Kerry’s Attack Video Misleads on Veterans, Jobs

Campaign says Internet ad is to “set the record straight.” But it contains some distortions.

Summary



The Kerry campaign Feb. 27 e-mailed a new attack ad to supporters, asking them to pass it on to friends. The ad accuses Bush of breaking his word. But the Kerry ad itself falsely implies that Bush has cut off health benefits for 200,000 veterans, and overstates the number of jobs lost under Bush.


Analysis



In a news release about its new ad, the Kerry campaign said “George W. Bush has lost credibility” and “his rhetoric does not square with his record.” But the same can be said of some parts of the Kerry ad itself.

False Statement About Veterans

At one point the ad shows Bush saying “we must provide the best care” for veterans, then shows a graphic saying: “200,000 veterans cut off from health system.” It cites the Department of Veterans Affairs as the source. But the statement is false.

In fact, no veterans have had benefits cut off under Bush. Quite the contrary, as we’ve previously noted , spending for veterans benefits has grown 27% since Bush took office, and the ranks of veterans drawing benefits have increased by more than 1 million

<snip>

Job Loss Overstated

The ad wrongly states that 2.9 million jobs have been lost under Bush, and cites the Bureau of Labor Statistics as the source. That’s wrong.

BLS figures actually show the loss in total payroll jobs has been 2.2 million jobs. The Kerry ad overstates the job loss by a number that exceeds the population of Washington DC.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=149

comment: is factcheck a reliable source? it seems that they have debunked misrepesentations on both sides.

what the ad says. One might quibble about facts, but the reality is that Bush has done monumental harm to every aspect of our country and every group of people outside of his own elite circle.

and even Greenspan says the source of the jobs not lost data is bullshit.

They appear to be a standard right wing lying GOP spin machine

But that is just my opinion.

is that what you meant, RR, or something different?

they currently have six issues under investigation and the split is 50-50 on who lied. here is a list :

Kerry’s Attack Video Misleads on Veterans, Jobs

Biggest Deficit in History? Yes and No

Did Kerry Oppose Tanks & Planes? Not Lately

Here We Go Again: Bush Exaggerates Tax Cuts

Funding for Veterans up 27%, But Democrats Call It A Cut

Bush's Misleading Attack Video

http://www.factcheck.org/default.aspx

i aggree that bush has a credibility gap, but kerry looks like bush-lite. kerry is not our only option. we need to wake up and make a good seletion. we have to live with our choice for the next four years.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

it will probably be Kerry at the end of the day. If that is the case and you don't like Kerry, you will have only two choices

Bush cuts veterans’ benefits

Letter to the Edit
Rutland Herald (VT) Apr 15m 2003

Every body claims to support the troops. Some do so by backing war. Others by not wanting to send young people to fight an illegal and immoral war. To the pro-war side, I ask, did you know that the Republican majority on the House Budget Committee in March rammed through a resolution that would cut $844 million from veterans’ medical care for next year? At the same time, they managed to come up with $900 million to give to Dick Cheney’s old company Halliburton and a few other big Republican sugar daddies who will quite conveniently be rebuilding Iraq after the war.

Over the next 10 years, the Republican changes would cut $24.7 billion from veterans’ medical care, disability compensation and other benefits. Just when they send our young men and women into military action in Iraq, the Republicans back home chop their current and future benefits. This includes, by the way, payments to their families, should they be killed in action. This is just the first step. Veterans can expect more cuts. The rich can expect more tax breaks. And the rich seldom have their children serve in the military. And guess what? Of the 434 members of Congress in the House, how many do you think has a son or daughter in the military? Just one. Thank you, Congress, for supporting our troops.

Wake up, people.

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/bush_cuts_vet_benefits_041503.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2153-2003Jun16?language=printer

"A new report by the Democratic staff on the House Appropriations Committee this week asserts that Bush, by cutting about $200 million in the program that provides assistance to public schools serving military bases, would pare education funding disproportionately for children of soldiers who fought in Iraq. That adds to several complaints the staff has assembled: Bush's signature on the latest tax cut, which failed to extend a child tax credit to nearly 200,000 low-income military personnel; a $1.5 billion reduction in his 2004 budget, to $9.2 billion from $10.7 billion, for military housing and the like; and a cut of $14.6 billion over 10 years in benefits paid through the Veterans Administration"
endquote

and regarding the 2.2 vs 2.7 million jobs, perhaps Kerry is estimating what the total job loss will be by the end of Bush's presidency.

A Dismal Record Unparalleled in the Past Half-Century

The unvarnished truth is that President Bush and his team are poor stewards of the economy: They have amassed the worst jobs record in more than half a century, piled up a mountain of government debt for the nation’s children and, equally bad, they have no realistic, fair and effective plan to fix the economy and put America back to work.



The nation has lost jobs in 25 of the 31 months that President Bush has been in office, making for the worst jobs record at this point in a presidency of any administration since Herbert Hoover. Including last month’s loss of 44,000 positions (when economists had predicted a 10,000-job increase), our economy has shed more than 2.5 million jobs and 3.2 million private-sector jobs since the president took office.



Almost 20 percent of workers in a mid-June survey had been laid off during the past three years, the overwhelmingly majority of them since the Bush Administration began.



Since January 2001, we have lost almost 2.5 million industrial jobs. Although maintaining our nation’s security at this tense time demands a strong and vibrant industrial base, manufacturing employment has fallen to its lowest level since 1958.

http://www.aflcio.org/aboutaflcio/ecouncil/ec08052003f.cfm

I encourage everyone to read the entire article. It acknowledges that Bush's proposed increase in the cost of prescription medication will result, in the projection of the VA, in 200,000 vets no longer using this benefit. The VA euphemistically says the vets will leave "voluntarily" because they can get the medication cheaper elsewhere.
I have worked with the PACE prescription coverage program for low income Pennsylvania seniors, and the Republicans did this exact thing to the program under a Republican governor/House/Senate. They raised the threshold annual deductible while also raising the allowable income. The net result was that the poorest seniors dropped out of the program "voluntarily" because they couldn't afford the annual deductible, and another result was that fewer seniors participated in the program, while the GOP bragged to the press that it had "expanded the program" by "x" thousands, because THREORETICALLY, more Pennsylvanians (because of the higher income cap) qualified.
Now, vets may choose to get their meds cheaper from Canada, or they may well choose to give up meds, such as pain killers, or blood pressure med, etc., in order to continue EATING - as I personally have seen many seniors choose.

Also the article talked about Bush's "increasing benefits to vets", but didn't say WHAT benefits. I personally know vets who have to wait longer and longer times to get medical appointments or start treatments. I suspect the VA increased some nominal, low cost benefit strictly for the purpose of spinning that it had "increased benefits". The factcheck article noticably did NOT state that the VA had increased MEDICAL benefits, did it? Exactly what benefits were increased? Inquiring minds want to know.

You also quote selectively regarding Kerry's estimate on job losses. As the article explains, Kerry was referring to private sector job losses. The article's writers chose to also calculate in an alledged increase in local, state and federal government since Bush took office. That is the source of the difference. I think Kerry is right to focus on private sector jobs. Of course, the Bush administration has floated the idea of reclassifying fast food workers as "manufacturing" jobs, and that will solve all their problems with those pesky employment stats.

So, everybody, please read it for yourselves. My conclusion is that the article could have been fairer to Kerry.

of articles . i encourage everyone to read all of the factcheck.org articles. that is why i posted the link.

sorry if i offended anyone.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It is my understanding that Kerry is accurate on all points. Factcheck uses a Bush study to say that we are only 2.2 million jobs in the hole. Kerry uses another study showing 2.7 million jobs. I think the 2.7 million jobs in the hole number is outdated and somewhat conservative. I also think that the study Kerry is using is much more accurate than Bush's study which fuzzes the numbers.

I *know* that Bush *proposed* to eleminate many Veteran's benefits in one of his huge budget bills, but I'm not sure if the Dems stopped the elimination of those benefits from passing. I'll need to research that and I'll need to research what else has happened.

Nonetheless, the factcheck people appear to be incorrect to me.