants To Seat The Michigan And Florida Delegates And The Obama Campaign Dismisses That As "Hogwash"; The Obama Campaign Is "Right About That." "Clinton says Michigan and Florida should be seated and their delegates divided in accord with the primary vote. She's won support from NAACP Chairman Julian Bond, who says the party is disenfranchising minority voters. The Obama campaign dismisses that as hogwash. They say Obama ignored both states at the national party's request and shouldn't be penalized for playing by the rules. Even if we hadn't endorsed Obama for the Democratic nomination, we'd have to say he's right about that." [Editorial, Cleveland Plain Dealer, 2/22/08]

Adwatch on Clinton ''Jobs'' Ad

April 22, 2008

SCRIPT: Clinton: "I think this election, particularly here in Indiana, is about jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs..." Voice Over: "She's ready to turn our economy around. Stop tax breaks that move jobs overseas."

FACT: CLINTON VOTED FOR $136 BILLION "BIG TAX BREAK" FOR CORPORATIONS SHELTERING PROFITS IN INTERNATIONAL TAX HAVENS

Clinton Voted For The American Jobs Creation Act Of 2004. Clinton voted for the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove impediments in such Code and make our manufacturing, service, and high-technology businesses and workers more competitive and productive both at home and abroad. The bill which repeals the extraterritorial income (ETI) tax regime in response to a World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling against the United States; creates a new manufacturing deduction equal to nine percent of a company's domestic production income, effectively reducing the tax rate on such income by three percent, from 35 percent to 32 percent; and allows U.S. companies to pay a lower tax rate on funds repatriated from foreign subsidiaries for one year (the rate would be 5.25 percent instead of the normal 35 percent corporate tax rate). [S 1637, Vote 211, 10/11/04, Passed 69-17; R 43-3; D 25-14; I 1-0]

AJCA Provided $42.6 Billion Worth Of New Tax Breaks On Overseas Income For U.S. Based Multinational Corporations Over Ten Years. The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (H.R. 4520) included "more than 20 new tax breaks, totaling $43 billion over 10 years, would go to U.S.-based multinational corporations for their overseas income. For example, nine foreign tax credit baskets would be reduced to two, making it easier for companies to subtract taxes paid to foreign countries from their U.S. tax bills." [CBO Cost Estimate, 11/9/04; CQ Weekly, 10/9/04]

Kerry Spokesperson Phil Singer Said The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 Gave Tax Breaks For Companies That Ship Jobs Overseas. Phil Singer, spokesman for Kerry said of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, "There are a lot of important things in this bill, like ending the punitive European tariffs on our manufacturers and cutting taxes for American manufacturers. But George Bush filled the bill up with corporate giveaways and tax breaks for multinational companies that send jobs overseas." Singer said that Kerry would "call for the repeal of the 'unwarranted' international tax breaks." [Washington Times, 10/23/04]

New York Times: Americans Jobs Act Gave Companies "A Big Tax Break To Bring Home Their Offshore Profits." The Americans Jobs Creation Act gave companies "a big tax break to bring home their offshore profits." [New York Times, 7/24/07]

The Westchester County Journal News Criticized the American Jobs Creation Act, Saying The Bill Would Cause "Irresponsible Collateral Damage To U.S. Taxpayers." In an editorial titled "The great giveaway," the Westchester County Journal News wrote, "With a 69-17 vote Monday, the Senate approved a $136 billion package of tax cuts and perks that Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called the 'worst example of the influence of special interests I have ever seen.' That feeling was bipartisan. As Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., put it: 'What was supposed to be a quick and minor fix of the tax code blossomed into this huge giveaway of tax benefits.' The bill was supposed to fix a subsidy to overseas operations of U.S. export firms that the World Trade Organization ruled illegal two years ago after a complaint from the European Union... Instead of simply eliminating the subsidy and compensating companies for losing it, legislation approved by the House last week and by the Senate Monday opened the door to companies that never qualified for the subsidy, handed out tax breaks to businesses that have nothing to do with U.S. exports, and passed out goodies to totally unrelated industries. Congress swatted a $50 billion fly with a $136 billion pork barrel... New York Sens. Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton voted for the bill... Action was needed to end a nasty trade war with Europe. But not at the expense of irresponsible collateral damage to U.S. taxpayers." [Westchester County Journal News, 10/13/04]

Economic Policy Institute: American Jobs Creation Act Makes Companies "Richer...But It Doesn't Guarantee Any Jobs." "The tax 3M is paying on repatriated cash is a fraction of what it would have normally paid. 3M -- maker of Scotch Tape and a boatload of industrial, medical and consumer products -- is one of hundreds of U.S. corporations expected to take advantage of the repatriation provision in the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. The provision gives U.S. companies a one-year window to return foreign profits that were considered invested abroad at a drastically reduced federal tax rate of about 5.25 percent, as opposed to the usual 35 percent. While supporters say the provision was aimed at creating domestic jobs, critics say it was simply aimed at giving corporations a big tax break. 'It makes 3M a richer corporation,' said Ross Eisenbrey, a vice president of the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C. 'So if Average Joe invests or works at 3M it makes them a little bit happier. But it doesn't guarantee any jobs.'" [Saint Paul Pioneer Press (Minnesota), 7/2/05]

SCRIPT: Voice Over: "Fix unfair trade deals. Stand up to China. Create five million new jobs" HRC: The next president has to begin to put the American people first. Your jobs, your health care, your futures. I'm Hillary Clinton and I approve this message"

FACT: CLINTON SUPPORTED PERMANENT TRADE PREFERENCES FOR CHINA

Hillary Clinton Supported Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) For China, Claimed It Would Create Leverage. "Senate candidate Hillary Clinton said Thursday she supported permanent normal trade relations for China, but slammed Beijing's restrictive birthrate policies. Clinton said she favored 'engagement' with China through trade as a way to 'have whatever influence we can have' on Beijing to change its dismal record on human rights, labor law and the environment. 'I understand the challenges they are facing with population, minorities and the move from the countryside into the cities,' Clinton said Thursday. 'But I would hope that they would improve their human rights record, and that includes reproductive rights,' she added." [Agence France Presse, 5/25/00]

Hillary Clinton Claimed China's Entry Into The World Trade Organization Would Be Good For American Workers Despite The Already Massive Trade Deficit With China. "I know many people, here in Western New York in particularly and Erie Country, are concerned about this vote, and I share the concerns that many of my supporters in organized labor have expressed to me, because I do think we have to make sure that we improve labor rights, we improve environmental standards in our bilateral and our multilateral trade agreements. But on balance, I've looked at this, I've studied it, I think it is in the interests of America and American workers that we provide the option for China to go into the WTO. Right now, we are trading with China. We have a huge trade deficit with China. The agreement that has been negotiated between our two countries would open their markets to us in a way that they are not yet open, and in fact, for many large manufactured products, like automobiles, we would have the first chance to really get in and compete in that marketplace. I also think it's not just an issue of trade. I believe it's a security consideration. I want to do everything we can to persuade China to improve its human rights record, to be sure that it doesn't in any way interfere with its neighbors or with Taiwan. I don't think you gain that by isolating China. I think we must work out as best we can a relationship in trade, and a very firm statement and commitment to improving human rights and try to make as much progress as possible." [CNN, 4/26/00]

FACT: CLINTON SUPPORTED NAFTA

2004: Clinton: "I Think On Balance NAFTA Has Been Good For New York And America." Clinton, on whether NAFTA and GATT should be revisited, said "...I think on balance NAFTA has been good for New York and America, but I also think that there are a number of areas where we're not dealt with in an upfront way in dealing with our friend to the north, Canada, which seems to be able to come up with a number of rationales for keeping New York agricultural products out of Canada. And I think that needs to be given much greater emphasis than it has." [Clinton Teleconference on Job Training Fund Cuts, 1/5/04]

2003: Clinton Called NAFTA a "Victory" For President Clinton. In her memoir, published in 2003, Clinton wrote, "Senator Dole was genuinely interested in health care reform but wanted to run for President in 1996. He couldn't hand incumbent Bill Clinton any more legislative victories, particularly after Bill's successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA." [Living History, p.231]

1996: Clinton Said "I Think Everybody Is In Favor Of Free And Fair Trade. I Think NAFTA Is Proving Its Worth." A questioner pointed out that UNITE opposes the North American Free Trade Agreement, backed by the Clinton administration, on grounds it sends American jobs to Mexico. In March 1996, three years after President Clinton signed NAFTA into law, Hillary Clinton said, "I think everybody is in favor of free and fair trade. I think NAFTA is proving its worth," she said, adding that if American workers can compete fairly, they can match any competition. "That's what a free and fair trade agreement like NAFTA is all about," she said. [AP, 3/6/96]

NOVEMBER 10, 1993: Clinton Served "As The Closing Act During A Briefing On NAFTA, The Trade Agreement She Now Assails." Clinton served "as the closing act during a briefing on NAFTA, the trade agreement she now assails." According to her schedule, at 11:30 am - 11:45 am Clinton did a "NAFTA briefing drop-by" with approximately 120 expected to attend and Clinton concluding the program. [ABC News, 3/19/08; Clinton Schedule 1993, p. 1375-1376]

Two Attendees Said "It Wasn't A Drop-By It Was Organized Around Her Participation" And "Her Remarks Were Totally Pro-NAFTA And What A Good Thing It Would Be For The Economy." "Two attendees of that closed-door briefing, neither of whom are affiliated with any campaign, describe that event for ABC News. It was a room full of women involved in international trade. David Gergen served as a sort of master of ceremonies as various women members of the Cabinet talked up NAFTA, which had yet to pass Congress. 'It wasn't a drop-by it was organized around her participation,' said one attendee. 'Her remarks were totally pro-NAFTA and what a good thing it would be for the economy. There was no equivocation for her support for NAFTA at the time. Folks were pleased that she came by. If this is a still a question about what Hillary's position when she was First Lady, she was totally supportive if NAFTA.' That first attendee recalls that the First Lady's office in the East Wing put together 'the invitation list, who was invited authorizations and all that stuff.' And what is this attendee's response to Clinton today distancing herself from NAFTA? 'For people who worked hard to pass NAFTA and who support the importance of markets opening for the economy in the long term, they're very upset. A number of the women who were there are very upset. You need to have some integrity in your position. The Clintons when Bill Clinton was president took a moderate position on trade for Democrats. For her to repudiate that now seems pretty phony.' Recalls a second attendee, 'they were looking for women in international trade who supported NAFTA. Senator Clinton came by at the end. And of course she asked for our support and help in passing NAFTA.' Women who attended that event, the second attendee says, have been incredulous to see Clinton distance herself from the trade agreement as she campaigns today. 'They're all saying, 'What's this all about?' We all heard it firsthand.' She says Clinton isn't being honest with voters today." [ABC News, 3/19/08]