Organizing for America

STATEMENT
"Senator Obama strongly supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose. He believes that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue, and he believes that women do not make these decisions casually, but wrestle with them in consultation with their doctors, pastors and family. Senator Obama understands that some will disagree with him and choose not to support him, and he respects those with different opinions. But the recent attacks on Senator Obama that allege he would allow babies born alive to die are outrageous lies. The suggestion that Obama -- the proud father of two little girls -- and others who opposed these bills supported infanticide is deeply offensive and insulting. There is no room for these kinds of distortions and lies in this campaign. What Senator Obama’s attackers don’t tell you is that existing Illinois law already requires doctors to provide medical care in the very rare case that babies are born alive during abortions. They will not tell you that Obama voted against these laws in Illinois because they were clear attempts to undermine Roe v. Wade. They will not tell you that these laws were also opposed by pro-choice Republicans and the Illinois Medical Society -- a leading association of doctors in the state. And they will not tell you that Obama has always maintained that he would have voted for the federal version of this bill, which did not pose such a threat. The bills Senator Obama voted against in Illinois were crafted to undermine Roe v. Wade or pre-existing Illinois state law regulating reproductive healthcare and medical practice, which is why Senator Obama objected to them."

2001 and 2002: OBAMA JOINED MORE THAN 40% OF THE ILLINOIS SENATE—INCLUDING NUMEROUS REPUBLICANS—IN OPPOSING “BORN ALIVE” BILLS

Obama Voted Against Two Born Alive Bills, With Almost a Quarter of the Senate, Saying They Would Be Struck Down. In 2002, Obama voted against a bill to create the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act to provide that if a child is born alive after an induced labor abortion or other abortion, a parent or public guardian of the child may recover damages for costs of care to preserve and protect the life, health, and safety of the child, punitive damages, and costs and attorney’s fees against a hospital, health care facility, or health care provider who harms or neglects the child or fails to provide medical care to the child after it is born. Obama voted against a bill to amend the Statute on Statutes, to define “born-alive infant” to include “every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.” Further defines “born alive” to mean “the complete expulsion or extraction from the mother of an infant, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.” Obama predicted the bills would be struck down by a federal court were they to become law. Obama said, “Whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of the Constitution, we’re saying they are persons entitled to the kinds of protections provided to a child, a 9-month-old child delivered to term…That determination then essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.” [92nd GA, SB 1661, 4/4/02, 3R P; 31-11-10 (BO: N); 92nd GA, SB 1662, 4/4/02, 3R P; 30-12-10 (BO: N); Sun-Times, 3/31/01]

• 21 Senators Opposed Senate Bill 1661. Senators Bowles, Geo-Karis (Republican), Hendon, Molaro, Radogno (Republican), Shaw, Smith, Trotter, Viverito and Welch voted present on Senate Bill 1661. Senators Cullerton, Del Valle, Halvorson, Jacobs, Lightford, Link, Madigan, Obama, Parker (Republican), Ronen and Shadid voted no on Senate Bill 1661. [92nd GA, SB 1661, 4/4/02, 3R P; 31-11-10 (BO: N)]

• 22 Senators Opposed Senate Bill 1662. Senators Bowles, Geo-Karis (Republican), Hendon, Molaro, Radogno (Republican), Shadid, Shaw, Trotter, Viverito and Welch voted present on Senate Bill 1662. Senators Cullerton, Del Valle, Halvorson, Jacobs, Klemm (Republican), Lightford, Link, Madigan, Obama, Parker (Republican), Ronen and Smith voted no on Senate Bill 1662. [92nd GA, SB 1662, 4/4/02, 3R P; 30-12-10 (BO: N)]

• Six Republican Senators Opposed One Or All Born Alive Bills. Republican Senator Kathleen Parker voted no Senate Bills 1661 and 1662. Republican Senator Christine Radogno voted present on Senate Bills 1661 and 1662. Republican Senator Adeline Geo-Karis voted present on Senate Bills 1661 and 1662. Republican Senator Dick Klemm voted no on Senate Bill 1662. [92nd GA, SB 1093, SB 1094, SB 1095, SB 1661, SB 1662]

Obama Voted Present On “Born Alive” Bills. Obama voted present on a bill to amend the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, providing that no abortion procedure that, in the medical judgment of the attending physician, has a reasonable likelihood of resulting in a live born child shall be undertaken unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall address the child’s viability and provide medical care for the child and provides that a physician inducing an abortion that results in a live born child shall provide for the soonest practicable attendance of a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion to immediately assess the child’s viability and provide medical care for the child. Also provides that a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and that all reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice shall be taken to preserve the life and health of the child. Obama voted present on a bill to amend the Statute on Statutes, to define “born-alive infant” to include “every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.” Obama voted present on a bill to create the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act states that it is the intent of the General Assembly to protect the life of a child born alive as the result of an induced labor abortion, provides that a parent of the child or the public guardian of the county in which a child was born alive after an induced labor abortion or any other abortion has a cause of action against any hospital, health care facility or health care provider that fails to provide medical care for the child after birth. [92nd GA, SB 1093, 3/30/01, 3R P; 34-6-12; 92nd GA, SB 1094, 3/30/01, 3R P; 34-5-13; 92nd GA, SB 1095, 3/30/01, 3R P; 33-6-13]

• 17 Senators Opposed Senate Bill 1093. Senators Bowles, Del Valle, Halvorson, Hendon, Jacobs, Lightford, Molaro, Obama, Radogno (Republican), Shadid and Viverito voted present on Senate Bill 1093. Senators Link, Madigan, Parker (Republican), Ronen, Silverstein and Welch voted no on Senate Bill 1093. [92nd GA, SB 1093, 3/30/01, 3R P; 34-6-12]

• 18 Senators Opposed Senate Bill 1094. Senators Bowles, Clayborne, Halvorson, Jacobs, Lightford, Molaro, Myers (Republican), Obama, Radogno (Republican), Shadid, Viverito, Weaver (Republican) and Welch voted present on Senate Bill 1094. Senators Del Valle, Link, Parker (Republican), Ronen and Silverstein voted no on Senate Bill 1094. [92nd GA, SB 1094, 3/30/01, 3R P; 34-5-13]

• 18 Senators Opposed Senate Bill 1095. Senators Bowles, Clayborne, Del Valle, Halvorson, Hendon, Jacobs, Lightford, Molaro, Obama, Radogno (Republican), Shadid, Viverito and Welch voted present on Senate Bill 1095. Senators Link, Madigan, Parker (Republican), Ronen and Silverstein voted no on Senate Bill 1095. [92nd GA, SB 1095, 3/30/01, 3R P; 33-5-13]

• Four Republican Senators Opposed One Or All Born Alive Bills. Republican Senator Radogno voted present and Republican Parker voted no on Senate Bill 1093. Republican Senators Myers, Radogno, and Weaver voted present on Senate Bill 1094 and Republican Senator Parker voted against. Radogno voted present and Parker voted against Senate Bill 1095. [92nd GA, SB 1093, 3/30/01, 3R P; 34-6-12; 92nd GA, SB 1094, 3/30/01, 3R P; 34-5-13; 92nd GA, SB 1095, 3/30/01, 3R P; 33-6-13]

OBAMA SUPPORTED AND NARAL DIDN’T OPPOSE 2002’s FEDERAL BAIPA

Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born-Alive Legislation. The Chicago Tribune reported, “Obama said that had he been in the US Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not. Both measures required that if a fetus survived an abortion procedure, it must be considered a person. Backers argued it was necessary to protect a fetus if it showed signs of life after being separated from its mother…the difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade.” [Chicago Tribune, 10/4/04]

• NARAL Didn’t Oppose Federal BAIPA For Its Clear Legal Difference Between A Fetus In Utero Versus A Child That’s Born. NARAL Executive Vice President Mary Jane Gallagher said, “We, in fact, did not oppose this bill. There's a clear legal difference now between a fetus in utero versus a child that's born. And when a child is born, they deserve every protection that this country can provide them.” [CNN, 8/5/02]

• NARAL Statement: “In the statement, NARAL says, "Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Last year's committee and floor debate served to clarify the bill's intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman's right to choose." [NARAL release, 6/13/01]

2003 BORN ALIVE LEGISLATION OBAMA OPPOSED IN COMMITTEE DID NOT HAVE THE SAME IMPACT AS FEDERAL LEGISLATION

Planned Parenthood: “Although The Definition Is Similar To The Proposed Federal Legislation, Its Application Would Have A Different Impact On State Abortion Law.” Planned Parenthood wrote in a fact sheet, “SB 1082 & SB 1083 are NOT the same as the so-called “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” which was recently passed in the U. S. House. The federal legislation is considered to be a restatement of existing federal law. It does not amend or change current Illinois law. Federal law does not regulate abortion practice. That is left to the states. Therefore, it is state legislation that would affect abortion practice in Illinois. The package of SB 1082 & SB 1083 creates new provisions in Illinois law. Although the definition is similar to the proposed federal legislation, its application would have a different impact on state abortion law.” [Planned Parenthood Fact Sheet, 2/28/03]

Illinois State Medical Society Opposed SB 1082. Robert Kane, legal counsel to the Illinois State Medical Society, filed a committee witness slip stating the Medical Society opposition to Senate Bill 1082. [Committee Witness Slip, SB 1082]

2005 BILL THAT PASSED AFTER OBAMA LEFT THE SENATE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE THAT OBAMA DEALT WITH IN HIS COMMITTEE IN 2003, WASN’T OPPOSED BY PRO-CHOICE GROUPS

2005 Bill: “Unlike Earlier Versions That Failed, This Bill Does Not Spell Out What Medical Care Doctors Must Provide When An Abortion Procedure Ends In A Live Birth. The Legislation Also Specifically Says It Has No Impact On Illinois Abortion Laws.” “Activists on both sides of the abortion debate found a rare patch of common ground Wednesday: legislation that says any live birth - even one that occurs during an abortion - is a person with legal rights. The measure was unanimously approved by the House civil law committee and now moves to the House floor. Unlike earlier versions that failed, this bill does not spell out what medical care doctors must provide when an abortion procedure ends in a live birth. The legislation also specifically says it has no impact on Illinois abortion laws. Still, anti-abortion groups are pleased. ‘What it does is support the legal principle that infants that are born alive, regardless of their stage of development or the circumstances of their birth, are persons and deserve protection under the law,’ said Dawn Behnke, an attorney who lobbies for the Illinois Federation for Right to Life. Abortion rights supporters said they were satisfied that this legislation is not an attempt to restrict abortion. Pam Sutherland, president of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, said the legislation will simply ensure babies get the medical care their doctors and parents think is appropriate.” [AP, 5/9/05]

The Born Alive Bill That Passed Into Law In IL—In Addition to Including the Language from the Failed 2003 Legislation and Federal Law—Stated That “Nothing In This Section Shall Be Construed To Affect Existing Federal Or State Law Regarding Abortion” or “Generally Accepted Medical Standards.” In determining the meaning of any statute or of any rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative agencies of this State, the words ‘person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’ shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. (b) As used in this Section, the term ‘born alive’, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. (c) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive, as defined in this Section. (d) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect existing federal or State law regarding abortion. (e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to alter generally accepted medical standards. [94th GA, HB 984, PA 94-0559, 8/12/05]

BORN ALIVE PRINCIPLE WAS ALREADY THE LAW IN ILLINOIS

Illinois Law Already Stated That In The Unlikely Case That An Abortion Would Cause A Live Birth, A Doctor Should “Provide Immediate Medical Care For Any Child Born Alive As A Result Of The Abortion.” The Chicago Tribune reported, “‘For more than 20 years, Illinois law has required that when ‘there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support,’ an abortion may only be performed if a physician believes ‘it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.’ And in such cases, the law requires that the doctor use the technique ‘most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus’ and perform the abortion in the presence of ‘a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion.’” [Chicago Tribune, 8/17/04]

• Illinois Law Stated That A Doctor Must Preserve The Life And Health Of A Fetus If In The Course Of An Abortion, There Is Reasonable Likelihood Of Sustained Survival. The Illinois Compiled Statutes stated that any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus. No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion. Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Violation of these statutes constituted a Class 3 felony. [Illinois Compiled Statutes, 720 ILCS 510/6]

READ PLANNED PARENTHOOD'S HISTORY OF "BORN ALIVE" LEGISLATION IN ILLINOIS

SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DIFFERENT "BORN ALIVE" BILLS--WHY OBAMA OPPOSED SOME AND SUPPORTED OTHERS

11:59 AM | Permalink

"This ad is just more of the same old false and discredited attacks that Senator McCain knows aren't true. Senator McCain will say or do anything to hide the truth: while Obama will cut taxes for the middle class, McCain will give a billion dollars in new tax breaks to America's eight largest corporations, while his plan provides no direct relief for more than 100 million American Families. And despite his rhetoric, he's refusing to support the bipartisan Senate proposal to expand production and invest in renewable energy because he wants to protect tax breaks for oil companies. We've seen what happens when we put the oil companies and their lobbyists ahead of working families, and that's exactly what Americans want to change in this election," said Obama campaign spokesman Hari Sevugan.

Check out our fact-check video with Deputy Economic Policy Advisor, Brian Deese:

Learn more about Barack Obama's Comprehensive Tax Policy Plan here: www.barackobama.com/taxes

05:24 PM | Permalink

"This ad is a lie, and it’s part of the old, tired politics of a party in Washington that has run out of ideas and run out of steam. Even though a host of independent, nonpartisan organizations have said this attack isn't true, Senator McCain continues to lie about Senator Obama's plan to give 95% of all families a tax cut of $1,000, and not raise taxes for those making under $250,000 a single dime. The reason so many families are hurting today is because we’ve had eight years of failed Bush policies that Senator McCain wants to continue for another four, and that's what Barack Obama will change as President," said Obama campaign spokesman Hari Sevugan.

SCRIPT: ANNCR: Life in the spotlight must be grand, but for the rest of us times are tough.

RESPONSE: MCCAIN'S REPEATING CELEBRITY THEME THAT HE WAS ROUNDLY CRITICIZED FOR BY HIS OWN ALLIES LAST TIME AROUND

McCain's Former Strategist: McCain's Ad Is "Childish" And "Reduces McCain." "John Weaver, for years one of John McCain's closest friends and confidants, has been in exile since his resignation from McCain's presidential campaign last year. With the exception of an occasional interview, he has, by his own account, bit his tongue as McCain's campaign has adopted a strategy that Weaver believes 'diminishes John McCain.' With the release today of a McCain television ad blasting Obama for celebrity preening while gas prices rise, and a memo that accuses Obama of putting his own aggrandizement before the country, Weaver said he's had 'enough.' The ad's premise, he said, is 'childish.' 'John's been a celebrity ever since he was shot down,' Weaver said. 'Whatever that means. And I recall Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush going overseas and all those waving American flags.' Weaver remains in contact with senior McCain strategists and, for a while early this year, regularly talked to McCain. The strategy of driving up Obama's negatives 'reduces McCain on the stage,' Weaver said. 'For McCain to win in such troubled times, he needs to begin telling the American people how he intends to lead us. That McCain exists. He can inspire the country to greatness. He added: 'There is legitimate mockery of a political campaign now, and it isn't at Obama's. For McCain's sake, this tomfoolery needs to stop.'" [The Atlantic, 7/30/08]

Former McCain Adviser Schnur Called First Celebrity Ad An Example Of "Name-Calling." "Even some McCain allies have winced at the Paris/Britney spot. Republican strategist Dan Schnur, a former McCain adviser, said that 'most voters won't see the parallels between a presidential candidate and two party girls. So a legitimate point about inexperience gets lost in the appearance of name-calling.'" [Washington Post, 8/1/08]

David Gergen: Celebrity Ads Diminish McCain "Because They're So At Variance With Who He Normally Has Been." "I think they've made a cold-blooded calculated decision to refocus their campaign away from the positive, toward the negative, bring down Barack Obama at least two or three notches make fun of him. And pave the way to the White House…Over time, these kind of mocking ads will come back to haunt John McCain because they're so at variance with who he normally has been. But John McCain is increasingly put himself in danger that he's going to become the subject of ridicule." [NBC, 8/1/08]

Washington Post: McCain Campaign's Celebrity Ad Shows It Is "Adopting The Aggressive, Take-No-Prisoners Style Of Karl Rove." "As Election Day nears, McCain's campaign is adopting the aggressive, take-no-prisoners style of Karl Rove, the GOP operative who engineered victories for President Bush. The campaign continued the attack Wednesday with a sarcastic television ad deriding Obama as a 'celebrity,' part of an intensifying effort to cast him as an elitist. But the sharp-edged approach is being orchestrated for an unpredictable candidate who often chafes at delivering the campaign's message of the day. It is that freewheeling style that has made him popular with voters and cemented his reputation for candor and straight talk." [Washington Post, 7/31/08]

McCain Said He Was "Proud" Of The "Celeb" And Said It Stresses "Substance And Not Style." "McCain said at a town hall meeting here that he is 'proud' of the ad as stressing 'substance and not style,' and his spokeswoman, Nicolle Wallace, defended it. 'The ad is meant to acknowledge reality -- that he is huge, that he is a celebrity,' she said of Obama. 'It wasn't meant to be insulting. One of the things we learned from Hillary Clinton running against Obama is that railing against his celebrity, whining about his celebrity, doesn't work.'" [Washington Post, 8/1/08]

SCRIPT: Obama voted to raise taxes on people making just $42,000.

MCCAIN CAMP HAS REPEATEDLY MADE INACCURATE CLAIMS ABOUT THIS VOTE--IT DIDN'T RAISE TAXES

Annenberg Fact Check: Vote McCain Refers to Was a Non-Binding Budget Resolution That Doesn't Raise Taxes But Assumes Most Bush Tax Cuts Expire, and "Bears No Relation To Obama's Proposed Economic Plan." FactCheck.org wrote that the vote McCain campaign cites "refers to Obama's March 2008 vote for a non-binding budget resolution that would have set general revenue and spending targets for congressional tax-writing and appropriations committees. The resolution does not contain a specific provision to raise tax rates, but rather assumes that most of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire as scheduled in 2011. It also bears no relation to Obama's proposed economic plan. In fact, Obama has stated repeatedly that his plan would increase taxes only for those making more than $250,000 per year." [Factcheck.org, 7/8/08]

Annenberg Fact Check: The Hypothetical Taxpayer McCain Ad Refers To Would Get a $502 Tax Cut Under Obama Plan, but No Change Under McCain. "The most comprehensive nonpartisan analysis of Obama's tax proposal available is the Tax Policy Center's comparison of McCain's and Obama's economic plans. That analysis mostly supports Obama's claim that his plan won't raise taxes, though it says that families earning between $169,480 and $237,040 would see an average tax increase of $486 under Obama's plan. All those earning less than $169,480 would see tax cuts. In fact, that hypothetical taxpayer with the $32,000 in taxable income would get a $502 tax cut under Obama's plan. McCain's plan, by contrast, would leave that person's taxes unchanged." [Factcheck.org, 7/8/08]

Annenberg Fact Check: Budget Resolutions Do Not Alter The Tax Code. Factcheck.org wrote, "As we have described before, budget resolutions basically set targets for appropriations committees to use. They are more like guidelines than actual rules. And, like many budget resolutions, this one passed on a party-line vote, with just one Democrat and two Republicans crossing party lines." On July 3rd, 2008 Factcheck.org wrote that "Budget resolutions merely set targets for tax-writing and appropriations committees and don't alter the tax code directly." [Factcheck.org, 7/8/08; Factcheck.org, 7/3/08]

MSNBC: The Budget Resolution Is Not A Law And Is Not Binding. First Read at MSNBC wrote, "The budget resolution is NOT/NOT a law, NOT binding. (The President of the United States doesn't even sign it.) Instead, it's a blueprint of sorts that gives guidance to how congressional tax writers write tax laws in the Finance Committee. That panel is not bound to what the budget says, and often votes to "waive" budget rules. [MSNBC, 7/7/08]

SCRIPT: He promises more taxes on small business, seniors, your life savings, your family. Painful taxes, hard choices for your budget. Not ready to lead. That's the real Obama.

RESPONSE: OBAMA PLAN WILL CUT TAXES ON MOST AMERICANS, INCLUDING ELIMINATING INCOME TAXES ON SENIORS MAKING LESS THAN $50,000

Obama Plan: Eliminate Income Taxes for Seniors Making Less than $50,000: Barack Obama will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This proposal will eliminate income taxes for 7 million seniors and provide these seniors with an average savings of $1,400 each year. Under the Obama plan, 27 million American seniors will also not need to file an income tax return. [Barack Obama Economic Plan]

Obama Plan: Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans. [Barack Obama Economic Plan]

Obama Plan: Simplify Tax Filings for Middle Class Americans: Obama will dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes. Obama will ensure that the IRS uses the information it already gets from banks and employers to give taxpayers the option of pre-filled tax forms to verify, sign and return. Experts estimate that the Obama proposal will save Americans up to 200 million total hours of work and aggravation and up to $2 billion in tax preparer fees. [Barack Obama Economic Plan]

OUTSIDE OBSERVERS AGREE: CLAIMS THAT OBAMA WILL RAISE TAXES ARE "WRONG," "FALSE," "MISLEADING"

McCain's Chief Economic Advisor: "I Used To Say That Barack Obama Raises Taxes…I Stand Corrected." "Take this one, for instance: 'The choice in this election is stark and simple,' John McCain said at recent Denver event, repeating a phrase that is a staple of his stump speech. 'Senator Obama will raise your taxes. I won't.' Seems clear enough, right? You already know the old argument: Republicans cut taxes, Democrats raise them. Except it's not true, at least not in the way that it seems. But don't take my word for it. Here is Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain's chief economic policy adviser. 'I used to say that Barack Obama raises taxes and John McCain cuts them, and I was convinced,' he told me in a phone interview this week. 'I stand corrected [about Obama's plans].'" [Time, 7/24/08]

Economists At The Tax Policy Center Came To The Conclusion That Obama's Tax Plan Offers A Net Tax Cut. Michael Scherer of Time wrote, "So I want to make a few things clear. First, the Obama campaign calculates that its tax plan offers a net tax revenue reduction over ten years, if the health plan is included. Second, independent economists at the Tax Policy Center come to the same conclusion. Third, Holtz-Eakin has repeatedly, and quite seriously, invoked the net-tax-cut calculations of Obama to make the argument that the Democrat has a fiscally irresponsible economic plan." [Time, 7/30/08]

Time: McCain's Tax Plan "Benefits Mostly Those In Higher Income Brackets While Obama's Plan Benefits Mostly Those In Lower-And Middle Income Tax Brackets." "They do, however, offer plans that differ strikingly from each other. McCain's tax plan benefits mostly those in higher income brackets, while Obama's plan benefits mostly those in lower- and middle-income tax brackets. McCain wants a tax cut for corporate profits, while Obama has proposed a whole host of tax cuts that will benefit those in the middle-income brackets." [Time, 7/24/08]

Stanford Group Economist: "Overwhelmingly Most Americans Will Not See Their Income Taxes Increased" Under Obama's Tax Plan. Anne Mathias, an economist at the Stanford Group Company, "points out that 95.1% of the American people are in households that earn less than $200,000 -- so overwhelmingly most Americans will not see their income taxes increased, if Obama's math is correct." [ABC News, 7/7/08]

Washington Post Fact Checker: McCain Campaign Attacks on Obama Tax Plan "Overblown," "Wrong," and "Greatly Exaggerated." "The McCain camp is attempting to persuade Americans that their taxes will increase dramatically with Barack Obama as president. The presumptive Republican nominee has repeatedly said that Obama would enact 'the largest tax increase since the Second World War.' A surrogate, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, insists that Obama has not proposed 'a single tax cut' and wants to 'raise every tax in the book.' … The claim that Obama will 'enact' the largest tax increase since World War II is also overblown. The Bush tax cuts will expire automatically at the end of 2010, so it is hardly a question of 'enacting' a new tax increase. ... Carly Fiorina is wrong to claim that Obama has proposed no tax cuts and wants to raise 'every tax in the book.' John McCain is on more solid ground when he claims that Americans from many different backgrounds could be affected by a rise in capital gains taxes, but he has greatly exaggerated the adverse impact." [Washington Post, 6/11/08]

Politifact: McCain's Statement That Obama's Tax Plan Would Raise Taxes Is "False." Politifact reported, "So calling it a tax increase might not be considered fair. There's no disputing that taxes will rise, but the question of who's responsible for that tax increase is another matter entirely. At PolitiFact, we've concluded, as have others, that it's unfair to call Obama's plan a tax increase merely because it doesn't change existing tax law to keep rates low. We think about it this way: The reason taxes will increase is because of tax policy signed into law not by Obama, but by somebody else… the more recent data — combined with the fact that Obama's proposal does not constitute a tax increase in the traditional sense, since some taxes would be lower under his plan than they would under current law — persuades us to classify McCain's statement as False." [Politifact, 6/11/08]

FactCheck.Org: McCain's Largest Tax Increase Charge Wrong and Misleading. According to the Annenberg Public Policy Center's Factcheck.org: "By the measure most economists prefer, McCain is wrong in his claim that Sens. Clinton and Obama want to implement "the single largest tax increase since the Second World War;"… At a more basic level, it's misleading to tag Clinton and Obama for something that was scheduled during the Bush administration – the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which by law will occur at the end of 2010." [Factcheck.org, 5/14/08]

OBAMA TAX PROPOSAL WAS PRAISED AS A "TAX FAIRNESS, PRO-CAPITALIST INITIATIVE," WILL NOT RAISE TAXES AND WILL PROVIDE A BIGGER BREAK FOR MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES THAN MCCAIN'S PLAN

Analysts Say That Obama's Tax Cut Plan "Offers Three Times The Break For Middle Class Families Than Proposals" Of McCain. "The tax cut plan of Democratic nominee to be Barack Obama offers three times the break for middle class families than proposals of likely Republican nominee John McCain, according to analysts working for a left-leaning think tank. Families making between $37,595 and $66,354 of annual income with Obama would get an average tax cut of $1,042 per family while McCain's tax cut for this group would be $319, the report states." [Nashua Telegraph, 6/12/08]

Under Obama's Plan The Middle Of The Middle Class Would See Taxes Cut By $1,042 A Year; McCain's Tax Plan Would Give Them Only A $319 Tax Cut. According to the non partisan Tax Policy Center's computations, "under Mr. Obama's plan, the middle of the middle class, or those earning $37,595 to $66,354, would see taxes cut by $1,042 a year. Under Mr. McCain's plan, taxes for people in that category would also fall, but by $319; the largest chunk of the benefits would go to those making $2.8 million a year or more." [New York Times, 6/13/08]

Obama Plan: $80 Billion A Year In Tax Cuts "To Middle-Class Workers, Homeowners And Retirees." "Senator Barack Obama proposed a plan on Tuesday to provide at least $80 billion a year in tax cuts to middle-class workers, homeowners and retirees, saying if he was elected president he would 'end the preferential treatment that's built into our tax code.' Mr. Obama said he would give a $500 tax credit to more than 150 million workers, create a tax credit for homeowners who do not itemize their deductions and eliminate income taxes for older taxpayers who make less than $50,000 a year." [New York Times, 9/19/07; Tax Fairness For The Middle Class]

Martire: Obama's Tax Plan Is A "Tax Fairness, Pro-Capitalist Initiative." Ralph Martire, executive director of the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, wrote in an article, "The audacity of Sen. Barack Obama is now clear. He actually intends to make tax fairness - targeted at workers and seniors, no less - a platform in his candidacy for the White House. Obama just unveiled a proposal that would cut taxes by about $80 billion annually for middle-class folks, low-income folks, homeowners and seniors. The senator would pay for this program by, now get this, increasing taxes on capital gains and dividends, and eliminating other tax loopholes that primarily benefit the most well-to-do…Under Obama's proposal, more than 150 million workers - those who have been left out during America's recent economic expansion, would get a tax break. Better yet, because their incomes are stagnant or declining, they'll in all likelihood use this tax break to purchase necessities, creating a stimulus in their local economies. Bush's tax break for dividends and capital gains, on the other hand, overwhelmingly benefits the richest Americans. According to Internal Revenue Service data, three-quarters of this tax break, about $68 billion annually, goes to the wealthiest 0.6 percent of income earners, while costing over $91 billion in 2005 alone. Not only does this worsen income inequality, but it is patently anti-capitalist. Eliminating this tax break would more than cover the $80 billion annual cost of Obama's tax fairness, pro-capitalist initiative." [Springfield Journal-Register, Editorial, 9/24/07]

Kansas City Star Editorial: "Obama's Plans For Reducing Inequalities In Tax Policies And Helping Working Families Offer The Better Blueprint To Move Forward." "Discussions about health care, Social Security and energy are needed to produce a big picture of how each candidate will manage the economy. Based on proposals so far, however, Obama's plans for reducing inequalities in tax policies and helping working families offer the better blueprint to move forward." [Kansas City Star, 6/13/08]

04:37 PM | Permalink