Bush Lies A-Z

Page Renovation in Progress.

Please pardon the mess as we switch to an upgraded template.

Bush Lies: From A to Z

ABORTION


LIES	FACTS
Bush justified re-imposing the Reagan era gag order prohibiting funding to overseas family planning groups that provide abortion services or counseling on the grounds that “taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions”.	The US funds that Bush cut off were only used for non-abortion activities. (David Corn 02.05.01)
Bush withheld $34 million approved by Congress for the United Nations Population Fund Agency (UNPFA) claiming that the program supported China’s one-child policy.	Bush’s own State Department conducted an investigation and found “no evidence that UNFPA has supported or participated in the management of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization” in China. Bush suppressed the report and withheld the funds anyway. Bush continues to withhold these funds despite no evidence of claimed forced abortions in China. (NOW Report – The Truth About George, Richter – Los Angeles Times 07.17.04)
During the 2000 debates, Bush claimed he would not seek to overturn the FDA’s approval of RU-486.	Bush stated he would not accept the FDA’s decision and would seek to appoint an FDA commissioner who would “make sure the FDA considered the risk”. (ABC News.com 10.4.02)

ABORTION

LIE: Bush justified re-imposing the Reagan era gag order prohibiting funding to overseas family planning groups that provide abortion services or counseling on the grounds that “taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions”.

FACT: The US funds that Bush cut off were only used for non-abortion activities. (David Corn 02.05.01)

LIE: Bush withheld $34 million approved by Congress for the United Nations Population Fund Agency (UNPFA) claiming that the program supported China’s one-child policy.

FACT: Bush’s own State Department conducted an investigation and found “no evidence that UNFPA has supported or participated in the management of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization” in China. Bush suppressed the report and withheld the funds anyway. Bush continues to withhold these funds despite no evidence of claimed forced abortions in China. (NOW Report – The Truth About George, Richter – Los Angeles Times 07.17.04)

LIE: During the debates, Bush claimed he would not seek to overturn the FDA’s approval of RU-486.

FACT: Bush stated he would not accept the FDA’s decision and would seek to appoint an FDA commissioner who would “make sure the FDA considered the risk”. (ABC News.com 10.4.02)

BUSH’S MILITARY RECORD

The media all but ignored this story in 2000 despite available records. When compared to the intense coverage of Clinton’s draft history in 1992 there were 14 stories about Clinton’s draft history for every 1 story about Bush’s. Among the TV networks the total number of stories on Bush’s National Guard “service” was: 1. (Waldman – The American Prospect 01.26.04)

In addition, in 1997 Bush deployed his gubernatorial staff to remove embarrassing details from his military records. Lt. Col Bill Burkett complained about the incident at the time and later sent a letter to the Texas State Senate that Bush’s aides improperly tampered with the file. (Daily Mis-Lead 02.12.04)

LIE: Bush promised that he would “absolutely” release all records pertaining to his military service.

FACT: The White House only released partial documentation and has refused to comply with the Associated Press’ Freedom on Information Act request for the remaining record, forcing AP to file a FOIA lawsuit. (Daily Mis-Lead 07.21.04)

LIE: After being transferred from the Texas Air National Guard “I was in [Alabama] on temporary assignment and fulfilled my weekends at one period of time.”

FACT: Bush moved to Alabama even before requesting a transfer (his initial request was denied). Once approved, Bush never showed up at the Alabama Air National Guard, despite orders to report on specific days. In fact, there are no records that he ever showed up in Alabama for duty. Bush failed to take his annual physical and was removed from flying status in August 1972 and failed to report to duty in Alabama in November 1972 as required.

Two members of Bush’s Alabama unit indicated that were told to expect Bush, were on the lookout for him but he never showed up. Recently released computerized records provide no record of Bush’s whereabouts between July 1972 and September 1972.

(Waldman – The American Prospect 01.26.04; Democrats.com, Levin & Noah – Slate 02.11.04, Center for American Progress 02.12.04, Baker – Memphis Flyer 02.14.04, Daily Mis-Lead 07.27.04)

LIE: Bush returned to Houston after his temporary Alabama assignment and performed Guard duty at Ellington Air Force Base.

FACT: National Guard records indicate Bush had “not been observed” at the Houston base and the unit’s administrative officer has no recall of Bush returning and believed he was still in Alabama. The guard was unable to conduct his yearly evaluation because “Lt. Bush has not been observed during the period of this report.”

Lawrence Korb, Assistant Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan, reviewed Bush’s payroll records and concluded he had been AWOL. This is supported by the fact that sometime between September 1973 and early 1974, the U.S. Air Force attempted to discharged Bush for failing being AWOL. (Waldman – The American Prospect 01.26.04; Democrats.com, Byrne – The Blue Lemur 08.01.04 and 08.03.04)

LIE: Bush applied to Harvard Business School in 1972 since “I was almost finished with my commitment in the Air National Guard and was no longer flying because the F-102 jet I has [sic] trained in was being replaced by a different fighter.”

FACT: Bush’s commitment was through May 1974 and his unit continued to fly F-102s through 1974. (Democrats.com)

LIE: Bush claimed that his Guard duty was not an attempt to avoid service in Vietnam since he volunteered for a program that rotated Guard pilots to Vietnam but he never was called.

FACT: Bush’s application included a box to be checked specifying whether he did or not want to volunteer for overseas duty. Bush checked the “no” box. (Democrats.com) In addition, despite scoring 25 out of a possible 100, Bush qualified for the single available pilot spot due to pressure from his father who was then in Congress. (GregPalast.com). See documentation in DOJ files detailing how strings were pulled for W. http://www.gregpalast.com/ulf/documents/draftdodgeblanked.jpg

For More Information go to: http:// www.awolbush.com

CIVIL RIGHTS & PATRIOT ACT

LIE: The Bush administration repeatedly argued that it could not release the names of detainees – even those who had not been charged or accused of terrorism – because doing so would harm national security.” The Justice Department in a sworn affidavit contended that when detainees are publicly identified “terrorist organizations with whom they have a connection may refuse to deal further with them.”

FACT: That rule does not apply when the administration needs to make disclosures for political purposes. When forced to come up some justification for its elevation of the threat level immediately after the Democratic convention based on information that was three years old, National Security Advisor Rice stated that the alert was due to the capture of Al Qaeda operative Mohammed Khan. The Justice Department’s affidavit was correct; however, since Rice’s disclosure of Khan harmed ongoing investigations. Once again, politics triumphs over security in the Bush White House. (Daily Mis-Lead 08.08.04)

LIE: "By the way, the reason I bring up the Patriot Act, it's set to expire next year. I'm starting a campaign to make it clear to members of Congress that it shouldn't expire. It shouldn't expire for the security of our country." President Bush.

FACT: Less that 10 percent of the Patriot Act expires; most of the law is permanent and those portions that do sunset will not do so until December 31, 2005. (Cassel – Counterpunch 04.26.04)

LIE: "And that changed, the law changed on- roving wiretaps were available for chasing down drug lords. They weren't available for chasing down terrorists, see?"

FACT: Roving wiretaps were available prior to 9/11 against drug lords and terrorists. Prior to the law, the FBI could get a roving wiretap against both when it had probable cause of crime for a wiretap eligible offense. What the Patriot Act did is make roving wiretaps available in intelligence investigations supervised by the secret intelligence court without the judicial safeguards of the criminal wiretap statute. (Cassel – Counterpunch 04.26.04)

LIE: "... see, I'm not a lawyer, so it's kind of hard for me to kind of get bogged down in the law. I'm not going to play like one, either. (Laughter.) The way I viewed it, if I can just put it in simple terms, is that one part of the FBI couldn't tell the other part of the FBI vital information because of the law. And the CIA and the FBI couldn't talk."

FACT: The CIA and the FBI could talk and did. As Janet Reno wrote in prepared testimony before the 9/11 commission, "There are simply no walls or restrictions on sharing the vast majority of counterterrorism information. There are no legal restrictions at all on the ability of the members of the intelligence community to share intelligence information with each other.

"With respect to sharing between intelligence investigators and criminal investigators, information learned as a result of a physical surveillance or from a confidential informant can be legally shared without restriction. While there were restrictions placed on information gathered by criminal investigators as a result of grand jury investigations or Title III wire taps, in practice they did not prove to be a serious impediment since there was very little significant information that could not be shared." (Cassel – Counterpunch 04.26.04)

LIE: "Thirdly, to give you an example of what we're talking about, there's something called delayed-notification search warrants. ... We couldn't use these against terrorists [before the Patriot Act], but we could use against gangs."

FACT: Delayed-notification - or so-called sneak-and-peek search warrants - were never limited to gangs. The circuit courts that had authorized them in limited circumstances prior to the Patriot Act did not limit the warrants to the investigation of gangs. In fact, terrorism or espionage investigators did not necessarily have to go through the criminal courts for a covert search - they could do so with even fewer safeguards against abuse by going to a top secret foreign intelligence court in Washington.

For criminal sneak-and-peek warrants, the Patriot Act added a catch-all argument for prosecutors - if notice would delay prosecution or jeopardize an investigation - which makes these secret search warrants much easier to obtain. The president's sneak-and-peek misstatement clearly demonstrates that the Patriot Act is not limited to terrorism. In fact, many of the law's expanded authorities can clearly be used outside the war on terrorism. (Cassel – Counterpunch 04.26.04)

LIE: In announcing his support for the Defense of Marriage Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage, Bush said he was reversing his previous position because of the actions in Massachusetts, New Mexico and San Francisco.

FACT: President Bush told the amendment sponsor, Rep. Marilyn Musgrave that he would support the amendment several months prior – before any state actions. (Daily Mis-Lead 03.02.04)

LIE: When asked by David Frost about the demonstrators protesting his visit to the UK, Bush responded that “Freedom is a beautiful thing, I would first say, and aren’t you lucky to be in a country that encourages people to speak their mind. And I value going to a country where people are free to say anything they want to say”.

FACT: Under Bush, the FBI has been monitoring political demonstrations and other legal activities such as using the Internet for fundraising for the first time since the Nixon-Hoover era. In addition, after 9-11 then White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said that Americans “need to watch what they say, watch what they do.” Similarly, Attorney General Ashcroft labeled any criticism of the Patriot Act as aiding terrorists. (Daily Mis-Lead 11.24.03)

LIE: Attorney General Ashcroft told there “is no evidence of racial bias in the administration of the federal death penalty”.

FACT: A September 2000 Justice Department report concluded there was racial bias in the administration of the federal death penalty. (People For the American Way – Report on Attorney General Ashcroft’s First Year)

CLINTON BASHING

LIE: At the 2000 Republican National Convention, Bush claimed that if ‘called on by the commander in chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report, ‘Not ready for duty, sir.’”

FACT: This claim was contradicted by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Defense Secretary Cohen and Bush’s own foreign policy advisor Richard Armitage. (Franken – Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them)

LIE: The Bush administration spread stories that the outgoing Clinton administration vandalized the White House with obscene graffiti, file cabinets glued shut, phone wires cut and pornography left on fax machines.

FACT: The General Accounting Office found no evidence of vandalism, wires slashed, equipment damaged or other evidence to match the allegations. (Boston Globe 05.28.01)

LIE: The Bush administration claimed that regulations issued during the final weeks of the Clinton administration were “ill-considered” and “ill-intentioned”.

FACT: Virtually all regulations issued during the final weeks of the Clinton administration had been developed over a period of years and are consistent with practices of prior administrations. (Washington Post 06.09.01).

DEFENSE & VETERANS AFFAIRS

LIE: Bush has lauded the “great courage” of those serving in Iraq and has proclaimed that “[o]ur men and women in uniform give America their best and we owe them our support.”

FACT: Bush’s support has been in words only, as he has requested major cuts in the Impact Aid program providing funds for the schooling of 900,000 children of military families. (The Daily Mis-Lead 10.13.03)

In addition, one million children living in military and veteran families are denied child tax credit help in the President’s tax cut, including 260,000 of children with parents in active duty. (Center for American Progress 12.13.03)

LIE: Bush told the VFW that “Veterans are a priority of this administration . . . and that priority is reflected in my budget.”

FACT: In 2003, Bush killed an emergency funding request that included $275 million for Veterans’ medical care, while his 2004 budget requests falls $1.9 billion short of maintaining what the American Legion called “an inadequate status quo.” Bush’s FY2005 budget cuts funding by $13.5 billion over 5 years. (The Daily Mis-Lead 10.21.03, The Center for American Progress 02.04.03)

LIE: In June 2001 Bush stated that the US would not deploy a missile defense system “that doesn’t work.”

FACT: Bush then proceeded to deploy the missile defense system even though a General Accounting Office report found only “limited data for determining whether the system will work as intended.” (Corn – The Nation 10.13.03)

EDUCATION

LIE: On a three-state education tour, Bush claimed they the administration has seriously increased funding for education, saying “we’re doing our duty; we understand that people need extra help, and the federal government is responding.”

FACT: There is a $72 billion gap between what Bush promised to spend and what he actually sought. Of the states visited, he promised $176MM for Arkansas for disadvantaged children, but only sought $117MM. Bush is seeking to reduce funding for almost one-third of Arkansas school districts. In Maryland, Bush is only seeking $171MM after promising $264MM and in West Virginia he is seeking $106MM after promising $163MM. (The Daily Mis-Lead 05.12.04)

LIE: In signing the No Child Left Behind Act, Bush declared “We’re going to spend more on our schools and we’re going to spend it more wisely.” In his 2004 State of the Union speech, he claimed “I refuse to give up on any child and the No Child Left Behind Act is opening the door of opportunity to all of America’s children.”

FACT: Bush’s FY2005 budget under-funds the No Child Left Behind (“NCLB”) program by $9.4 billion – or 27 percent less than authorized by Congress. Bush has under funded the NCLB program by $15 billion over his first three years. Most of the under funding is in the area of Title I of the Act which provided funds to schools with low income or disadvantaged students. (The Daily Distortion 10.24.03, New Democratic Network 12.02.03, Center for American Progress 02.03.04)

LIE: “I propose larger Pell Grants for students who prepare for college with demanding courses in high school.” (2004 SOU)

FACT: The Bush administration has eliminated 84,000 students from the Pell Grants program and reduced grants to another 1.5 million students. Its FY2005 budget freezes Pell Grant awards. (Center for American Progress 02.03.04)

LIE: “I’ve always felt that the community college system provides a great opportunity for job training. . . . So we’ve got the money in our budget to help invigorate the community college system.”

FACT: The Bush administration has proposed modest increases in job training funds for community colleges but this is offset by over $1 billion cut out of job training programs over the last three years. (Center for American Progress 02.23.04)

LIE: In a September 2003 speech, Bush claimed that his budget boosted spending for elementary and secondary education to $53.1 billion -- a 26 percent increase.

FACT: Bush’s budget for elementary and secondary education is only $34.9 billion (his entire education budget is $53.1 billion) and the boost he refers to is actually a $900 million cut. (Corn – The Nation 09.15.03)

ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT

CLEAN AIR

LIE: The Bush administration claims it has imposed “stringent new rules on power plant emissions”.

FACT: The new Bush rules gutted Clean Air Act restrictions to allow utilities to avoid having to install expensive new anti-pollution equipment when they modernize their plants. The EPA’s civil enforcement chief resigned in protest, while another senior EPA lawyer wrote to Christie Whitman that the administration “seems determined to weaken the rules we are trying to enforce. A study commissioned by the administration demonstrated that current policies on power plant emissions led to the death of 24,000 people each year. (Center for American Progress 12.13.03, New York Times 06.10.04)

LIE: The Bush administration claimed its new air pollution standards for plywood manufacturers, which are about “10,000 times less stringent than the level previously used by EPA”, were consistent with public health needs and available science.

FACT: In issuing the new rules, the administration relied on studies prepared by the chemical industry and ignored by the National Cancer Institute and National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health that showed exposure to formaldehyde used in manufacturing plywood caused leukemia in humans. (Miller & Hamburger – Los Angeles Times 05.21.04)

LIE: I’m a big proponent of clean coal technology to make sure we can use coal in a clean way. (2^nd Debate)

FACT: In 2000, Bush promised he would increase jobs and spend $2BB over 10 years on clean coal technologies. Bush abandoned this pledge and his FY05 budget substantially cuts funds for basic coal research (30%) and the Clean Coal Power Initiative (70%). (The Herald Dispatch 10/3/00, Department of Energy Budget Request FY2002-2005).

LIE: On her final day as EPA administrator, Christine Todd Whitman assured members of Congress that EPA would do required economic and technical studies before proposing a rule to reduce mercury emissions from power plants. After her departure she denied any knowledge that the analysis was not being conducted.

FACT: Whitman had knowledge that EPA was not doing the required analysis, as her assurances came in letter to lawmakers concerned about reports that the studies had been tabled by the White House. When the pro-industry rule weakening Clean Air Act requirements for mercury emissions came out, it was discovered that the analyses was not done and, instead, EPA only studied options that would support the White House’s desired outcome. (Miller & Hamburger – Los Angeles Times 03.19.04)

LIE: The administration claims that it has offered stringent new rules that will result in dramatic reductions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury.

FACT: The administration’s new rules weaken Clean Air Act requirements for mercury emissions by requiring that plants reduce such emissions by only 1/3 of what is required by the Clean Air Act – reducing current emissions from 48 tons to 34 tons by 2010 instead of a reduction to 5 tons by year 2007. The rules also will result in 1.4 million tons more of air pollution. (Daily Mis-Lead 12.05.03, Center for American Progress 12.13.03)

LIE: In 2002, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Air Quality Holmstead told two Senate committees that the proposed rule changes gutting the Clean Air will not “have a negative impact on enforcement cases.” In response to questioning as to whether discussed the impact of the proposed rule changes with EPA and Justice Department enforcement officials, he replied, “Yes, that was one of the primary issues that was discussed. What I can say is, based on numerous meetings that I have had, which included staff attorneys from [the Justice Department’s environmental division) as well as attorneys from our enforcement office, is we do not believe these changes will have a negative impact on the enforcement cases.”

FACT: At that time, EPA enforcement agents repeatedly told Holmstead and others that the proposed rule changes would inevitably undermine ongoing clean air enforcement cases, possibly by prompting courts to accept a more lenient standard. EPA’s former chief of enforcement stated that the new rules “substantially complicate current litigation and act as a disincentive for companies to settle.” A General Accounting Report also concluded that the policy will hinder current enforcement actions (Pianin – Washington Post 10.10.03, Shogren – Los Angeles Times 10.24.03)

LIE: In promoting his New Source Review rule, which rewrites the Clean Air Act to permit older power plants to upgrade without installing pollution control devices, President Bush stood outside Detroit Edison Monroe Power Plant claiming that existing EPA rules were too complicated to permit the plant to implement upgrades quickly.

FACT: The Edison Monroe plant, which is the 8^th largest emitter of sulfur dioxide in the US, had received the go-ahead from the EPA to proceed so long as it adhered to its stated intention of not increasing emissions as a result of the project. Under the new Bush rule, Edison Monroe can increase its emissions by 30,000 tons per year or 56 percent. (The Daily Mis-Lead 09.17.03)

LIE: A 2003 EPA ad campaign targeted at Hispanics claimed the administrations “Clear Skies” initiative would “create purer air, better health and a more brilliant future for the United States.”

FACT: The Bush initiative would allow power plants to discharge additional levels of sulfur dioxide, mercury and nitrogen then currently permitted under the Clean Air Act. Sulfur dioxide and other pollutants are associated with diseases such as emphysema and asthma that disproportionately afflict minority populations (The Daily Mis-Lead 10.20.03)

LIE: In August 2003, the EPA denied a petition from environmental groups asking the agency to regulate carbon dioxide and other emissions from new vehicles, claiming that EPA lacked the authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

FACT: The claim that EPA lacks this authority is contradicted by case law and the opinion of two prior EPA general counsels. (Zitner, Polakovic and Shogren – Los Angeles Times 08.29.03, Lee – New York Times 08.29.03)

LIE: During the 2000 campaign, Bush pledged to impose mandatory emission reductions for carbon dioxide.

FACT: Bush abandoned this pledge once elected. (CNN 03.13.01, Washington Post 03.25.02)

CLEAN WATER & MARINE LIFE

LIE: Bush claimed he is working to “restore, improve and protect at least 3 million wetland acres over the next five years.”

FACT: A study revealed that the Bush administration has “allowed developers to drain thousands of acres of wetlands” under new EPA rules. (Daily Mis-Lead 08.12.04)

LIE: In 2002, the administration claimed that 94 percent of Americans were served by drinking water that met EPA standards, exceeding the EPA’s performance standard of 91 percent.

FACT: The EPA failed to meet its performance standard, since its data failed to include 35 percent of known health standards violations. Instead, it is estimated that only 81 percent of Americans have safe drinking water under Bush in part because inspections have been cut by 50 percent. In contrast, the Clinton administration met the EPA performance standard. (Greenwatch Today 03.22.04)

LIE: In 2001, Bush reversed a Clinton administration regulation reducing the arsenic levels in drinking levels from 50 ppb to 10 ppb claiming that the regulation was a last minute decision, with EPA administrator Todd-Whitman claiming the 10 ppb standard was not based on “the best available science.”

FACT: The new EPA standard was the result of a decade of work. After the Bush administration reversed the 10 ppb, the National Academy of Sciences found that the 10 ppb standard was not only scientifically justified but that the standard could be less than 10 ppb. Under pressure, the Bush administration reinstated the 10 ppb standard even though the “best available science” suggested a lower standard was warranted. (Corn – The Nation 10.13.03)

LIE: President Bush stood before a Snake River dam and claimed credit for an increase in salmon populations in the Pacific Northwest.

FACT: Experts stated that he increased salmon was due to weather and tidal patterns in the Pacific Ocean. The increase happened in spite of the Bush administration which has fallen short of court mandated targets to improve salmon habitats and water quality. Wild salmon are still below the levels necessary to ensure their long term survival. In the summer of 2003, the water levels for the Snake and Columbia River violated the targets 93% and 100% of the days, while also violating the Clean Water Act temperature standards 77.5% and 77.4%. (American Rivers 2003 Salmon Migration Report Card 10.03.03, New York Times 10.14.03, Geranios – AP 10.16.03, New York Times.)

GLOBAL WARMING

LIE: President Bush claimed there is insufficient scientific evidence of global warming as part of his justification for withdrawing from the Kyoto Treaty.

FACT: The National Academy of Science’s 2001 report stated that there is general agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past 20 years” and that most of the warming “observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.” Similarly, an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that global temperatures were rising dramatically and this was due in part to human-induced emissions.

Most recently, a Pentagon study stated the threat posed by global warming “vastly eclipses that of terrorism.” The study said that climate change should be considered immediately as a top political and military issue and warned catastrophic results between 2007 and 2020. (Revkin – New York Times 01.12.03, Corn – The Nation 10.13.03; Al Jazeera 02.22.04 )

ENERGY CONSERVATION & ELECTRIC POWER

LIE: Bush promised to fund research on hydrogen-powered cars so that we will be “less dependent on foreign sources of energy” and “improve the environment.”

FACT: The Bush administration has “been working quietly to ensure that the system used to produce hydrogen will be fossil fuel dependent – and as potential dirty – as the one that fuels today’s SUV’s.” Up to 90% of all hydrogen will come from oil, nature gas and other fossil fuels. Bush also is paying for this program by stripping funding for programs that help automakers develop high-mileage cars and other energy conservation programs. (Daily Mis-Lead 04.28.04)

LIE: As a candidate, Bush criticized the Clinton administration for not making a greater investment in the nation’s electricity grids and promised he would seek modernization of the grids.

FACT: While the Bush White House initially called for steps to modernize the electricity grids, it did nothing to implement them. Even worse, it allowed House Republicans to defeat Democratic efforts to spend $350 million on grid modernization and played an active role in derailing $2 billion in low-interest loans for expanding transmission capacity in the Pacific Northwest. (American Politics Journal 08.16.03; Allen – Washington Post 08.23.03, The Daily Mis-Lead 10.15.03)

LIE: Bush claimed that conservation would be part of his national energy policy.

FACT: The White House spokesman indicates “that’s a big ‘no.’ The President believes that [unrestrained energy use] is an American way of life.” (ABC 05.07.01)

FOREST & NATIONAL PARKS

LIE: The Bush administration claims that its Healthy Forest Initiatives will “improve forest health and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires while upholding environmental laws [and] restoring our nation’s forest”.

FACT: Congressional Research Service reported that the initiative may increase the risk of fire since “[t]imber harvesting removes the relatively large diameter wood that can be converted into wood product but leaves behind the small material, especially twigs and needles” that contributes to such fires. The impetus behind the bill was not to prevent fires, but because the timber industry wanted to “increase commercial logging with less environmental oversight.” (Center for American Progress 12.13.03)

LIE: Bush campaigned that he would expand the “aims of the Tropical Forest Conservation Act [and] ask Congress to provide $100 million to support the exchange of debt relief for protection of tropical forests.”

FACT: Bush has provided no new funding for the program. (Boston Globe 04.10.01)

DRILLING & MINING

LIE: Secretary Norton told Congress that drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge would not harm the region’s caribou population. She also reissued a scientific report as a two page paper that claimed drilling would not result in a negative impact to wildlife.

FACT: Secretary Norton “altered or omitted” key scientific conclusions prepared by federal biologists that contradicted her view. Biologists also found that drilling would harm must oxen, snow geese and polar-bear populations and would violate an international treaty protection bears, but these findings were suppressed. In the words of one Fish and Wildlife Service Official, “to pass along facts that are false, well, that’s obviously inappropriate.” (Politics and Science in the Bush Administration, Kennedy – Rolling Stone 12.11.03)

LIE: Vice President Cheney argued that ANWR drilling would only affect 2000, acres of Dulles Airport out of a total 19 million acres.

FACT: The 2000 acres Cheney cities are not contiguous. In fact, the oil is located in 35 discrete sites spread across the reserve and to extract oil it would be necessary to have roads and a pipeline covering 135 miles of wildlife habitat. (David Corn 4.13.01)

LIE: The Bush administration claimed that drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) was necessary to “secure America’s energy needs.”

FACT: A US Geological Survey concluded that drilling at ANWR would yield only approximately two years worth of oil consumption. (Corn – The Nation 10.13.03)

LIE: The Bush administration claimed that its regulation of mountaintop removal mining (i.e., leveling mountain peaks to extract coal) would improve environmental protections.

FACT: The Bush administration rejected a tougher Clinton administration proposal and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) determined that the administration’s proposals “cannot be interpreted as ensuring any improved environmental protection.” The FWS also found the Bush proposals “belie four years of work and accumulated evidence of environmental harm, and would substitute permit process tinkering for meaningful and measurable change.” In the two decades since the practice began, 724 miles of streams have been buried and 7 percent of the Appalachian forest cut down. (Shogren – Los Angeles Times 01.07.04).

LIE: Bush sought to justify oil drilling in Montana’s Lewis and Clark National Forest on the grounds that the people of Montana support it.

FACT: The plan is opposed by Montana residents, but supported by outside oil companies. (Missoula Independent 4.26.01)

OTHER

LIE: Vice President Cheney wrote to Congress requesting that they rein in the GAO’s investigation of his Energy Task Force meetings claiming “documents responsive to the [GAO’s] inquiry concerning the cost associated with the [task force’s] work” have already been provided.

FACT: The GAO was forced to go to court to obtain the documents and lost. Cheney only produced 77 pages of useless documents which was not a complete production in response to the GAO’s request. Cheney stonewalled the GAO to hide the cozy deliberations the task force had with energy industry representatives. (Dean – Findlaw.com 08.29.03)

LIE: Bush asked Congress to exempt the military from environmental laws protecting endangered species and migratory birds on the grounds that compliance hampered military training.

FACT: A General Accounting Office report found little evidence to support this claim. (New York Times 07.09.02)

LIE: In 2002 Bush promised Nevada residents that “sound science, and not politics, must prevail” in the selection of a nuclear waste dump.

FACT: The Bush administration is proceeding with creating a nuclear waste dump in Nevada despite a GAO report that scientific testing to determine the facility’s viability would not be complete before 2006. (Washington Post 03.25.02, Christian Science Monitor 03.05.02)

LIE: During the tight 2002 South Dakota Senate race, Bush appeared at a South Dakotan ethanol plant and pledge that he supported ethanol “because not only do I know it’s important for the ag sector of our economy, it’s an important part of making sure we become less reliant on foreign sources of energy.”

FACT: Bush’s FY2004 budget eliminates funding for the bioenergy program at the South Dakota plant. (Caught On Film: The Bush Credibility Gap)

ENRONGATE & SEC

LIE: Bush attempted to distance himself from Enron’s Kenneth Lay by claiming Lay supported his opponent (Governor Richards) in 1994 and he first got to know Lay only after elected.

FACT: Lay gave $37,500 to the Bush 1994 campaign and Lay claims he was “very close” to Bush at that time. (Slate 01.17.02) The Bush-Lay connection goes back much further, as in 1988, Bush lobbied the Argentinean government to award a contract to Enron. (Mother Jones March-April 2000)

LIE: Bush pledged to increase SEC enforcement in signing the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate reform legislation.

FACT: Bush’s FY2003 budget cuts SEC enforcement by $209 million. (Boston Globe 12.29.02)

LIE: In the Enron aftermath, Bush pledged “to do more to protect worker pensions”.

FACT: Four month’s later the Bush administration announced plans to permit employers to convert traditional pension plans into “cash balance” plans that lower benefits for long-serving workers. (Caught On Film: The Bush Credibility Gap)

FAITH-BASED INITIATIVES

LIE: In 2001 the Bush administration promised to create a $700 million “Federal Compassion Fund”.

FACT: The President did not allocate a single penny for the fund in his 2001 budget. (Green – The American Prospect 07.30.01).

LIE: The Bush administration claims there exists a “widespread bias against faith-based organization’s (FBOs) in Federal service programs” and that complying with federal anti-discrimination employment laws in a major obstacle to FBO participation.

FACT: Recent studies have found no barriers to FBOs participation in government programs and “no hard evidence that hiring requirements are keeping [FBOs from applying for government contracts.” (Hudson Institute – Fruitful Collaborations, The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy – Government Partnerships with Faith-Based Service Providers).

FOREIGN POLICY

LIE: Condoleezza Rice claimed “[The President has been] very supportive of the Nunn-Lugar program [which helps secure Russian nuclear materials]. The funding was not cut. . . . All the way back in the campaign, the president talked about perhaps even increasing funding for programs of this kind." --Meet the Press, November 11, 2001.

FACT: "The administration's budget request cut the Department of Energy part of the Nunn-Lugar program from $872 million to $774 million and the Department of Defense portion by another $40 million. The "materials protection and accounting" program that safeguards and monitors Russian nuclear materials was cut $35 million; the program to subsidize research facilities for jobless Russian nuclear scientists and keep them from working for terrorists, another $10 million. (Center for American Progress, Claim v. Fact Database)

LIE: In his October 28, 2003 press conference, Bush claimed that I was the first president ever to have advocated a Palestinian state."

FACT: On January 7, 2001, President Bill Clinton said, "There can be no genuine resolution to the [Middle East] conflict without a sovereign, viable Palestinian state that accommodates Israel's security requirements and demographic realities." (Corn – BushLies.com 10.28.03)

LIE: During his Asian tour, President Bush told Indonesian news that Congress has dropped opposition to military training programs for Indonesia and that the US was ready to “go forward with” a new package of training programs.

FACT: Congressional opposition to the training programs has increased due to concerns that the Indonesian military may have been involved in the killing of two Americans in Papua. In addition, no new programs have been planned or approved. (Priest – The Washington Post 10.20.03)

LIE: White House spokesman Ari Fleischer denied tacitly endorsing the Venezuelan coup by stating that the coup was the “result of a message of the Venezuelan people.”

FACT: That is exactly what he said as the White House foolishly backed the overthrow of a democratically elected government and was the only democracy in the western hemisphere that failed to condemn the coup. In addition, the Venezuela government claims to have a videotape of US officials discussing coup preparations with dissident soldiers. (Jonathan Chait 06.04.02, AP 10.22.03)

LIE: During the campaign, Bush promised Armenian groups that he would “ensure that our nation properly recognizes the tragic suffering of the Armenian people” who were victims of a “genocidal campaign.”

FACT: The Bush administration has refused to recognize the Armenian genocide. (Redding Record Searchlight 04.24.01)

LIE: Bush promised Jewish leaders “[a]s soon as I take office I will begin the process of moving the U.S. ambassador to” Jerusalem.

FACT: Bush has suspended any action to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. (Washington Post 06.13.01)

LIE: President Bush denied blaming the Clinton Administration’s Camp David Middle East peace summit for the Palestinian intifada.

FACT: The day before issuing this denial, Bush stated “we’ve tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn’t all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area.” (Slate 4.18.02)

FOREIGN TRADE

LIE: During the campaign, Bush stated he opposed “import fees” and would “work to end tariffs and break down barriers everywhere, entirely”.

FACT: As President, Bush has imposed tariffs on steel and softwood lumber increasing costs to U.S. businesses and consumers and risking retaliatory sanctions. (Washington Post 03.25.02, Business Week 03.25.02)

HARKEN & HALLIBURTON

LIE: In September 2003, when asked by Tim Hussert whether he was “involved in any way in the awarding of [Iraq] contracts” to Halliburton, Cheney replied “Of course not, Tim. . . . And as Vice President, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts led by the [Army] Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the Federal Government."

FACT: Internal Pentagon documents reveal that the awarding of the Halliburton contracts “has been coordinate [with] VP’s office.” An internal Pentagon email reveals that the award of no-bid Halliburton contracts “has been coordinated with the VP’s office.” (Burger & Zagorin, Time Magazine 05.30.04, CAP Daily Report 06.01.04 and 06.15.04).

LIE: Bush claims that he “absolutely had no idea [about Harken’s liquidity problems] and would not have sold [his stock] had I known."

FACT: Harken’s president warned board members of liquidity problems that would “drastically affect” operations two months before Bush’s stock sale. Harken’s lawyers also circulated a memo warning executives and directors not to sell any stock. Bush sold his stock for $4/share and it quickly dropped to $1.25. (San Francisco Chronicle 07.05.02, Guardian 11.02.02, Washington Monthly 12.02)

LIE: Bush claims to have cooperated with an SEC investigation of his Harken transactions.

FACT: Bush quashed evidence that Harken’s lawyers advised Bush and other executives against selling their stock and only provided it to the SEC after it had ended its investigation. (Guardian 11.02.02)

LIE: Bush signed an agreement in which he promised to hold the Harken stock at issue for six months.

FACT: Bush sold the Harken stock two months later. (The Dubya Report 07.18.02)

LIE: Bush claimed he timely filed the required SEC disclosure form after selling his Harken stock and asserted that the SEC must have lost it.

FACT: Bush did not file until eight months after the deadline for doing so. (Washington Post 07.04.02)

LIE: Cheney claimed that while at Halliburton he imposed a “firm policy” against trading with Iraq. “[W]e’ve not done any business in Iraq since the sanctions [were] imposed, and I had a standing policy that I wouldn’t do that.”

FACT: Senior Halliburton executives claim there was no such policy. Halliburton’s affiliates signed contracts with Iraq to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment during Cheney’s tenure, helping Iraq increase crude exports by 450% between 1997 and 2000. Senior Halliburton executives were certain Cheney was aware of this business. Cheney also defended circumvention of a Clinton executive order banning US trade and investment in Iran. (Financial Times 10.05.00, Washington Post 06.23.01)

HEALTH CARE &
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

LIE: When asked about the flu vaccine crisis, Bush claimed: we relied upon a company out of England [and that] we took the right action and didn't allow contaminated medicine into our country.

FACT: That isn't true. Chiron Corp., the company whose vaccine plant was contaminated, is a California company - subject to regulation by the U.S. government - that operates a factory in England. It was the British authorities who, after inspecting the plant, revoked the factory's license on October 5th. [Daily Mis-Lead 10.18.04]

LIE: President Bush assured seniors that under his Medicare prescription drug program corporations would not “dump retirees from their existing prescription drug coverage.”

FACT: Under a little noticed provision quietly added by the administration, companies providing coverage to retirees are given a new subsidy and retain the subsidy even if they almost completely eliminate coverage for retirees. As a result, 3.8 million retirees are projected to have their coverage reduced or nearly eliminated. (Daily Mis-Lead 07.14.04).

LIE: The Bush administration claims its Medicare prescription drug cards will provide “significant price reductions off typical retail prices” for seniors.

FACT: A Congressional report found that the drug prices available to beneficiaries using the “discount cards” are no lower than existing prices and even higher than prices available in Canada, under the US Federal Supply Schedule and through discount pharmacies such as Drugstore.com. Moreover drug companies raised their prices by 3 times the rate of inflation immediately prior to the release of the “discount cards.” (Daily Mis-Lead 05.04.04, “New Medicare Drug Cards Offer Few Discounts, House Committee on Government Reform – Minority Staff April 2004, AP – 07.01.04)

LIE: During the October 17, 2000 debate, Bush promised a patients’ bill of rights like the one in his own state which included a right to sue managed-care companies for wrongfully refusing to cover needed treatments. “If I’m the president . . . people will be able to take their HMO insurance company to court.

FACT: The patients’ bill of rights bill has long been dead and the Bush administration argued before the Supreme Court against the Texas law’s provision permitting such suits

LIE: The Bush administration sold its Medicare prescription drug plan to conservatives in Congress as having a cost of $400 billion over ten years, enabling it to narrowly win passage in December 2003.

FACT: The White House knew the costs were $551 billion - more than 25 percent higher. The administration threatened to fire Medicare’s top financial analyst (Richard Foster) if he released the information. Two months after the President signed the law, the administration revised its costs estimates to $534 billion.

One month after passage of the bill, the White House revealed that the program costs actually were $534 billion - more than 25 percent higher. AARP, which worked with the administration in drafting the bill, revealed that these higher estimates were "well known in the fall" but is only now being made public. Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based budget watchdog group claim Congress got "suckered by a classic financial bait-and-switch by the administration." (Kemper & Simon - Los Angeles Times 01.31.04, Pugh - Knight Ridder 03.11.04, Kemper - Los Angeles Times 03.14.04, CAP Progress Report 03.15.04.

LIE: I haven't yet [decided to ban importation of Canadian drugs.]. I just want to make sure they're safe. When a drug comes in from Canada, I want to make sure it cures you and doesn't kill you.

FACT: White House Strongly Opposed Drug Re-Importation Despite Congressional Research Service Reports Concluding Canadian Drugs Are Just as Safe as Those in the US. . In a Statement of Administration Principals issued by the White House Office of Management and Budget on July 23, 2003, Bush stated his strong opposition to drug re-importation. The SAP states, “H.R. 2427 [to allow the re-importation of prescription drugs] is dangerous legislation. It would expose Americans to greater potential risk of harm from unsafe or ineffective drugs, would be extremely costly to implement, and would overwhelm FDA's already heavily burdened regulatory system.” This despite the fact that the Congressional Research Service, a branch of the Library of Congress, issued reports in 2001 and 2003, concluding both times that the Canadian drug supply was safe for importation to the US. The 2003 report stated, "The statutory requirements for approving and marketing pharmaceutical products in the United States and Canada are, in general, quite similar." It found that medications manufactured and distributed in Canada meet or surpass quality control guidelines set by the FDA. [Office of Management and Budget, SAP on HR 2472, 7/23/03, www.whitehouse.gov/omb; New York Times, 6/21/03; Knight Ridder, 11/27/03; USA Today, 8/12/03]

LIE: The Bush administration is fighting importation of cheaper prescription drugs from Canada by claiming they are unsafe and thereby protecting pharmaceutical companies who have given over $74 billion (or $2,033 per hour) since 2000.

FACT: HHS and FDA officials cannot identify a single American injured as a result drugs purchased from licensed Canadian pharmacies. One of the nation’s leading health experts stated the administration’s argument was “hogwash” since “drugs purchased through the Canadian health care system are every bit as safe as those available in the United States.” (Daily Mis-Lead 02.25.04)

LIE: In signing the bill, Bush declared that "some older Americans spend much of their Social Security checks just on their medications. This new law will ease the burden on seniors and will give them the extra help they need.”

FACT: Most Medicare beneficiaries will end up paying MORE for their prescriptions. The average beneficiary out-of-pocket expenses would rise from $2,318 in 2003 to $2,911 in 2007 (in 2003 dollars), since the law prohibits the government from negotiating for lower prices (unlike the VA which uses its negotiating power to save billions on drug prices). (Campaign for America’s Future Fact Sheet)

LIE: “My drug plan helps those who need it most. The new benefit provides comprehensive drug coverage for people with low incomes.”

FACT: The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that “several million of the nation’s poorest elderly and disabled beneficiaries will be made worse off by the new legislation, because they will have to pay more for drugs than they currently pay under Medicaid, will be denied coverage for some drugs they currently receive through Medicaid, or both.” The $600 "transitional" drug benefit that starts in June is not available to the 6.4 million lowest income Medicare beneficiaries who are also enrolled in Medicaid, nor to the 11.7 million seniors who have retiree coverage.

In addition, currently millions of Medicare beneficiaries have private insurance to fill the gaps in their Medicare coverage (“Medigap” policies), but the new law prohibits the sale of Medigap policies. According to the Congressional Budget Office approximately 2.7 million seniors could lose benefits more generous than provided under Medicare. (Campaign for America’s Future Fact Sheet; Center for American Progress 02.05.04)

The Bush’s Administration’s Medicare Ads

LIE: "It's the same Medicare you've always counted on, plus more benefits like prescription drug coverage."

FACT: Millions of Medicare beneficiaries will have fewer benefits due to this law. Seniors who have supplemental drug coverage through Medigap must drop it if they want to join the new drug benefit. Employers will drop drug coverage for 2.7 million retirees due to the new drug benefit. Employers will reduce drug coverage for up to 9 million additional retirees due to flawed employer subsidies in the law. 6.4 million seniors who have drug coverage through Medicaid now will be forced to enroll in the Medicare drug benefit. As a result, they will have higher cost sharing and be denied coverage entirely for some drugs. (Center for American Progress 02.05.04)

LIE: "You can save with Medicare drug discount cards this June. And save more with new prescription drug coverage in 2006."

FACT: Savings are elusive and erode over time. Drug discount cards are not guaranteed to provide any meaningful discounts, may not cover the drugs seniors need, and may change discounts and covered drugs at any time. Medicare is prohibited from maximizing savings by negotiating lower drug prices. Under the drug benefit, some beneficiaries will not save and in fact will spend more than they do now. Seniors will still have to pay up to 100% of drug costs due to the gap in coverage ("donut hole") and ability for private plans to impose strict drug formularies, prior authorization requirements, etc. The value of the drug benefit shrinks much faster than inflation, meaning seniors will have to spend an ever-increasing share of their income on prescription drugs. (Center for American Progress 02.05.04)

LIE: "So, my Medicare isn't different, it's just more?"

FACT: Less Medicare benefits for higher premiums. Higher Part B deductible beginning in 2005 and each year thereafter. Higher Part B premiums for all beginning in 2005 as a result of overpayments to private plans. Higher Part B premiums for those with incomes above $80,000 beginning in 2007. (Center for American Progress 02.05.04)

The Bush’s Administration’s Medicare Mailer

LIE: "This new law preserves and strengthens the current Medicare program.”

FACT: The bill weakens Medicare by privatizing it, at great cost to beneficiaries and taxpayers. The President estimates the new law will result in an extra $46 billion going to private plans. The Congressional Budget Office agrees with the President that the cost of covering seniors through private plans is "substantially higher" than the cost of covering them through traditional Medicare. (Center for American Progress 02.05.04)

LIE: "You will choose a prescription drug plan and pay a premium of about $35 a month."

FACT: Premiums will vary and are not limited to $35 or any other amount. Private plans get to decide what premium they want to charge. The premium will vary plan by plan, area by area, and year by year. Over time, the premium rises faster than seniors' income. (Center for American Progress 02.05.04)

LIE: "Medicare then will pay 75% of costs between $250 and $2,250 in drug spending. You will pay only 25% of these costs."

FACT: There is no guarantee that any senior will get this benefit: Private plans decide which drugs to cover and under what circumstances. Beneficiaries have to pay 100% of the costs for drugs that don't fit the plan's rules. Private plans are required to pay 75% of the costs of covered drugs on average. Actual cost sharing amounts on any particular drug may be much different. (Center for American Progress 02.05.04)

LIE: "You will pay 100% of the drug costs above $2,250 until you reach $3,600 in out-of-pocket spending."

FACT: The actual size of the gap in coverage ("donut hole") is more than twice the amount this implies. The actual gap in coverage is $2,850, not $1,350. In addition, the gap in each private plan will be set by the plan and not Medicare. Thus, the gap could be even larger. (Center for American Progress 02.05.04)

The Bush’s Administration’s Medicare 800-Line

LIE: "Extra help will also be available for people with lower incomes."

FACT: Many low-income people will be left out or lose coverage. The $600 "transitional" drug benefit that starts in June is not available to the 6.4 million lowest income Medicare beneficiaries who are also enrolled in Medicaid, nor to the 11.7 million seniors who have retiree coverage. Millions of low-income seniors may not get assistance due to eligibility restrictions for those with certain assets. Those seniors who have drug coverage through Medicaid now will be forced to enroll in the Medicare drug benefit in 2006. As a result, they will have higher cost sharing and be denied coverage entirely for some drugs. (Center for American Progress 02.05.04)

LIE: "These cards offer a discount off the full retail price of prescriptions. Savings are estimated to be 10 to 25% on many drugs."

FACT: None of these things is actually required. The discount cards do not have to offer discounts off all drugs. There is no guarantee of any discount, let alone a discount of any particular amount. Discounts and the drugs that are covered may change at any time. (Center for American Progress 02.05.04)

LIE: "Almost everyone with Medicare can choose to join a Medicare-approved drug discount card."

FACT: The 6.4 million Medicare beneficiaries who are also enrolled in Medicaid are ineligible for the discount card. (Center for American Progress 02.05.04)

LIE: "Plans might vary, but in general, all people with Medicare will have access to a voluntary prescription drug benefit, which will provide significant savings for seniors and people living with disabilities."

FACT: Plans will vary. Each private plan gets to decide which drugs it covers, with what cost-sharing, and at what premium. Also, The benefit isn't voluntary. Anyone who misses the initial enrollment period for the new drug benefit may have to wait months to enroll and face significant financial penalties. Finally, the savings are not significant. As the Center for Economic and Policy Research notes, "seniors in the middle income quintile will pay an average of $1,650 a year in out-of-pocket expenses for prescription drugs in 2006 - a figure nearly 60% more than they paid in 2000." (Center for American Progress 02.05.04)

LIE: The Bush administration touted the Medicare prescription drug expansion as creating a modern Medicare system that provides “seniors with prescription drug benefits” and establishing Health Savings Account (“HSA’s") which will allow more Americans to save for health care needs and more small businesses to help workers secure health coverage.

FACT: The Congressional Budget Office projects that 2.7 million retirees will lose their current drug coverage through their former employer since employers will drop such coverage once the Medicare benefit becomes available. The plan provides little relief for low income seniors and would cost seniors with drug expenses under $835 per year more than they currently spend. Finally, according to studies, premiums for employer-based coverage “could more than double” if HSA’s became widespread. (Center for American Progress 12.13.03)

LIE: During the debates, Bush claimed that “all seniors” and not just poor would be covered under his plan.

FACT: Only seniors at or below 135% of the poverty level would be covered in full. (ABC News.com 10.4.02)

LIE: President Bush has argued that medical malpractice reform and allowing small business to buy group insurance would make “a big difference” in reducing the 43.6 million Americans without health insurance. Vice President Cheney has argued that “medical liability reform” is the key to control health costs.

FACT: According to the Congressional Budget Office, malpractice costs account for a very small fraction of total health care spending and even radical reform ‘would have a relatively small effect on total health plan premiums”. In addition, the CBO found that allowing small businesses to buy at group rates would only add coverage for 0.6 million people, as one-third of the nation’s uninsured are employed by large companies. (The Daily Mis-Lead 10.23.03 and 07.06.04)

LIE: In banning research on embryonic stem cells, Bush claimed that the ban still would permit research on “more than 60” existing lines cells which “could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures.”

FACT: Only 11 cell lines are now available for research, all of which were grown mouse cells making them inappropriate for treating people. (Politics and Science in the Bush Administration)

LIE: Bush claimed he “brought Republicans and Democrats together” to enact a Patients Bill of Rights in Texas.

FACT: Governor Bush vetoed such a bill in 1995 and when a veto proof majority passed it, Bush allowed it to become law but refused to sign it. (Washington Post 10.18.00, Salon 10.05.02)

LIE: Bush bragged about a Texas Children’s Health Insurance Program extending coverage to 500,000 children passed while he was Governor.

FACT: Bush fought the program and tried to limit its reach to nearly half its current level. (Salon 10.05.02)

LIE: Bush stressed the need to support children’s hospitals at a 2001 appearance at an Atlanta children’s hospital.

FACT: Bush’s first budget proposed cutting grants to children’s hospitals by 15% and his FY2004 budget proposes to cut these grants by 30%. (Caught on Film: The Bush Credibility Gap)

HOUSING

LIE: Campaigning in New Mexico, Bush praised the Indian Housing and Guarantee Fund program, saying it makes “sense to have public policy aimed at helping people own their own home. I can’t think of a better use of resources.”

FACT: Apparently he can, because his budget calls for an 80 percent reduction in funding. (Associated Press 8.14.04)

JOBS

LIE: Bush has bragged about job growth in “high-growth, high-paying industries” to support his administration’s economic policies.

FACT: According to USA Today job in lower-wage industries and regions are growing at a faster pace than higher-wage jobs and this “is less potent for the economy because the majority of the new work isn’t accompanies by fat paychecks. . (Daily Mis-Lead 03.09.04)

LIE: In March 2004, Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao told Congress that the President did not sign administration’s annual economic report to Congress which promised that the President’s economic plan would create 2.6 million jobs by 2004.

FACT: In February 2004, President Bush released a personally signed copy of this report, but the administration has quickly distanced itself from the projections. (Daily Mis-Lead 03.09.04)

LIE: “Jobs are on the rise.” (SOU 2004)

FACT: While the unemployment rate dropped in December, this was due to the fact that “the economy was so bleak that 255,000 of the jobless simply stopped looking for work”. (State of the Union Response – Center for American Progress 01.20.04)

LIE: Bush claimed “I want people to understand that when somebody wants to work and can’t find a job, it says we've got a problem we’re going to deal with.”

FACT: When faced with increased out-sourcing of US job overseas, the administration’s approach to dealing with the problem was to praise outsourcing “as a good thing” for international trade.

In addition, the Bush administration actively sponsors and participates in conferences and workshops to help American companies put operations and jobs in china. (The Daily Mis-Lead 02.10.04, Center for American Progress 02.10.04)

LIE: The White House has made the following claims on job growth:

2002 – projected 3.4 million jobs for 2001-03
2004 – projected 2.6 million jobs in 2004

FACT: The White House has “repeatedly and significantly overstated . . . the number of jobs the economy would create”. Instead of creating 3.4 million jobs in their first three years, the Bush administration lost 1.7 million jobs. The Bush administration already is distancing itself from its February 9^th projection of 2.6 million jobs in 2004. (The Daily Mis-Lead 02.18.04; Milbank – Washington Post 02.24.04)

LIE: The White House proposed reclassifying low-paid fast food jobs as “manufacturing jobs”.

FACT: This is an attempt by the White House to obscure the fact that 2.7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost on his watch. Fast food preparation is not value added manufacturing and fast food jobs pay approximately 21 percent less than manufacturing jobs. (The Daily Mis-Lead 02.24.04)

POLLING

LIE: At his April 13, 2004 press conference, Bush explained "And as to whether or not I make decisions based upon polls, I don't. I just don't make decisions that way...If I tried to fine-tune my messages based upon polls; I think I'd be pretty ineffective."

FACT: "One [White House] adviser said the White House had examined polling and focus group studies in determining that it would be a mistake for Mr. Bush to appear to yield" and apologize for mistakes during the April 13 press conference. (Center for American Progress, Claim v. Fact Database)

THE RECESSION

LIE: In his December 28th radio address, Bush claimed that the recession began before he took office. Both he and Vice President Cheney have repeated this claim during the reelection campaign. The Administration also unilaterally changed the method for calculating a recession to move the starting date of the Bush recession to 2000. This is even after President Bush is on record that “our economy has been in recession since March [2001]”. (Daily Mis-Lead 09.01.04, Center for American Progress Report 09.02.04)

FACT: The economy was still growing at the end of 2000, despite the incoming administration’s attempt to talk it down. The recession began in March 2001 during the first year of the Bush administration. This is even after President Bush is on record that “our economy has been in recession since March [2001]”. (Slate 12.30.02, Progress Report 03.03.04, Daily Mis-Lead 09.01.04, Center for American Progress Report 09.02.04)

SOCIAL SECURITY

LIE: I understand that they need to get better rates of return than the rates of return being given in the current Social Security trust, and the compounding rate of interest effect will make it more likely that the social security system is solvent for our children and our grandchildren. (3^RD Debate)

FACT: CBO: Bush Plan Will Force Benefit Cuts. According to CBO, the President’s plan “would reduce expected retirement benefits relative to scheduled benefits, even when the benefits paid from IAs [individual accounts] under CSSS Plan 2 are included… For example, benefits for the 1980s birth cohort would be 30 percent lower, and benefits for the 2000s cohort would be 45 percent lower.” [CBO, “Long-term Analysis of Plan 2 of the President’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security,” 7/21/2004, page 15 and Table 2

TAX AND DEFICIT LIES
THE BIG 18

LIES:		FACTS:
#1 In 2000 and 2001 Bush promised that Social Security Funds would remain in a lockbox and that “we can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits even if the economy softens” since his budget projections are “cautious and conservative”.		This is a classic case of The Big Lie and fuzzy math. The simple truth is that, due to Bush’s $1.35 trillion giveaway, a $236 billion budget surplus has been wasted and we face a projected record deficit of $307 billion in 2004. Bush’s 2004 budget will increase the national debt by $2-3 trillion and require that the government use the entire Social Security surplus to fund its deficits. (1)
#2 President Bush claimed that he requested his 2001 tax cuts because of the recession. The administration also sought to justify cuts on the grounds that the US could only repay $2 trillion of its $3.2 trillion debt over the next ten years since $1.2 trillion would not mature until after that point – therefore why not use the $1.2 trillion for tax cuts.		Bush’s 2001 tax cuts are virtually identical to the tax package he campaigned on for more than a year during the end of the Clinton boom. (11) Bush also misstated the limitations on debt repayment. In reality only $500 billion could not be repaid within ten years. (20)

#3 As the budget deficit emerged; Bush assured us that the deficits would be “small and temporary”. He also stated “I remember campaigning in Chicago and one of the reporters said, ‘Would you ever deficit spend?’ I said, ‘Only – only – in times of war, in times of economy insecurity as a result of a recession or in times of national emergency.’ Never did I dream we’d have a trifecta.’” The White House repeated this trifecta claim throughout 2002.		Bush never made such a statement in Chicago nor anywhere else during the 2000 campaign. In fact, these three caveats on deficits were stated on several occasions by Vice President Gore. (2) Bush’s attempt to pin the deficit on the war also is a misstatement, since the cost of the Bush tax cuts is three times the cost of the response to 9-11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. (2)
#4 Faced with growing deficits, President Bush and Glenn Hubbard, the chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors, now claim that deficits do not matter and have no impact on interest rates.		As recent as 2002 the President said, “I’m mindful of what overspending can mean to interest rates or expectations of interest rates.” As for Hubbard, the 2002 edition of his textbook “Money, the Financial System and the Economy” not only states that higher deficits increase interest rates but also provides a formula to calculate the increase in interest rates per dollar increase in spending or tax cuts. In fact, in July 2003 interest rates on 10-year U.S. Treasuries jumped from 3.1% to almost 4%. Leading Treasury Secretary Snow to call the deficit “worrisome” and express concern that federal borrowing would crowd out private investment. The International Monetary Fund concluded that Bush’s fiscal policies “will make it more difficult to cope with the aging of the baby boom generation and will eventually crowd out investment and erode US productivity growth”; and called for the US to put in place a “credible fiscal framework” with the objective of balancing the budget. (3)
#5 In 2003, Bush offers a “stimulus package” that calls for $670 billion in additional tax cuts. Vice President Cheney argues the tax cuts are necessary to prevent a double dip recession. In 2004, Bush claimed “the economic stimulus plan that I passed is making a big difference.”		Even the Bush friendly Economist rejects the notion that the $670 billion Bush plan is a “stimulus package.” “Even by the Bush team’s own numbers, this is not an efficient short-term stimulus package: it pumps only around $100 billion of the tax cuts into the economy over the next year. And most of the money goes to richer Americans, whom economists reckon are less likely to spend the additional cash than poorer ones.” (4) A study by Economy.com attributes on 0.9 percent out of the total 7.2 percent growth for Q3 2003 to the tax cuts. (18)
#6 Both Bush and Ari Fleischer proclaimed that a report by Blue-Chip economist concluded that the economy would grow by 3.3 percent in 2003 if the President’s tax proposals were adopted. Bush also claimed that the tax cuts would create 344,000 new jobs per month and that it would result in increased incomes and living standards “for American workers”.		No such report exists. (5) As of September 30, 2003, there has only been a net gain of 57,000 jobs since the 2003 tax cuts became effective, while the economy lost a net of 2.75 million jobs since passage of the 2001 tax cuts. The Bush campaign now claims that the tax cuts have created 1.4 million jobs, but this is at a cost of $756 billion through 2004 or $540,000 per job. In addition, real wages have declined 1.2% on Bush’s watch. (10) Canada also instituted tax cuts but which were “more modest”, targeted the breaks towards the middle class and left the top rate in place. A comparisons of the results of the Bush and Canadian tax cuts are significant: (1) Job Growth (Jan 01 - April 04) Canada – up 5.6% U.S. – down 1.4% (2) Surplus (Jan 01 - April 04) Canada – surplus unchanged U.S. – went from surplus equal to 1.9% of GDP to deficit equal to nearly 4% of GDP. (21)
#7 Bush and the Republicans claim that the 2003 tax cut proposal benefits all Americans and that ninety-two million Americans will receive an average of almost $1,100. “My tax relief plan is a fair one, lowering the rate for all taxpayers.”		Even President Bush knows this is false, as he repeatedly asked his advisors “[h]aven’t we already given money to rich people? This second tax cut’s gonna do it again. . . . [S]houldn’t we be giving money to the middle?” His advisors instructed him to “stick to principle.” (12) Nearly one-third (31%) of all taxpayers, would receive nothing and 64 million taxpayers (nearly half [48%]) would get less than $100. The average taxpayer (i.e., taxpayers in the middle fifth 20%) would only get $289 under this proposal. In contrast, the top 1% of taxpayers would get $30,127 while those earning more than $1 million would get according nearly $90,200.(6) “Since 2001, President Bush’s tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families, the Congressional Budget Office has found.” [Washington Post, “Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle,” 8/13/04] NON-PARTISAN CBO REPORTS BUSH SHIFTED TAX BURDEN TO THE MIDDLE CLASS Wealthiest taxpayers saw share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. [CBO] Middle-class families saw their tax burden jump from 18.7 percent of Federal taxes to 19.5 percent of Federal taxes. [CBO] Bush tax cuts are 70 times larger for top 1 percent of taxpayers than for middle-class families. [CBO]
#8 The 2003 tax cuts will help reduce the deficit because the resulting economic growth will offset tax losses. When the deficit for FYE 2003 was reported below projections at $374 billion, White House aides claimed that the deficit was on a “downward path.”		The Congressional Budget Office (headed by a former Bush White House supply-sider) found that even under the more favorable "dynamic scoring" methodology the tax cuts would result in more than $1 trillion in deficits over the next five years alone and that the economic stimulus claims asserted by the White House were "not obvious." The Comptroller General found the administration’s claim that the tax cuts would help reduce the federal deficit to be “flat false.” In order to balance the budget by 2013, the government would have to either: (i) raise income taxes by 27 percent and cutting social security spending by 60 percent and defense spending by 73 percent or (ii) cutting all programs except for defense, homeland security, social security and Medicare by 40 percent. The Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation found that the tax cuts would have minimal effects initially and then the positive effects "are eventually likely to be outweighed by a reduction in national savings due to increasing federal deficits." The Committee also predicted job growth of between 230,000 to 90,000 jobs during the first five years, with no growth or job losses in the next five years. (7) The $374 billion deficit does not include $87 billion for Iraq, $400 million for Medicare, $500 billion for increased defense spending and $1.8 trillion to make the “temporary” tax cuts permanent. (9)
#9 The Bush administration repeatedly low-balled budget projections in order to persuade Congress to pass its tax cuts. The Bush administration’s projection for FYE 2003 have been as follows: April 2001: $334 billion surplus Feb. 2002: $80 billion deficit Feb. 2003: $304 billion deficit The projections for FYE 2004 have been: Feb. 2002: $14 billion deficit. Feb. 2003: $307 billion deficit.		In July 2003, the Bush administration announced that the deficit will reach $455 billion for FYE 2003. Without the Bush tax cuts, however, the deficit would be $278 billion. By 2011, these tax cuts will have cost $3.7 trillion. The $455 billion estimate is deceptive, however, since: (i) it does not even include the costs of U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan which exceed $4 billion per month; but (ii) it does include the Social Security surplus. Without the Social Security surplus, the deficit would total $614 billion plus the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan operations. For FYE 2004, the Bush administration now projects a deficit of $521 billion. (8)
#10 On April 24, 2003, Bush campaigned to make permanent all aspects of his 2001 tax plan stating that while Congress adopted his plan “the problem is they responded with a phased-in program. They said tax relief was important and tax relief should be robust, but they phased it in over a number of years – three years in some cases, five years in others and seven years. Listen, all I’m asking Congress to do is to take the tax relief package they’ve already passed, accelerate it to this year so that we can get this economy started and people can find work.”		President Bush requested that the tax cuts be phased in over five year, both when he first offered the plan in 1999 and when he submitted it to Congress in February 2001, in order to minimize the total costs of the tax cuts. In essence, Bush sold a discounted version of his plan for political reasons, but now wants Americans to pay full price. (11)
#11 The Bush administration is claiming that it is fiscally responsible. Vice President Cheney said on Meet the Press that both he and the President were “deficit hawks.” The Bush administration also claims it has held spending increases for non-military or homeland security matters to 6 percent for FY2002, 5 percent for FY2003 and 3 percent for FY2004.		After Treasury Secretary O’Neil opposed the 2003 tax cuts because of its effect on the deficit and the need to address Social Security, Cheney’s response was “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due”. (12) The administration’s numbers are bogus. The conservative Cato Institute found increases of 6.8, 8.3 and 6.3 percent for 2002-2004, while the Heritage Foundation projected spending would increase by 9 percent in 2004. (13)
#12 In December 2003, Bush claimed that his tax cuts were “geared toward small businesses.” In 2001, he claimed that more than 17.4 million small business owners would benefit from a drop in the top rate from 39.6% to 33%. In 2003 he claimed the second tax cut would give “23 million small business owners an average tax cut of $2,042.”		IRS and Treasury Department data indicate that only 3.7 percent of small business owners were subject to the top rates, meaning that for every small business owner who benefits under the tax cuts there are 15 who do not. Nearly 80 percent of small businesses received less than $2,042 and 52% received $500 or less. (14) In addition, the administration has hiked fees for small business loans.(17)
#13 In February 2004, President Bush claimed that “the reason we are where we are, in terms of the deficit is because we went through a recession, we were attacked, and we’re fighting a war.” His FY2005 budget declares that “[t]oday’s budget deficits are the unavoidable product of revenue erosion from the stock market collapse that began in early 2000, an economy recovering from recession, and a nation confronting serious national security threats.”		In fact, the single biggest cause of the deficits is the Bush tax cuts which account for 36% of the current deficits. This, however, increases over time as the economy recovers. Using the Administration’s optimistic projected 2009 budget deficit of $272 billion, the tax cuts will account for 67 percent ($183 billion) of this amount. (15)
#14 Bush’s FY2005 budget claims to half the record *$521 billion* budget deficit over the next five years.		This claim is based on multiple lies, deceptions and omissions. (1) The administration’s budget does not include any funding for military operations or reconstruction in Iraq or Afghanistan even though it concedes our troops will be there beyond 2005. This alone easily adds nearly *$50 billion* to the deficit. (2) The administration is based on unrealistic assumptions. It assumes record revenue growth of 13.3% in 2005 something not seen since 1981 and even exceeding the growth rate in 2000 during the peak of the stock-bubble capital gains windfall. This is consistent with revenue estimates for 2002-2004 which on average were overstated by approximately 13 percent. The administration also assumes rates for unemployment, inflation and bond yields lower than consensus estimates. (3) The administration budget ends at 2009 when the Bush tax cuts expire. If Congress makes these tax cuts permanent as requested by the administration, the deficit will increase by $936 billion over the following five years. (16)
#15 “We cut taxes, which basically meant people had more money in their pocket.”		While Bush is cutting taxes for the rich he also is raising fees for government services ($5.9 billion in FYE 2004 alone) and states have been forced to do increase taxes and fees as a the impact of the tax cuts, cuts in aid to states and new unfunded mandates have added a $39 – 98 billion burden to the states. For example: (1) Since Bush took office states have raised taxes $20.2 billion annually (after 7 consecutive years of tax cuts) (2) Tuition at state colleges and universities have increased 35% since 2001 while the administration is cutting education aid. (3) Property tax collections rose more than 10% last year alone to pay for under-funded schools and services. (4) Increased fees for a variety of programs from small business loans to national parks. Under Bush, veterans’ co-payments for prescription drugs are to rise from $2 in 2002 to $15 in 2005. (17)
#16 “If you look at the appropriations bills that were passed under my watch, in the last year of President Clinton, discretionary spending was up 15 percent and ours have steadily declined.”		Not even close. During his eight years, President Clinton increased domestic discretionary spending by 10 percent. In his last year, discretionary spending was up only 3 percent. Under Bush discretionary spending has increased every single year and is now 31 percent higher than when he took office. He has increased domestic discretionary spending by 25 percent – or 2 ½ times the increase under eight years of Clinton. (19)
#17 The Bush administration has categorized its 2004 tax cut as a “middle-class tax cut.”		The top 1/5^th of earners receive 2/3rds of all benefits and the bill excluded extending the child tax credit to 4 million low income families who do not qualify. Middle class earners will receive an average cut of $162 in 2005.
#18 Most of the tax cuts went to low and middle income Americans, and now the tax code is more fair, 20 percent of the upper income people pay about 80 percent of the taxes in America today because of how we structured the tax cuts.		In 2004, Top One Percent Will Receive Average Tax Cut Of $35,000; Middle Class Will Receive Average Tax Cut Of $647. The benefits of Bush’s tax cuts primarily benefit the rich. The top one percent of households will receive tax cuts averaging almost $35,000--or 54 times more than middle-class families. Households with incomes above $1 million will receive tax cuts averaging about $123,600. (23)

Sources: (1) New York Times 02.04.03, McKenna – Globe and Mail 02.04.03, Conrad & Spratt – Washington Post 02.04.03; (2) New Republic 07.01.02, Washington Post 07.02.02, Alter – Newsweek 07.28.03, Center for American Progress 01.16.04; (3) New Republic 01.13.03, 01.20.03, Editors – Los Angeles Times 07.17.03, Harding – Financial Times 08.07.03; (4) L.A. Times 11.11.03, Economist 11.11.03, (5) Toedtman – Newsday 02.23.03, (6) Citizens for Tax Justice (http://www.cjt.org), The New Republic – 02.10.03, Daily MisLead 01.13.04, (7) New York Times 04.06.03, Washington Post 05.14.03, The Bush Economic Record: Will Short-Term Gain Lead to Long-Term Prosperity or Long-Term Pain; (8) Weisman – Washington Post 07.16.03, Editors - Washington Post 07.16.03, Editors – New York Times 07.17.03; Krugman – New York Times 07.18.03, Los Angeles Times 10.07.03; Milbank – Washington Post 02.24.04 (9) Minneapolis Star Tribune 10.23.03; (10) The Daily Mis-Lead 10.03.03, The Daily Mis-Lead 11.05.03, Citizens for Tax Justice 09.23.03; (11) Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, War Tax Cuts and the Deficit 07.08.03; (12)Noah – Slate 01.10.04, 60 Minutes 01.11.04; Dionne – Washington Post 09.16.03; (13) Weisman – Washington Post 12.26.03; (14) Daily MisLead 12.02.03; (15)Daily MisLead 02.03.04, Washington Post 02.03.04; (16) Gross – Washington Post 02.02.04; Center for American Progress 02.03.04; Washington Post 02.03.04; Harris – Business Week 02.03.04; (17)Center for American Progress 02.20.04, The College Board Annual Survey of Colleges, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 09.13.04; (18)Center for American Progress – Claim v Fact: The President on Meet the Press, (19) Noah – Slate 02.09.04; (20) Suskind – The Price of Loyalty; (21) Center for American Progress 04.30.04; (22) Daily Mis-Lead 09.24.04 (23) Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/14/04

Caught on Film: The Bush Credibility Gap
In addition, in February 2003 Congressional Democrats began to press this case, launching a campaign on the Bush "credibility gap" on budget matters.

Click Here to View

MORE TAX AND DEFICIT LIES

LIE: In May 2003, President Bush signed into law tax cut legislation which excluded low and moderate income families from the expanded child tax credit. The White House promised to address this omission.

FACT: It has been over six months since the White House’s promise and no action has been taken to date. (Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee)
See Running Clock On Failure to Address Child Tax Credit: http://www.dscc.org/welcome/

LIE: During the campaign, Bush claimed that the “vast majority” of the tax cuts go the “those at the bottom end of the economic ladder

FACT: The bottom sixty percentile received only 12.6 percent of the proposed tax cut, while the top one percent would receive almost half. (Franken – Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, Corn – The Nation 10.13.03)
LIE: The Bush administration reported a $158 billion deficit for 2002 by reporting expenses when paid not when incurred.

FACT: Had the Bush administration used accrual method of accounting as recommended by Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan, the 2002 deficit would increase by 230% to $365 billion.

LIE: The Bush administration promised in late 2002 to repeal the loophole that allows US companies who incorporate off-shore in order to avoid taxes to receive contracts from the Homeland Security Department.

FACT: Bush has not taken any action on this issue. (Ackerman – Newsweek 07.28.03)
LIE: In light of his promise to keep Social Security in a lock box, the Bush administration promised to preserve surpluses “at least the size of the Social Security surplus” as a “threshold condition of public finance.”

FACT: Bush's 2004 budget requires the government to use the entire Social Security surplus to fund deficits over the next ten years. (Conrad & Spratt - Washington Post 02.04.03)
LIE: “To keep farms in the family, we are going to get rid of the death tax.”

FACT: The American Farm Bureau Federation could not cite a single example of a farm lost because of estate taxes. Only the richest two percent pay estate taxes. (New York Times 04.08.01)

BushLies.net

Documenting the Bush Reign of Error Since 2003

Home/BIG LIES

About Bush Lies

Lies A to Z

9-11 Lies

Iraq Lies

Secrecy

Bush's Heirs - GOP 08

Clinton v. Bush

Links

Contact & Legal Stuff

ABORTION

ABORTION

DEFENSE & VETERANS AFFAIRS

LIE: Bush has lauded the “great courage” of those serving in Iraq and has proclaimed that “[o]ur men and women in uniform give America their best and we owe them our support.”

FACT: Bush’s support has been in words only, as he has requested major cuts in the Impact Aid program providing funds for the schooling of 900,000 children of military families. (The Daily Mis-Lead 10.13.03)

In addition, one million children living in military and veteran families are denied child tax credit help in the President’s tax cut, including 260,000 of children with parents in active duty. (Center for American Progress 12.13.03)

LIE: Bush told the VFW that “Veterans are a priority of this administration . . . and that priority is reflected in my budget.”

LIE: In June 2001 Bush stated that the US would not deploy a missile defense system “that doesn’t work.”

FACT: Bush then proceeded to deploy the missile defense system even though a General Accounting Office report found only “limited data for determining whether the system will work as intended.” (Corn – The Nation 10.13.03)

EDUCATION

LIE: In a September 2003 speech, Bush claimed that his budget boosted spending for elementary and secondary education to $53.1 billion -- a 26 percent increase.

FACT: Bush’s budget for elementary and secondary education is only $34.9 billion (his entire education budget is $53.1 billion) and the boost he refers to is actually a $900 million cut. (Corn – The Nation 09.15.03)

ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT

CLEAN AIR

CLEAN WATER & MARINE LIFE

GLOBAL WARMING

ENERGY CONSERVATION & ELECTRIC POWER

FOREST & NATIONAL PARKS

DRILLING & MINING

OTHER

FACT: Bush’s FY2004 budget eliminates funding for the bioenergy program at the South Dakota plant. (Caught On Film: The Bush Credibility Gap)

HOUSING

JOBS