Get the Fact Checks on Candidate Statements

by CNN

Published: Thu, October 02, 2008 - 10:45 pm CST Last Updated: Thu, October 02, 2008 - 11:11 pm CST

Fact Check: Is it true Obama 'still can't admit the surge works'?

The Statement:
During the vice-presidential debate in St. Louis on Thursday, Oct. 2, Republican nominee Gov. Sarah Palin criticized Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama's opposition to the military "surge" in Iraq and said, "The surge worked. Barack Obama still can't admit the surge works."

The Facts:
In a January 10, 2007, speech, President Bush announced plans to increase the number of troops in Iraq by about 20,000 in an effort to quell violence throughout the country and especially in Baghdad. By spring 2008, as the number of deaths and other violence in Iraq began to drop, Bush and other supporters — including Republican presidential nominee John McCain — were hailing the "surge" as a success and giving it much of the credit for the improvements.

In Congress, Obama was one of many lawmakers who spoke against the plan. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse," he said in a response to Bush's speech. On at least some occasions, Obama — who has campaigned on a promise to end the war in Iraq — said he wasn't questioning the ability of U.S. troops, but the long-term political impact the surge would have.

"Even those who support the escalation have acknowledged that 20,000, 30,000, even 40,000 more troops placed temporarily in places like Baghdad are not going to make a long-term difference," he said in a March 19, 2007, interview on CNN's "Larry King Live."

But in a September 4 interview this year, Obama said the military surge "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams," while adding that goals laid out by Bush, including turning over control of all Iraqi provinces to that nation's security forces, have not been achieved. "There's an underlying problem with what we've done," Obama said. "We have reduced the violence, but the Iraqis still haven't taken responsibility."

McCain himself has quoted Obama's "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams" remark. At the first presidential debate on Friday, Sept. 26, McCain attacked Obama's stance on the surge but added, "Senator Obama said the surge could not work, said it would increase sectarian violence, said it was doomed to failure … recently on a television program, he said it exceeded our wildest expectations."

The Verdict:
False. Obama has said the surge "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams" from a military perspective.

Fact Check: Did Palin cut taxes in Alaska?

The Statement:
At a debate Thursday, Oct. 2 in St. Louis, Missouri, Republican vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin touted her record of cutting taxes as a mayor and as governor of Alaska. "As mayor, every year I was in office, I did reduce taxes. I eliminated personal property taxes and eliminated small business inventory taxes. And as governor, we suspended our state fuel tax," she said.

The Facts:
As the mayor of the town of Wasilla from 1996 to 2002, Palin did cut property taxes repeatedly: The city's property tax rate was cut by three-quarters during her tenure and eliminated after she left office. But she also raised sales taxes by one-quarter — from 2 percent to 2.5 percent — to finance a $14.7 million sports complex that remains in the red.

As governor, a job she won in 2006, she did suspend state fuel taxes. But she also raised taxes on oil companies and used some of the increased revenue — buoyed by higher market prices for crude — to increase the annual dividend each resident receives by $1,200.

The Verdict:
True, but incomplete. She cut some taxes in both posts, but raised others.

Fact Check: McCain wants to deregulate health care?

The Statement:
During the vice presidential debate on Oct. 2, Democratic nominee Joe Biden described Republican presidential nominee John McCain as a long-time supporter of deregulation of the banking industry and added, "As a matter of fact, John recently wrote an article in a major magazine saying that he wants to do for
the health care industry (is) deregulate it and let the free market move like he did for the banking industry."

The Facts:
In Congress, Sen. John McCain has frequently supported deregulation. Some aspects of that deregulation are now widely blamed for the problems on Wall Street.

In the current issue of a magazine for the American Academy of Actuaries, McCain discussed a change he wants to bring to the health care market: allowing people to buy plans across state lines. "Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last
decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation," he wrote in the magazine called "Contingencies."

Biden and Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama have pointed to the first part of that quote to bolster their argument that McCain wants to see the health care industry undergo the same changes as the banking industry. But the reform McCain wants for health care — state deregulation — is only one of several types of deregulation that reshaped the banking industry. McCain has not proposed reshaping the health care industry in all the same ways as banks.

McCain and his opponents disagree over what impact state deregulation could have on the health care industry. McCain says the increased competition would benefit consumers; Obama says consumers would lose key protections, and insurance companies would be given more power.

Though a frequent fan of deregulation, McCain blames the current Wall street mess partly on federal regulatory agencies failing to do their jobs, and vows to "replace the outdated patchwork quilt of regulatory oversight" with a high-level, bipartisan oversight board.

The Verdict:
Misleading. McCain does want to overhaul state oversight of health care, but the deregulation he is calling for is not nearly as extensive as what was done to the banking system.

Fact Check: Did Obama vote to cut funds for troops?

The Statement:
At an Oct. 2 debate in St. Louis, Missouri, Republican vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin was talking about support for U.S. troops overseas. "I know that the other ticket opposed this surge — in fact, even opposed funding our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Barack Obama voted against funding
troops after promising that he would not do so," she said.

The Facts:
On May 24, 2007, Obama was one of 14 senators who voted against a war-spending plan that would have provided emergency funds for American troops overseas. He, like many Democrats, was pushing for an end to the war in Iraq, and the legislation included no provisions for that. "We must fund our troops," Obama said that day in a news release. "But we owe them something more. We owe them a
clear, prudent plan to relieve them of the burden of policing someone else's civil war." Republican nominee Sen. John McCain, and Obama's running mate Sen. Joe Biden, voted in favor of that resolution.

Obama had supported, and voted for, an earlier version of the bill that would have provided the money for the troops but established a timeline for Bush to begin bringing them home. Biden also voted for that version of the plan.

McCain was one of three senators who did not vote that day — but he urged Bush to veto it after it passed 51-46 on April 26, 2007. "I look forward to the president's prompt veto of this misguided bill," McCain said in a written statement. Bush did veto the measure on May 1, 2007, leading to the second
vote.

The Verdict:
Misleading. Obama supported a different version of the troop-funding plan — one that McCain spoke against.

Fact Check: Did Sen. Joe Biden say raising taxes is 'patriotic'?

The Statement:
Gov. Sarah Palin, speaking at the vice presidential debate on Oct. 2, asserted that Sen. Joe Biden recently said "higher taxes or asking for higher taxes or paying for higher taxes is patriotic."

The Facts:
Palin repeated Republican criticism of a remark about patriotism and taxes made by Biden in a "Good Morning America" interview on Sept. 18.

ABC correspondent Kate Snow passed along citizens' concerns about what Biden will do "specifically about the money that they've just lost in the stock market, about their 401 (k), about the pension plan. What do you say to those folks?"

Biden said he had a "long list" and talked about creating "2 million jobs if we invest the $70 billion a year we want to invest in infrastructure, new broadband capability, the ability for America to move into the 21st century."

He said he and Barack Obama "want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people." He said anyone who earns more than $250,000 "is going to pay more."

"It's time to be patriotic, Kate. Time to jump in. Time to be part of the deal. Time to help get America out of the rut. And the way to do that is, they're still going pay less taxes than they paid under Reagan."

The Verdict:
Misleading. Biden actually said those who earn more than $250,000 a year during an Obama administration would pay more in taxes that would be used to help the middle class.

Fact Check: Is Obama proposing $860 billion+ in new spending?

The Statement:
At a campaign stop Monday in Columbus, Ohio, Sen. John McCain said Sen. Barack Obama "has proposed more than $860 billion in new spending."

The Facts:
The McCain campaign is basing this figure on its own tally of how much money all of the new programs Obama has vowed to fund would ultimately cost. The total does not look at how much money Obama would save through cutbacks in other parts of his spending plan. It's important to note that McCain did not say "additional" spending.

Brian Rogers of the McCain campaign sent CNN the campaign's tally of "new spending" by Obama. It lists more than 40 plans or programs that Obama has discussed creating or funding at a higher level, along with figures for how much each would cost. Some of those figures come from what Obama or his campaign has said; others come from estimates by the Congressional Budget Office or other agencies. The list says if Obama could enact all his proposals, "taxpayers would be faced with financing $898.472 billion in new spending over one White House term."

Jason Furman, the Obama campaign's economic adviser, called McCain's assertion "totally ludicrous." He said the McCain campaign is "exaggerating our spending increases" while ignoring spending cuts. The Obama campaign does not have its own figure for how much "new spending" Obama is proposing, Furman said, because it "doesn't conceptually make sense." If someone is spending $10 a week on apples, then switches to spending $10 a week on oranges, "it wouldn't make sense to say how much extra you are spending on oranges — you're just changing what you're spending on," he said.

The most detailed analysis of McCain's and Obama's budget plans comes from the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The group's president, Maya MacGuineas (pronounced "McGuiness"), called McCain's statement "a misleading figure taken out of context."

The committee has looked at how much spending Obama and McCain are proposing and how much they say they'll save. The candidates have been more specific about spending than saving, but the committee gave them leeway, assuming that the savings they promise could actually happen, MacGuineas said. The committee's figures include the candidates' tax plans as well, because both include spending changes as part of their tax plans, she said.

The committee found that both candidates' fiscal policies call for spending a lot more than they bring in. By 2013, Obama's policies would add $286 billion to that year's deficit, while McCain's policies would add $211 billion, MacGuineas said.

The committee has not totaled only "new spending" for either Obama or McCain.

The Verdict:
Misleading. The figure McCain gave is based on his campaign's tally of the costs of numerous programs Obama has discussed, but ignores the savings from other policy changes Obama is calling for.

Fact Check: Did Obama vote 94 times for higher taxes?

The Statement:
At a debate Thursday, Oct. 2 in St. Louis, Missouri, Republican vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin charged Democrat Sen. Barack Obama of supporting higher taxes. "Barack had 94 opportunities to side on the people's side and reduce taxes, and 94 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction — 94 times."

The Facts:
The effort to convince voters that Sen. Barack Obama would support higher taxes is a central part of Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign. McCain and the Republican National Committee have repeatedly cited 94 alleged votes by Obama to bolster their argument. Factcheck.org, a non-partisan project of the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center, pieced through records to determine just what these 94 instances were. Key findings:

–23 were against proposed tax cuts.

— 7 were "for measures that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on a relative few, either corporations or affluent individuals."

– 11 were to increase taxes on people making more than $1 million a year, to help fund programs such as Head Start, school nutrition, or veterans' health care.

– 53 were votes on budget resolutions or amendments that "could not have resulted by themselves in raising taxes," though many "were clear statements of approval for increased taxes"

The total also includes multiple votes on the same measures. Annenberg says a close look at the record reveals that Obama has "voted consistently to restore higher tax rates on upper income taxpayers but not on middle- or low-income workers."

The Verdict:
Misleading. Palin's summary ignores the fact that some of the votes were for measures to lower taxes for many Americans, while increasing them for a much smaller number of taxpayers. The total also includes multiple votes on the same measures and budget votes that would not directly lead to higher taxes.

Fact Check: Do Obama and Biden oppose 'clean coal?'

The Statement:
In a set of radio ads aired Tuesday, September 30 in several battleground states, Republican Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign says Democratic opponent Sen. Barack Obama and his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, are against "clean coal" technology. In "Clean Coal Colorado" a narrator says, "Obama-Biden and their liberal allies oppose clean coal. Listen to Joe Biden — 'No coal plants here in America.' 'We're not supporting clean coal.'"

The Facts:
The ad quotes an amateur video posted on the Web site YouTube, in which Biden is greeting supporters at a September 17 campaign event in Maumee, Ohio. A woman approaches him and says, "Wind and solar are flourishing here in Ohio, so why are you supporting clean coal?" Biden's immediate response is, "We're not supporting clean coal." His comments that followed seem unclear. He goes on to suggest Obama-Biden supports improving technology to make burning coal more environmentally friendly — although he does say the "no coal plants" line the ad quotes.

"China's going to burn 300 years worth of bad coal unless we figure out how to clean their coal up … ," he said. "No coal plants here in America. Build them if they're going to build them over there. Make them clean because they're killing you."

Biden's off-the-cuff comments quoted in the ads seem at odds not only with the Obama campaign's stated policy on coal, but his own stated policy. On its Web site, the Obama campaign's energy plan includes a push to "develop and deploy clean-coal technology." "Obama's Department of Energy will enter into public-private partnerships to develop five 'first-of-a-kind' commercial scale coal-fired plants with clean carbon capture and sequestration technology," it says. In a campaign speech Wednesday, October 1, in La Crosse, Wisconsin, Obama again highlighted plans to pursue clean-coal technology.

On his Senate Web site, Biden calls for spending $5 billion on energy research that would include "technologies that will allow us to use coal cleanly." Both Obama and Biden have supported several pieces of legislation that would fund research of "clean coal" technology — which, if successfully developed, would trap dangerous carbon emissions from the coal-burning process.

The Verdict:
Misleading. The partial Biden quotes that the ads use are accurate, but leave out the full context of his comments. The Obama campaign supports "clean coal" technology and building plants using the new technology.

WKRG.com » News Stream » Politics