FACT CHECK SARAH PALIN - THIRD AND FINAL SEGMENT

This is so long of a Fact Check on Sarah Palin that I am posting it in three segments.
Third and final segment:

PALIN: “America needs more energy … our opponent is against producing it.”

REALITY: OBAMA HAS EXPRESSED SUPPORT FOR A BIPARTISAN COMPROMISE THAT WOULD CUT TAX BREAKS FOR OIL COMPANIES, INVEST IN ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES, AND ALLOW FOR LIMITED NEW OFFSHORE DRILLING

Obama Said He Would Be Open To Offshore Drilling If We Come Up With “A Genuine Bipartisan Compromise” To Get To Energy Independence. “Senator Barack Obama said Saturday that he would reluctantly consider accepting some new offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico in exchange for stripping oil companies of tax breaks and extending several tax credits to spur the search for alternative fuels. At the same time, Senate Republicans appear to have dropped their insistence on opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. Mr. Obama has until now opposed any offshore drilling. But in a news conference here, he noted that there had been ‘very constructive’ talks between Senate Republicans and Democrats on this issue in recent days, applauding a plan unveiled by a group of Republican and Democratic senators to permit drilling while supporting an effort to convert most vehicles to using alternative fuels in 20 years. ‘If we come up with a genuine bipartisan compromise, where I have to accept some things that I don’t like in order to get energy independence,’ Mr. Obama said, ‘that’s something I will have to consider.’ Still, he cautioned that he was not yet ‘ready to sign off on any approach.’” [New York Times, 8/3/08]

• Tapper: “This Strikes Me As Not A Complete And Utter Reversal “But Rather “A Recognition That Energy Legislation Requires Compromise.” “Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, now says he’d be willing to consider legislation including expanded off-shore drilling if part of a larger package, despite his long-time opposition to the idea. I’m with my friend Marc Ambinder — this strikes me as not quite a complete and utter reversal, but certainly a shift in tone and language, indicating a softening of his opposition and a recognition that energy legislation requires compromise. Not unlike Sen. John McCain’s statement that when it comes to Social Security reform, everything must be on the table, even though he personally opposes tax increases. (Though the back-peddling on that was confounding.).” [ABC News, 8/2/08]

• Ambinder: “This Strikes Me As Less Of A Shift And More As A Gesture Of Sorts To The Reality That The Major Cap And Trade Legislation Next Year…Requires The Participation Of And Compromise From The Industry.” Marc Ambinder wrote, “In an interview yesterday, Obama said that he’d be willing to accept additional domestic oil exploration as part of a bipartisan compromise on energy reform. This strikes me as less of a shift and more as a gesture of sorts to the reality that the major cap and trade legislation next year that Congress will mark up — legislation that will be introduced regardless of who’s president — requires the participation of and compromise from the industry. The oil industry has two cards, basically, in the negotiations. One: that windfall profits taxes would disincentivize further exploration somehow… two: that, as the staple source of energy, oil companies ought to have more land/water to figure out where oil is and then tap those pools. Democrats are more likely to compromise on the second, rather than the first. Note that Obama is still opposed to expanded drilling off the coasts of Florida.” [The Atlantic, 8/2/08]

• Stoller: Obama Supported A “Real Compromise” On Energy. Obama’s position on drilling is “actually a real compromise…the compromise put forward by Obama would in fact move us forward on sustainable energy while raising taxes on the oil companies. Since opening up new areas to oil companies is more about financial manipulation of oil leases than actually drilling, this is calling the oil company’s bluff.” [Open Left, 8/5/08]

• Pelosi: Obama Position On Gang Of Ten Compromise Was Presidential. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said, “What Senator Obama said is what we want a president to say…Let’s look at all of the options. Let’s compare them. And let’s see what really does increase our supply, protect our environment, save our economy, protect the consumer, instead of a single-shot thing that does none of the above.” [Washington Times, 8/4/08]

PALIN: “Victory in Iraq is finally in sight … he wants to forfeit.”

REALITY: BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND INDEPENDENT MILITARY EXPERTS AGREE THAT DRAWING DOWN ONE TO TWO BRIGADES A MONTH IS NOT ONLY POSSIBLE BUT SAFE

• McCain Said He Thought 16 Months Is A Pretty Good Timetable For Withdrawal From Iraq. McCain was asked, “So why do you think he said that 16 months is basically a pretty good timetable?” McCain responded, “He said it’s a pretty good timetable based on conditions on the ground. I think it’s a pretty good timetable, as we should — or horizons for withdrawal. But they have to be based on conditions on the ground.” [CNN, 7/25/08]

• Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki: “Obama Is Right When He Talks About 16 Months.” “Asked in an interview with German news magazine Der Spiegel of when he would like to see American forces leave Iraq, Maliki said: ‘As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned.’ He then added that ‘Obama is right when he talks about 16 months. Assuming that positive developments continue, this is about the same time period that corresponds to our wishes.’” [The Hill, 7/19/08]

• Maj. Gen. Anderson Said Current Capacity to Remove 2 ½ Brigade Combat Teams a Month. “The military has been redeploying troops for years, and Maj. Gen. Charles Anderson, who would help with the withdrawal, told us as we toured Camp Arifjan in Kuwait, ‘We have the capacity to do a minimum of two-and-a-half brigade combat teams a month — can we expand that capacity? Sure. Can we accelerate? It depends. It depends on the amount of equipment that we bring back. And it’s going to depend on how fast we bring them out.’” [ABC News, 7/11/08]

• 4/8/08: Petraeus, Asked By a McCain Ally Whether A Brigade a Month Could Be With Drawn From Iraq, Said It Could Be “Doable.” In a Senate Hearing before the Committee on Armed Services, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), asked General Petraeus what would happen if one brigade per month was withdrawn beginning in January 2009. Petraeus responded, “It clearly would depend on the conditions of that time. If conditions were good, quite good, that might be doable.” [Senate Hearing before Senate Committee on Armed Services, 4/8/08]

• 9/07: Larry Korb Wrote “A Phased Military Redeployment From Iraq Over The Next 10 To 12 Months Would Begin Extracting U.S. Troops From Iraq’s Internal Conflicts Immediately And Would Be Completed By The End Of 2008.” Lawrence J. Korb, former Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan Administration, along with Max A. Bergmann, Sean E. Duggen, Peter M. Juul, wrote for a Center for American Progress Report, “A phased military redeployment from Iraq over the next 10 to 12 months would begin extracting U.S. troops from Iraq’s internal conflicts immediately and would be completed by the end of 2008. During this timeframe, the military will not replace outgoing troops as they rotate home at the end of their tours and will draw down force and equipment levels gradually, at a pace similar to previous rotations conducted by our military over the past four years. According to a U.S. military official in Baghdad involved in planning, a withdrawal could take place safely in this time period.” [“How to Redeploy: Implementing a Responsible Drawdown of U.S. Forces from Iraq” September 2007, Center for American Progress]

• 7/13/07: Pace Said US Forces Were “Designed Right Now To Be Able To Increase Or Decrease About One Brigade Per Month.” General Peter Pace, former Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff said, “On the logistics side, the system itself is designed right now to be able to increase or decrease about one brigade per month. Can you surge U.S. military and commercial capacity beyond those numbers? Sure. But for a normal planning factor, we’re looking at either adding or subtracting about one brigade a month.” [DoD Media Roundtable with Secretary Gates and Gen. Pace, 7/13/07]

• 12/6/06: Iraq Study Group Report Said “All Combat Brigades Not Necessary For Force Protection Could Be Out Of Iraq” By the First Quarter of 2008—15 Months. The Iraq Study Group’s independent assessment, released Dec. 6, 2006, found that, “By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq.” [Iraq Study Group Report]

PALIN: “Terrorist states are seeking new-clear weapons without delay … he wants to meet them without preconditions.”

REALITY: REPUBLICANS AGREE WITH DIRECT TALKS WITH IRAN

• Defense Secretary Gates: We Need To “Sit Down And Talk” With Iran. “The United States should construct a combination of incentives and pressure to engage Iran, and may have missed earlier opportunities to begin a useful dialogue with Tehran, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said yesterday. ‘We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them,” Gates said. “If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can’t go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us.’” [Washington Post, 5/15/08]

• Henry Kissinger Said That The U.S. Should Negotiate Directly With Iran. “Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said the U.S. should negotiate directly with Iran over its nuclear program and other bilateral issues. ‘One should be prepared to negotiate, and I think we should be prepared to negotiate about Iran,’ Kissinger, who brokered the end of the 1973 Yom Kippur war and peace talks with the North Vietnamese, said yesterday in an interview with Bloomberg Television. Asked whether he meant the U.S. should hold direct talks, Kissinger, 84, responded: ‘Yes, I think we should.’” [Bloomberg, 3/14/08]

• Hagel: The United States Should Actively Pursue Direct, Unconditional, And Comprehensive Talks With Iran. Hagel said, “Now is the time for the United States to actively pursue an offer of direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with Iran. We cannot afford to refuse to consider this strategic choice any longer. We should make clear that everything is on the table, our issues and Iran’s issues.” [CNN, 11/8/07]

• Lugar: Direct Talks With Iran “Would Be Useful.” “The United States needs to pursue direct talks and other diplomatic avenues with Iran about its disputed nuclear program before considering a military option, lawmakers from both parties said yesterday. ‘I think that would be useful,’ said Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, when asked on ABC’s ‘This Week’ about having direct talks. ‘The Iranians are a part of the energy picture,’ said Lugar, a Republican from Indiana. ‘We need to talk about that.’” [AP, 4/17/06]

• Former H.W. Bush Secretary of State James Baker: “It’s Not Appeasement to Talk to Your Enemies.” James Baker said, “I can’t make that judgment here this morning because I don’t know what other elements are involved in it. I will say just generally as I’ve been saying since I’ve been on this book tour that I believe in talking to your enemies. I don’t think you restrict your conversations to your friends. At the same time, it’s got to be hard-nosed. It’s got to be determined. You don’t give away anything, but in my view, it’s not appeasement to talk to your enemies. There ought to be some way. I mean, I point out the fact that I made 15 trips to Damascus back in 1991 when they were on our list of countries of state-sponsored terrorism and they changed 25 years…”[“This Week,” ABC News Transcripts, 10/8/06]

• Arlen Specter: It Seems Unrealistic That We Say To The Opposite Party That As A Precondition To Discussions We Want The Principle Concession We’re After. Republican Senator Arlen Specter said in a hearing of the Defense Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, “Now, the position taken by the secretary of State has been we won’t talk to Iran unless, as a precondition, they stop enriching uranium. It seems to me that it is unrealistic to try to have discussions but to say to the opposite party, as a precondition to discussions, we want the principle concession that we’re after. Do you think it makes sense to insist on a concession like stopping enriching uranium, which is what our ultimate objective is, before we even sit down and talk to them on a broader range of issues?” [Hearing of the Defense Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, 5/20/08]

• Rice: I Am Prepared To Meet My Counterpart At Any Time If Iran Suspends Its Enrichment and Processing Activities. Condoleezza Rice said, “I am prepared to meet my counterpart or an Iranian representative at any time if Iran will suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities. That should be a clear signal.” [AP, 2/25/07]

PALIN: “Government is too big … he wants to grow it. Congress spends too much … he promises more.”

REALITY: IT IS MCCAIN’S BUDGET PLAN THAT WILL BREAK THE BANK

• Analysts Say McCain’s Plan Would Increase The Deficit More Than Obama’s. “Experts say that both the McCain plan and the Obama plan would increase the deficit, and that neither man has adequately explained how his proposals would be paid for. But several analysts have said they believe that Mr. McCain’s plan would increase the deficit more, because of the size of the tax cuts he is seeking.” [New York Times, 6/11/08]

• McCain’s Tax Cuts Will Either Explode The Federal Deficit Or Require “Unprecedented Cuts” In Federal Spending On Domestic Programs. “Sen. John McCain is proposing tax cuts that would either cause the federal deficit to explode or would require unprecedented spending cuts equal to one-third of federal spending on domestic programs. Once thought of as a deficit hawk, the near-certain Republican presidential nominee is now putting more stress on the traditional Republican orthodoxy of tax cuts.” [Wall Street Journal, 4/22/08]

• New York Times: McCain’s Budget Will Add $200 Or $300 Billion To The Deficit Per Year. “The Obama campaign claims it can pay for all this, and even reduce the deficit, through tax increases and spending cuts. I think a more skeptical look at its budget leaves you worried it may add something like $50 billion a year to the deficit. But applying the same arched brow to Mr. McCain’s stated plans leaves you worried that he will add $200 billion or $300 billion or, depending on his voluntary tax system, even more.” [New York Times, 6/18/08]

• Tax Policy Center Report Said That McCain’s Budget Plan Would Add $5 Trillion To The Debt Over The Next Decade. “Obama’s plan — cuts targeted to middle- and low-income Americans and increases for the wealthy — would increase the national debt by an estimated $3.4 trillion in the next decade, the center said. Under a similar analysis, McCain’s plan — largely a continuation of Bush’s tax reductions — would add $5 trillion.” [Los Angeles Times, 7/24/08]
• Ten Percent Corporate Tax Rate Cut Would Cost $100 Billion A Year. “The proposal to lower the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% would cost about $100 billion a year.” [Wall Street Journal, 4/16/08]
• Full Repeal Of The AMT Would Cost Over $150 Billion A Year. According to the Wall Street Journal, altering the Alternative Minimum Tax for middle class families at $91 billion annually. Eliminating the AMT for up-incomer earners would be an additional $60 billion per year. [Wall Street Journal, 4/16/08]
• Gas Tax Holiday Would Cost $10 Billion. An Arizona Republic editorial questions McCain’s summer gas tax holiday proposal, asking “do we really want to extract $10 billion from the nation’s woefully underfunded transportation infrastructure?” [Arizona Republic, Editorial, 4/16/08]

• Doubling The Dependent Tax Exemption Would Cost $65 Billion A Year. “Doubling the dependent exemption would cost $65 billion a year.” [Wall Street Journal, 4/16/08]

• April 2008: McCain “Changed His Position” On Balancing The Budget, Said Economic Conditions Made It Unrealistic. John McCain had previously said he would balance the budget in four years, but changed his position in April saying that “economic conditions are reversed” and it would instead take eight years. [New York Times, 4/16/08]

PALIN: “Taxes are too high … he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific. The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes … raise payroll taxes … raise investment income taxes … raise the death tax … raise business taxes … and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars.”

REALITY: OBAMA TAX PROPOSAL WILL NOT RAISE TAXES AND WILL PROVIDE A BIGGER BREAK FOR MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES THAN MCCAIN’S PLAN

• Annenberg Political Fact Check: McCain’s Ad Attacking Obama’s Plans That Would Increase Taxes And Bring On “Years Of Deficits” And “Billions In New Government Spending” “Puts Another Stitch In What We’ve Call His Pattern Of Deceit On Obama’s Tax Plan.” “McCain’s new ad puts another stitch in what we’ve called his pattern of deceit on Obama’s tax plan. This one claims Obama and congressional Democrats plan to push forward ‘painful tax increases on working American families’ and that they will bring about ‘years of deficits,’ ‘no balanced budgets’ and ‘billions in new government spending.’ The ad is plain wrong about higher taxes on working families. In fact, Obama’s economic plan would produce a tax cut for the majority of American households, with middle-income earners benefiting most. As for ‘years of deficits,’ exactly the same claim could be made about McCain’s program. It’s unlikely either Obama or McCain would balance the budget, and both are projected to increase the debt by trillions.” [FactCheck.org, 9/2/08]

• Washington Post Editorial: “McCain Campaign Insists on Completely Misrepresenting Mr. Obama’s Plan” on Taxes – Under McCain’s Plan, “Wealthiest Taxpayers Make Out Terrifically.” “Instead, the McCain campaign insists on completely misrepresenting Mr. Obama’s plan. The ad opens with the Obama-as-celebrity theme – ‘Celebrities don’t have to worry about family budgets, but we sure do,’ says the female announcer. ‘We’re paying more for food and gas, making it harder to save for college, retirement.’ Then she sticks it to him: ‘Obama’s solution? Higher taxes, called ‘a recipe for economic disaster.’ He’s ready to raise your taxes but not ready to lead.’ The facts? The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that the Obama plan would give households in the bottom fifth of the income distribution an average tax cut of 5.5 percent of income ($567) in 2009, while those in the middle fifth would get an average cut of 2.6 percent of income ($1,118). ‘Your taxes’ would go up, yes — but not if you’re someone who is sweating higher gas prices. By contrast, Mr. McCain’s tax plan would give those in the bottom fifth of income an average tax cut of $21 in 2009. The middle fifth would get $325 — less than a third of the Obama cut. The wealthiest taxpayers make out terrifically. The country can’t afford the tax cuts either man is promising, although Mr. McCain’s approach is by far the more costly. We don’t expect either side to admit that. But neither side should get to outright lie about its opponent’s positions, either.” [Washington Post Editorial, 8/31/08]

• Analysts Say That Obama’s Tax Cut Plan “Offers Three Times The Break For Middle Class Families Than Proposals” Of McCain. “The tax cut plan of Democratic nominee to be Barack Obama offers three times the break for middle class families than proposals of likely Republican nominee John McCain, according to analysts working for a left-leaning think tank. Families making between $37,595 and $66,354 of annual income with Obama would get an average tax cut of $1,042 per family while McCain’s tax cut for this group would be $319, the report states.” [Nashua Telegraph, 6/12/08]

• Under Obama’s Plan The Middle Of The Middle Class Would See Taxes Cut By $1,042 A Year; McCain’s Tax Plan Would Give Them Only A $319 Tax Cut. According to the non partisan Tax Policy Center’s computations, “under Mr. Obama’s plan, the middle of the middle class, or those earning $37,595 to $66,354, would see taxes cut by $1,042 a year. Under Mr. McCain’s plan, taxes for people in that category would also fall, but by $319; the largest chunk of the benefits would go to those making $2.8 million a year or more.” [New York Times, 6/13/08]

• Obama Plan: $80 Billion A Year In Tax Cuts “To Middle-Class Workers, Homeowners And Retirees.” “Senator Barack Obama proposed a plan on Tuesday to provide at least $80 billion a year in tax cuts to middle-class workers, homeowners and retirees, saying if he was elected president he would ‘end the preferential treatment that’s built into our tax code.’ Mr. Obama said he would give a $500 tax credit to more than 150 million workers, create a tax credit for homeowners who do not itemize their deductions and eliminate income taxes for older taxpayers who make less than $50,000 a year.” [New York Times, 9/19/07; Tax Fairness For The Middle Class]

REALITY: OUTSIDE OBSERVERS AGREE: CLAIMS THAT OBAMA WILL RAISE TAXES ARE “WRONG,” “FALSE,” “MISLEADING”

• Time: McCain’s Tax Plan “Benefits Mostly Those In Higher Income Brackets While Obama’s Plan Benefits Mostly Those In Lower-And Middle Income Tax Brackets.” “They do, however, offer plans that differ strikingly from each other. McCain’s tax plan benefits mostly those in higher income brackets, while Obama’s plan benefits mostly those in lower- and middle-income tax brackets. McCain wants a tax cut for corporate profits, while Obama has proposed a whole host of tax cuts that will benefit those in the middle-income brackets.” [Time, 7/24/08]

• “Overwhelmingly Most Americans Will Not See Their Income Taxes Increased” Under Obama’s Tax Plan. Anne Mathias, an economist at the Stanford Group Company, “points out that 95.1% of the American people are in households that earn less than $200,000 — so overwhelmingly most Americans will not see their income taxes increased, if Obama’s math is correct.” [ABC News, 7/7/08]

• New York Sun: “Some Conservatives Are Praising” Obama For His Tax Plan And A Senior Policy Analyst At The Heritage Foundation Said That The Middle Class Would Likely Pay Less Under Obama’s Plan Than McCain’s. “Senator Obama, with his lead against Senator McCain narrowing in some polls, is trying to portray himself as the real tax-cutter in the presidential race. And even some conservatives are praising him for it. A senior policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, Rea Hederman Jr., praised Mr. Obama for proposing a 20% tax rate on dividends and capital gains, lower than a 28% rate he had initially floated, though still more than the current 15% rate. ‘That’s a great step in the right direction,’ Mr. Hederman said. ‘It’s a big change from what we thought the Obama tax plan would be at the beginning of the summer.’ Mr. Hederman said the middle class would likely pay less under Mr. Obama’s plan than Mr. McCain’s but that the Democrat was excessively reliant on complicated tax breaks that would make the tax code more confusing. ‘Instead of a grab bag of tax credits, lower the marginal rates,’ Mr. Hederman said.” [New York Sun, 8/15/08]

• Washington Post Fact Checker: McCain Campaign Attacks on Obama Tax Plan “Overblown,” “Wrong,” and “Greatly Exaggerated.” “The McCain camp is attempting to persuade Americans that their taxes will increase dramatically with Barack Obama as president. The presumptive Republican nominee has repeatedly said that Obama would enact ‘the largest tax increase since the Second World War.’ A surrogate, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, insists that Obama has not proposed ‘a single tax cut’ and wants to ‘raise every tax in the book.’ … The claim that Obama will ‘enact’ the largest tax increase since World War II is also overblown. The Bush tax cuts will expire automatically at the end of 2010, so it is hardly a question of ‘enacting’ a new tax increase. … Carly Fiorina is wrong to claim that Obama has proposed no tax cuts and wants to raise ‘every tax in the book.’ John McCain is on more solid ground when he claims that Americans from many different backgrounds could be affected by a rise in capital gains taxes, but he has greatly exaggerated the adverse impact.” [Washington Post, 6/11/08]

• Politifact: McCain’s Statement That Obama’s Tax Plan Would Raise Taxes Is “False.” Politifact reported, “So calling it a tax increase might not be considered fair. There’s no disputing that taxes will rise, but the question of who’s responsible for that tax increase is another matter entirely. At PolitiFact, we’ve concluded, as have others, that it’s unfair to call Obama’s plan a tax increase merely because it doesn’t change existing tax law to keep rates low. We think about it this way: The reason taxes will increase is because of tax policy signed into law not by Obama, but by somebody else… the more recent data — combined with the fact that Obama’s proposal does not constitute a tax increase in the traditional sense, since some taxes would be lower under his plan than they would under current law — persuades us to classify McCain’s statement as False.” [Politifact, 6/11/08]

• Washington Post: McCain’s Attack On The Obama Tax Plan “Crosses The Line From Reasonable Argument To Unacceptably Misleading.” “Barack Obama and John McCain have important differences on tax policy. These are fair game for campaign ads, and no one expects 30-second spots to be suffused with nuance. But Mr. McCain’s latest attack on the Obama tax plan crosses the line from reasonable argument to unacceptably misleading.” [Editorial, Washington Post, 8/10/08]

• Annenberg Political Fact Check: Claim That Obama “Promises More Taxes On Small Business, Seniors, Your Life Savings, Your Family” Is “Simply Not True For The Vast Majority Of Viewers Who Will See It.” “The TV ad also says that Obama ‘promises more taxes on small business, seniors, your life savings, your family.’ This statement is simply not true for the vast majority of viewers who will see it. Obama, in fact, promises to deliver a $1,000 tax cut for families making up to $150,000 a year, and he says he would increase income tax rates, capital gains tax rates and taxes on dividends only for those with family incomes over $250,000 a year, or for single taxpayers making over $200,000.” [FactCheck.org, 8/8/08]

Third and final segment.
Source: http://justmoreofthesame.com/fact_check/26/fact-check-sarah-palin