And So I Go: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

How Low Can They Go? AFL-CIO Lies About McClain

Posted on: July 10, 2008


How low can they go?  Politicians and labor unions know no depth at which they will stop to smear an opponent.   Why they are supporting Obama when the higher taxes will only harm their own members is typical behavior because the AFL-CIO leadership  has always backed the Democrats.

I have said many times that my political Independent as I vote the person and not the party.  My political views tend to the conservative liberal in most cases.  Tho as in most things I look individually at  issues and make up my mind only after careful study.

I am sorry to see this kind of outright lying so early in the game.  It is a lie that as you see below can be easily disproved  by anyone who cares to check it out.  Unfortunately not many people do.  This is especially the case of  the voting in groves elderly who still believe their government, their preachers, their unions and their dogs will not lie to them.  You see they came of age and their views were set before making the acquaintance of Duke!  BB


AFL-CIO Falsely Attacks McCain
It runs an ad claiming McCain voted “against increasing health care benefits for veterans,” when he actually voted repeatedly to increase them.
The AFL-CIO is attacking McCain with a TV spot saying he voted “against increasing health care benefits for veterans.” Actually, he voted for increases in those benefits.The labor federation points to McCain’s votes against Democratic proposals to increase funding. Those were defeated along party lines, and then quickly followed by alternative measures to increase benefits by smaller amounts, all of which passed unanimously or with

near-unanimous majorities. McCain supported all of them.The AFL-CIO also points to a McCain vote against a war spending supplemental appropriations measure from 2007 that included additional funding for veterans’ health care, along with much else. The measure passed the Senate along partisan lines but was vetoed by President Bush

. But McCain voted for a later version of the supplemental that ultimately passed into law and actually included slightly more funding for veterans’ benefits.

The AFL-CIO attack ad against John McCain starting airing today and is the first ad the labor federation has run in the 2008 presidential campaign. It will run in Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin for the next three weeks, according to a report in the Washington Post.We find the ad, narrated by Vietnam Veteran Jim Wasser, to be unduly harsh on McCain’s voting record on veterans’ health benefits.

AFL-CIO Ad: “Not Now”

McCain Ad

Vietnam Veteran Jim Wasser: Every vet respects John McCain’s war record. It’s his record in the Senate that I have a problem with. He wants us to keep spending ten billion dollars a month in Iraq, just like Bush. That’s money we could use to build schools and roads and create jobs we need here at home. He even took Bush’s side against increasing health care benefits for veterans. People should let John McCain know his agenda’s not what we need. Not now.

McCain’s Votes

The ad says that McCain “took Bush’s side against increasing health care benefits for veterans.” But he actually voted to increase veterans’ health care benefits, though not by as much as Democrats proposed.

The AFL-CIO, in documentation it provided to, cites four specific votes as support for this allegation. Three of them were against Democratic amendments  to the annual budget bill in 2004, 2005 and 2006. And all of them failed along party lines in a Republican-controlled Senate. But in each case, McCain later supported different amendments to increase veterans’ health benefits, either on the same day or the following day.

Specifically, in 2004 McCain voted against an increase of $1.8 billion, but an increase of $1.2 billion passed by unanimous consent. In 2005 he voted against an increase of $2.8 billion, then voted for a $410 million increase. And in 2006, he voted against a $1.5 billion increase, then voted for an $823 million increase.

There was no dissent for the 2004 amendment, and the 2006 amendment passed unanimously. In 2005, the alternative spending increase passed with a healthy 96-to-4 bipartisan stamp of approval. Also, it’s worth mentioning that the president does not express an opinion on every amendment offered in the Senate. So it is not accurate to say McCain “took Bush’s side” on these votes.

The union group also cites a fourth vote, a March 2007 vote by McCain against a war spending supplemental that passed the Senate but was vetoed by the president. The bill did include $1.77 billion in additional funding for veterans’ health care benefits. However, McCain voted for an alternative version of the supplemental that was quickly introduced, passed and signed into law. And it actually included slightly more money for veterans’ health benefits, $1.79 billion.

$10 Billion a Month?

The ad also says that McCain “
wants us to keep spending ten billion dollars a month in Iraq, just like Bush.” It is true that the U.S. is spending $10 billion or more per month in Iraq, according to most estimates. And McCain has certainly resisted any “retreat” from Iraq, and he has even said U.S. troops could remain for decades. But strictly speaking, McCain has never said that he wants to spend $10 billion per month in Iraq. Quite the contrary.

In fact, McCain says he’s counting on reduced spending for military operations to help him balance the federal budget. In his “Jobs for America” plan released July 9, the McCain campaign said:

McCain campaign: The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction.

We can’t predict whether McCain, or for that matter, Obama, will actually be able to cut spending in Iraq. But it’s simply wrong to say McCain “wants” to continue spending at the current level, when he’s said he wants to reduce it.

-by Justin Bank

Cillizza, Chris, “AFL-CIO Goes After McCain in Battleground States,” Washington Post. 9 July 2008.108th Congress,

U.S. Senate, 2nd Session Roll Call Vote No. 40.109th Congress,

U.S. Senate, 1st Session Roll Call Vote No. 55. 109th Congress, U.S. Senate, 1st Session Roll Call Vote No. 54.

109th Congress,
U.S. Senate, 2nd Session, Roll Call Vote No. 41. 109th Congress, U.S. Senate, 2nd Session, Roll Call Vote No. 40.110th Congress,

U.S. Senate, 1st Session, Roll Call Vote No. 126.

110th Congress, U.S. Senate, 1st Session, Roll Call Vote No. 181.

Public Law 110-28: U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007.

Related Articles

9 Responses to "How Low Can They Go? AFL-CIO Lies About McClain"

“the higher taxes will only harm their own members…”

What higher taxes? Can you be specific about what income bracket you are referring to and how much their taxes will go up? I know you’ll have this information handy because you aren’t the kind of blogger to spew ridiculous talking points without substantiating them for yourself.

This is exactly what I expect from the AFL-CIO. Unions are a just another arm of the Democratic party and will do the dirty work for them.

Roch take the time to read the article and the references and you will get your answer as to the Deomocrats willingness to raise taxes. Just listen to Obama and ask yourself where the money will come from. Taxes will go up and they will go up for every working person except those working and earning below the poverty level.

And no, I am not a blogger who just spews out nonsense and you know it. Do your own homework! I have live mine and watched as my once proud independent countrymen have become whining children wanting Daddy-O to take care of them from, cradLe to grave while they use their money to buy video games. And I find the lazy, give me so called liberal or progressive citizens to be non-thinkers and frankly disgusting. BB

Thank you both for stopping by. I enjoy and welcome all comments. But then I expect my visitors to be prepared for my comment also. BB

No answer, huh?

Didn’t read the entire article, huh?

It’s been a while since I came around such great info. Your site is bookmarked and I will come back soon. pro34

Thank you Pro34. I do my best to keep my readers up on events that are not likely to be covered by the news. Of course by “the news” I means FOXNEWS because I no longer waste my time watching the other channels. The others are so biased and just plain lying about much that is going on.

LOL I meant only to thank you and then got on a stump and started bleeting. Forgive 🙂 BB

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

See topic cloud at bottom of page for specific topics.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 97 other followers

BB’s file cabinet

%d bloggers like this: