Let's take a look at that site, shall we? Hmm...
–Child Tax Credit: The ad further claims that Kerry voted 18 times for "higher taxes on middle class parents." All these were votes against Republican proposals for granting tax credits for families with children, going back to 1994, and many were votes against broad Republican tax packages that included expanded child credits as one element. Strictly speaking, those weren't votes to raise taxes as the ad implies, but votes to keep taxes unchanged. Now, Kerry says he'd preserve the child tax credits currently on the books.
The ad never really said that it was a tax increase. However, it was to deny tax relief to parents. He wants to keep the tax credit for children the same, which really doesn't do much if it doesn't get adjusted for inflation.
–Gasoline Tax: The ad claims that Kerry voted to "raise gas taxes on the middle class 10 times," which is false. As we've noted before, five of those votes were on the 1993 Clinton package, which resulted in a 4.3-cent per gallon increase in the federal gasoline tax. And five of the votes were not to raise the tax, as the ad falsely claims, but were against Republican attempts to cut the gasoline tax. Four were against repeal of Clinton's 4.3-cent tax after it had gone into effect. The last vote was against temporarily suspending the 18.4-cent federal gasoline tax entirely for 150 days during a period of spiking gasoline prices in 2000.
The Bush ad also recycles once again the statement that Kerry "supported a 50 cent a gallon gas tax increase," which (as we've noted before) hasn't been true for a decade. Kerry once told newspaper interviewers that he deserved credit as a deficit hawk for supporting such an increase, but the fact is he had passed up a chance to cosponsor a Senate bill that would have done that, never voted for such an increase, and says he opposes such an increase now.
Let's see.. as it says, YES, he DID vote several times for the Clinton gas take increase. He also didn't vote to repeal it, and also didn't vote to temporarily suspend it while there was a large price hike. Let's also read the fine print in the second paragraph: "hasn't been true for over a decade". I can agree with that statement. However, before that "Decade" began, he DID vote for it. So he didn't cosponsor another bill to do that again, and now he opposes what he voted for before.
–Social Security: It's true as the ad states that Kerry voted to increase taxes on Social Security benefits, an increase included in the 1993 deficit-cutting package. That increased tax goes to help pay for Medicare, and is paid only by those making $44,000 a year or more for a married couple, falling on roughly the highest-earning 18% of Social Security recipients.
Interesting point. Thanks for pointing to a source that points this out. I repeal my earlier words regarding the taxing social security statement. (Yes, I can admit when I was ill-informed)
–Middle Class:Generally this ad attempts to discredit Kerry's promise not to raise taxes on the "middle class," but in fact many of the votes cited by the Bush campaign are votes to do pretty much what he promises to do if elected: raise taxes on upper-income taxpayers. The votes on the fiscal '96 budget are a good example, as the increases would have fallen on those making over $140,000 a year.Currently, Kerry promises to repeal the Bush cuts only for those making over $200,000 a year.
Now, I can understand how one might think that the rich getting the tax breaks is not good. I also remember one person saying that the rich don't want to pay their "fair share" of taxes. Well, like I've said before, the top 2% pay for more than HALF of the country's taxes. MORE THAN HALF. FROM 2%. So, let me understand this.... despite the fact that the rich pay for more than half of every government service you use in your daily life, they aren't paying their fair share? Tell ya what. Cut the garbagemen by 50%. Cut the police by 50%. Cut the public works, the courts, and the public schools by 50%. That's what it would be like if the rich weren't paying the taxes they do now. Would you like the rest of that 50% put on you? I don't think so. Besides, who makes the decisions in the big businesses? The rich. Who has to make the decision to expand? The rich. Who have to make decisions that effect the lives of their employees? That's right. The people in the boardrooms. If a small business starts taking off, and the owner makes more than 200k a year, he's going to find the tax relief he started off with taken away. That means less money to pay employees, and less money to expand. The more money you take away from successful businesses, the less they have for their workers and benefits. Think about it.
