Nick Arnett wrote:
> I have to complain about this somewhere... and Brin-L might as well
be
> the place. During last night's debate, Cheney talked about how a
> Kerry-Edwards tax increase for people making more then $200,000
would
> hurt job creation because small businesses, which he said create 7
out
> of 10 new jobs IIRC, often pay their taxes on the owner's personal
tax
> return, thus often putting their income above $200K. There are only
> two ways that this can be done, as far as I know. One is to file a
> Schedule C, for self-employment. That's fine if one has a truly
> small business. But anybody who hires employees and grows large at
> all will almost certainly incorporate as a subchapter S corporation,
> whose profits and losses flow into the owners' personal taxes, thus
> avoiding the double tax that C corporations pay. Fine. Been there,
> done that, took the tax deduction.
>
> But a few minutes later, Cheney accused Edwards of avoiding taxes by
> using the "loophole" of an S corporation! That seems outrageously
> cynical to me -- criticize a tax increase because it will hurt S
> corporations, then label S corporations a loophole!
>
> I'm curious how many here caught the hypocrisy.
>
> And what about Cheney's boast that there are now 5 million more
people
> who don't pay any income taxes? How many of them are in that
> situation because they lost their jobs or they became so
> under-employed that they fell below the minimum income? Sheesh, if
> the number of people living below the poverty level rises, of course
> more will pay zero income taxes. If we transfer most the wealth to
a
> handful of powerful people, we could probably eliminate income taxes
> for almost everybody.
>
Cheney & Edwards Mangle Facts
Getting it wrong about combat pay, Halliburton, and FactCheck.org
10.06.2004
Summary
Cheney wrongly implied that FactCheck had defended his tenure as CEO
of Halliburton Co., and the vice president even got our name wrong. He
overstated matters when he said Edwards voted "for the war" and "to
commit the troops, to send them to war." He exaggerated the number of
times Kerry has voted to raise taxes, and puffed up the number of
small business owners who would see a tax increase under Kerry's
proposals.
Edwards falsely claimed the administration "lobbied the Congress" to
cut the combat pay of troops in Iraq, something the White House never
supported, and he used misleading numbers about jobs.
Analysis
Cheney Plugs FactCheck
Cheney got our domain name wrong -- calling us "FactCheck.com" -- and
wrongly implied that we had rebutted allegations Edwards was making
about what Cheney had done as chief executive officer of Halliburton.
In fact, we did post an article pointing out that Cheney hasn't
profited personally while in office from Halliburton's Iraq contracts,
as falsely implied by a Kerry TV ad. But Edwards was talking about
Cheney's responsibility for earlier Halliburton troubles. And in fact,
Edwards was mostly right.
Edwards on Halliburton: Partial Credit
We can only give Edwards partial credit for his Halliburton attack,
however. He implied that Cheney was in charge of the company when it
did business with Libya in violation of US sanctions, but that
happened long before Cheney joined the company.
Edwards was also slightly off when he said Halliburton paid millions
in fines "while he (Cheney) was CEO." What he meant was that it paid
fines for matters that took place while Cheney was in charge. And in
fact, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced Aug. 3 that
Halliburton will pay $7.5 million to settle a matter that dates back
to 1998, when Cheney was CEO.
Halliburton failed to disclose a change in its accounting procedures
that resulted in making its earnings look better. Cheney himself was
not charged with any wrongdoing, however. The SEC said Cheney
"provided sworn testimony and cooperated willingly and fully in the
investigation."
On other matters, Edwards said Halliburton "did business with Libya
and Iran, two sworn enemies of the United States" and is now "under
investigation for having bribed foreign officials" while Cheney was
CEO.
Iran: Indeed, Halliburton has said it does about $30 million to $40
million in oilfield service business in Iran annually through a
subsidiary, Halliburton Products and Services Ltd. The company says
that the subsidiary fully complies with US sanctions laws, but the
matter currently is under investigation by a federal grand jury in
Houston.
Bribery Investigation: U.S. and French authorities currently are
investigating whether a joint venture whose partners included a
Halliburton subsidiary paid bribes or kickbacks to win a $12 billion
construction project in Nigeria.
Libya: Edwards was wrong to include Libya, however. In 1995, before
Cheney joined the company, Halliburton pled guilty to criminal charges
that it violated the U.S. ban on exports to Libya and said it would
pay $3.81 million in fines. Those violations dated back to 1987 and
1990.
Cutting Combat Pay?
Edwards twice accused the administration of having "lobbied the
Congress" to cut the combat pay of troops in Iraq, when in fact the
White House never supported such a plan.
Rather, the Defense Department proposed allowing a temporary pay
increase for all troops worldwide (even those not in Iraq or
Afghanistan) to expire, and promised to maintain current pay levels
for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan with separate pay raises if
necessary.
Army Times reported in its issue for the week ending Aug. 18, 2003
that a Pentagon budget assessment sent to Congress in July called for
letting a temporary combat pay raise enacted earlier that year for
troops worldwide expire at the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30. The
result would have been a cut of $75 a month in "imminent danger pay"
and $150 a month in "family separation allowances."
But according to an Aug. 15 American Forces Press Service report,
David S.C. Chu, defense undersecretary for personnel and readiness,
said the department could raise hardship duty pay or incentive pay.
The bottom line: "We are not going to reduce their compensation," Chu
said. The Pentagon also said in an Aug. 14 news release : "This is an
issue of targeting those most deserving, and certainly people serving
in Iraq and Afghanistan are in these categories."
Cheney Overstates Iraq Resolution
Cheney repeatedly said Edwards had voted "for the war" and "to commit
the troops," when in fact the Iraq resolution that both Kerry and
Edwards supported left the decision to the president and called for
intensified diplomacy.
The resolution for which Edwards and Kerry voted said, "The President
is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he
determines to be necessary and appropriate."
And Edwards made clear in a statement at the time of his vote that he
hoped to avoid war by enlisting broad support from the United Nations
and US allies:
Edwards ( Oct. 10, 2002 ): I believe we should act now for two
reasons: first, bipartisan congressional action on a strong,
unambiguous resolution, like the one before us now, will strengthen
America's hand as we seek support from the Security Council and seek
to enlist the cooperation of our allies.
If the administration continues its strong, if belated, diplomacy,
backed by the bipartisan resolve of the Congress, I believe the United
States will succeed in rallying many allies to our side.
Second, strong domestic support and a broad international coalition
will make it less likely that force would need to be used.
In fact, not even Bush himself characterized the resolution as a vote
"for war" at the time. Speaking at the White House Rose Garden Oct. 2,
2002, Bush said:
Bush (Oct. 2, 2002): None of us here today desire to see military
conflict, because we know the awful nature of war. Our country values
life, and never seeks war unless it is essential to security and to
justice. America's leadership and willingness to use force, confirmed
by the Congress, is the best way to ensure compliance and avoid
conflict. Saddam must disarm, period. If, however, he chooses to do
otherwise, if he persists in his defiance, the use of force may become
unavoidable.
Jobs Figures
Both Edwards and Cheney quoted selective and misleading figures
about jobs, and even Cheney got confused.
Edwards said 1.6 million private sector jobs and 2.7 million
manufacturing jobs had been lost during the Bush administration. Both
figures are accurate, but omit the growth in employment by federal,
state and local governments. The net loss in total employment is
actually 913,000 as of August, the most recent figures available.
Cheney claimed Edwards was using old data from 2003, which wasn't
the case.
Cheney correctly noted that 1.7 million jobs have been added in the
past year, since payroll employment bottomed out in August of last
year. New employment figures are due on Friday from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, the last report before election day. It now appears
certain that Bush and Cheney will end their term with payroll
employment still below where it was when they took office, the first
time that's happened since the Hoover administration.
Cheney's "First Time"
Cheney claimed Edwards has such a poor attendance record in the
Senate that he was just meeting Edwards for the first time during the
debate, even though Cheney visits the Senate every Tuesday. But the
Kerry-Edwards campaign quickly documented at least two instances in
which Cheney had met Edwards previously. Edwards escorted Elizabeth
Dole when she was sworn in as North Carolina's other senator on
January 8, 2003, according to Gannet News Service. Cheney administered
the oath.
Cheney also was present with Edwards at a National Prayer Breakfast
on Feb. 1, 2001, when a transcript shows Cheney acknowledged Edwards
among those at the gathering:
Cheney: (Feb. 1, 2001): Thank you. Thank you very much.
Congressman Watts, Senator Edwards, friends from across America and
distinguished visitors to our country from all over the world, Lynne
and I are honored to be with you all this morning.
90% of the Casualties
Cheney disputed Edwards's statement -- often repeated by Kerry --
that US forces have suffered "90% of the coalition casualties" in
Iraq, saying that in fact Iraqi security forces "have taken almost 50
percent" of the casualties.
Both men have a point here, but Edwards is closer to the mark.
Edwards is correct counting only "coalition" forces -- those of
the US, Britain and the other countries that took part in the invasion
and occupation of Iraq. According to CNN.com, which keeps an updated
list, 1,066 US service men and women had died from hostile action and
other causes during the Iraq operation as of Oct. 5, of a total 1,205
for all coalition countries. That's just over 88% of the coalition
deaths.
We know of no accurate count of deaths suffered by Iraqi security
forces, but an estimate reported both by the Wall Street Journal and
The Washington Post puts the figure at 750. Lumping those estimated
Iraqi deaths with fatalities suffered by coalition forces produces a
total of 1,955. Of that, the estimated Iraqi portion is 38% (not
"almost 50%" as Cheney claimed) and the US total amounts to 55%.
Small Businesses
Cheney made a puffed-up claim that "900,000 small businesses will
be hit" should Kerry and Edwards raise taxes on individuals making
more than $200,000 a year, as they promise to do.
As we've explained before, 900,000 is an inflated figure that
results from counting every high-income individual who reports even $1
of business income as a "small business owner." Even Cheney and his
wife Lynne would qualify as a "small business owner" under that
definition because Mrs. Cheney reports income as a "consultant" from
fees she collects as a corporate board member, even though she had no
employees and the business income is only 3.5% of the total income
reported on their 2003 tax returns.
A better figure comes from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center,
which recently calculated that the Kerry tax increase would hit
roughly 471,000 small employers. That's barely half the figure Cheney
used.
Other Dubious Claims.
Cheney used a misleading figure to support the idea that the
administration was "deeply concerned" about the toll that AIDS has
taken on poor countries, stating that the administration has "proposed
and gotten through the Congress authorization for $15 billion to help
in the international effort." That's true, but the $15-billion figure
was to be spread over five years -- and when it came to asking for
money to be actually appropriated and spent Bush sought only $2
billion for the fiscal year that just ended. Congress increased that
to $2.4 billion.
Cheney and Edwards both made misleading statements about each
other's education records, specifically on the No Child Left Behind
law. Cheney claimed "they were for it; now they're against it." But
while Kerry has criticized the law as being underfunded and called for
some changes he has not called for the law's repeal. Edwards claimed
"they said they were going to fund their No Child Left Behind; $27
billion short today." In fact, overall federal funding for education
grew 58% in Bush's first three years, though many governors and
congressional Democrats say even more is required.
Cheney said Edwards "has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested
there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11." But The Washington Post
reported Oct. 6 that Cheney often "skated close to the line in ways
that may have certainly left that impression on viewers," especially
by repeatedly citing the possibility that hijacker Mohamed Atta met
with an Iraqi official, a theory disputed by the 9/11 Commission.
Cheney claimed Kerry had voted 98 times to raise taxes. As we've
pointed out before, that's an inflated figure that counts multiple
votes on the same tax bills, and also counts votes on budget measures
that only set tax targets but don't actually bring about tax increases
by themselves.
xponent
The Facts Jack Maru
rob
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
