Tonight, Mitt Romney added his name to the list of Republicans working to distorting the record on John McCain's promise of more of the same.
RHETORIC: "We need change all right - change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington! We have a prescription for every American who wants change in Washington - throw out the big government liberals and elect John McCain."
REALITY: MCCAIN HAS SUPPORTED BUSH'S BIG BUDGETS AND GOVERNMENT EXPANSION
McCain Voted for 4 of 6 Bush Budgets Adding Up To $9.8 Trillion. McCain supported four of the five Bush budgets that the Senate voted on from 2001-2006. McCain: Y. [2001 Senate Vote #98; McCain Voted to Table, 2002 Senate Vote #134; 2004 Senate Vote #58; 2005 Senate Vote #114; 2006 Senate Vote #74]
According To White House, Federal Spending Under Bush Grew By 46.5 Percent From 2001 Through 2007, Or $867 Billion Dollars. Total outlays by the Budget Enforcement Act between 2001 and 2007 grew by $867 billion, or 46.5 percent, according to White House Historical Budget Tables. [White House Outlays from FY 2009 Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government, Table 8.1, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/sheets/hist08z1.xls, accessed 9/3/08]
RHETORIC: "The right course is the one championed by Ronald Reagan 30 years ago, and by John McCain today. It is to rein in government spending and lower taxes..."
REALITY: MCCAIN CANNOT AFFORD HIS IRRESPONSIBLE TAX PLAN
McCain's Tax Cuts Will Either Explode The Federal Deficit Or Require "Unprecedented Cuts" In Federal Spending On Domestic Programs. "Sen. John McCain is proposing tax cuts that would either cause the federal deficit to explode or would require unprecedented spending cuts equal to one-third of federal spending on domestic programs. Once thought of as a deficit hawk, the near-certain Republican presidential nominee is now putting more stress on the traditional Republican orthodoxy of tax cuts." [Wall Street Journal, 4/22/08]
McCain Will Not Come "Anywhere Close" To Paying for His Tax Cuts. McCain's promised "savings in government spending he promises will not come anywhere close to paying for the tax cuts. Mr. McCain once bravely argued against Mr. Bush's tax cuts, because there was no cash to pay for them; with the government already running a big deficit, and no progress on reining in spending on health care and pensions, it would be odd to junk that prudence now. America can ill-afford another profligate Republican; and once again directing most of the benefits to the well-off is tone-deaf politics." [The Economist, 4/19/08]
RHETORIC: "Liberals would replace opportunity with dependency on government largesse. They would grow government and raise taxes to put more people on Medicaid, to work requirements out of welfare, and to grow the ranks of those who pay no taxes at all."
REALITY: MCCAIN HAS RENEGED ON PROMISE TO BALANCE THE BUDGET AND ONLY PROMISES TAX CUTS FOR WEALTHY AMERICANS
McCain Backed Away From Commitment To Balance The Budget. "Mr. McCain -- who said in February in Wisconsin that he would balance the budget by the end of his first term as president -- seemed to reconsider that on Tuesday, saying at a news conference later in Villanova that 'economic conditions are reversed' nd that he would have a balanced budget within eight years. His economic aides said they could pay for all the tax cuts with spending cuts." McCain's chief economic advisor, Doug Holtz-Eakin, also said that it would take two terms. [New York Times, 4/16/08 nytimes.com; Boston Globe, 4/15/08, boston.com]
2008: Tax Policy Center: McCain's Tax Plan Is Not For the Middle Class. Despite McCain's claims that he would help the middle class, "it turns out that middle-class families would do better under Obama (who would cut their taxes by $1000 in 2009) than McCain (who would cut them by only $300). McCain, who once opposed President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cut as a give-away to the rich, but now embraces them, has designed a plan more consistent with the New McCain than the old." In a McCain tax regime, "the top 20% of taxpayers get a 3% reduction in after-tax income in 2009, while the lowest-earning 60% would get less than 1%." [Tax Policy Center, Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, 6/12/08, http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/]
RHETORIC: The right course "is to pursue every source of energy security, from new efficiencies to renewables, from clean coal to non-CO2 producing nuclear, and the immediate drilling for more oil off of our shores!"
REALITY: MCCAIN HAS REPEATEDLY OPPOSED INVESTING IN RENAWABLE AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY
McCain Voted At Least Five Times Against Renewable Energy Mandates. [2005 Senate Vote #141, 6/16/2005; 2002 Senate Vote #59, 3/21/2002; 2002 Senate Vote #58, 3/21/2002; 2002 Senate Vote #55, 3/21/2002; 2002 Senate Vote #50, 3/14/2002]
McCain Voted At Least Seventeen Times Against Renewable And Alternative Fuel Mandates. [2005 Senate Vote #139, #138; 2004 Senate Vote #74, #73; 2003 Senate Vote #317, #209, #207, #206, #204, #203; 2002 Senate Vote #91, #88, #78; 1994 Senate Vote #255, 8/3/1994; 1992 Senate Vote #150, #27,#18]
RHETORIC: "Is government spending - excluding inflation - liberal or conservative if it doubles since 1980? - It's liberal! We need change all right - change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington!"
REALITY: BUSH-MCCAIN ECONOMIC POLICIES HAVE INCREASED GOVERNMENT SPENDING BY 64% SINCE 2000
During the Bush Presidency Total Federal Government Outlays Increased By 64%--Far Outpacing Inflation. Congressional Quarterly wrote that total defense spending under President Bush, "increased by 106 percent from fiscal 2000 to 2008, all other spending rose 55 percent. Overall, total outlays were projected in February to exceed $2.93 trillion in the current fiscal year, a 64 percent increase from $1.79 trillion in 2000. That far outpaces the 27 percent inflation in prices over the past eight years." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/27/08]
Federal Spending Per Household Grew More Than 13 Times Faster Under President Bush Than It Did Under President Clinton; Fastest Recorded Since 1960. According to the Heritage Foundations analysis of White House Historical Budget Numbers, Federal Spending per household grew the highest under President George W. Bush, to $22,630 in 2007 dollars. This was a jump of $2,590, the highest jump among all the presidents since John F. Kennedy in 1960. Growth in per household spending grew only $194 under President Bill Clinton, the smallest recorded increase. [Heritage Foundation Analysis, heritage.org, accessed 9/3/08]
RHETORIC: "I spent 25 years in the private sector. I've done business in many foreign countries. I know why jobs come and why they go away. And I know that liberals don't have a clue."
REALITY: ROMNEY'S FIRM LAID OFF NEARLY 400 WORKERS
Romney's Firm Reaped $100 Million While Bain Laid Off 385 Workers and Plunged Ampad into Bankruptcy. In 1992, the Mitt Romney-run Bain Capital invested $5 million into the purchase of American Pad & Paper (Ampad) from Mead Corp., which, at the time, had $11.3 million in debt and sales of $106.7 million. By 1999, Bain had closed two Ampad plants, laid off 385 Ampad workers, and plunged the company $392 million into debt. Controversy surrounding the layoffs in Indiana derailed Romney's failed U.S. Senate bid in 1994, and more angry workers haunted his run for governor of Massachusetts in 2002. Allegations of insider trading conspiracy surfaced in 1998 as a result of optimistic financial forecasts published in Ampad's annual report in 1997, despite sales repeatedly slipping for Ampad--including a loss of $78 million in 1998--as hefty returns for Bain investors rolled in. Heavy acquisitions, foreign price competition, and debt eventually sunk Ampad, and creditors forced it into bankruptcy in 2000. All told, Bain partners and its investors had made over $100 million. [The Boston Globe, 6/26/07]