TRUMP & HILLARY'S FIRST DEBATE: WHO WON? (HIGHLIGHTS)

TRUMP & HILLARY'S FIRST DEBATE: WHO WON?

HIGHLIGHTS & FACT-CHECKING

Sources: CNN, Politifact, Youtube


**** Clinton debate fact-checks (a running collection)


Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump faced off in the first presidential debate tonight, hitting familiar notes on the economy, national security and each other’s records.

The two candidates traded attacks that were largely accurate, but they had some trouble with facts when it came to their own records.



Trump repeated false claims that he opposed the war in Iraq and that Clinton’s 2008 campaign started the birther movement. Clinton overstated when she said Trump doesn’t pay federal income tax and understated her own position on trade deals.

Here are 33 claims from Clinton and Trump, fact-checked.

Trump: "They're using our country as a piggy bank to rebuild China."

Earlier this year, Trump claimed that "we’ve rebuilt China." This is an overly simplistic description of the economic relationship between the two countries.

Experts told us China’s rapid economic growth can be largely attributed to its in-house reforms and inclusion in global trade. The United States can take some, but certainly not all, of the credit for the latter. We rated Trump’s claim Half True.

Clinton: Trump’s tax plan would deliver "the biggest tax cuts for the top percent of the people in this country."

This was accurate for Trump’s old tax plan. The top 0.1 percent — those making more than $3.6 million per year — would receive 18 percent of the tax cuts under Trump’s proposal, while the bottom 60 percent will enjoy only 16.4 percent of the cuts.

Clinton: "He started his business with $14 million, borrowed from his father."

Clinton is likely referring to a recent Wall Street Journal report on a 1985 casino-license disclosure. It shows that Trump owed his father and his father’s business about $14 million at the time.

Trump: "My father gave me a very small loan in 1975, and I built it into a company that's worth many, many billions of dollars, with some of the greatest assets in the world."

Since Trump has yet to release his tax returns, it’s hard to gauge just how much money Trump started with and how much he has now.

The "very small loan" Trump was referring to was $1 million from Trump’s father, Fred, to finance his Grand Hyatt hotel in 1978. (At this point, Donald Trump was already president of his father’s real estate company.) But Fred Trump made out many other loans to his son until his death in 1999, including a $70 million construction loan for the Grand Hyatt and a $3.5 million casino chip loan to bail out Trump’s struggling gaming empire, the Washington Post Fact-Checker reported.

Clinton: "In fact, Donald was one of the people who rooted for the housing crisis. He said, back in 2006, ‘Gee, I hope it does collapse, because then I can go in and buy some and make some money.’ Well, it did collapse."

We rated this claim Mostly True. While Trump did not welcome the tragedy of foreclosures for millions of American, he did speak optimistically about the opportunities created for an investor such as himself. Clinton’s statement leaves out that nuance, but in large measure, it matches Trump’s words.

Clinton: "Independent experts have looked at what I've proposed and looked at what Donald's proposed, and basically they've said this, that if his tax plan, which would blow up the debt by over $5 trillion."

According to the free-market oriented Tax Foundation, Trump’s revised tax plan would reduce federal revenue between $4.4 trillion and $5.9 trillion on a static basis or $2.6 trillion to $3.9 trillion. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated that Trump’s plan would add $5.3 trillion.

Clinton’s claim is True.

Trump: "I did not" say that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese.

Trump did say this in a tweet four years ago. Though he’s since described the tweet as a "joke" and hasn’t pushed the exact theory since, he has repeatedly called climate change a "hoax" in speeches, tweets and media appearances. And he has said as recently as Jan. 18, 2016, that action on climate change "is done for the benefit of China."

We rated his statement Mostly False.

Trump: The Obama administration "has doubled" the national debt in eight years.

PolitiFact Virginia rated a previous version of this claim Half True. While Trump’s figure is correct, he leaves out some key points.

First, Obama is not the only one responsible for the added debt; Congress has to approve as well. Second, the recession that began before Obama took office in 2009 cut government revenues and led to some of the higher debt incurred during the president’s term.

Clinton: "I voted for" some trade deals. "The biggest one, a multinational one known as CAFTA, I voted against."

Clinton has zig-zagged on trade over the years. Out of the 10 trade deals Clinton could have voted on, she voted in favor of six and against two (CAFTA and the Trade Act of 2002). On two other deals (with Peru and Jordan), she didn’t vote but did vouch for them.

Trump: "You go to New England, you go to Ohio, Pennsylvania, you go anywhere you want, Secretary Clinton, and you will see devastation where manufacturing is down 30, 40, sometimes 50 percent."

Trump once accurately said Pennsylvania has lost 35 percent of its manufacturing jobs since 2001. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Pennsylvania lost nearly 300,000 manufacturing jobs since January 2001, decreasing from 856,200 to 564,900 in the span of 15 years. That correlates with a 34 percent decrease in jobs lost.

Trump: "You called (the Trans-Pacific Partnership) the gold standard of trade deals. You said it's the finest deal you've ever seen."

This is Mostly True. Clinton used those words in 2012 when discussing TPP in Australia. It’s worth noting that at this point the deal was still under negotiation and because that was done behind closed doors, there’s no way to know how much it changed. Before the final version came out, she advocated more of a wait-and-see approach.

Trump: "Now, look, we have the worst revival of an economy since the Great Depression."

The accuracy of this claim depends on what you are measuring. Looking at GDP growth, Trump is right. But looking at the employment picture, the 2001 recovery was worse.

Trump: "You will learn more about Donald Trump by going down to the Federal Election Commission" to see the financial disclosure form than by looking at tax returns.

The financial disclosure form Trump is referring to is legally required and extensive. But we found little evidence to support Trump’s argument that the financial disclosure allows observers to "learn more" than they would from a tax form. Tax filings include additional financial information that are not found on other financial disclosures.

His claim rates False.

Clinton: "He's paid nothing in federal taxes, because the only years that anybody's ever seen were a couple of years when he had to turn them over to state authorities when he was trying to get a casino license, and they showed he didn't pay any federal income tax."

This is Mostly False. The records cover five years of returns. They show Trump didn't pay income taxes in two years — 1978 and 1979. But he did pay taxes in 1975, 1976 and 1977.

Clinton: "You've taken business bankruptcy six times."

This is accurate. Trump declared four times within two years in the 1990s, once more in 2004 and once more in 2009. But experts told us Trump shouldn’t bear all the responsibility, as Clinton’s wording suggests, as the majority of bankruptcies happened as the overall casino industry struggled.

Clinton: "You even at one time suggested that you would try to negotiate down the national debt of the United States."

In two separate interviews in May, Trump suggested that he could do something to negotiate federal debt through "discounting" and that he would "refinance debt" and "buy back debt on — at a discount." But he backtracked after criticism, saying his words had been misinterpreted. We rated Clinton’s claim Mostly True.

Clinton: "The gun epidemic is the leading cause of death of young African-American men, more than the next nine causes put together."

As long as you define "young" as being between the ages of 15 and 24, Clinton’s statement is True, according to CDC data.

Trump: "In Chicago, they've had thousands of shootings, thousands since January 1st. Thousands of shootings."

This is True. According to media reports and gun violence experts, there have been more than 3,000 shooting victims in Chicago so far this year.

Clinton: "It's just a fact that if you're a young African-American man and you do the same thing as a young white man, you are more likely to be arrested, charged, convicted, and incarcerated."

The research suggests that when you compare what happens to black and whites who are engaging in the same illegal activity and have the same criminal history, African Americans are more likely to be arrested, more likely to face tougher charges, and more likely to receive longer sentences than their caucasian counterparts. This claim is True.

Trump: "I do want to bring up the fact that you were the one that brought up the words superpredator about young black youth."

This is Mostly True. While supporting her husband’s 1994 crime legislation, Clinton did use the term "superpredator" in reference to "gangs of kids." She did not explicitly say African-American youth, but the context of her speech and her subsequent apology decades later suggests it was a reasonable inference.

Trump: Top Clinton advisors "were pressing" birther movement stories "very hard."

Trump invoked Clinton advisor Sidney Blumenthal and 2008 campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle as evidence.

A reporter has claimed Blumenthal pushed the birther story to him in the heat of the Democratic primary that year. But Blumenthal denies it, and the reporter acknowledged he has nothing in writing. Doyle suggested on CNN that the campaign fired a volunteer for forwarding an email that promoted the "conspiracy" but later clarified that the conspiracy was about Obama’s religion, not birthplace.

We rated Trump's claim False.

Clinton: "Donald started his career back in 1973 being sued by the Justice Department for racial discrimination because he would not rent apartments in one of his developments to African-Americans."

This is True. The government in 1973 accused Trump, his father and Trump Management of violating the Fair Housing Act, part of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. The case alleged Trump’s realty company discriminated against non-white tenants and potential tenants at numerous apartment complexes.

Trump: "I settled that lawsuit with no admission of guilt."

This is also accurate. Trump and the government settled the claim in 1975, and his company agreed to train employees to comply with housing discrimination requirements. Trump never admitted guilt in the case.

Clinton: "I was so shocked when Donald publicly invited Putin to hack into Americans. That is just unacceptable."

We rated this claim Half True. At a press conference in Florida, Trump said he hoped Russia was able to find "the 30,000 emails that are missing." This was a reference to Clinton’s emails, not Americans’ emails more broadly. Trump later said he was being sarcastic.

Trump: "I've been saying for a long time, and I think you'll agree, because I said it to you once, had we taken the oil -- and we should have taken the oil -- ISIS would not have been able to form either, because the oil was their primary source of income."

Trump is right that he’s been floating this proposal for a long time, and that oil is a big revenue source for the terrorist group. But when we looked at whether the United States should take the oil, experts told us the idea is not only an endorsement of imperialism, but it’s nonsensical and illegal with massive practical challenges.

Clinton: "He actually advocated for the actions we took in Libya and urged that Gadhafi be taken out, after actually doing some business with him one time."

Clinton’s claim is largely accurate. We actually didn’t find that many comments from Trump about Libya. But when he did speak, he was emphatic. In 2011, before the first bombing runs, Trump said, "We should go in, we should stop this guy."

And Trump himself has acknowledged that he leased land to Gadhafi when the Libyan leader visited New York for a United Nations meeting in 2009.

Trump: "I'm all for NATO. But I said they have to focus on terror, also. And they're going to do that. And that was — believe me — I'm sure I'm not going to get credit for it — but that was largely because of what I was saying and my criticism of NATO."

This is False. The change he referred to was the creation of a new intelligence post — an incremental change in how the alliance addresses terrorism. It’s been engaging in counter-terrorism measures for more than 30 years.

Trump: "I did not support the war in Iraq. ...The record shows that I’m right."

The record shows the \opposite. Trump did not comment much on the invasion at the time, and was vague when he did it.

In 2002, asked if America should go to war, he said, "I guess so." Less than three months before the invasion, Trump said the president should be more focused on the economy, but he didn’t specifically speak against launching an attack. He didn’t voice full-throated opposition until almost a year and a half after the invasion. We rate this claim False.

Clinton: "John Kerry and President Obama got a deal that put a lid on Iran's nuclear program without firing a single shot."

If you define "got a lid" as "keep in check," then Clinton has a plausible case. Though there are a lot of uncertainties about how well the accord will hold up, experts said the deal is both effective and close to the best outcome the United States could have achieved. Clinton’s claim is Mostly True.

Trump: "We defend Japan, we defend Germany, we defend South Korea, we defend Saudi Arabia, we defend countries. They do not pay us."

We’ve looked into his claim about South Korea before (in 2016 and in 2011). It’s not accurate. Currently, South Korea pays well over $800 million annually to support the United States’ troop presence.

Trump: "China is totally powerful as it relates to North Korea."

During a Republican primary debate, Trump claimed China has "total control" over North Korea. That’s Mostly False. Though China does have significant economic ties to North Korea, Trump is exaggerating the amount of leverage it has. The fact that North Korea conducted a nuclear test over the strenuous objections of China suggests that Beijing lacks anything approaching "total control" over North Korea.

Trump: The Obama administration’s payment to Iran was "one of the great giveaways of all time, of all time, including $400 million in cash. Nobody's ever seen that before. That turned out to be wrong. It was actually $1.7 billion in cash, obviously, I guess for the hostages. It certainly looks that way."

We rated a previous claim from Trump — that the $400 million was "ransom" — Mostly False. On the same day as several American prisoners were released, the United States paid Iran $400 million. But experts told us this wasn’t ransom.

Iran had a legitimate claim to the money,because the United States owed it to Iran as part of a resolution to a decades-long financial dispute. It’s unclear whether the prisoner and financial disputes were connected in just the final hours of the prisoner transfer or if there was more advance coordination.

Clinton: "This is a man who has called women pigs, slobs and dogs, and someone who has said pregnancy is an inconvenience to employers."

This is accurate. Trump used those exact words to describe Rosie O’Donnell, New York Times columnist Gail Collins and Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington. He also called a lawyer who had to pump breast milk "disgusting."

In a 2004 interview with NBC’s dateline, Trump said this about pregnant women: "The fact is it is an inconvenience for a person that is running a business."

Don Lemon To Tea Party Politician Rand Paul: "No Talking Points, Just Facts Please!"

Last Weekend CNN Reporter Don Lemon & Tea Party Politician Rand Paul Duked It Out Verbally On National Television During An Interview. Don Boldly Told Rand Paul: "No Political Talking Points! Just The Facts Please!" I Say We Need More Bold People Like Him In The Mainstream Media. Kudos!




CNN's Don Lemon And Rand Paul Clash Over Debt Ceiling

CNN's Don Lemon had a very testy exchange with Sen. Rand Paul about the debt ceiling drama on Saturday night.

As the House and Senate again failed to reach an agreement on how to raise the debt ceiling, Paul appeared on CNN to explain the Tea Party position on the talks. Lemon started off the interview by asking him to chat "without talking points." He also began aggressively trying to get Paul to answer his questions, asking him repeatedly how he had voted on the so-called "Cut, Cap and Balance" bill from the House.

Lemon then wondered whether Paul's insistence on measures like a balanced budget amendment were isolating him.

"The Democrats have made many concessions when it comes to what's going on here, and even the Tea Party position it appears to most people remains rigid," Lemon said. "The question is, have you made your point? And by continuing to go on with this, do you feel like you're overreaching and that you're going to lose the clout?"

Paul started talking about how he didn't want to add any more debt to the country's finances. Lemon cut him off. "Hang on, hang on," he said. "Can we just stick to that--we're going to get to that--"

"Let me finish my thought," Paul said.

"Hold on, please, be respectful here," Lemon responded. "I'm trying to answer your question, you've interrupted my answer," Paul said.

"If you answer the question, I'll give you plenty of time," Lemon said.

The two clashed again when Lemon asked who Paul thinks will be to blame if the U.S. defaults on its debt obligations. Again, Paul didn't answer the question directly, and, again, Lemon pressed him on it. There was yet another contentious back-and-forth when Lemon asked Paul about whether he understood that the public is frustrated with Washington, and Paul started talking about measures he had introduced in the Senate.

"I don't want talking points, with all due respect, I'm asking you, do you feel the public sentiment in Washington?" Lemon asked. "This isn't a talking point, I'm trying to tell you what we did 30 minutes ago in the Senate," Paul shot back.

"I'm not asking you what you did, sir. With all due respect, I'm asking you if you feel how the public feels in Washington," Lemon replied.

Later, Lemon said that he hadn't gone after Paul because he is a conservative. "It's not ideological to ask someone to stick to the question presented," he said. "It's just being respectful of you--the viewer the voter."


View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, Huffington Post, Youtube, Google Maps

What's In Obama's Debt Ceiling Agreement? Fact Sheet (Highlights)

Fact Sheet: Bipartisan Debt Deal: A Win for the Economy and Budget Discipline


Bi-partisan Debt Deal: A Win for the Economy and Budget Discipline

* Removes the cloud of uncertainty over our economy at this critical time, by ensuring that no one will be able to use the threat of the nation’s first default now, or in only a few months, for political gain;

* Locks in a down payment on significant deficit reduction, with savings from both domestic and Pentagon spending, and is designed to protect crucial investments like aid for college students;

* Establishes a bi-partisan process to seek a balanced approach to larger deficit reduction through entitlement and tax reform;

* Deploys an enforcement mechanism that gives all sides an incentive to reach bipartisan compromise on historic deficit reduction, while protecting Social Security, Medicare beneficiaries and low-income programs;

* Stays true to the President’s commitment to shared sacrifice by preventing the middle class, seniors and those who are most vulnerable from shouldering the burden of deficit reduction. The President did not agree to any entitlement reforms outside of the context of a bipartisan committee process where tax reform will be on the table and the President will insist on shared sacrifice from the most well-off and those with the most indefensible tax breaks.

Mechanics of the Debt Deal

* Immediately enacted 10-year discretionary spending caps generating nearly $1 trillion in deficit reduction; balanced between defense and non-defense spending.
* President authorized to increase the debt limit by at least $2.1 trillion, eliminating the need for further increases until 2013.

* Bipartisan committee process tasked with identifying an additional $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction, including from entitlement and tax reform. Committee is required to report legislation by November 23, 2011, which receives fast-track protections. Congress is required to vote on Committee recommendations by December 23, 2011.

* Enforcement mechanism established to force all parties – Republican and Democrat – to agree to balanced deficit reduction. If Committee fails, enforcement mechanism will trigger spending reductions beginning in 2013 – split 50/50 between domestic and defense spending. Enforcement protects Social Security, Medicare beneficiaries, and low-income programs from any cuts.

1.) REMOVING UNCERTAINTY TO SUPPORT THE AMERICAN ECONOMY

* Deal Removes Cloud of Uncertainty Until 2013, Eliminating Key Headwind on the Economy: Independent analysts, economists, and ratings agencies have all made clear that a short-term debt limit increase would create unacceptable economic uncertainty by risking default again within only a matter of months and as S&P stated, increase the chance of a downgrade. By ensuring a debt limit increase of at least $2.1 trillion, this deal removes the specter of default, providing important certainty to our economy at a fragile moment.

* Mechanism to Ensure Further Deficit Reduction is Designed to Phase-In Beginning in 2013 to Avoid Harming the Recovery: The deal includes a mechanism to ensure additional deficit reduction, consistent with the economic recovery. The enforcement mechanism would not be made effective until 2013, avoiding any immediate contraction that could harm the recovery. And savings from the down payment will be enacted over 10 years, consistent with supporting the economic recovery.

2.) A DOWNPAYMENT ON DEFICIT REDUCTION BY LOCKING IN HISTORIC SPENDING DISCIPLINE – BALANCED BETWEEN DOMESTIC AND PENTAGON SPENDING

* More than $900 Billion in Savings over 10 Years By Capping Discretionary Spending: The deal includes caps on discretionary spending that will produce more than $900 billion in savings over the next 10 years compared to the CBO March baseline, even as it protects core investments from deep and economically damaging cuts.
* Includes Savings of $350 Billion from the Base Defense Budget – the First Defense Cut Since the 1990s: The deal puts us on track to cut $350 billion from the defense budget over 10 years. These reductions will be implemented based on the outcome of a review of our missions, roles, and capabilities that will reflect the President’s commitment to protecting our national security.

* Reduces Domestic Discretionary Spending to the Lowest Level Since Eisenhower: These discretionary caps will put us on track to reduce non-defense discretionary spending to its lowest level since Dwight Eisenhower was President.

* Includes Funding to Protect the President’s Historic Investment in Pell Grants: Since taking office, the President has increased the maximum Pell award by $819 to a maximum award $5,550, helping over 9 million students pay for college tuition bills. The deal provides specific protection in the discretionary budget to ensure that the there will be sufficient funding for the President’s historic investment in Pell Grants without undermining other critical investments.

3.) ESTABLISHING A BIPARTISAN PROCESS TO ACHIEVE $1.5 TRILLION IN ADDITIONAL BALANCED DEFICIT REDUCTION BY THE END OF 2011

* The Deal Locks in a Process to Enact $1.5 Trillion in Additional Deficit Reduction Through a Bipartisan, Bicameral Congressional Committee: The deal creates a bipartisan, bicameral Congressional Committee that is charged with enacting $1.5 trillion in additional deficit reduction by the end of the year. This Committee will work without the looming specter of default, ensuring time to carefully consider essential reforms without the disruption and brinksmanship of the past few months.

* This Committee is Empowered Beyond Previous Bipartisan Attempts at Deficit Reduction: Any recommendation of the Committee would be given fast-track privilege in the House and Senate, assuring it of an up or down vote and preventing some from using procedural gimmicks to block action.

* To Meet This Target, the Committee Will Consider Responsible Entitlement and Tax Reform. This means putting all the priorities of both parties on the table – including both entitlement reform and revenue-raising tax reform.

4.) A STRONG ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM TO MAKE ALL SIDES COME TOGETHER

* The Deal Includes An Automatic Sequester to Ensure That At Least $1.2 Trillion in Deficit Reduction Is Achieved By 2013 Beyond the Discretionary Caps: The deal includes an automatic sequester on certain spending programs to ensure that—between the Committee and the trigger—we at least put in place an additional $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction by 2013.

* Consistent With Past Practice, Sequester Would Be Divided Equally Between Defense and Non-Defense Programs and Exempt Social Security, Medicaid, and Low-Income Programs: Consistent with the bipartisan precedents established in the 1980s and 1990s, the sequester would be divided equally between defense and non-defense program, and it would exempt Social Security, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, programs for low-income families, and civilian and military retirement. Likewise, any cuts to Medicare would be capped and limited to the provider side.

* Sequester Would Provide a Strong Incentive for Both Sides to Come to the Table: If the fiscal committee took no action, the deal would automatically add nearly $500 billion in defense cuts on top of cuts already made, and, at the same time, it would cut critical programs like infrastructure or education. That outcome would be unacceptable to many Republicans and Democrats alike – creating pressure for a bipartisan agreement without requiring the threat of a default with unthinkable consequences for our economy.


5.) A BALANCED DEAL CONSISTENT WITH THE PRESIDENT’S COMMITMENT TO SHARED SACRIFICE

* The Deal Sets the Stage for Balanced Deficit Reduction, Consistent with the President’s Values: The deal is designed to achieve balanced deficit reduction, consistent with the values the President articulated in his April Fiscal Framework. The discretionary savings are spread between both domestic and defense spending. And the President will demand that the Committee pursue a balanced deficit reduction package, where any entitlement reforms are coupled with revenue-raising tax reform that asks for the most fortunate Americans to sacrifice.

* The Enforcement Mechanism Complements the Forcing Event Already In Law – the Expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts – To Create Pressure for a Balanced Deal: The Bush tax cuts expire as of 1/1/2013, the same date that the spending sequester would go into effect. These two events together will force balanced deficit reduction. Absent a balanced deal, it would enable the President to use his veto pen to ensure nearly $1 trillion in additional deficit reduction by not extending the high-income tax cuts.

* In Securing this Bipartisan Deal, the President Rejected Proposals that Would Have Placed the Sole Burden of Deficit Reduction on Low-Income or Middle-Class Families: The President stood firmly against proposals that would have placed the sole burden of deficit reduction on lower-income and middle-class families.

This includes not only proposals in the House Republican Budget that would have undermined the core commitments of Medicare to our seniors and forced tens of millions of low-income Americans to go without health insurance, but also enforcement mechanisms that would have forced automatic cuts to low-income programs. The enforcement mechanism in the deal exempts Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare benefits, unemployment insurance, programs for low-income families, and civilian and military retirement.





President Obama speaks in support of the bipartisan deal to reduce the deficit and raise the debt limit

Tonight, President Obama spoke in support of a bipartisan deal to reduce the nation's deficit and avoid default. It extends the debt limit to 2013, removing the cloud of uncertainty over our economy and ensuring that no one will be able to use the threat of default now or in only a few months for political gain. The bipartisan compromise assures that the United States meets its obligations – including monthly Social Security checks, veterans’ benefits, and the government contracts we’ve signed with thousands of businesses.

In order to receive the support from both parties -- as the President has consistently stressed -- the agreement has a few important elements:

*
A down payment on deficit reduction with historic long-term spending restraint: Nearly $1 trillion in spending cuts -- done in a way to not harm the economic recovery, are balanced between domestic and pentagon spending, and protects critical initiatives like aid for college students;
*
Expedited process for balanced deficit reduction: Puts in place a longer term process for additional $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction through a committee structure that will put everything on the table, including tax and entitlement reform. To prevent either side from using procedural tricks to prevent Congress from acting, the committee’s recommendations will receive fast track authority, which means they can’t be amended or filibustered.
*
Sets the stage for a balanced package, including revenues: The American people and a growing number of Republicans agree that any deficit reduction package must be balanced and included revenue.
o
If the Committee does not succeed in meaningful balanced deficit reduction with revenue-raising tax reform on the most well-off by the end of 2012, the President can use his veto pen to raise nearly $1 trillion from the most well-off by vetoing any extension of the Bush high income tax cuts.
*
A proven enforcement mechanism: An enforcement mechanism that will compel painful enough cuts to both sides that it will force congress to act. Enforcement mechanisms by their very nature should include measures that neither side supports so as to ensure action.
o
If Congress fails to act, beginning in 2013 there will be $1.2 trillion in spending cuts through 2021 – 50 percent from domestic spending and 50 percent from defense spending. Low income programs, including Medicaid, and Social Security and Medicare benefits would be exempted. Medicare cuts would be capped, limited to the provider side.
* Does not accept entitlement reforms without equal consideration of revenue raising tax reform, and ensures that low-income and middle class families are not forced to bear a disproportionate share of the burden from deficit reduction.

This fact sheet provides and even more comprehensive overview of the deal.
Here are President Obama's full remarks:


"Good evening.

There are still some very important votes to be taken by members of Congress, but I want to announce that the leaders of both parties, in both chambers, have reached an agreement that will reduce the deficit and avoid default -- a default that would have had a devastating effect on our economy.

The first part of this agreement will cut about $1 trillion in spending over the next 10 years -- cuts that both parties had agreed to early on in this process. The result would be the lowest level of annual domestic spending since Dwight Eisenhower was President -- but at a level that still allows us to make job-creating investments in things like education and research. We also made sure that these cuts wouldn’t happen so abruptly that they’d be a drag on a fragile economy.

Now, I've said from the beginning that the ultimate solution to our deficit problem must be balanced. Despite what some Republicans have argued, I believe that we have to ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share by giving up tax breaks and special deductions. Despite what some in my own party have argued, I believe that we need to make some modest adjustments to programs like Medicare to ensure that they’re still around for future generations.

That's why the second part of this agreement is so important. It establishes a bipartisan committee of Congress to report back by November with a proposal to further reduce the deficit, which will then be put before the entire Congress for an up or down vote. In this stage, everything will be on the table. To hold us all accountable for making these reforms, tough cuts that both parties would find objectionable would automatically go into effect if we don’t act. And over the next few months, I’ll continue to make a detailed case to these lawmakers about why I believe a balanced approach is necessary to finish the job.

Now, is this the deal I would have preferred? No. I believe that we could have made the tough choices required -- on entitlement reform and tax reform -- right now, rather than through a special congressional committee process. But this compromise does make a serious down payment on the deficit reduction we need, and gives each party a strong incentive to get a balanced plan done before the end of the year.

Most importantly, it will allow us to avoid default and end the crisis that Washington imposed on the rest of America. It ensures also that we will not face this same kind of crisis again in six months, or eight months, or 12 months. And it will begin to lift the cloud of debt and the cloud of uncertainty that hangs over our economy.

Now, this process has been messy; it’s taken far too long. I've been concerned about the impact that it has had on business confidence and consumer confidence and the economy as a whole over the last month. Nevertheless, ultimately, the leaders of both parties have found their way toward compromise. And I want to thank them for that.

Most of all, I want to thank the American people. It’s been your voices -- your letters, your emails, your tweets, your phone calls -- that have compelled Washington to act in the final days. And the American people's voice is a very, very powerful thing.

We’re not done yet.

I want to urge members of both parties to do the right thing and support this deal with your votes over the next few days. It will allow us to avoid default. It will allow us to pay our bills. It will allow us to start reducing our deficit in a responsible way. And it will allow us to turn to the very important business of doing everything we can to create jobs, boost wages, and grow this economy faster than it's currently growing.

That’s what the American people sent us here to do, and that’s what we should be devoting all of our time to accomplishing in the months ahead.

Thank you very much, everybody."

Sources: CNN, Huffington Post, MSNBC, White House.gov, Youtube

Obama Touts CBO Info. On Cost Control, Fact Check: Not So

Pres. Obama's Health Care Plan: A Premium On Accurate Information


As our year long debate on health care comes to a close there’s a lot of misinformation flying around. Case in point: a recent headline suggesting that health premiums would increase under the President’s health care plan. The suggestion of this article was that maybe Americans would be better off and end up paying less if we ditch reform just continue to do nothing.

In fact, the opposite is true. Most people would pay less—in many cases a lot less. Let’s look at why:

In the absence of reform, health premiums are expected to continue skyrocketing. Those 20, 30 and 40% increases that you’ve heard about lately – they’ll be the rule not the exception.

The real question, then, is whether the President’s plan would lower the cost of premiums from what they would be or increase them. Here, we don’t have to rely on hearsay or news articles – the Congressional Budget Office has offered its official view on the question.



According to the CBO, Americans buying the same coverage they have today in the individual market will see premiums fall by 14 to 20 percent compared to what they would pay without health insurance reform. This results from two important things that reform will do:

* First: The President’s Proposal introduces greater competition in the insurance market by establishing state-based exchanges where insurers will need to compete for business. In addition, the proposal streamlines administrative costs by standardized forms and reducing the paperwork burden of providers.

CBO assumes that competition and administrative savings in the reformed market will generate significant savings, which will reduce average premiums for a comparable package of benefits by 7 to 10 percent compared to the cost of such benefits without reform in the individual market.

* Second: As a result of insurance market reforms that will be in place in the individual market and because of the individual responsibility requirement for coverage, CBO assumes that millions more people will have access to the individual market. According to the CBO, the impact of bringing these new people – many of whom are younger and healthier – into the market will help reduce premiums by 7 to 10 percent in the individual market.

But wait, maybe you’ve heard opponents saying that CBO actually found that premiums would go up? Again, the facts matter here.

The CBO assumes that under President Obama's Proposal individuals purchasing coverage in the reformed individual market will have access to a wider range of health benefits than they have in today’s individual market. So people may choose to buy better coverage. Some may pay more because they are getting more for their money.

And let’s not forget that the President’s plan includes the largest middle class tax cut for health insurance in our nation’s history. Critics also fail to point out that the majority of people purchasing coverage in the individual market will receive tax credits that on average will cover two-thirds of their premium.

Once the impact of these new tax credits are taken into account, many people in the individual market could see their premiums drop by almost 60 percent compared to what they would have paid without health insurance reform.

Dan Pfeiffer is White House Communications Director




FACT CHECK: Obama Plan Only Slows Premiums Rise


Buyers, beware: President Barack Obama says his health care overhaul will lower premiums by double digits, but check the fine print.

Premiums are likely to keep going up even if the health care bill passes, experts say. If cost controls work as advertised, annual increases would level off with time. But don't look for a rollback. Instead, the main reason premiums would be more affordable is that new government tax credits would help millions of people who can't afford the cost now.

Listening to Obama pitch his plan, you might not realize that's how it works.

Visiting a Cleveland suburb this week, the president described how individuals and small businesses will be able to buy coverage in a new kind of health insurance marketplace, gaining the same strength in numbers that federal employees have.

"You'll be able to buy in, or a small business will be able to buy into this pool," Obama said. "And that will lower rates, it's estimated, by up to 14 to 20 percent over what you're currently getting. That's money out of pocket."

And that's not all.

Obama asked his audience for a show of hands from people with employer-provided coverage, what most Americans have.

"Your employer, it's estimated, would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent," said the president, "which means they could give you a raise."

A White House press spokesman later said the president misspoke; he had meant to say annual premiums would drop by $3,000.

It could be a long wait.

"There's no question premiums are still going to keep going up," said Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a research clearinghouse on the health care system. "There are pieces of reform that will hopefully keep them from going up as fast. But it would be miraculous if premiums actually went down relative to where they are today."

The statistics Obama based his claims on come from two sources. In both cases, caveats got left out.

A report for the Business Roundtable, an association of big company CEOs, was the source for the claim that employers could save $3,000 per worker on health care costs, the White House said.

Issued in November, the report looked generally at proposals that Democrats were considering to curb health care costs, concluding they had the potential to significantly reduce future increases.

But the analysis didn't consider specific legislation, much less the final language being tweaked this week. It's unclear to what degree the bill that the House is expected to vote on within days would reduce costs for employers.

An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office of earlier Senate legislation suggested savings could be fairly modest.

It found that large employers would see premium savings of at most 3 percent in 2016, compared with what their costs would have been without the legislation. That would be more like a few hundred dollars instead of several thousand.

The claim that people buying coverage individually would save 14 percent to 20 percent comes from the same budget office report, prepared in November for Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind. But the presidential sound bite fails to convey the full picture.

The budget office concluded that premiums for people buying their own coverage would go up by an average of 10 percent to 13 percent, compared with the levels they'd reach without the legislation. That's mainly because policies in the individual insurance market would provide more comprehensive benefits than they do today.

For most households, those added costs would be more than offset by the tax credits provided under the bill, and they would pay significantly less than they have to now. However, the budget office estimated that about 4 in 10 customers shopping for an individual policy would not be eligible for tax credits — and would face higher premiums on average than without the legislation.

The premium reduction of 14 percent to 20 percent that Obama often cites would apply only to a portion of the people buying coverage on their own — those who want to keep the skimpier kinds of policies available today.

Their costs would go down because more young people would be joining the risk pool and because insurance company overhead costs would be lower in the more efficient system Obama wants to create.

The president usually alludes to that distinction in his health care stump speech, saying the savings would accrue to those people who continue to buy "comparable" coverage to what they have today.

But many of his listeners may not pick up on it.

"People are likely to not buy the same low-value policies they are buying now," said health economist Len Nichols of George Mason University. "If they did buy the same value plans ... the premium would be lower than it is now. This makes the White House statement true. But is it possibly misleading for some people? Sure."




CBO Confirms Families Will Save Money Under Health Reform



Today, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released an analysis (pdf) of the Senate version health insurance reform – and it contains more good news about what reform will mean for families struggling to keep up with skyrocketing premiums under the broken status quo.

Like other recent analyses, the CBO report finds that lower administrative costs, increased competition, and better pooling for risk will mean lower premiums for American families. Among the findings:

* Americans buying comparable health plans to what they have today in the individual market would see premiums fall by 14 to 20 percent.
* Those who get coverage through their employer today will likely see a decrease in premiums as well.
* And Americans who currently struggle to find coverage would see lower premiums because more people will be covered.

In addition to the welcome relief on costs, the CBO reports that Americans will also have better insurance options. The CBO assumes that many people will take advantage of these better options and "buy up" to purchase better plans than are currently offered in the individual market.

Not surprisingly, some of reform's opponents have already started trying to distort that finding to make false claims that reform will raise costs. So let's be clear: where the CBO does see premiums rising, it's not because Americans are paying more for the same coverage – it's that they’re making a choice to purchase better plans that weren't previously available to them.

In keeping with that finding, the CBO affirms the effectiveness of the grandfather policy, which will allow you to keep what you have if you like it. The report reads, "Moreover, if they wanted to, current policyholders in the nongroup market would be allowed to keep their policy with no changes, and the premiums for those policies would probably not differ substantially from current-law levels."

Finally, it’s worth nothing that for all the good news in the CBO report, the analysis doesn't even take into account all of the bill’s measures to control costs and improve coverage. So if anything, it understates the positive impacts of reform. For example, the CBO does not take into account policies like the catastrophic option available to young adults, and reinsurance provision, that would reduce premiums even further.

It also does not incorporate potential effects of the proposal on the level or growth rate of spending for health care. For instance, CBO’s analysis does not fully capture the effects of the excise tax on high-cost plans, which will bend the cost curve over the long-term. But it did provide a snapshot: for plans affected by the tax in 2016, premiums would be 9-12 percent lower than under current law.


Sources: Whitehouse.gov, C-Span, CBO, Yahoo News, Youtube

Fact Check: NC Dems Dirty Politics Anti-Lassiter Flier...Its Going To Backfire

NC Dems Dirty Politics Ad Watch


The N.C. Democratic Party paid for a mailing attacking Republican mayoral candidate John Lassiter's ties to developers.

What the NC Dems Party ad says:

"John Lassiter has consistently sided with the big developers against homeowners.

"Lassiter sided with developers over children. Lassiter opposed impact fees on developers to build new schools. While protecting his developer friends, he opposed funds for after-school programs.

"Lassiter opposed pedestrian-friendly streets and neighborhoods. He sided with his developer donors against guidelines that called for more streets, shorter blocks and wider sidewalks."

The facts:

To back its first contention, the mailer cites articles including one in 2007 by an Observer community columnist about a zoning decision. It noted how much money the developer involved gave to Lassiter, as well as Mayor Pat McCrory and other council members. Two Democrats and two Republicans got more than Lassiter.

On the claim about children, the mailer refers to a 2005 vote by a council committee against so-called impact fees to help pay for schools. Lassiter was one of three members to reject the fees, urging schools to ensure they spent existing money wisely. Democrat Patrick Cannon and Republican John Tabor voted with him.

In a straw vote on the 2004 budget, Lassiter opposed using city money for after-school programs. Lassiter called it "a dangerous step" for the city to fund programs the schools and county might better support.

In 2007, he opposed the Urban Street Design Guidelines.

The skinny:

The NC Democratic Party mailer takes some facts and puts its own spin on them. Lassiter has said he made decisions independently, unswayed by campaign donations.


View Larger Map

Sources: McClatchy Newspapers, Charlotte Observer, NC Dem Party, Google Maps

Fact Checking The Baucus Health Care Reform Bill

(What's in the Bill? How Effective is it)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Sources: MSNBC

President George W. Bush's Legacy: Fact or Fiction?

Earlier in the week outgoing U.S. President George W. Bush graced us with his final White House Press Conference.

Last night he addressed the nation with his Farewell Speech.

The speech lasting just 13 minute was Bush's way of thanking the American people and the U.S. Military for allowing him the opportunity to play "Russian Roulette" with our Economy and National Security.

He of course defended all of his Presidential decisions and even looked a little sad while speaking.

As it relates to his High Disapproval Ratings he responded with this statement:

"You may not agree with some of the tough decisions I have made, but I hope you can agree that I was willing to make the tough decisions."

Bush also gave a "thumbs up" for Barack Obama's election, calling his upcoming Inauguration a "moment of hope and pride" for America.

All hoopla aside now comes the "Fact Checking" as it relates to the 43rd President's Legacy.

These are comments he made during his last Presidential Press Conference at the White House on January 12Th.

Let's compare what President Bush said about his Legacy versus what REALLY happened.

On the Economy Bush said:

"Look, I inherited a recession, I'm ending on a recession. In the meantime, there were 52 months of uninterrupted job growth."

Fact Check:

There have been two recessions during Bush's time in office. The first was a relatively mild downturn that began in March 2001 and lasted eight months, ending in November 2001. Since the first one did not begin until after he took office in January 2001, it is not strictly accurate to say he "inherited" it.

The second downturn began in December 2007 and has already lasted longer than any recession in a quarter century.

A staggering 2.6 million jobs disappeared in 2008, the most since World War II, and unemployment hit a 16-year high of 7.2 percent in December.

Overall, during Bush's eight years in office, a net total of 3 million jobs were created. In the two terms of his predecessor, President Clinton, roughly 21 million jobs were generated

On Hurricane Katrina and FEMA Bush said:

"You know, people said, well, the federal response was slow. Don't tell me the federal response was slow when there was 30,000 people pulled off roofs right after the storm passed. ... That's a pretty quick response."

Fact Check:

The president's defense is based on one very narrow measure in the 2005 storm's immediate aftermath. He ignored numerous other facets that depict a more sober picture.

There were 9,000 Louisiana families still living in trailers as of Sept. 1, 2007, and more than 30,000 residents of Gulf states receiving disaster housing assistance. Five of 23 acute-care hospitals in the New Orleans area remain closed.

Bush noted that $121 billion in federal aid was approved. But much of that went to rescue operations and other short-term needs. The Louisiana Recovery Authority estimates that about $15 billion has been spent on rebuilding in the state.
Bush said New Orleans schools have improved, which is true. But of 125 public schools in New Orleans before Katrina, only about 85 remain.

On Peace in the Middle East Bush said:

"In 2002 ... I gave a speech about a two-state solution -- two states, two democracies living side by side in peace. And we have worked hard to advance that idea. ... Most people in the Middle East now accept the two-state solution as the best way for peace."

Fact Check:

Bush's 2002 speech calling for an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel did mark a surprisingly explicit and detailed endorsement of that idea by an American president. But he didn't mention that in those early years his administration put active peacemaking in a deep freeze and only tried to restart negotiations late in his term.

By the time the U.S. made Mideast peace a diplomatic priority, conditions were changing.

Hamas is now in control of the Gaza Strip, splitting the territory and people Abbas theoretically governs.

Bush sponsored a high-level peace conference in late 2007, and visited Israel and the West Bank in early 2008. current U.S Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stopped by often to check on secret negotiations between Abbas' West Bank leadership and Israel.

Hamas is now at war with Israel in Gaza.

Israel may succeed in wounding Hamas leadership and its ability to fire rockets into Israel, but it probably cannot defeat the well-organized group outright. In the meantime, civilian deaths in Gaza erode Palestinian support for negotiations.

On the War in Iraq Bush said:

"Putting a 'Mission Accomplished' on an aircraft carrier was a mistake. It sent the wrong message."

"... Abu Ghraib obviously was a huge disappointment ... Not having weapons of mass destruction was a significant disappointment. I don't know if you want to call those mistakes or not, but they were; things didn't go according to plan, let's put it that way."

Fact Check:

The "Mission Accomplished" banner incident happened in May 2003, less than two months after Saddam Hussein was ousted.

The abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq was blamed by administration officials on low-level soldiers. But a Senate report last December concluded that such abuse "cannot simply be attributed to the actions of 'a few bad apples' acting on their own.

The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees."

The accusation that Saddam had and was pursuing weapons of mass destruction was Bush's main initial justification for going to war. The administration used intelligence that later was found to be false.

On Prisoners at Guantanamo Bay Bush said:

"I understand that Gitmo has created controversies. But when it came time for those countries that were criticizing America to take some of those -- some of those detainees, they weren't willing to help out."

Fact Check:

At Guantanamo, the administration defied international treaties governing the treatment of war criminals to indefinitely detain, and without charges, terror suspects captured overseas.

The suspects won the right to challenge their detention in a Supreme Court ruling last June. In November 2007, federal courts began ordering some suspects released after ruling that the U.S. had no right to hold them.

Officials from France, Germany, Portugal and Switzerland have all recently said they are looking into accepting detainees from the U.S. prison. Australia has refused.

On Security and Personal Freedoms Bush said:

"In terms of the decisions that I had made to protect the homeland, I wouldn't worry about popularity. ... All these debates will matter not if there's another attack on the homeland. The question won't be, you know, 'Were you critical of this plan or not?' The question is going to be, 'Why didn't you do something?'"

Fact Check:

The administration authorized a secret surveillance program to let investigators eavesdrop on terror suspects in the U.S. without first obtaining a court warrant. A federal judge in Detroit ruled the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program unconstitutional and the Justice Department scaled it back to bring it under the review of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

He signed an executive order in 2007 deeming it compliant with a law requiring all detainees to be treated humanely, and in March 2007 vetoed an intelligence authorization bill that would have limited the CIA's interrogations to only those methods approved by the U.S. military.
Terrorists have not struck the U.S. since 2001. Bush's central promise to get al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden "dead or alive" remains unfulfilled.

On Climate Change Bush said:

"I guess I could have been popular by accepting Kyoto, which I felt was a flawed treaty, and (instead I) proposed something different and more constructive."

Fact Check:

Most developed countries signed the 1997 Kyoto accord on climate change, which requires signatories to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases tied to warming.

Bush was not alone in his criticism of Kyoto -- Senate Republicans and Democrats unanimously refused to endorse it because China and India were not required to cut emissions. But over the years many Democrats came to see the Kyoto process as worthy of pursuing, and they urged the Bush administration to rejoin international talks.

Bush instead argued for voluntary steps by nations and companies, and started a separate series of climate talks.


President George W. Bush giving his farewell speech from the White House before a small crowd of 200 carefully chosen attendees and the Press.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Sources: MSNBC, AP, CBS News, Gothamist