Tuesday night's presidential debate at times sounded like a math bee, with numbers usually in the trillions flying fast and loose. Vice President Al Gore repeatedly criticized Texas Gov. George W. Bush for his proposed tax cuts for the wealthy, and Bush fired back that Gore's tax relief would leave out millions of Americans.

Frustrated with Gore's nitpicking, Bush repeatedly called his opponent's numbers "fuzzy math." An analysis of the budget claims made during the debate shows that neither candidate was immune from using numbers that were fuzzy, inflated or false.

Start with the projected $4.6-trillion surplus over the next 10 years. Both candidates chopped it up like the steer diagram at a butcher shop. Disappointingly, neither had the courage to tell Americans that the surplus estimate defies reality. Some economists say the actual surplus is more likely to be $350-billion, a fraction of the ballyhooed projection.

Tax cuts

GORE: "(Bush) spends more money for tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent than all of his new spending proposals for health care, prescription drugs, education and national defense all combined."

Accuracy depends on which tax cuts you include. Gore's camp points to a study that says 43 percent of Bush's tax cuts, worth $560-billion, go to the wealthiest 1 percent of American households. Bush calls for $475-billion in spending on domestic programs. So Gore's statement would be true. But Bush's camp says the marginal tax rate reduction for the highest earners would cost only $149-billion. That figure doesn't include the cost of Bush's proposed repeal of the inheritance tax, which would benefit wealthy Americans. Without the inheritance tax savings included, Gore's numbers don't add up.

BUSH: "Imagine how many IRS agents it's going to take to be able to figure out (Gore's) targeted tax cut for the middle class that excludes 50-million Americans."

Probably close to the truth. Gore's tax cuts, valued at $480-billion over 10 years, will reach fewer Americans than Bush's. Gore offers tax credits to help families with tuition, health insurance, retirement savings and child care. While no one has determined exactly how many taxpayers would be unable to take advantage of Gore's cuts, Bush's number is a reasonable guess.

BUSH: "(The Senate Budget Committee) has projected that (Gore's spending plan) could conceivably bust the budget by $900-billion."

Good point, fuzzy math. While Bush is right that Gore's proposed new programs would add to government's demands on the surplus, the $900-billion figure is dubious because it came from a Republican-dominated group. Other analyses place a lower figure on the cost of Gore's programs over 10 years.

Social Security

GORE: "I will keep Social Security in a lockbox, and that pays down the national debt and . . . extends the life of Social Security for 55 years."

True but optimistic. Using Social Security taxes for debt repayment should lengthen the program's life, but future economic and political events could subtract from the 55 years.

BUSH: "If we don't trust younger workers to manage some of their own money . . . it's going to be impossible to bridge the gap without what Mr. Gore's plan will do, causing huge payroll taxes or major benefit reductions."

A cheap shot and highly speculative. Both Gore and Bush have vowed not to raise Social Security taxes or reduce benefits, yet neither can explain how to save the system without doing so. Bush's plan involves more risk. Because he would give back much of the surplus in tax cuts, he would have to borrow from future Social Security payments to fund individual investments in the stock market, a key element in his plan. That would make Social Security's financial position more precarious, and Bush's claim that stock market investments would produce better returns ignores the possibility of losses.

Prescription drugs for retirees

BUSH: "Seniors are going to have not only a Medicare plan where the poor seniors would have their prescription drugs paid for, but there will be a variety of options."

Maybe, maybe not. Bush has put aside less money for Medicare and prescription drugs and would subsidize vaguely defined health insurance and prescription drug programs outside Medicare, which would cover only 25 percent of drug costs (with a $6,000 out-of-pocket cap). Insurance companies have shown little interest in the plan, and costs to seniors could easily escalate.

GORE: "Under my plan, all seniors will get prescriptions drugs under Medicare."

True, but expensive. Gore would operate his program through Medicare, charging retirees a $25 monthly premium (rising to $50 by decade end) and covering half of their prescription costs; premiums for poor retirees would be eliminated or reduced. While Gore has devoted some of the surplus to this plan, it probably won't be enough in the long run.

GORE: "Ninety-five percent of all seniors would get no help whatsoever under (Bush's) plan for the first four or five years."

Not exactly. Yes, Bush's plan would cover prescription costs only for the poorest Americans at first and take up to four years to include middle-income retirees. But from year one, no senior would have to pay more than $6,000 in drug costs a year.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page