X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Return-receipt-to: "Sweeney Ed" <sweeney_ed@msmail.muohio.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:06:04 U
From:         Sweeney Ed <sweeney_ed@MSMAIL.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject:      Page 304
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Although I was not very surprised at the slugfest atmosphere the debate took
tonight, I was taken aback at how many times Gore called Quayle a liar (or said
"that simply isn't true..." or whatever) about things that can be checked
fairly easily.  One incident involved Gore's voting record in the Senate on the
Caribbean something or other, which I'm sure will be verified in tomorrow's
papers.  Another issue even involved Gore's own book!

At one point in the debate, Quayle charged that the Clinton/Gore environmental
program would cost this country $100 billion.  When Gore denied this, Quayle
almost got hysterical and said, "Yes it is true! You said it in your book! Look
on page 304!"  At least I think he said page 304, because that is the only time
I could find in Gore's book that he mentions anything costing $100 billion.

To Quayle's credit (and I'm not usually in the business of giving Dan Quayle
credit), I can see where he or his staff made the misinterpretation.  Gore, in
his book Earth in the Balance, calls for an environmental revolution similar to
the Marshall Plan after World War II.  Here is word for word the paragraph that
Gore mentions $100 billion:

"The responsibility for taking the initiative [of fixing the global
environment], for innovating, catalyzing, and leading such an effort, falls
disproportionately on the United States.  Yet in the early 1990's our instinct
for world leadership often seems not nearly so bold as it was in the late
1940's.  The bitter experience of the Vietnam War is partly responsible, and
the sheer weariness of carrying the burden of world leadership has taken a
toll.  Furthermore, we are not nearly as dominant in the world economy as we
were then, and that necessarily has implications for our willingness to
shoulder large burdens.  As our budget deficits are now so large as to stifle
our willingness to consider even the most urgent of tasks.  Charles Maier
points out that the annual U.S. expenditures for the Marshall Plan between 1948
and 1951 were close to two percent of our GNP.  A similar percentage today
would be almost $100 billion a year (compared to our nonmilitary foreign aid
budget of about $15 billion a year)."  Earth in the Balance, p. 304.

As you can see, Gore was talking about literally repeating the Marshall Plan,
not about the costs of his own environmental Marshall Plan.  Whether Quayle
intentionally misinterpreted the book or not is up for debate, but I'll give
him the benefit of the doubt.

Gore does spend quite a bit of time in his book talking about environmental
reforms (which I can go into if anyone's interested), but I never found a
dollar amount for how much all of this would cost.  My guess is somewhere
between making a profit and creating jobs (the Clinton/Gore belief) and total
global economic collapse and annihilation (the Quayle/Bush rhetoric).  Any
thoughts?

Peace,
Ed Sweeney, Miami University