WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- With Michigan in the spotlight today and concerns over the economy in the state, it's time to take another look at the GOP candidates and their abysmal records on the economy.
Years of neglect on the part of Bush Republicans have left our economy sagging and America on the verge of a recession. With health care and energy costs skyrocketing, wages stagnating, and unemployment at its highest rate in years, American families have been feeling the strain Republicans have put on their pocketbooks. It's no surprise, then, that the economy is now the top issue for both Democratic and Republican voters. [Washington Post-ABC News Poll released 1/14/08]
As voters examine the McCain, Romney, Huckabee and Giuliani records on the economy, they won't like what they see. While all the Democratic candidates are focused on giving America's families much needed relief, the Republican presidential candidates are offering a third Bush term on the economy. From reckless spending to turning record surpluses into record deficits to tax cuts for only the wealthiest Americans, Bush Republicans have implemented policies that have left our economy weaker and America's working families worse off. Voters have already rejected these disastrous policies and know that quite literally, we can't afford another Republican president to handle the economy.
MCCAIN, A Third Bush Term on the Economy...
In 2006, McCain voted to make permanent the tax cuts he derided and did not support in 2001 and 2003. He also voted to repeal the estate tax, a policy he opposed in 2001, 2002, and 2003. And despite saying that not extending a tax break counts as a tax increase - and that he "has never voted for a tax increase in his life" - McCain did just that in May, voting to end tax breaks for thousands of workers, students, and teachers. It's clear McCain will do anything to win the Republican primary.
2006: McCain Voted For Bush Tax Cuts and Defended His Flip-Flop As A Legislative "Gimmick." John McCain voted to extend tax cuts supported by the president that were set to expire between 2005 and 2010 despite opposing them earlier. McCain's vote was described as "a sharp reversal of his anti-tax-cut posture," though he defended the shift, saying, "it was a gimmick," reasoning that "the tax cuts were temporary and then had to be made permanent." [Senate vote #10, H.R. 4297, 2/2/06, passed 66-31; New York Times, 2/21/06; Washington Times, 3/6/06; NBC News, 4/2/06]
2001, 2003: McCain Voted Against Bush's Tax Cuts. McCain was one of two Republicans to join "the majority of Democrats against" the tax cut package. In 2003, McCain said on the floor of the Senate, "I cannot in good conscience vote in favor of tax cuts," as "no one can be expected to make an informed decision on fiscal policy at this time with so many uncertain contingencies." McCain called on Congress to pause before passing tax cuts, saying, "Let us wait...it is far sounder statesmanship than cutting taxes in the dark, or running up spending[.]" [Senate vote #170, H.R. 1836, 5/26/01, passed 58-33; Baltimore Sun, 5/27/01; Senate vote #196, H.R. 2, 5/23/03, passed 50-50; Statement, 3/18/03]
McCain Opposes Tax Cuts for Middle Class: In 2006, McCain Voted To End Tuition Deduction for Students. McCain voted to end tuition deductions benefiting more than 3.6 million students and families nationwide. McCain's vote to eliminate these college tax breaks are coming at a time when tuition and fees at four-year public colleges have increased 40% since President Bush took office. [H.R. 4279, 5/11/06, #118; Senate Finance Committee, 11/7/05; IRS Data, October 2005; College Board, 2005; State PIRG's Higher Education Project]
2006: McCain Voted To End Tax Credits for Lower Income Families Saving For Retirement. McCain voted to end retirement saver's tax credits that benefited more than 97,700 Arizonans, who saved $18 million through the program. The Saver's Credit allows lower-income families to deduct up to 50% of the contributions they put into retirement plans. [H.R. 4279, 5/11/06, #118; IRS Data, October 2005; Kansas City Star, 4/3/05]
2006: McCain Voted to End a Tax Break for Teachers. The McCain vote also ended an educator expense deduction that benefited more than 62,000 Arizona teachers in 2003, saving them $15.4 million. The provision allowed teachers to deduct to $250 of out-of-pocket expenses they pay for books and classroom supplies. [H.R. 4279, 5/11/06, #118; IRS Data, October 2005; IRS Tax Tip]
SMOOTH TALKING MITT, A Third Bush Term on the Economy...
Smooth talking Mitt Romney's record shows that all he can offer voters is a third Bush term on the economy. While he was Governor, Massachusetts saw unemployment rise, an increase in fees and cost of living go up. On the economy, Romney has flip-flopped, promising to extend the Bush tax cuts he once refused to support, and endorsing tax cuts he previously said were for "fat cats."
New Mitt: Romney Signed Pledge to Hide Tax Raising Record. While seeking the GOP nomination, Romney signed the same "no new tax" pledge he refused to sign in 2002 to hide the fact that under his failed leadership, Bay Staters saw their tax burden increase by more than 5 percent, and Romney's cuts to local communities sent Massachusetts property taxes to their highest level in 25 years. [Massachusetts State-Local Tax Burden Compared to National Average (1970-2006), The Tax Foundation; Quincy Patriot Ledger, 12/16/05]
Old Mitt: Romney: I Will Not Enter Written Tax Pledge. Romney's campaign called written pledges "government by gimmickry." [Boston Globe, 3/28/02]
New Mitt: Romney Bragged about Support for Bush Tax Cuts. During a November 2006 press conference held in Arizona, Romney outlined differences between himself and McCain. Romney said "he was quicker than McCain to endorse President Bush's tax cuts." [East Valley Tribune, 11/14/06]
Romney Refused to Publicly Endorse Bush Tax Cuts. "Mitt Romney refused yesterday to endorse tax cuts at the heart of President Bush's economic program," reported the Boston Globe. Romney told the Massachusetts Congressional delegation, however, that in order to foster "a solid relationship" with the Bush administration, he would not oppose the tax cuts publicly. Pressed by Rep. Barney Frank, Romney "said he had not publicly opposed the cuts," nor would publicly oppose them in the future. However, said a Boston Globe source present at the meeting, Romney told the Massachusetts delegation that he would not "be a cheerleader," for policies to which he disagreed, "but I have to keep a solid relationship with the White House." Of the tax cut proposal, Romney's spokesman declined to comment, saying it's "just not a state matter." [Boston Globe, 4/11/03]
Mitt Romney's Says his Plan Allows "Middle-Class American Families" to Save. "Any taxpayer with Adjusted Gross Income of under $200,000 would pay a tax rate of absolutely 0% on all of the income they earn from their savings, capital gains and dividends." Changing the dividends and capital gains tax rates to zero, Romney said, would allow "middle class Americans" to save. [Mitt Romney Press Release, 9/7/2007; Mitt Romney Press Release, 10/9/2007]
Reality: Vast Majority of Americans that Would Benefit Are the Wealthy. "Critics pointed out that while many families would benefit, the vast majority of the total dollar savings would go to the wealthy, who own the most stocks, have the biggest bank accounts, and reap the most capital gains from real estate and other investments." [Boston Globe, 9/8/2007]
Washington Post: Families Making $50,000 a Year Would See "No Benefit" from Romney's Plan while Families Making $200,000 Reap the Benefits from Romney's Proposal. In an editorial published on October 16, 2007, the Washington Post said that under Mitt Romney's tax proposal "families making below $50,000 a year would see no benefit" and that "families at or near $200,000 would reap far more benefits than those earning around $70,000." [Washington Post editorial, 10/16/2007]
Massachusetts Faced $1 Billion Budget Gap Because of Romney's Misleading Revenue Projections. Aides to Governor Deval Patrick said a Romney administration budget blueprint was based on "overly optimistic revenue and spending data and aimed at making the state's finances appear healthier than they are as Romney left the State House for a presidential run." [Boston Globe, 12/20/06]
Economic Performance During Romney's Tenure as Mass Governor Was "One of the Worst in the Country." According to economists at a Northeastern University, an analysis of the Massachusetts economy "reveals a weak comparative economic performance of the state over the Romney years, one of the worst in the country." [Boston Globe, 7/28/07]
Labor Market Measures of Growth "Not Only Lagged" But "Often Ranked...at the Bottom" in Massachusetts. "On all key labor market measures, the state not only lagged behind the country as a whole, but often ranked at or near the bottom of the state distribution," wrote economists Andrew Sum and Joseph McLaughlin. The economists cited drops in formal payroll employment and job generation. In fact, Massachusetts job growth during Romney's tenure was the third lowest in the country, and was so bad that it "would have ranked second lowest if Hurricane Katrina had not devastated the Louisiana economy." Manufacturing employment, "declined by more than 14 percent, the third worst record in the country." [Boston Globe, 7/28/07]
On Romney's watch, the Number of Employed Fell in Massachusetts and Wages and Income Fell by 2%: During 2002 and 2006 the number of "employed residents in the Commonwealth is estimated to have modestly declined by 8,500." Massachusetts was the only state to have failed to post any gain in its pool of employed residents. "Between 2002 and 2006, the median real (inflation adjusted) weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers in Massachusetts is estimated to have fallen by $10 or nearly 2 percent." [Boston Globe, 7/28/07]
Romney Raised $500 Million in Fees, Earned "C" on Cato Institute Fiscal Report Card. Romney increased annual state fees by $500 million as governor and proposed raising $400 million from two corporate tax increases. The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, gave Romney a "C" on its fiscal-policy report card. Romney ranked behind 11 governors. [Boston Herald, 2/8/07; Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 581, 10/24/06]
Cato: Romney Trying to Spin Fiscal Record. Cato Institute budget director Stephen Slivinski said, "Romney's people are trying to spin this by saying he kept his 'No new taxes pledge.'" [The Hill, 3/28/07]
Massachusetts Imposed More Fee Hikes Than any Other State in the Nation. Boston Globe reported, "A survey of states grappling with spending crises has found that Massachusetts imposed more fee hikes than any other state in the nation this year -- at least $500 million...The study by the National Conference of State Legislatures found that Massachusetts was one of 30 states that enacted fee increases this year...Of the 30 states to raise fees, only nine [brought] in $100 million or more from those fee hikes. Massachusetts reported $501.5 million in fee hikes." [Boston Globe, 7/24/03]
HUCKABEE, A Third Bush Term on the Economy...
Now in the spotlight, Mike Huckabee's record as Governor of Arkansas is finally getting attention, and when it comes to the economy, voters won't like what they see. As governor, Huckabee's performance was given a C+: Arkansas ranked 48th in the U.S. for per capita income growth, lost manufacturing jobs, and had a large portion of the population living in poverty. His tax record was just as poor and showed Huckabee's budget-busting favors for the wealthy and special interests. It's clear that a vote for Huckabee would be a vote for a third Bush term on the economy.
Arkansas Per Capita Income Rose Slower Than National Average, Ranked 48th in U.S. Per capita personal income in Arkansas grew by a modest 4.1 percent to $26,874 in FY 2005, five-tenths of a percentage point below the national rate and 48th among the states, federal Commerce Department statistics showed. For Arkansas, the low ranking continued a trend that kept the state near the bottom in personal income growth for more than two decades. [Arkansas News Bureau, 3/29/06]
Arkansas Lost Manufacturing Jobs. Across Arkansas, estimates showed the manufacturing industry employed 195,500 people out of a total non-farm work force of 1.2 million in October 2006. That was down 4,600 manufacturing jobs from October 2005. [Associated Press, 12/6/06]
National Hunger Day Revealed Scary Facts about Poverty in Arkansas. Mike Huckabee designated June 6, 2006 as Hunger Awareness Day in Arkansas. The Arkansas Hunger Relief Alliance, a state association of food banks and food rescue organization, pointed out: The state's childhood poverty rate was 25.9 percent compared to the national average of 18.4 percent; one in eight elderly citizens in Arkansas lived below the poverty line and must choose between food and medicine; more than 17 percent of Arkansas lived below the poverty level and could not afford enough food to eat. [Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 6/6/06]
Mike Huckabee Backs Fair Tax. Plan Would Lead to 34 Percent Sales Tax, Repeal of Middle Class Deductions. According to analyses of Huckabee's Fair Tax, "The 30 percent rate assumes that the tax would be imposed on a broad range of goods and services that has no precedent -- putting a hefty and politically implausible extra tax bite on purchases of new homes, rent, food, health insurance, medical care and mortgage interest. Finally, the FairTax would hit the middle class the hardest. Consumers would receive a monthly "prebate" on expenditures up to the federal poverty level, providing a cushion and probably even a modest benefit for those with the lowest incomes. The top earners, those with incomes greater than $200,000, would see significant tax cuts. So who makes up the difference? It's likely that taxpayers with incomes in the middle range -- about $40,000 to $100,000 -- would pay more. And they call that a FairTax?" [Editorial, Washington Post, 12/31/2007]
Huckabee Opposed Property Tax Cuts. Opposing the most aggressive tax-cutting measures being proposed, Huckabee said that "in a state like ours where we are No. 50 in the amount of money we allocate to education, it is irresponsible for us to consider moving that number further down." [Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 1/20/99]
FactCheck.org: Huckabee's Net Tax Increase. Criticizing Huckabee's ad on taxes, FactCheck.org said that, "the ad shows a graphic asserting that Huckabee 'cut taxes over 90 times' as governor. As we have noted previously, 90 tax cuts indeed were enacted under Huckabee. However, so were 21 tax increases, and they far outweighed the cuts. The total net tax increase under Huckabee was an estimated $505.1 million, according to the state Department of Finance and Administration's Whitney McLaughlin, who says that the figure has been adjusted for inflation." [FactCheck.org, 11/21/2007, http://www.factcheck.org/articles/articleview.php?id=380 ]
Tax Foundation: State and Local Tax Burden On Average Arkansan Increased, State Flew Up Rankings Of Tax Burdens in US. According to the Tax Foundation, "the state and local tax burden on the average Arkansan increased from 10.1 per cent to 11.3 per cent under Huckabee. When he came into office in 1996, Arkansas ranked 30th in the nation as the state with the highest taxes. When he left at the beginning of this year, it had risen to 13th." ["The Fact Checker" by Michael Dobbs, 1/2/2008, http://blog.washingtonpost.com/ , http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/442.html ]
GIULIANI, A Third Bush Term on the Economy...
When it comes to his policy ideas for the nation, he has strongly endorsed the Bush tax cut plan and opposes help for those devastated by the mortgage crisis, saying he would do "basically what the president did." He is considered a "strong supporter" of the failed Bush economic plan. And when it comes to New York, Giuliani's real record doesn't match his rhetoric. The truth is that while Giuliani was mayor, New York City's debt reached historic highs, city spending grew by 30% and the payroll was larger - in dollars and people - when he left then when he started. Independent fact checkers have also debunked his tax-cutting claims, finding that many - including the largest - of the tax cuts he claimed credit for either came from the state or were actually ones he strongly opposed.
Giuliani Is A Rightful Heir To Bush's Economic Policy. The New York Times reported, "Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Romney are the rightful heirs to President Bush's economic policy. They favor the extension of all his tax cuts, and they oppose government action to fight climate change, among other things. They are the candidates for voters who think the Bush boom has gotten a bad rap." Reuters reported, "Giuliani's tax plan makes all the Bush tax cuts permanent, including full repeal of the death tax." [New York Times, 1/9/08; Reuters, 1/10/08]
Giuliani Tax Cutting Claim A "Half-Truth," "Multibillion Dollar Bit Of Puffery," "Misleading," "Not Really True." Journalists and independent analysts have slammed Giuliani's claim that he cut taxes 23 times as mayor of New York. Factcheck.org, calling it a top "whopper" for 2007, wrote that "the mayor takes credit for too many tax cuts" and called his claims an "overstatement." Their research showed Giuliani can't claim credit for nine of the 23 cuts he cites, because as Politifact.com found they "were championed by others or involved state funds." The New York Times called the claim "misleading" and the New York Daily News, with its own research and independent experts, called it "not really true." CNBC's Truth Squad points out that he takes credit for one huge tax cut, the personal income tax surcharge "he actively opposed." The Washington Post awarded Giuliani "Three Pinnochios" the claim, noting that the city's own Independent Budget Office disagreed, and the Boston Globe also criticized the claim. In an examination of other exaggerations, the New York Times pointed out that Giuliani quadrupled the real increase in revenues from the hotel occupancy tax cut. [FactCheck.org, 7/27/07
(http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/giulianis_tax_puffery.html ; Politifact.com (http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/109/ ) (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_whoppers_of_2007.html ]) ; New York Times, 10/12/07, 11/30/07; Daily News (NY), 7/29/07; "Squawk Box," CNBC, 10/5/07 (http://www.cnbc.com/id/21138037 ); "Fact-Checker," WashingtonPost.com, 10/11/07 (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/10/the_mitt_and_rudy_show_li es_da_1.html ); Boston Globe, 11/16/07]
Giuliani Praised Bush Administration's Handling Of Subprime Situation. Answering a question about the sub-prime situation in August 2007, Giuliani said, "I would do basically what the president did: I'd look at the fundamentals of the economy. And the fundamentals, at least most of them, are very strong," Giuliani said. In January 2008, asked about the sub-prime mortgage crisis, Giuliani praised Bush administration's efforts, saying, "Then I think that the action [Treasury] Secretary [Henry] Paulson took, back about three to four weeks ago, was the right balance." [CNBC.com, 8/16/07, http://www.cnbc.com/id/20252849/; Florida Times Union, 1/10/08,
http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/011008/met_234567242.shtml]
NYC Debt Skyrocketed To Historical Levels Under Giuliani: By virtually every measure, NYC's debt went up dramatically under Giuliani. According to data compiled by the New York City Comptroller, the city's debt went up 30% during the Giuliani years, from $28.3 billion in FY94 before his first budget went into effect, to $40.4 billion at the end of FY01 (the last pre-9/11 figure). The same data shows that the "per capita net debt" went from $3686 for FY94 to $4628 for FY01, covering the seven Giuliani budget years before 9/11. The Daily News noted that Giuliani's budgets left the highest debt in the city's history, while the editorial board of the New York Observer wrote that "The city's annual debt service has risen from $2.8 billion to almost $4 billion since he moved into Gracie Mansion." [NYC Comptroller Comprehensive Annual Financial Report FY02, p. 261-2 (http://www.comptroller.nyc.gov/bureaus/acc/CAFR-02-pdf/III_stat_sect-file3of4 .pdf ); New York Daily News 12/6/01; Editorial, New York Observer, 4/23/01]
Tax Revenue, Fines and Fees Went Up Under Giuliani. Compared to the last fiscal year budgeted by his predecessor (FY94) under Giuliani, the city's revenues grew by $5.3 billion (24%) by the end of his last budget (FY02).
Property tax revenue went up 12.71% ($988 million)
Personal income tax revenue went up 40% ($1.45 billion)
Total tax revenue went up 19.77% ($3.5 billion)
User fees/fines went up 44.92% ($1 billion)
Total City-Based Revenues went up 24% ($5.3 billion)
[IBO Revenue and Expenditure Summary (http://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/iboreports/RevenueSpending/RevandExpSummary.xls )]
Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee. This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
Democratic National Committee
