By Melanie Ho
Bush seems to be having trouble with math lately. During the
first presidential debate in Boston, Gov. George W. Bush accused
Vice President Al Gore of using “fuzzy math” when Gore
pointed out that Bush’s plan would spend more of the surplus
on tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers than on
education, health, prescription drugs and the national defense
combined. The next day on “Good Morning America,” Bush
admitted that Gore’s math wasn’t fuzzy after all. Later
that day on CNN, he changed his story again. Bush’s attack on
the vice president’s mathematical calculations has a dual
irony. First, Bush was using fuzzy math himself. The Bush campaign
admitted the governor’s statistics to attack Gore’s
policies came from a partisan source: a report by the Republican
staff of the Senate Budget Committee. The Washington Post asked the
report’s director if the same methods by which they picked
apart Gore’s plan were used to analyze Bush’s
proposals. The answer they received was: “I know this is
going to sound partisan, but no.” While Bush accused his
opponent of using “fuzzy math,” the Republican
candidate’s own statistics were partisan-created rhetoric
rather than substantiated facts. The second irony to Bush’s
charge against the vice president’s math is that Gore was
correct in his statement about Bush’s budget figures. In
Bush’s plan, the tax cut for the top 1 percent of Americans
($620 billion) is greater than total domestic spending on education
($47.6 billion), health ($131.9 billion), prescription drugs ($158
billion), and national defense ($45 billion) combined. Bush’s
questionable calculations were made apparent again during the
second presidential debate last Wednesday. Again, Bush defended his
tax plan, saying that the top 1 percent would receive only $223
billion. Likewise, the Bush campaign cites that only 21 percent of
the tax cut goes to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. But this
21 percent and associated $223 billion numbers do not include the
repeal of the estate tax. Furthermore, Bush assumes that his
proposal cuts taxes evenly for taxpayers making over $200,000. But,
for a couple making $2 million, the Bush tax cut is 19 times that
of the tax cut for a couple making $200,000, even though their
income is only 10 times as large. Ignoring these facts, Bush argued
that his tax cut for the wealthy was far less than his actual
policies and plans demonstrate. Overall, the tax cut which Bush
defended in both debates leaves few resources left for the
important issues like education. His budget numbers display that
rather than investing in rebuilding schools or hiring more
teachers, Bush would spend the surplus on providing a tax cut for
the wealthiest Americans. During the first debate, Bush defined
“at-risk children” as meaning that “basically
they can’t learn.” But, the only reason that children
wouldn’t be able to learn is that under the Bush plan, many
students would remain in failing schools. These already-troubled
schools would have their funding taken away from them, impeding
their ability to function properly while students remained
enrolled. On the other hand, Gore would require states and school
districts to improve low performing schools, provide expanded
after-school opportunities such as tutoring, and offer further
financial incentives to principals and outstanding teachers. Such
policy differences illustrate that Bush’s priority is not
education. In fact, in his budget plan, Bush will spend $12 for the
wealthiest 1 percent of Americans for every $1 he spends on
education. This should be of no surprise to anyone who has looked
at Bush’s gubernatorial record in Texas. In fact, during his
1998 gubernatorial re-election campaign, Bush said, “Higher
education is not my priority”(San Antonio Express-News, March
22, 1998). Not surprisingly, when it comes to financial aid
rankings, Texas is a low 38th in the nation in estimated grant
dollars awarded per student, according to a study by the National
Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs. Unfortunately,
Bush’s poor education record in Texas is not confined to just
college age students. For example, Bush opposed President
Clinton’s plan to offer funds to hire 100,000 new teachers to
reduce class size (Dallas Morning News, Nov. 11, 1999). On the
other hand, Gore demonstrated in both debates that education is his
priority. In the first debate, while Bush resorted to character
assaults on the vice president, attacking his credibility and
character, Gore stayed focused on the issues, voicing his desire to
“making the country even better than it is, not making you
(Bush) out to be a bad person.” In the second debate, Gore
again showed his understanding of what needs to be prioritized by
telling Bush, “If you squander the surplus on a huge tax cut
that goes mostly to those at the top, then you can’t make
education the top priority. If the tax cut is your No. 1, 2, 3 and
4 (priorities), you can’t do education.” During the
presidential debates and throughout the campaign, Gore has
continually emphasized this focus on education, from
pre-kindergarten to the university level. Meanwhile, Bush has been
unable to justify his plan that would benefit only a few. As a
result, he and his campaign have resorted to credibility attacks
and faulty claims of “fuzzy math” in order to plead his
case. Bush has claimed that he prioritizes education and health
care when the numbers show just the opposite. Sounds a bit like
some fuzzy logic.