A Bush Flip-Flop-A-Day Keeps the Talking Heads Away*

* Busy trashing Kerry as the flip-flopper

Total count to date = 39
[32 on the Economy and 7 on Trade]

To send flipflops, feedback or comments, please click here. 
[Thanks to the following blogs/sites, where I got some of these links from: Atrios, Buzzflash, Talkingpointsmemo, Billmon, DailyKos, Dwight Meredith (Wampum) and Center for American Progress (CAP)]

1. Economy

1.1 Start of the recession, part 1

1.2, 1.3 Start of the recession, part 2

1.4 Who gets credit for economic growth?

1.5 Tax cuts can be had without deficits, even in a recession

1.6 Tax cuts for everyone who pays taxes

1.7 Tax cuts for everyone who pays income taxes

1.8 Tax cuts focused on the bottom end of income scale

1.9 Size of 2001 tax cut

1.10, 1.11 Tax cuts "paying for themselves" and surpluses

1.12 Taxing income twice

1.13 No tax pledge (sales taxes)

1.14 Steward of taxpayer money

1.15 Lack of tax cuts is a tax raise

1.16 Expiring tax cuts

1.17 Passing on deficits to future generations

1.18 Retiring the National Debt

1.19 Link between budget deficits and interest rates

1.20, 1.21 Preservation of Social Security Surplus

1.22, 1.23, 1.24, 1.25 Curtailing spending

1.26 Job creation from 2003 tax cuts

1.27 Class warfare

1.28, 1.29 SEC oversight of businesses

1.30, 1.31 Long term budget projections

1.32 Fiscal policy accounts for emergencies

2. Trade

2.1 Impact of tariffs on jobs

2.2, 2.3 Agricultural Subsidies

2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 Ending tariffs

1. Economy [includes Budgets, Tax Cuts, Jobs, etc.]

1.1 Start of the recession, part 1

FLOP
8/7/02 - [Bush] "...When I took office, our economy was beginning a recession..."
5/03
[Bush]: "And so the market started going down in March of 2000. And then we went into a recession. That's three quarters of negative growth. From January of 2001, for the three quarters ending, starting January 2001, we were negative."
[Bush]: "In January of 2001, we were in a recession, which meant three quarters of negative growth"
[Bush]: "And then our nation went into a recession, starting January 1st of 2001. That means three quarters of negative growth"
IN SHORT:
Recession started in Jan 2001

FLIP
12/1/01 - [Bush]: "This week, the official announcement came that our economy has been in recession since March"
Flashback to 2001 - [Link]: "But as Slate's Daniel Gross pointed out in December, the January 2001 start date is not accurate -- the shorthand definition of a recession as two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth is not accepted by professional economists. They look to an official committee at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), which takes a closer look at a set of more precise monthly statistics and dates the start and end of each recession to a month (rather than a quarter) based on a complex set of factors. Based on this information, NBER's committee determined in November 2001 that a cyclical peak had been reached in March 2001 and that a recession began in the same month (NBER has not declared an end to the recession.)
Mankiw, Bush's nominee for chairman of CEA, recently stated his agreement with this assessment of the NBER committee's role, telling the Wall Street Journal in 2001 that a recession "is whatever they [the NBER committee] want to call a recession." He added, "Economic growth is sort of more on a continuum, there's nothing special about zero," referring to the two quarters of negative growth definition. Mankiw later went on to serve on the NBER committee (subsequent to the November announcement), where he served for a short period before resigning due to his CEA nomination.
The previous chair of CEA, R. Glenn Hubbard, also endorsed NBER's role in defining a recession during his term at the White House, stating in a December 14, 2001 speech [152 KB PDF] that NBER "made its official declaration that the United States is in recession" and that it "dated the cyclical peak in March 2001."..."
Also see here.
IN SHORT:
Recession did not start in Jan 2001, but rather in March 2001

1.2, 1.3 Start of the recession, part 2

FLIP
8/7/02 - [Bush] "...When I took office, our economy was beginning a recession..."
5/03
[Bush]: "And so the market started going down in March of 2000. And then we went into a recession. That's three quarters of negative growth. From January of 2001, for the three quarters ending, starting January 2001, we were negative."
[Bush]: "In January of 2001, we were in a recession, which meant three quarters of negative growth"
[Bush]: "And then our nation went into a recession, starting January 1st of 2001. That means three quarters of negative growth"
IN SHORT:
Recession started in Jan 2001 and was inherited from Clinton

FLOP
5/12/03 - [Bush]: "We have got a recession because we went to war"
IN SHORT:
Recession did not start Jan 2001 but because we went to war (presumably in Afghanistan - presumably Iraq is not included in this since the recession started in 2001 but who knows when the recession really started in the mind of Dear Leader)

FLIP AGAIN
5/13/03 (yes, the next day) - [Bush]: "And then our nation went into a recession, starting January 1st of 2001. That means three quarters of negative growth"
IN SHORT:
Recession started in Jan 2001 and was inherited from Clinton

1.4 Who gets credit for economic growth?

FLIP
10/3/00 - [Bush]: "...I think the economy has meant more for the Gore and Clinton folks than the Gore and Clinton folks has meant for the economy. I think most of the economic growth that has taken place is a result of ingenuity and hard work and entrepreneurship..."
IN SHORT:
Economic growth has more to do with people's ingenuity, hard work and entrepreneurship than the President's actions

FLOP
10/30/03 - [Link]: "...The White House claimed credit today for the surge in economic growth, saying the $1.7 trillion in tax cuts championed by President Bush had helped the nation overcome recession and the economic effects of the terrorist attacks, two wars and corporate scandals..."The tax relief we passed is working," Mr. Bush said to workers at an aluminum plant in this state that is seen as crucial in his re-election bid. "We're making progress," the president said earlier at a fundraiser for his re-election campaign. "But we will not stop until there are jobs aplenty for those looking for work."...."
IN SHORT:
[My] Tax cut plan and economic policy are the reason the economy is recovering and growing 

1.5 Tax cuts can be had without deficits, even in a recession

FLIP
3/27/01 - [Bush]: "...we can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens. Projections for the surplus in my budget are cautious and conservative. They already assume an economic slowdown in the year 2001..."
IN SHORT:
Tax cuts will be implemented WITHOUT budget deficits, even in a RECESSION

FLOP
1/13/03 - [Link]: "Consider President Bush's view of deficits. His initial position, while peddling his tax cut on the campaign trail and in the first months of his presidency, was that a return to deficits was inconceivable. "We can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens," he said in March 2001. "The projections for the surplus in my budget are cautious and conservative." When, in the late summer and early fall of that year, budget forecasts first showed deficits on the horizon, he dismissed them as "speculative" and "guesswork." When finally forced to acknowledge the inevitability of deficits last spring, he insisted they would be "small and temporary." Meanwhile, he'd begun laying the groundwork to shift the blame away from his tax cut and onto such factors as the September 11 attacks, the recession, and big-spending Democrats. But, with the recession and the terrorist attacks now receding into the past and unified control of the government in GOP hands, deficits are still projected to remain a large and permanent feature of the Bush presidency. And so it has become necessary for the administration to retreat to yet another new line of defense: Deficits don't matter."
9/13/04 - [Link]: "Data in the Administration’s own Mid-Session Budget Review indicates that the tax cuts have played a larger role than all other legislation enacted since the start of 2001 in the emergence of the current sizable budget deficit, and that the tax cuts account for the majority of the current deficit. 

• The Mid-Session Budget Review, released July 30, shows that to date, the tax cuts have accounted for 57 percent of the cost of all legislation enacted since the Administration took office.  The tax cuts thus have contributed more to the worsening fiscal picture than all other new government policies combined — more than the sum of the costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan , the war on terrorism, increases in homeland security, and all domestic spending increases.

• The Mid-Session Review data also show that the tax cuts account for well over half of the 2004 deficit.

• These findings, which are consistent with new CBO data released September 7, contradict claims made by a number of policymakers and activists with an ideological axe to grind who have argued that the recent tax cuts have contributed little or nothing to the deterioration of the budget outlook.

...

• Among the budgetary factors over which policymakers have control (i.e., legislation that policymakers enact into law, as contrasted with changes in the economy), the tax cuts constitute the single largest cause of the shift from surpluses to deficits.  The tax cuts are more expensive than all spending increases combined — including new spending for homeland security, the war in Iraq , operations in Afghanistan , expanded anti-terrorism efforts, and all domestic spending increases..."

IN SHORT:
Tax cuts will be implemented WITH budget deficits, even in a RECOVERY

1.6 Tax cuts for everyone who pays taxes

FLIP
6/17/00 - [Bush] "...We're not for targeted tax cuts. We're for saying anybody who pays taxes in America ought to get tax relief..."
10/3/00 - [Bush]: "...[Gore] says he's going to give you tax cuts; 50 million of you won't receive it. He said, in his speech, he wants to make sure the right people get tax relief. That's not the role of a president to decide right and wrong. Everybody who pays taxes ought to get tax relief..."
[Bush]: "...I can't let [Gore] continue with fuzzy math. It's $1.3 trillion, Mr. Vice President. It's going to go to everybody who pays taxes. I'm not going to be one of these kinds of presidents that says, "You get tax relief and you don't." I'm not going to be a pick-and-chooser..."
IN SHORT:
Tax cuts should be for everyone who pays taxes. I won't pick and choose who gets tax cuts and who won't.

FLOP
2/6/01 - [Link]: 
"

• The plan does not reduce taxes for everyone who pays taxes. Many low-income working families that do not owe income tax pay significant payroll taxes, even when the effects of the Earned Income Tax Credit are considered; these families are not aided by the plan.

• A single mother with two children who works full time and earns $22,000 would receive no tax cut whatsoever under the Bush plan. This may be the reason that after citing such a mother on February 2, the President retooled his example the next day..."

2/7/01 - [Link]: "About 12 million low- and moderate-income families with children — nearly one in every three U.S. families — would not receive any assistance from the tax provisions that President Bush is likely to send to Congress on February 8. An estimated 24 million children under age 18 — one in every three children — live in these families. 
For certain groups, the proportions of families and children not benefitting from the plan are higher. A majority of black and Hispanic children live in families that would not benefit from the plan. For these families and their children, the tax package neither raises after-tax income nor reduces their frequently high marginal tax rates."
Also see here.

IN SHORT:
Tax cuts should NOT be for everyone who pays taxes. I WILL pick and choose who gets tax cuts and who won't.

1.7 Tax cuts for everyone who pays income taxes

FLIP
4/26/03 - [Bush] "...My jobs and growth plan would reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax..."
IN SHORT:
2003 Tax Cuts will help everyone who pays income taxes

FLOP
6/1/03 - [Link]: "President Bush declared several weeks ago in promoting his proposal, “My jobs and growth plan would reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax.”[2]   White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer stated on May 29 of the new tax-cut law (which includes all of the provisions of the President’s plan in full or in part), “This certainly does deliver tax relief to people who pay income taxes.”
...
New analysis by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center demonstrates, however, that such claims are not accurate.  The Tax Policy Center analysis shows that 8.1 million lower and middle-income taxpayers, who pay billions of dollars a year in income taxes, will receive no tax reduction under the legislation.  (“Taxpayer” is defined here as a tax filer who pays federal income tax.)  These taxpayers also would have received no tax reductions under the Administration’s plan.
The 8.1 million figure includes 5.6 million taxpayers who pay more than $250 in income tax.  The Tax Policy Center data show, in fact, that nearly half of all Americans who pay between $250 and $750 in income tax — 45 percent of such taxpayers — will receive no tax cut under the new law.  The 8.1 million taxpayers who will receive no tax cut also include 1.8 million taxpayers who pay more than $1,000 in income tax.
The 8.1 million taxpayers left out of the legislation are 44 times the number of taxpayers who have incomes exceeding $1 million."
IN SHORT:
2003 Tax Cuts will NOT help everyone who pays income taxes

1.8 Tax cuts focused on the bottom end of income scale

FLIP
3/1/01 - [Bush] "...If you pay taxes, you should get tax relief...I agree with my critics, however, that those on the bottom end should get the most help...."
IN SHORT: 
Tax cuts should provide most help for those at the BOTTOM end of the income scale

FLOP
2/6/01 - [Link]: "

• The bottom 40 percent of tax filers would receive four percent of the tax cuts. The average tax cut for this group would be $115.

• The bottom 60 percent of filers would receive 13 percent of the tax cuts, receiving an average of $227 each. The bottom 80 percent of taxpayers would receive 29 percent of the tax cuts.

• The 20 percent of filers exactly in the middle of the income spectrum would receive eight percent of the tax cuts and get an average tax reduction of $453.

• By contrast, the richest one-percent of Americans would receive 43 percent of the total tax cuts, receiving an average tax cut of $46,000 each. The top five percent of filers would garner a little more than half of the tax cuts..."

9/13/04 - [link]: (bold text is Compassiongate emphasis) 
"Including the corporate tax cuts, our estimates based on the CBO data indicate:

• The top one percent of households would receive an average tax cut of $78,460 2004 — more than 70 times the average tax cut received by the middle fifth of households. 

• The top one percent of households will receive one third of the tax cuts in 2004, which is substantially larger than the share of federal taxes they pay.  (For a more detailed discussion on the tax cuts and the share of tax burdens paid, see Appendix 1.)

...The CBO data also include estimates that exclude the effects of the corporate tax cuts.  In part because the largest corporate tax cut is currently scheduled to expire at the end of this year, we emphasize these estimates here.[5]  Even if both the corporate and estate tax cuts are excluded, the size of the tax cuts provided to different income groups still varies dramatically.  According to the CBO data, the effects of the tax cuts when the corporate tax cuts (as well as the estate tax reductions) are not included in the analysis are as follows:

• Those in the bottom fifth of households, with average incomes of just $16,600, will receive an average tax cut of $230 in 2004.

• The fifth of households in the middle of the income spectrum, with average incomes of $57,400, will receive an average tax cut of $980.

• By contrast, the top fifth of households, with average incomes of $203,700, will receive tax cuts averaging $4,890.

• And the top one percent of households – with average incomes of $1,171,000 – will receive an average tax cut of $40,990.  This is more than 40 times the size of the average tax cut going to the middle fifth of households.

Another approach to examining the distribution of the tax cuts is to examine how the tax cuts affect the “after-tax” income of households at different income levels.  Economists generally regard this measure as the best measure of the effect of changes in tax policy on the distribution of income.  After-tax income represents how much households have available to spend and save.  By this measure as well, the tax cuts are lopsided, disproportionately benefiting those at the top of the income spectrum.  According to the CBO data:

• The bottom 20 percent of Americans will see their after-tax incomes increase by an average of 1.5 percent due to the Bush tax cuts, while the tax cuts will raise the after-tax income of the middle 60 percent by about 2 percent, on average.

• Those in the top quintile will enjoy larger after-tax income gains, with after-tax income increasing 3.3 percent due to the tax cuts.

• The top one percent will see its after-tax income grow by an average of 5.3 percent, more than double the percentage increase enjoyed by the middle quintile.[6]

• Because the top one percent of households is receiving a disproportionately large increase in after-tax income, the tax cuts have led to a greater concentration of income among those at the top of the income spectrum (and have decreased correspondingly the share of after-tax income received by low- and middle-income households).

As lopsided as the tax cuts are in 2004, their distribution will become more uneven in future years.  In future years, several other tax breaks that go almost entirely to high-income households — the eventual elimination of the estate tax as well as the removal of the limitation on itemized deductions and the use of personal exemptions for high-income households — are scheduled to phase in.  In contrast, the principal tax cuts that benefit middle- and low-income households are fully in effect in 2004.
...
Eventually, the tax cuts will have to be financed...To date, the tax cuts have been financed through bigger deficits.  This postpones but does not eliminate the need to pay for the tax cuts.  The situation is analogous to a consumer charging a major purchase to a credit card.  The charge postpones, but does not eliminate, the need for the ultimate payment. Because there is uncertainty about how the tax cuts will ultimately be financed, the Tax Policy Center/CBPP report examined two hypothetical scenarios.  In both scenarios, the annual cost of the tax cuts from the 2001 and 2003 tax legislation (when fully phased in) would be paid for fully, so the net effect of the tax cuts on the budget would be zero.
...
In the first scenario, every household would pay the same dollar amount to finance the tax cuts.  Something close to this scenario could occur if the tax cuts were financed largely or entirely through spending cuts.  If this were to occur:

• Households in the middle quintile would, on net, lose an average of about $870 per household per year from the tax cuts.

• In contrast, the top one percent of households would still benefit handsomely from the tax cuts.  Even after taking into account the financing measures, the top one percent of households would end up ahead by an average of $38,780 per year.

In the study’s second scenario, households would pay for the tax cuts in proportion to their incomes.  This would be more akin to funding the tax cuts by some combination of spending cuts and tax increases.  Even under this scenario, low- and middle-income Americans would lose out — while those at the top gained.  Under this scenario:

• Households in the middle quintile would lose an average of $230 per year.

• Those in the top one percent would still gain an average of $14,790 per year.

While other financing scenarios can be imagined, most households are likely to wind up as net losers under almost any scenario to pay for the tax cuts, other than repealing major parts of the tax cuts themselves."
IN SHORT: 
Tax cuts should provide most help for those at the TOP end of the income scale.

1.9 Size of 2001 tax cut [via Jonathan Last, LA Times]

FLIP
1/14/01 - [Bush]: "...said he planned to quickly introduce his plan to cut taxes by an amount now estimated at $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years as a single bill, perhaps modifying it to deepen the tax cuts in the next few years so that it could spur a slowing economy. Asked if he was willing to negotiate the size of his proposed tax cut with a sharply divided Congress, he shot back: "The answer is no. I think it's the right number."..."
IN SHORT:
2001 tax cut will be $1.6 trillion. I will not negotiate a lower number.

FLOP
6/7/01 - [Link]:"President George W. Bush signed into law Thursday the first major piece of legislation of his presidency, a $1.35 trillion tax cut over 10 years."
IN SHORT:
Did I mention I negotiated the size of the tax cut down from $1.6 trillion to $1.35 trillion? 

1.10, 1.11 Tax cuts "paying for themselves" and surpluses

FLIP
12/7/99 - [[Bush]: "I refuse to accept the premise that surpluses are going to decline if I’m the president. I think they’re going to increase, because my [tax cut] plan will increase productivity by cutting marginal rates."
IN SHORT:
My tax cuts will increase productivity and pay for themselves in the long-term, resulting in higher surpluses! Surpluses will NOT decline if I am President! 

FLOP
11/13/02 - [Bush]: "[W]e have a deficit because tax revenues are down. Make no mistake about it, the tax relief package that we passed -- that should be permanent, by the way -- has helped the economy, and that the deficit would have been bigger without the tax relief package." 
1/7/03 - [Bush]: [Claimed that his tax cut proposals] "are essential for the long run... to lay the groundwork for future growth and future prosperity. That growth will bring the added benefit of higher revenues for the government -- revenues that will keep tax rates low..." 
1/30/03 - [Cheney for Bush]: "By leaving more money in the hands of the people who earn it, people who will spend and invest and save and add momentum to our recovery, we'll help create more jobs and ultimately increase tax revenues for the government." 
1/8/03 - [Fleischer for Bush]: "The entire package the President does believe will lead to growth, which will over time grow the economy, create additional revenues for the federal government and pay for itself."
IN SHORT:
Er, the surpluses did decline while I was President. But, guess what, my tax cuts will increase revenues to the Treasury and pay for themselves in the long-term, resulting in reduced deficits

FLOPPITY FLOP
5/16/03 - [Link]: "During testimony before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs on Tuesday [Real Player video], Mankiw [Bush's Council of Economic Advisors chair] contradicted Bush and misrepresented the President's statements on the revenue effects of tax cuts. Under questioning from Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) about opposition to his nomination from Club for Growth president Stephen Moore, Mankiw said Moore was criticizing "a passage where I had raised skepticism about claims that tax cuts would generate so much employment growth as to be completely self-financing. And I remain skeptical of those claims." Mankiw added that "the most extreme advocates of tax cuts, I think, sometimes paint an excessively rosy picture out of what they can get out of them. I don't think this administration has done that." 
...
As we previously pointed out, the CEA's 2003 Economic Report of the President also casts doubt on these claims [2.7 MB PDF]:

The modest effect of government debt on interest rates does not mean that tax cuts pay for themselves with higher output. Although the economy grows in response to tax reductions (because of higher consumption in the short run and improved incentives in the long run), it is unlikely to grow so much that lost tax revenue is completely recovered by the higher level of economic activity..."

IN SHORT:
Er, tax cuts will NOT increase revenues to the Treasury such that they pay for themselves in the long-term

1.12 Taxing income twice

FLIP
1/6/03 - [Bush]: "...it's unfair to tax money twice. There's a principle involved. The government ought to be content with taxing revenue streams or profits one time, not twice..."
IN SHORT:
Income should NOT be taxed twice and there's a principle involved

FLOP
1/7/03 - [Link]: "But Bush was silent about the biggest double tax of all, one that hits every working American, not just the one-fourth of tax-return filers who report stock dividends. It's the income tax layered upon the portion of a worker's paycheck that is withheld to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes.
Say a family has $60,000 in wage income. Of that, $3,720 is deducted from its paychecks for Social Security taxes, and an additional $870 is taken out for the Medicare tax. That's $4,590 that the family never sees. Nevertheless that money is taxed as personal income, as if the family received it. What it amounts to is a tax upon a tax.
And that's only the beginning. Some 10 million Americans are triple taxed, and that group's ranks swell by 1 million a year. When retirees begin to collect Social Security benefits, the income tax is again imposed on up to 85% of their benefits for those whose overall income exceeds a fixed level. For a husband and wife, it's $32,000 a year. For a single person, it's $25,000.
Because these base amounts do not rise with inflation, the number of retirees subject to the triple tax will grow each year. As a result, the tax will eventually hit many who can ill afford to pay it. And this is happening at a time when an increasing number of Americans are forced to work past their planned retirement age because of depleted pensions and retirement accounts. For 2000, 7.7 million individuals and families with incomes below $75,000 were taxed on their Social Security checks.
Be that as it may, the President's plan focuses on stockholders rather than workers. With certain exceptions, citizens would no longer pay tax on corporate dividends. The President's rationale: corporations already pay an income tax on their profits from which the dividends are paid to stockholders, and then those stockholders pay individual income tax on the dividends, thereby creating a double tax.
For 2000, the latest year for which complete tax data are available, 34 million tax filers reported receiving dividends. But the benefits flow largely to upper-income people. Just 7.9 million individuals and families--those who filed returns with incomes of more than $100,000--reaped two-thirds of the total dividends of $147 billion. In short, 6% of 129.4 million tax filers would enjoy most of the benefits from ending the double tax on dividends.
By contrast, TIME estimates that 100 million wage earners would profit from elimination of the double tax on Social Security and Medicare. And some 90% of those people take home less than $100,000 a year. People like Michael Kasprzak and Betty Williams of Seattle."
1/6/03 - [Link]: "Proponents of a tax preference for dividend income have pushed the notion that the taxation of dividend income amounts to double taxation. The basis for this claim is that corporate profits are subject to the corporate income tax. Since dividends are paid out of profits, the argument is that the personal income tax paid on dividend income amounts to a second tax on corporate profits. This logic is dubious for two reasons. First, there is a legal and logical distinction between the corporation as an entity and the individual shareholders who own the firm. Second, the tax rates currently in place were set with the knowledge that there was both a corporate and individual income tax. This means that if there is a moral objection to “double taxation” then the appropriate remedy would also require an increase in the corporate income tax...
The corporation is subject to taxation in exchange for the privileges granted to it by the government. The shareholders are subject to tax on their dividend income, just as workers are subject to tax on wage income. The same income—that is, income to the same people or entity—is not being taxed twice"
1/21/03 - [Link]: "...Corporate dividends, however, are not the only kind of income that is taxed twice. Other taxes create a double, triple or even quintuple burden. And unlike the double taxation of dividends, which mainly affects the wealthy, the burden of other forms of multiple taxation — sales taxes, import taxes, payroll taxes, among others — often falls most heavily on poorer Americans..."
IN SHORT:
Income could be taxed twice, thrice or even more and there's NO principle involved

1.13 No tax pledge (sales taxes)

FLIP-FLOP
1/10/00 - [Link]:
"Q: [to Bush & Forbes]: Forbes’ TV ad says that in 1994 you signed a pledge to not support sales tax or business tax increases, and in 1997 you broke the pledge.
BUSH: I led my state, in 1997, to the largest tax cut in Texas history. I laid out a plan that cut $1 billion of property taxes.. I am a tax-cutting person.
FORBES: There was a lot of hedging about this pledge. The pledge was made in 1994. I have a copy of it here, promising not to raise the sales tax or to propose any kind of income tax. When he proposed this bill in 1997 it did have provisions in there for tax increases including increasing a sales tax. Pledges should not be lightly made and a pledge is a promise. Bush’s own staff admits that he broke the pledge. In 1998, I supported you & I would have voted for you. But you did break that pledge.
BUSH: [People] need to look at the results. That’s what’s important. The results are people from all walks of life received a substantial tax cut under me as the governor of Texas."
IN SHORT:
Although I pledged that I would never raise sales taxes, I did

1.14 Steward of taxpayer money

FLOP
4/15/04 - [Bush]: "People also expect from their public service (sic) a wise stewardship of the taxpayers' money."
IN SHORT:
Public servants should be wise stewards of taxpayer money.

FLIP
6/16/04 - [Link]: "Why, you might ask did White House "advance" aides order the Pentagon, with one day's notice, to build a $100,000 platform -- with red carpet, a walkway and an artificial island -- over a memorial pool at the U.S. cemetery at Colleville-sur-Mer during the D-Day 60th anniversary?
So Bush and French President Jacques Chirac could "walk in style to the dais," the New York Daily News reports. "That money will have to come out of some account that otherwise would be spent on soldiers," a source told the newspaper.
The Progress Report points out today that "the revelations about the Bush administration's disregard for taxpayer money are not new. Last year, the president had the government spend about $1 million for his aircraft carrier photo-op when he declared major combat over in Iraq. In 2001, the administration spent $34 million to send every taxpayer a letter trumpeting the president's tax cuts for the wealthy. And as AP reports, 'President Bush is using Air Force One for re-election travel more heavily than any predecessor, wringing maximum political mileage from a perk of office paid for by taxpayers.' Air Force One costs roughly $56,800-per-hour to run, and Bush is forcing the government to pick up most of the tab of his 68,000 miles traveled, much of it to swing states where he holds campaign events."..."
IN SHORT:
Public servants do not necessarily have to be wise stewards of taxpayer money.

1.15 Lack of tax cuts is a tax raise

FLOP
1/5/02 - [Bush]: "There's going to be people who say, we can't have the tax cut go through anymore. That's a tax raise. And I challenge their economics, when they say raising taxes will help the country recover. Not over my dead body will they raise your taxes."
IN SHORT:
Canceling tax cuts amounts to a tax increase

FLIP
What Happened Earlier in 2001 - [Link]: "When you tell most people they're getting a tax increase, of course, they think their tax rate is going to go up. Canceling the unimplemented portions of the Bush tax cut would do no such thing. It would merely give people a smaller tax cut than they had been promised. You could argue that once the government has promised a future tax cut, any downward deviation from that promise counts as a tax increase--and indeed this seems to be the position that Republicans are taking. But it's a spectacularly dishonest one, for two reasons. First, to minimize its ten-year budgetary cost, the Bush tax cut is scheduled to phase out entirely after 2010, at which point (barring what tax-cutters hope will be a routine extension) taxes will revert to their pre-Bush level. So, according to the logic being used against Democrats, supporters of the Bush tax cut actually voted for the largest tax increase in American history."
IN SHORT:
Canceling tax cuts does NOT amount to a tax increase

1.16 Expiring tax cuts [via Angry Bear/Brad DeLong]

FLIP 
2001 - [Bush]: "...This tax relief plan is principled. Today is a great day for America. It is the first major achievement of a new era, an era of steady cooperation. And more achievements are ahead. I thank the members of Congress in both parties who made today possible. Together, we will lead our country to new progress and new possibilities. It is now my honor to sign the first broad tax relief in a generation..."
IN SHORT:
2001 tax cuts (which expire sometime in the future) are right for the country and it is my honor to sign this into law.

FLOP
10/30/03 - [Bush] : "...The tax relief we passed is scheduled to go away...For the sake of job creation, there needs to be certainty in the tax code [CG emphasis]..."

3/4/04 - [Bush]: "...And finally, we need to make sure the tax cuts are permanent. See, the tax cuts are set to expire. That's what a lot of people don't understand. This is an important part of the dialogue in Washington, D.C. now, is how to make sure the economy continues to grow. These job creators need certainty in the tax code. You can't have taxes go down one year and up the next. They need certainty when it comes to planning. They need to be able to have certainty when it comes to their investment deductibility. That's what they need..."
IN SHORT:
2001 tax cuts expire sometime in the future and that is not right. Job creation requires certainty in the tax code and taxes should not go down one year and go back up the next. 

1.17 Passing on deficits to future generations

FLOP
9-13-04 - [Link]: "CBO’s latest figures reinforce a number of concerns.

• The deficit is rising when it should be falling, indicating the emergence of a structural deficit:  At this point in previous economic recoveries, deficits have almost invariably begun to shrink rather than continued to rise.  The current economic recovery, however, is different; it has featured the largest deterioration in the government’s fiscal position of any recovery since World War II.  A substantial “structural” deficit has developed that will persist as the economy grows, unless policies change. 

• Realistic assumptions indicate deficits will total $4.4 trillion over the next decade:  Although CBO’s official projections show deficits declining over the next ten years to $65 billion by 2014, CBO notes that its official projections do not reflect the costs of extending the tax cuts beyond their scheduled expiration dates.  As CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin testified in July, “...baseline revenue projections are made less reliable by the existence of expirations that few people expect to occur as written in current law.”[2]  In addition, while CBO’s projections overstate likely future costs of military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan , they otherwise include defense levels below those CBO estimates to be needed to fully fund the Administration’s multi-year defense plan.

• CBO’s new report and other CBO documents include additional estimates indicating that if the tax cuts are continued and projected defense expenditures are adjusted to make them more realistic (including both a downward adjustment to reflect an assumption that operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will phase down over the next few years and an upward adjustment to reflect the full cost of the Administration’s multi-year defense plan), projected deficits will not fall below $340 billion in any year, will average more than $440 billion per year over the next decade, and will total approximately $4.4 trillion over the ten-year period. (A recent Goldman-Sachs analysis concludes that the ten-year deficit is likely to be higher and could total between $5 trillion and $6 trillion.)..."

IN SHORT:
We WILL pass on our budget deficits (borrowings) to future generations because we owe this kind of irresponsibility to our children and grandchildren

1.18 Retiring the National Debt

FLOP
4/02 - [Link]: "...Bush Administration Asked for $750 Billion Permanent Increase in Debt Ceiling. In December 2001, the Bush administration announced that it would be forced to ask Congress to increase the $5.95 trillion federal debt ceiling in order to avoid a breach. The Bush administration asked Congress to raise the debt limit by $750 billion. The Washington Post headline read, "In Switch, Administration Seeks to Boost Debt Ceiling Now" [Associated Press, 3/12/02; Washington Post, 12/4/01]
Bush Treasury Secretary Tapped Government Retirement Funds to Avoid Debt Limit Breach. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill announced that he would temporarily tap funds from government retirement programs for federal employees to avoid defaulting on the national debt. "The Secretary has today notified in writing the Congress and the Executive Director of the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board of his intention to suspend investments of securities in the Government Securities Investment Fund (G-Fund) beginning on April 4 and ending on or about April 18, 2002," the Treasury Department said. [Treasury Fact Sheet, 4/2/02; Washington Post, 4/3/02]..."
9/19/04 - [Link]: "The Outstanding Public Debt as of 19 Sep 2004 at 02:33:51 PM GMT is: $7,381,851,495,674.94 [over $7.3 trillion]. The estimated population of the United States is 294,313,979 so each citizen's share of this debt is $25,081.55. The National Debt has continued to increase an average of $1.69 billion per day since September 30, 2003!..."
6/13/03 - [Link]: "National debt when Bush entered office (as of close of business, Friday, 1/19/2001, since he was inaugurated on the weekend): $5,727,776,738,304.64 [about $5.7 trillion]"
There's a lot more here, showing how Bush is increasing the National Debt by an even bigger amount.
IN SHORT:
What national debt? Please Congress, let me borrow more! 
Will INCREASE National Debt by about $1.5 Trillion by 2005.

1.19 Link between budget deficits and interest rates

FLIP
11/11/02 - [Hubbard for Bush]: "As an economist, I don't buy that there's a link between swings in the budget deficit of the size we see in the United States and interest rates. There's just no evidence."
1/10/03 - [Cheney for Bush]: "[T]hey argue that increased deficits necessarily lead to increased interest rates, which, in turn, slows economic growth. But the argument has one slight flaw. The evidence of recent years simply doesn't support it."
2/3/03 - [Daniels for Bush] : "Well, the idea that there is some connection between deficits and interest rates is an article of faith for some people, but I say "faith" because there's just no evidence, zero. And at least at the levels that we are now experiencing, historically very moderate -- and as we see it, declining deficits -- one would not expect an impact. You can expect an impact from greater economic growth, which we all hope will occur and which this budget attempts to make more likely. But as a direct effect of these deficits, no. We've gone from surplus to deficit, and interest rates have gone down. So I do not see that correlation."
IN SHORT:
There is no link between budget deficits and interest rates.

FLOP
2/13/03 - [Link]: "But when he's being less rhetorical, Hubbard has admitted some connection between the two. UC-Berkeley economist and former Clinton administration official Brad DeLong points out (here and here) that Hubbard's statements contradict those he has previously made in his economics textbook. And when pushed on details, Hubbard concedes a relationship; CBS Marketwatch reported that Hubbard believes "an extra $200 billion of deficit that lasted a year would only raise interest rates by a tenth of a percentage point at the most, hardly enough to crimp investment." (Note: He is eliding the criticism that long-term deficits raise interest rates significantly more here.) 
The ERP expresses a similar view, again in contradiction with the administration's talking points, conceding that a relationship exists between deficits and higher interest rates but describing it as a "modest effect":

Some calculations ... imply that interest rates rise by about 3 basis points for every $200 billion in additional government debt. Given this relationship between government debt and interest rates, concerns that higher interest rates would choke off the stimulative effects of recent tax reductions seem unwarranted. For example, this relationship implies that the $1.3 trillion in tax relief included in EGTRRA would raise interest rates by only about 19 basis points--a modest cost to be set against the long-term incentive-based benefits expected from lower marginal tax rates.

In both cases, the ERP is simply inconsistent with the statements of Bush, Cheney, Fleischer and Daniels. The administration owes it to the public to get its story straight and stop making pronouncements about economics that its own experts disagree with."
IN SHORT:
There is at least a "modest" link between budget deficits and interest rates.

1.20, 1.21 Preservation of Social Security Surplus

FLIP
2/27/01 - [Bush] "...To make sure the retirement savings of America’s seniors are not diverted into any other program, my budget protects all $2.6 trillion of the Social Security surplus for Social Security and for Social Security alone..."
10/3/00 - [Bush]: "...The revenues exceed the expenses in Social Security to the year 2015, which means all retirees are going to get the promises made. So for those of you who [Gore] wants to scare into the voting booth to vote for him, hear me loud and clear: A promise made will be a promise kept..."
3/22/01 - [Bush] "...For years, politicians in both parties have dipped into the Trust Fund to pay for more spending. And I will stop it..."
IN SHORT:
(a) Will protect Social Security surplus in its entirety - a promise made on safeguarding Social Security surplus will be a promise kept
(b) Will never dip into Social Security Surplus to finance spending

FLOP
7/11/01 - [Link]:"During last year's campaign, George W. Bush solemnly pledged that his tax cuts would not come at the expense of future retirees, that the reserve the Social Security system was accumulating to help it pay benefits to the baby boomers would be kept in a "lockbox" — that is, that Social Security surpluses would not be used to cover deficits in the rest of the budget. 
Ever since Mr. Bush was sworn in, however, it has been apparent that he takes some of his promises more seriously than others. And so no sooner were big tax cuts for the rich in the bag — an event followed, with breathtaking speed, by the revelation that revenue projections are in free fall — than administration officials suddenly discovered that the lockbox is a silly idea. Here's what Mitch Daniels, director of the Office of Management and Budget, said last weekend: "There is no box, there is no mattress. Paul O'Neill doesn't have a hole in the backyard where this money goes. . . . What's unfair is to mislead the American people into thinking this money's in a box somewhere. It isn't. That box has nothing but promissory notes in it." (Thanks to Joshua Micah Marshall for that quote.)
Clearly, Mr. Daniels knows that because of the tax cut Mr. Bush will soon break his promise to protect the Social Security surplus. (I could have told you that would happen eventually. In fact, I did. But the truth is coming out ahead of schedule.)"
4/02 - [Link]: 
"Bush Budget Will Spend the Entire Social Security Trust Fund Over Next Two Years. The Wall Street Journal reported that Bush uses "all the Social Security surpluses ... to fund the government for the next two years, and to spend well over $100 billion of Social Security funds in each of the following three years." [Wall Street Journal, 2/5/02]
Bush Raids Social Security Trust Fund of $1.6 Trillion. A House Budget Committee Democratic staff analysis of the Bush budget proposal found that over the next ten years $1.6 trillion of the Social Security Trust Fund is spent on other government operations. CBO found that without assuming any new spending — such as homeland security and prescription drug coverage for Medicare — the Social Security Trust Fund would be raided every year through FY 2009. After including Bush's spending proposals, CBO predicted a trust fund raid every year through 2012 and an on-budget deficit of $1.8 trillion. [House Budget Committee, Democratic Staff, "Return to Red Ink: Back to Budget Deficits," 2/8/02; CBO, Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2003-2012, 1/31/02, Summary Table 2; CBO, An Analysis of the President's Budgetary Proposals for 2003, Table 1, 3/6/02]
Bush Was on Track to Breach Social Security Trust Fund Before September 2001. Contrary to Bush and Republican rhetoric that the terrorist attacks of September 11 forced the raid of the Social Security Trust Fund, CBO reported as early as August 2001 that Bush was due to tap the Trust Fund. CBO also said the Bush administration would raid the Trust Fund again in FY 2003 and 2004. USA Today reported, "The White House is backing away from its pledge to protect every cent of Social Security reserves in the face of a report today that the government is tapping Social Security taxes for other programs." [Associated Press, 4/7/02; CBO, The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update, August 2001; USA Today, 8/28/01]" 
1/9/04 - [Link]: "In the 2000 campaign, Vice President Al Gore said we should sequester the Social Security surpluses in a "lockbox" to prevent appropriators from spending them. Bush agreed in principle. But that commitment went out the window soon after the inauguration. In his first three budgets, Bush (who had the good fortune to take office at a time when the surpluses were growing rapidly) and Congress used $480 billion in excess Social Security payroll taxes to fund basic government operations—about $160 billion per year! 
By so doing, Washington spenders have masked the size of the deficit. For Fiscal 2004—which began in October 2003—if you factor out the $164 billion Social Security surplus, the on-budget deficit will be at least $639 billion, rather close to the modern peak of 6 percent of GDP. And according to its own projections (the bottom line of Table 8 represents the Social Security surplus), the administration plans to spend an additional $990 billion in such funds between now and 2008. That year, according to the Office of Management and Budget's projections, the on-budget deficit will be about $464 billion. Only by using that year's $238 billion Social Security surplus does the administration arrive at a total, unified deficit of $226 billion. And the ultimate on-budget deficit will almost certainly be worse. OMB has proven in the past few years that its projections can't be trusted.
The accounting for Social Security surpluses has always been dishonest. But in the past few years, the Bush administration has made this shady accounting a central pillar of its fiscal strategy. The unprecedented reliance on these funds hides the failure of the administration to ensure that there is some reasonable correlation between the resources it has at its disposal and the spending commitments it makes. Bush & Co. have redesigned the tax system so that collections of the progressive taxes that are supposed to fund government operations—like individual income taxes—have plummeted. Instead, with each passing year we rely for our current needs more on the regressive payroll taxes that are supposed to fund our collective retirement."
Also see here, here, here, here, and here.
IN SHORT:
(a) Will NOT protect Social Security surplus - a promise made on safeguarding Social Security surplus will NOT be a promise kept
(b) WILL dip happily into Social Security Surplus to finance spending

1.22, 1.23, 1.24, 1.25 Curtailing spending

FLIP
10/18/00 - [Bush] "...If this were a spending contest, I would come in second. I readily admit I'm not going to grow the size of the federal government like [Gore] is..."
10/3/00 - [Bush]: "...the surest way to bust this economy is to increase the role and the size of the federal government..."
Official Bush Policy Statement - [Bush] "...The President will enforce fiscal discipline on Congress, because when spending is out of control, deficits increase and our economic growth is hindered..."
Official Bush Policy Statement - [Bush] "...History has shown that—unlike tax cuts—spending increases, once made, are rarely reversed. This pattern cannot long continue without jeopardizing our Nation's long-term goals..."
8/17/02 - [Bush]: "We must remember the lessons of the past. In the 1960s, increased spending required by war was not balanced by slower spending in the rest of the government. As a result, in the 1970s we faced unemployment and growing deficits and spiraling inflation."
9/2/04 - [Bush]: "...to be fair, there are some things my opponent is for. He's proposed more than $2 trillion in federal spending so far, and that's a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts"

IN SHORT:
(a) I Will NOT spend more than Gore would [have]
(b) I WILL enforce spending discipline on Congress
(c) Increasing federal spending is a sure way to make the economy go bust, especially if there is increased spending due to war unbalanced by reduced spending elsewhere
(d) Kerry plans to spend too much ($2 Trillion)

FLOP
5/7/03 - [Link]: "Under the last Clinton Budget (FY 2001), the Federal Government spent (see table 1.1) $1.863 trillion. In the first year of a budget prepared by Mr. Bush (and passed by Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress) spending was $2.010 trillion, in increase of almost 8%. 
In the 2003 Budget (again prepared by Mr. Bush) spending is estimated to increase again to $2.140 trillion (plus the cost of the war in Iraq). That is an increase of about 6.5%. If $80 billion is added for the war, the increase is in excess of ten percent.
For 2004, Mr. Bush proposes (see table S-1) to increase spending yet again to $2.229 trillion, an increase of 4.2% (not including any supplemental spending required by the rebuilding of Iraq). Indeed, the budget projections provided by Mr. Bush propose to increase spending each and every year through FY 2008. If Mr. Bush has his way, by FY 2008, the federal government will have increased spending by about 46% over the last Clinton budget.
Even if we eliminate defense, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and interest on the national debt from the calculations, Mr. Bush proposes to increase total non-military discretionary spending (See table S-2) each year through FY 2008.
In the FY 2001 budget submitted by President Clinton about $349 billion was allocated to non-defense discretionary spending. By FY 2008, under Mr. Bush’s proposals, $466 billion will be spent on non-defense discretionary spending. That represents an increase of about 34%."
2/9/04 - [Link]: "During his two terms in office, Clinton[/Gore] increased domestic discretionary spending by 10 percent. Bush, in not quite one full presidential term, has already increased domestic discretionary spending by 25 percent. This according to the White House's own budget charts! (The numbers are adjusted for inflation.)...
Under Bush, overall discretionary spending (i.e., with defense spending included) has increased every single year. It's now 31 percent higher than it was when Bush arrived.
[Domestic discretionary spending] has increased every single year of Bush's presidency, and...is now 25 percent higher than it was when Bush arrived...[The conservative] Heritage Foundation's Brian Riedl...has observed that federal spending has grown twice as fast under Bush as it did under Clinton."
Also see here and here.
9/14/04 - [Link]: "The expansive agenda President Bush laid out at the Republican National Convention was missing a price tag, but administration figures show the total is likely to be well in excess of $3 trillion over a decade.
A staple of Bush's stump speech is his claim that his Democratic challenger, John F. Kerry, has proposed $2 trillion in long-term spending, a figure the Massachusetts senator's campaign calls exaggerated. But the cost of the new tax breaks and spending outlined by Bush at the GOP convention far eclipses that of the Kerry plan.
Bush's pledge to make permanent his tax cuts, which are set to expire at the end of 2010 or before, would reduce government revenue by about $1 trillion over 10 years, according to administration estimates. His proposed changes in Social Security to allow younger workers to invest part of their payroll taxes in stocks and bonds could cost the government $2 trillion over the coming decade, according to the calculations of independent domestic policy experts.
And Bush's agenda has many costs the administration has not publicly estimated. For instance, Bush said in his speech that he would continue to try to stabilize Iraq and wage war on terrorism. The war in Iraq alone costs $4 billion a month, but the president's annual budget does not reflect that cost. "
IN SHORT:
(a) I WILL spend far more than Gore would [have]
(b) I will NOT enforce spending discipline on Congress
(c) Increasing federal spending is NOT a sure way to make the economy go bust, even if there is increased spending due to war unbalanced by reduced spending elsewhere
(d) Did I mention my proposals would result in federal spending of well over $3 trillion? And that's not too much by the way.  

1.26 Job creation from 2003 tax cuts

FLIP
2/10/04 - [Link]: "When the Bush administration issued the Economic Report of the President Monday, several news organizations reported there would be 2.6 million new jobs this year. But that number was based on the difference between projected average payrolls for this year and last year. In order to achieve that number, a White House source explained Tuesday, the President's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) is forecasting about 320,000 new jobs will be created every month this year. That would be about 3.8 million in total, or about 2.9 percent higher than the December 2003 total estimated by the Labor Department."
IN SHORT:
On average 320,000 new jobs per MONTH will be created in 2004

FLOP
2/24/04 - [Link]: 
"CNN

The White House backed away Wednesday from its own prediction that the economy will add 2.6 million new jobs before the end of this year, saying the forecast was the work of number-crunchers and that President Bush was not a statistician.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan, asked repeatedly about the forecast, declined to embrace the prediction which was contained in the annual economic report of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.
...
Asked about the 2.6 million jobs forecast, McClellan said, "The president is interested in actual jobs being created rather than economic modeling."
He quoted Bush as saying, "I'm not a statistician. I'm not a predictor."
"We are interested in reality," McClellan said.
[eRiposte note: Ha ha ha ha! This is so NOT funny!]

Washington Post

President Bush distanced himself yesterday from a forecast made by his economic advisers predicting that the U.S. economy will add 2.6 million jobs this year.
...
Asked Wednesday if he agreed with the prediction, Bush would not endorse the figure, saying, "I think the economy is growing, and I think it's going to get stronger." Treasury Secretary John W. Snow and Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans were similarly reluctant to back the forecast, which was made by staff from the CEA, the Treasury Department, and the Office of Management and Budget.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan, repeatedly asked about the forecast, played down its significance. "It's an annual economic report that is put out by the administration based on the economic modeling and the data that's available at that point in time," he said. "What the president stands behind is the policies that he is implementing."
It was the second time that last week's report, sent to Congress with Bush's signature, has caused political problems for the president. Bush last week retreated from an argument made in the report and in comments by CEA Chairman N. Gregory Mankiw that the expatriation of service jobs could be beneficial. While economists generally supported Mankiw's argument, Democrats pounced on the administration for appearing to praise job loss.
In an interview yesterday, Mankiw said the 2.6 million job figure was made Dec. 2 and not subsequently updated. "We still expect 2004 to be a robust year for the economy both in terms of economic growth and in terms of jobs creation," he said. "But in terms of our specific quantitative forecast, the forecasting team has not gotten together to produce one since December 2."
...
The annual CEA report has had difficulty in the past with its forecasts for jobs growth. Previous reports predicted the economy would add 1.7 million to 3 million new jobs in 2003, but in fact the nation lost 53,000 jobs. .."

IN SHORT:
On average 320,000 new jobs per MONTH will NOT be created in 2004

1.27 Class warfare

FLIP
1/03 - [Bush]: "I understand the politics of economic stimulus, that some would like to turn this into class warfare...That's not how I think."
1/9/03 - [Fleischer for Bush]: "The President doesn't look at the American people and say, I'm from the government, I know who the right people are -- I'm from the government, I know who the wrong people are. The President believes that's a divisive approach."
IN SHORT:
I don't believe in or practice class warfare. It's divisive.

FLOP
1/7/03 - [Link]: "But it would be easier to respect this attack on class warfare if the president and his allies disavowed such belligerency themselves. Alas, they don't. They just play a different kind of class politics by demonizing those elites who are not on their approved list of corporate chiefs, oil millionaires, heirs to large fortunes and the like.
The president, for example, loves to bash the rich if they got that way by being trial lawyers.
Arguing for limits on medical malpractice awards in a North Carolina speech last July, Bush told the story of Jill and Chet Barnes of Las Vegas. "Jill is a student teacher," Bush said, "and her husband is a fireman." Because Nevada had such high malpractice insurance rates, Jill, who was eight weeks pregnant at the time, was having trouble finding a doctor -- "that's got to be really frightening to a young mom" -- and eventually got one by traveling an hour and a half to Arizona.
It didn't take long for Bush to describe the villain of the piece. He declared that "what we want is quality health care, not rich trial lawyers." [CG emphasis]
Yes, there's a lot to be said about the malpractice issue. And you felt bad for the young couple. But if setting up a teacher and a firefighter against "rich trial lawyers" is not class warfare, then Karl Marx is the current editor of the Wall Street Journal's editorial pages.
Republican class warfare is not confined to trial lawyers. Almost daily, Republicans attack privileged groups: "the cultural elite," "the Hollywood elite," "the intellectual elite" and, of course, "the liberal elite."
Bush merged some of these categories in 1994 when he was running for governor of Texas. No slouch as a fundraiser himself, he chided Ann Richards, his opponent, for going to California to raise money from the "liberal elite." That same year, the president's brother Jeb, running for governor of Florida, defended his views by declaring: "These are mainstream ideas, ideas that matter, whether the intellectual elite in this state like them or not." ..."
IN SHORT:
I do believe in class warfare and it's not divisive.

1.28, 1.29 SEC oversight of businesses [via Wampum and Failure is Impossible]

FLIP
2002 - [Bush]: "...The economic uncertainty is because of SEC overreach..."
2002 - [Link]: "Bush...[had] warned Congress that he felt such [corporate reform] legislation was too tough on Wall Street."
IN SHORT: 
SEC overreach causes economic uncertainty and the SEC/Reform Bill is too tough.

FLOP
A little later in 2002 - [Bush]: "My administration pressed for greater corporate integrity. A united Congress has written it into law. And today I sign the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. This new law sends very clear messages that all concerned must heed. This law says to every dishonest corporate leader: you will be exposed and punished; the era of low standards and false profits is over; no boardroom in America is above or beyond the law…
America's system of free enterprise, with all its risk and all its rewards is a strength of our country, and a model for the world. Yet free markets are not a jungle in which only the unscrupulous survive, or a financial free-for-all guided only by greed. The fundamentals of a free market -- buying and selling, saving and investing -- require clear rules and confidence in basic fairness.
The only risks, the only fair risks are based on honest information. Tricking an investor into taking a risk is theft by another name. Corporate executives must set an ethical tone for their companies. They must understand the skepticism Americans feel and take action to set clear standards of right and wrong. Those who break the rules tarnish a great economic system that provides opportunity for all.
Their actions hurt workers who committed their lives to building the company that hired them. Their actions hurt investors and retirees who placed their faith in the promise of growth and integrity. For the sake of our free economy, those who break the law -- break the rules of fairness, those who are dishonest, however wealthy or successful they may be, must pay a price.
Corporate misdeeds will be found and will be punished. This law authorizes new funding for investigators and technology at the Securities and Exchange Commission to uncover wrongdoing. The SEC will now have the administrative authority to bar dishonest directors and officers from ever again serving in positions of corporate responsibility …
This law gives my administration new tools for enforcement. We will use them to the fullest…
It is now my honor to sign the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002."
2002 - [Link]: "President Bush, battered by Wall Street scandals and a wildly gyrating stock market, hailed the completion yesterday of a tough corporate reform bill that only weeks ago he complained went too far...
Bush moved quickly to embrace the final product after having warned Congress that he felt such legislation was too tough on Wall Street. After meeting with congressional leaders to discuss the remaining legislative agenda before the August recess, Bush hailed what he called "a day of action and a day of accomplishment in Washington, D.C."..."
IN SHORT: 
The economic uncertainty is because of insufficient SEC oversight. SEC needs to be strengthened to protect workers, investors and retirees and to ensure free markets. The corporate reform/SEC Bill is good and is an accomplishment.

FLIP AGAIN
Somewhat later in 2002 - [Link]: "Once Mr. Bush had reaped the political benefit of the signing ceremony, he quickly reversed course on actually funding the measure. As I previously wrote:

The New York Times reports that the White House now opposes the increased funding of the SEC called for under Sarbanes-Oxley. That funding is necessary to accomplish the goals Mr. Bush lauded at the signing ceremony (the Times story is now behind the $ wall, the abstract of the story is here).

Even Harvey Pitt, Bush’s handpicked Chairman of the SEC, has acknowledged that the level of funding now supported by the White House would not allow for the proposed new enforcement provisions. The level of funding supported by the White House ... does not allow for new initiatives according to Mr. Pitt’s spokesman.

1.30, 1.31 Long term budget projections

FLIP
2001 - [White House]: "In addition, the Administration is assuming economic forecasts that are generally more cautious than the Blue Chip consensus. Thus, there are convincing reasons to assume that higher revenues are more likely than lower revenues and a larger, not smaller, surplus lies ahead.
In economic parliance, there are significant "upside risks" to the surplus projections, in addition to the downside risks that tend to dominate public discourse."
IN SHORT:
The 5 or 10-year fiscal projections are reasonable and there are "upside risks" to surplus projections

FLOP
1/6/02 - [Bush admin]: 
"..."I think people who believe as a religion in 10-year numbers haven't lived in the real economy....And so to make a big deal out of 10 years seems to be to be a false idea, and it's more appropriate...to pay attention to the reality of the here and now."- Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, January 6, 2002, on Meet the Press
"Exactly what the budget is going to be over the next three to five years, you know, is pure speculation at this point." - Commerce Secretary Donald Evans, January 6, 2002, on CNN Late Edition..."
5/13/02 - [Bush]: "The latest in what has become a steady stream of bad budgetary news arrived last Friday, when newspapers reported that this year's deficit is estimated to be about $100 billion--twice as large as previous forecasts had suggested. President George W. Bush immediately offered a multilayered defense packed with jaw-dropping mendacity. First came denial. "Of course, it's all speculative to begin with," he told reporters. "I don't know the models that they guessed [sic], but it's guesswork thus far."..."
IN SHORT:
The 5 or 10-year fiscal projections are pure speculation and people who believe in them are nutcases

FLIP AGAIN
Also in 2002 - [Link]: "In a superb analysis of the budget in the June Harper's, Thomas Frank noted that in 2002 the administration declared an $18 trillion shortfall in Social Security and Medicare—about five times the current national debt. Frank notes that in order to arrive at the $18 trillion figure—since Social Security is currently in surplus—the administration used a "cumulative seventy-five-year estimate [Frank's itals] based on extreme long-term projections ... ." Meanwhile, even as it relies on 75-year projections for Social Security, the same document replaces traditional 10-year budget projections with five-year ones, claiming the longer-term numbers were unreliable."
IN SHORT:
75 year fiscal projections are believable

1.32 Fiscal policy accounts for emergencies

FLIP
2/27/01 - [Bush]: "We should also prepare for the unexpected, for the uncertainties of the future. We should approach our Nation's budget as any prudent family would, with a contingency fund for emergencies or additional spending needs And so, my budget sets aside almost a trillion dollars over 10 years for additional needs"
3/27/01 - [Bush]: "Tax relief is central to my plan to encourage economic growth, and we can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens. Projections for the surplus in my budget are cautious and conservative. They already assume an economic slowdown in the year 2001."
IN SHORT:
My tax cut plan and budget projections factor in funding required for emergencies and the economic slowdown in 2001. We will not need to go into deficits because of recession or other emergencies.

FLOP
August 2001 (before 9/11) - [Link]: "Bush and his aides have spent the last few weeks slowly but steadily chipping away at the president's once-firm commitment to use the Social Security surplus only to repay government debt. Bush's lockbox backtracking began--ironically enough--in an August 21 speech in Independence, Missouri, home of famed straight-talker Harry Truman. Social Security funds, Bush hinted, could be tapped in the event of recession or war. His economic adviser Larry Lindsey said this explicitly in an interview the same week; then Bush reiterated the recession and war exceptions at a press conference in Crawford last Friday. By the end of the day his aides were telling reporters that these exceptions had always existed. By the following week, the original promise, once enshrined in the 2000 Republican Party platform--"The Social Security surplus is off-limits, off budget, and will not be touched"--had been reduced to a "symbolic goal."..."
2002 (after 9/11) - [Bush]: "I want to remind you what I told the American people, that if I'm the president--when I was campaigning, if I were to become the president, we would have deficits only in the case of war, a recession, or a national emergency. Never did I realize we'd get the trifecta." [Compassiongate: Note, incidentally, that this is a completely false statement]
IN SHORT:
My tax cut plan and budget projections did not factor in emergencies and economic slowdowns. 

2. Trade

2.1 Impact of tariffs on jobs

FLIP
12/4/03 - [Bush]: "...I took action [by imposing steel tariffs] to give the industry a chance to adjust to the surge in foreign imports and to give relief to the workers and communities that depend on steel for their jobs and livelihoods...The industry made progress increasing productivity, lowering production costs, and making America more competitive with foreign steel producers. Steel producers and workers have negotiated new groundbreaking labor agreements that allow greater flexibility and increase job stability"
IN SHORT:
Tariffs should be imposed because industry growth and industry jobs are at risk

FLOP
3/9/04 - [Bush]: "...There are economic isolationists in our country who believe we should separate ourselves from the rest of the world by raising up barriers and closing off markets...'If we are to continue growing this economy and creating new jobs, America must remain confident and strong about our ability to trade in the world..."
IN SHORT:
Tariffs should NOT be imposed because that would put jobs and growth at risk. Those who impose tarif