This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/15/us/politics/fact-check-october-debate.html
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Fact-Checking the Democratic Debate | Fact-Checking the Democratic Debate |
| (32 minutes later) | |
| Twelve candidates vying for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination have taken the debate stage Tuesday night in Ohio for the fourth round of debates. The showdown — the biggest presidential primary debate in history — is being moderated by journalists from The New York Times and CNN. | Twelve candidates vying for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination have taken the debate stage Tuesday night in Ohio for the fourth round of debates. The showdown — the biggest presidential primary debate in history — is being moderated by journalists from The New York Times and CNN. |
| Here is how the candidates’ remarks stacked up against the truth. | Here is how the candidates’ remarks stacked up against the truth. |
| What the facts are | What the facts are |
| What Mr. Sanders said: | What Mr. Sanders said: |
| “I do think it is appropriate to acknowledge that taxes will go up. They’re going to go up significantly for the wealthy and for virtually everybody, the tax increase they pay will be substantially less than what they were paying for premiums and out of pocket expenses.” | “I do think it is appropriate to acknowledge that taxes will go up. They’re going to go up significantly for the wealthy and for virtually everybody, the tax increase they pay will be substantially less than what they were paying for premiums and out of pocket expenses.” |
| This lacks evidence. Mr. Sanders’s health care plan will substantially increase the amount that the federal government spends. Estimates of its precise cost vary, but according to an estimate from the conservative Mercatus Institute, which Mr. Sanders has mentioned approvingly, federal spending would need to increase by about 10 percent of the country’s gross domestic product, triple what the government spends on the military. But, under Medicare for all, Americans who currently pay health insurance premiums or pay directly when they go to the doctor or pharmacy would be relieved of those costs. For most American families, that would represent a substantial savings. | This lacks evidence. Mr. Sanders’s health care plan will substantially increase the amount that the federal government spends. Estimates of its precise cost vary, but according to an estimate from the conservative Mercatus Institute, which Mr. Sanders has mentioned approvingly, federal spending would need to increase by about 10 percent of the country’s gross domestic product, triple what the government spends on the military. But, under Medicare for all, Americans who currently pay health insurance premiums or pay directly when they go to the doctor or pharmacy would be relieved of those costs. For most American families, that would represent a substantial savings. |
| But that does not mean that “virtually everybody” would end up paying less overall. Mr. Sanders has suggested various possible tax increases that could pay for this expansion, including a payroll tax that would affect workers across the economic spectrum. He has not provided enough details about the mix and magnitude of taxes for economists to measure what sorts of families would be better or worse off under Medicare for all. An Urban Institute analysis of Mr. Sanders’s 2016 health care proposal, which included more tax details, found that the proposed taxes would only pay for about half of the cost of the plan. | But that does not mean that “virtually everybody” would end up paying less overall. Mr. Sanders has suggested various possible tax increases that could pay for this expansion, including a payroll tax that would affect workers across the economic spectrum. He has not provided enough details about the mix and magnitude of taxes for economists to measure what sorts of families would be better or worse off under Medicare for all. An Urban Institute analysis of Mr. Sanders’s 2016 health care proposal, which included more tax details, found that the proposed taxes would only pay for about half of the cost of the plan. |
| What they’re talking about | |
| What Ms. Warren said: | |
| “I have made clear what my principles are here. And that is costs will go up for the wealthy and for big corporations, and for hard working middle class families, costs will go down.” | |
| Ms. Warren has indeed proposed a number of large tax increases on the wealthy and corporations, including a new wealth tax, a corporate profits tax, and an expansion of Social Security taxes up the income spectrum. But she has also earmarked close to all of the revenue raised by those taxes to pay for other domestic spending priorities, including free public college tuition and child care subsidies. | |
| A “Medicare for all” health care program, like the one from Senator Bernie Sanders that Ms. Warren has co-sponsored, would require substantial additional government spending. Ms. Warren would not say who would pay tax increases necessary to fund it. But it may be hard to squeeze that much more money out of the rich and corporations alone, beyond the new taxes she has already suggested. Her language about “costs” does provide the possibility that she would raise middle class taxes, but ensure that middle class families would save enough on health care spending to come out ahead. | |
| what they’re talking about | |
| What Ms. Warren said: | |
| “Taxing income is not going to get you where you need to be the way taxing wealth does.” | |
| The wealth tax that Ms. Warren has proposed would represent a major shift in American tax policy, which has generally been focused on taxing income. Ms. Warren’s plan would raise $2.6 trillion over a decade to pay for proposals that would vastly expand the country’s social safety net. Senator Bernie Sanders and Tom Steyer have also called for wealth taxes. And on Tuesday night, Beto O’Rourke, Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar also expressed openness to the concept, suggesting the party at large is shifting more broadly in that direction. | |
| While wealth taxes have populist appeal in that they can raise large amounts of revenue on the backs of a relatively small number of people, they do come with their share of potential problems. Critics warn wealth taxes will spur new forms of tax avoidance, that they failed and were repealed in European countries and that they could be unconstitutional. | |
| What the Facts are | What the Facts are |
| What Mr. Castro said: | What Mr. Castro said: |
| “Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania actually in the latest jobs data have lost jobs, not gained them.” | “Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania actually in the latest jobs data have lost jobs, not gained them.” |
| This is misleading. The three states all gained jobs in August, according to the latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. From July to August, Ohio gained about 6,400 jobs; Michigan about 3,700; and Pennsylvania about 4,700. The number of unemployed people, however, has also risen in Ohio by 2,500 and in Pennsylvania by 4,400. Overall, since Mr. Trump’s first full month in office in February 2017, Ohio has gained 120,000 jobs; Michigan 109,000, and Pennsylvania 114,000. | This is misleading. The three states all gained jobs in August, according to the latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. From July to August, Ohio gained about 6,400 jobs; Michigan about 3,700; and Pennsylvania about 4,700. The number of unemployed people, however, has also risen in Ohio by 2,500 and in Pennsylvania by 4,400. Overall, since Mr. Trump’s first full month in office in February 2017, Ohio has gained 120,000 jobs; Michigan 109,000, and Pennsylvania 114,000. |
| Fact checks contributed by Linda Qiu and Margot Sanger-Katz. |