ReportWire

Tag: 2024 Senate Elections

  • Misleading claims fly in competitive Senate campaigns

    Misleading claims fly in competitive Senate campaigns

    [ad_1]

    Candidates have been waging high-stakes, high-dollar campaigns in Senate races across the country this year, as Senate control rests on a few swing states.

    Democrats, who now control the Senate with 51 seats, are playing defense, looking to protect incumbents in competitive races and stop Republicans from gaining open seats in Michigan and Arizona. 

    Republicans need a net gain of two seats to gain control of the chamber, or one if the incoming vice president is a Republican.

    Claims about Medicare and Social Security, abortion rights and voting rights have been common themes PolitiFact has checked as we’ve identified misleading campaign claims and misinformation.

    We rounded up the most common themes we’ve checked from more than 50 claims in races in Arizona, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

    Sign up for PolitiFact texts

    Theme No. 1: Both parties have dire, misleading warnings for Social Security and Medicare.

    Millions of retired Americans rely on Social Security payments and Medicare health coverage. Older Americans reliably have a higher voting turnout than other age groups, so concerns about these programs often play highly in national campaigns. 

    In campaign attacks, Democratic candidates have claimed their opponents want to cut Social Security and Medicare or raise the retirement age for benefits in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. 

    In Michigan, the United Auto Workers labor union ran an ad saying Republican candidate Mike Rogers “wants to cut Medicare and Social Security.” In Nevada, incumbent Sen. Jackie Rosen said Republican opponent Sam Brown “publicly supported forcing massive cuts to Social Security and Medicare.”

    Former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, the Republican candidate vying for the open Michigan U.S. Senate seat, answers questions from the Oct. 14, 2024, media after he debated U.S. Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-Holly. (AP)

    Republicans have in the past floated plans to raise the age for retirement benefits under Medicare or Social Security or change the benefit structures in some way. But these Republicans generally aren’t calling to cut the programs now; most candidates have said this year they will not support cuts to Social Security or Medicare benefits. 

    Republicans in Montana and Arizona have also wrongly accused their Democratic opponents of planning to cut Social Security, pointing to statements from more than a decade ago that were taken out of context. 

    The Montana claim pointed to 2011 statements from Democratic incumbent Sen. Jon Tester, who said he supported a commission that recommended cutting federal spending; some moves would have trimmed Social Security payments. Tester said he did not support all of the commission’s recommendations and opposed the Social Security proposals. In Arizona Republican candidate Kari Lake’s case, the evidence for her claim had nothing to do with U.S. Rep. Ruben Gallego, her Democratic opponent.

    Social Security and Medicare both face funding shortfalls; major trust funds behind both programs are expected to be depleted in a little more than a decade, according to recent reports. However, strategies to address this funding have proven politically dangerous for both parties.

    Theme No. 2: Democrats exaggerate Republicans’ stances on abortion bans, exceptions

    With about 63% of Americans believing abortion should be legal in all or most cases, Democrats are leaning on popular support for abortion rights in their campaign messages. 

    Democrats have argued that Republicans plan to ban abortion nationally if they take power, often saying their opponents oppose rape and incest exceptions to abortion restrictions.

    The attacks have come from Democratic candidates in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Montana, Nevada and Florida. 

    In Nevada, Rosen said Brown said “abortion should be banned without any exceptions for rape or incest.” In Pennsylvania, a Democratic political action committee said Republican Dave McCormick is “fully against abortion.” 

    Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., takes questions from reporters after a debate with Republican senatorial candidate Sam Brown, Thursday, Oct. 17, 2024, in Las Vegas. (AP)

    These attacks often point to a candidate’s long history of supporting abortion restrictions, including some cases in which candidates hadn’t supported rape and incest exceptions. But during this election, Republicans are mostly not arguing for a national abortion ban; all have said they support exceptions for rape, incest and to protect the pregnant woman’s life. 

    In Michigan and Pennsylvania, Republicans Rogers and McCormick have both said they would vote no on a national abortion ban. They’ve deferred to their states’ laws, which both allow abortions until around 24 weeks, the point of fetal viability, with exceptions later if the pregnant woman’s life is at risk. 

    Ohio Republican Bernie Moreno has said he supports national legislation to ban abortion in most cases at 15 weeks, with exceptions after that for rape, incest and to save the pregnant woman’s life. When he ran for the party’s Senate nomination in 2022, Moreno said he did not support any exceptions to abortion bans, but he has since changed that position. 

    Theme No. 3: Republicans exaggerate Democrats’ support for abortion “until the moment of birth.”

    Republicans have tried to paint Democrats as extreme on abortion during this campaign cycle. Candidates have said their opponents support abortion until the moment of birth or they do not support any limits on abortion. 

    Republican Tim Sheehy in Montana said Tester supports “elective abortions up to and including the moment of birth.” In Nevada, Republican Sam Brown said a proposed state constitutional amendment would put “no limit” on abortion access.

    Republican Senate candidate Tim Sheehy speaks to supporters Sept. 4, 2024, in Billings, Mont. (AP)

    Earlier this year, Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson said Senate Democrats voted “to support unlimited abortions up to the moment of birth.” We rated these claims False, and they ignore the limits imposed by the Senate legislation that Democrats support. 

    Senate Democrats voted in May 2022 for the Women’s Health Protection Act, a bill that would have imposed a national right to an abortion until fetal viability mirroring the rights in place under Roe v. Wade. The bill failed to reach the 60-vote threshold to pass in the Senate.

    The bill would have allowed abortions after fetal viability, if the pregnancy risked the pregnant woman’s life or health. 

    The bill does not allow abortion for any reason late in pregnancy and up to the moment of birth, experts said. Instead, it allows for medical judgment by a health care provider in rare instances in which a pregnancy risks the pregnant woman’s health. 

    “This is not abortion on demand until the moment of birth,” Alina Salganicoff, a senior vice president at KFF, a health information nonprofit, and director of the nonprofit’s Women’s Health Policy Program, told us in a previous fact-check. “Even if politicians and anti-abortion activists make this claim, there are no clinicians that provide ‘abortions’ moments before birth.” 

    In Nevada, Brown’s “no limit” argument made the same error, ignoring the amendment’s provision that abortion can be restricted after fetal viability unless a woman’s health or life is at risk. The proposed amendment is worded to provide similar protections as those already in state law, but it enshrines them in the state constitution, making them harder to overturn. Nevada voters will vote on the amendment Nov. 5. 

    Theme No. 4: Republicans misrepresented Democrats’ votes on the SAVE Act.

    In an election rife with claims about immigration and election security, some Republicans have pushed the incorrect claim that Democrats recently voted to allow immigrants in the country illegally to vote in federal elections. 

    The claim gives a misleading picture of a bill that most House Democrats voted against earlier this year. It is illegal under federal law for immigrants in the country illegally to vote, and Democrats in Congress have not recommended or supported measures to change that. 

    In July, the majority House Republicans passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE Act, mostly along party lines with Republicans in the majority. The bill would have required people to show proof of citizenship, such as a passport or birth certificate, to register to vote in federal elections. 

    But Republicans, including Lake in Arizona and Rogers in Michigan, have argued their opponents’ votes against that bill was a vote to “let illegals vote in U.S. elections,” as Rogers falsely put it. 

    Democrats’ opposition to the bill was not a vote to open voter registration up to noncitizens, though, because federal and state laws already ban noncitizen voting. Whether the bill passed or failed, that prohibition would not have changed. 

    Democrats said the bill impeded access to voting for eligible citizens who may lack easy access to proof of citizenship. 

    Theme No. 5: Republican claims about gender-affirming care and women’s sports

    Republicans in the race’s final weeks have zeroed in on transgender-focused policies. 

    Republicans in Ohio, Montana and Wisconsin ran ads accusing Democratic candidates of supporting transgender women competing in women’s sports or gender-affirming care for minors. 

    In Ohio, Republicans said Bincumbent Sen. Sherrod Brown voted to “allow transgender biological men to compete in girls’ sports” and “supported allowing puberty blockers and sex-change surgeries for minor children.” 

    Brown voted against an amendment that would have stripped funding from schools and colleges that allowed transgender girls and women to compete in sports matching their gender identities. The amendment did not directly dictate athletic eligibility, which states and governing sports bodies usually decide. 

    U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, speaks at a campaign rally, Saturday, Oct. 5, 2024, in Cincinnati. (AP)

    In another ad, the Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC working to build a Republican Senate majority, said Brown supported allowing puberty blockers and gender-affirming surgery for minors. Brown has generally supported transgender rights. 

    Although Brown expressed broad support for preventing government restrictions on gender affirming care for minors, he did not specifically address support for puberty blockers and surgery. 

    In Wisconsin, Republican Eric Hovde said his Democratic opponent, incumbent Sen. Tammy Baldwin, gave taxpayer money to a “transgender-affirming clinic … that does it without even telling parents.” 

    The statement referred to a Wisconsin nonprofit that serves runaway and homeless youth. Although Hovde did not specify what he meant by “does it,” the wider conversation touched on puberty blockers and surgeries for transgender youth.

    The nonprofit, Briarpatch Youth Services, offers a support group for LGBTQ+ teens, but it does not provide medical interventions, with or without parents’ consent. Guidelines from American Academy of Pediatrics say parental consent is required for a person younger than 18 to receive puberty blockers, hormones or gender-affirming surgeries. Hovde’s claim is False.

    RELATED: Read our coverage of 2024 tossup Senate races

    RELATED: Republicans use sleight of hand to blame Inflation Reduction Act for boosting prices

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Baldwin claim that Hovde “just proposed cutting Social Security by 28%” is misleading

    Baldwin claim that Hovde “just proposed cutting Social Security by 28%” is misleading

    [ad_1]

    Ah, Social Security. The third rail of politics. Its coffers are running low, but a large majority of Americans like it, and thus, politicians who talk about cutting it are wandering into risky territory. 

    Perhaps that’s why U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, has attacked Republican businessman Eric Hovde — who’s running to unseat her in November — over his statements about it, both old and new. 

    As Election Day nears and their race heats up, Baldwin’s campaign on Oct. 7, 2024 released an ad claiming Hovde “just proposed cutting Social Security by 28%.” The next day, speaking at a luncheon co-sponsored by the Milwaukee Press Club and Rotary Club of Milwaukee, Hovde hit back, saying he has “never” said he wants to cut Social Security benefits and that he does not “want to take older people’s Social Security away.” 

    So, did Hovde really just propose cutting Social Security by 28%? 

    PolitiFact Wisconsin dug in, and found that while the claim from Baldwin’s campaign stretches the facts, Hovde’s position on what he wants to do with it isn’t entirely clear, either. 

    Sign up for PolitiFact texts

    Let’s take a look. 

    Baldwin’s math  

    We’ll get the easy part out of the way first: Hovde didn’t literally propose cutting Social Security 28%. So how did Baldwin’s team come up with the figure? 

    When asked for evidence to back up the claim, campaign spokesperson Andrew Mamo pointed primarily to an Oct. 3, 2024 WUWM interview in which Hovde says he’d pull “all government programs” back to what was spent on them in 2019. 

    The spokesperson cited a March 23, 2023 analysis from the libertarian Cato Institute that examined Congressional Budget Office data, which showed spending on Social Security retirement benefits increased from $893 billion in 2019 to nearly $1.2 trillion in 2023. 

    Using a Congressional Budget Office projection that baseline spending will increase on average 4.8% annually over the next decade, Baldwin’s campaign did the math to estimate Social Security retirement spending will increase to $1.24 trillion this year — meaning a return to $893 billion, or what was spent in 2019, would be a 28% cut. 

    Hovde’s comments 

    Now, let’s look at what Hovde has said on the matter. 

    The Baldwin ad features an April 24, 2012 appearance by Hovde, then in his first run for U.S. Senate, at the Milwaukee Press Club, where he was asked if he favors “either raising the retirement age and/or cutting benefits for those who are considered wealthy.” Hovde answered, “I favor both.” 

    In a July 19, 2012 interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial board, Hovde laid out his position during that race: For people 50 or older, their Social Security benefits would stay the same. People under 50 would add two years to their retirement age, people under 40 would add two more, and so on. And, he said, “somebody like me may not receive much Social Security payment,” referring to the idea of cutting benefits for wealthier individuals. 

    That was in 2012 — a dozen years ago. What about during his current campaign? 

    Hovde has several times suggested pulling back federal spending to 2019 levels, responding to a question at the Oct. 8, 2024 luncheon of whether “across the board, all government would scaled back,” by saying, “All you have to do is go to the budget that was in 2019 and pull those levels right back again, pre-COVID levels.” 

    He’s resisted the implication that that means cutting Social Security benefits. 

    Hovde mentioned Baldwin’s ad at the Oct. 8, 2024 luncheon, saying he supports raising the retirement age for younger people because life expectancy has increased from when the Social Security system was first implemented. 

    “Instead, we’ve got an ad saying I want to take older people’s Social Security away. Of course I don’t want to take older people’s Social Security away,” he said. 

    He also put out a statement about the ad, writing, “I do not, and will not, touch the benefits of anyone who is currently receiving Social Security or is nearing retirement.” 

    “To keep Social Security solvent for future generations, we will have to make changes,” he writes later in the statement, “but let me emphasize again, these changes would only apply to younger generations, specifically those under 40.” 

    So here’s the rub: Hovde has said he’d like to pull government spending back to 2019 levels, which would presumably have an effect on Social Security — at the least, on the agency that manages it. But he’s also stated multiple times that he does not want to cut current Social Security benefits — which chips away at the accuracy of the claim in the Baldwin ad. 

    Hovde campaign spokesperson Zachary Bannon did not respond to an email seeking to clarify whether returning federal spending to 2019 levels would include Social Security benefit spending. 

    Our ruling 

    The Baldwin ad claimed that Hovde “just proposed cutting Social Security by 28%.” 

    While Hovde has called more than once to pull government spending back to 2019 levels, which could have implications on Social Security funding in general, he has not specifically proposed cutting retirement benefits by that amount. 

    In this campaign, in fact, he’s said he would not seek to cut Social Security retirement benefits, pushing instead to raise the retirement age for younger people. 

    Our definition of Mostly False is a statement that contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. 

    That fits here. 

     

     

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Mike Rogers inflates EVs’ threat to Michigan labor

    Mike Rogers inflates EVs’ threat to Michigan labor

    [ad_1]

    Mike Rogers, the Republican candidate for Senate in Michigan, has been a staunch opponent of the Biden administration’s efforts to increase electric vehicle production, warning that it threatens Michigan’s auto industry.

    In a recent debate with his opponent, Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin, Rogers said the administration’s fuel efficiency rules, which Slotkin has supported, will eliminate hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs in Michigan. 

    “They’re going to cost, according to a Ford CEO, about 400,000 manufacturing jobs in the state of Michigan will go away with EV mandates,” Rogers, a former U.S. representative, said during the Oct. 14 debate.

    Rogers’ campaign arrived at that number using an inflated estimate of jobs that EV manufacturing would affect, and a disputed estimate of the labor required to manufacture an EV.

    Michigan Department of Technology, Management and Budget figures show the number of Michigan auto manufacturing jobs is less than half the number Rogers said was at risk: Around 175,000 people are employed in auto and auto parts manufacturing in the state, an agency report shows.

    Sign up for Politifact texts

    There is a real concern about EV jobs displacing workers who assemble gas-powered vehicles, but not at the scale Rogers said. 

    There’s also no mandate requiring auto manufacturers to make only electric vehicles. 

    The Environmental Protection Agency finalized a rule in March that will require carmakers to reduce tailpipe emissions over time. The rule does not mandate that carmakers produce a specific kind of car. In practice, though, the EPA has estimated automakers will need new car sales to be 56% EVs and 13% plug-in hybrids by 2032 to meet the requirement.

    How many Michigan workers work in automotive manufacturing?

     

    Rogers’ campaign pointed us to two sources when we asked for evidence of the claim. First, it pointed to a 2022 interview with Ford Motor Co. CEO Jim Farley, in which he said EVs require 40% less labor to produce than internal combustion engine vehicles. 

    The campaign then compared that figure with a report from MichAuto, which describes itself as “the state’s only automotive and mobility cluster association.” The organization found there are 1.1 million “automotive or mobility jobs” in Michigan, representing 20% of the state’s workforce. 

    The campaign applied a 40% reduction to the 1.1 million jobs to arrive at 400,000 lost jobs from a transition to electric vehicles. Rogers’ spokesperson, Chris Gustafson, said the emissions rules supported by Slotkin would “decimate Michigan’s auto industry and destroy our economy.”

    But the jobs MichAuto included in the “automotive or mobility” sector extend far beyond auto manufacturing to jobs that are unrelated to how cars are made. It included airplane and boat manufacturing; car insurance; trucking; delivery services; tour operators and telecommunications, for example. Of the more than 100 job classification codes included in the count, 15 are related to car and truck manufacturing or car parts manufacturing. 

    The same survey said there were 176,769 auto manufacturing jobs in Michigan in 2022, which is close to the figure the Michigan Department of Technology, Management and Budget provided.

    Other estimates of EV job losses have given a far lower figure. The conservative America First Policy Institute estimated around 37,000 auto manufacturing jobs in Michigan could be lost if car manufacturers meet the EPA’s projections. The study assumed an EV requires 30% less labor than a gasoline-powered car, and it did not factor in new jobs in EV production, such as battery manufacturing. 

    How much labor goes into electric vehicles?

     

    That EVs require fewer labor hours to assemble is often held up as a warning of potential job losses in shifting to electric vehicles. Researchers have found mixed results, though, when studying the disparity in labor between the two models. 

    In September, researchers at the University of Michigan published a study that showed U.S. auto plants increased their workforce dramatically when transitioning from internal combustion engine vehicles to electric vehicles. At one factory that transitioned, the number of jobs remained higher even after more than 10 years. 

    In a May study, researchers at Carnegie Mellon University found that the total amount of labor required to produce an EV power train — the system that makes the car move — is higher than an internal combustion engine vehicle, when factoring in labor needed for creating the cells, batteries and other components. 

    Looking at assembly alone, the study found that EV power trains do take less labor than traditional vehicles, said Christophe Combemale, one of the study’s authors. But other production along the supply chain makes up for those losses. 

    “The complexity of some of these material deposition and fabrication sets for batteries actually required more workers,” Combemale said. “So, what we found is, if you included those pieces, the number of labor hours per car, per powertrain, went up.”

     EVs’ effect on U.S. jobs depends on how much of the supply chain is made in the U.S. rather than imported, experts said. Currently, China produces 70% to 80% of the cell components and batteries that go into EVs globally. 

    The domestic capacity for EV battery production is expected to meet the projected demand, according to the Environmental Defense Fund, by 2030, because of recent investments in battery factories. As those factories become operational, more American workers will be involved in the production of EVs. 

    Concerns about auto factory job losses in Michigan are valid, Combemale said. Battery factories being announced around the U.S. are not in the same location as the auto manufacturing jobs they may displace. Some workers will likely need to move or change jobs as the transition to EVs takes effect. Combemale said assembly workers will likely have the hardest time replacing their wages in a transition to EVs. 

    “Assembly workers, who, as it happens, according to our technical model are probably the most likely to at least need to relocate within the production chain, had some of the worst outlooks, in terms of wage-sustaining exit options outside the industry,” Combemale said.

    Nevertheless, the projections and data don’t support the idea that 400,000 auto manufacturing jobs will disappear in Michigan. 

    Our ruling 

     

    Rogers said of federal car emissions rules, “They’re going to cost, according to a Ford CEO, about 400,000 manufacturing jobs in the state of Michigan will go away with EV mandates.” 

    The number Rogers arrived at was based on a broad definition of “mobility jobs,” which included dozens of occupations unrelated to auto production. Michigan employs about 175,000 people in auto and auto parts manufacturing. 

    Estimates of the labor needed to produce EVs are mixed, and they depend heavily on whether the parts are produced in the U.S. or are imported. Even the highest estimates of job losses from an EV transition don’t support Rogers’ claim. 

    We rate Rogers’ claim False.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fact-checking the Rogers-Slotkin Michigan Senate debate

    Fact-checking the Rogers-Slotkin Michigan Senate debate

    [ad_1]

    Former Republican Rep. Mike Rogers and Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin met Oct. 8 in their first debate, trading attacks over national security, immigration and the cost of living. 

    The two are competing for Michigan’s U.S. Senate seat held by outgoing Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow.

    Slotkin argued that Rogers’ record on topics like abortion and Medicare while in Congress was unpopular. Rogers accused Slotkin and Democrats of backing policies that drove costs for groceries and gasoline higher.

    The pair will participate in a second debate Oct. 14. We fact-checked a few of their statements:

    Abortion

    Slotkin: Mike Rogers “voted and sponsored bills that would make it impossible to have IVF and contraception.”

    We rated a similar claim Half True.

    Rogers has supported strict abortion bans in the past, and throughout his 14-year career in Congress he voted for and co-sponsored abortion restrictions. He supported “life at conception” laws that would define personhood as starting at conception. 

    These laws, which would give embryos constitutional rights, would present legal challenges to in vitro fertilization, known as IVF, and some forms of birth control, experts told us. 

    Although it may be possible for IVF to continue under a personhood law, such a law would present practical challenges and open providers to liability. 

    Some forms of birth control that work by blocking fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus could also be restricted under such a law. But most hormonal birth control methods, such as the birth control pill, work by preventing an egg from being fertilized. Based on that understanding, legislation that grants legal rights at contraception should not affect these forms of birth control. 

    China and national security

    Slotkin: Rogers “was the chief security officer of AT&T when they were actively working to get Chinese companies into our telecoms.”

    We checked a similar claim in August and rated it False. 

    After leaving Congress in 2015, Rogers worked in cybersecurity consulting for several businesses and nonprofit groups. He was a sales consultant for AT&T’s managed cybersecurity unit in 2016 and 2017, a company spokesperson told us. 

    Although some biographical blurbs connected to 2017 and 2019 conferences Rogers attended described Rogers as “chief security adviser” for AT&T, a spokesperson for the telecommunications company described Rogers’ role as a sales consultant and told us he had “no role in business or purchasing decisions with the company.” 

    During Rogers’ consultancy with AT&T, the company was in talks with Chinese tech company Huawei on a deal to sell its phones in the U.S. The company had also begun selling devices made by ZTE, another Chinese tech company. We found no evidence that Rogers was involved in these deals. 

    U.S. security experts have long had security concerns related to Huawei’s ties to the Chinese government. As House Intelligence Committee chair in 2012, Rogers oversaw an investigation that led to the committee labeling Huawei and ZTE as national security threats.

    Rogers: Slotkin “signed a nondisclosure agreement to facilitate a Chinese Communist Party company going up near Big Rapids.” 

    This lacks evidence. Local news outlets have reported extensively on lawmakers’ discussions about a plant that Gotion, a China-linked electric vehicle battery company, plans to build near Grand Rapids. Rogers and other Republican candidates and activists have criticized the company, and Slotkin has called for more national security vetting of the project. 

    In 2022, Slotkin signed a nondisclosure agreement with the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, a public-private partnership that encourages business development in Michigan. The agreement precluded her from publicly discussing certain projects the organization was considering. 

    The nondisclosure agreement initially dealt with two projects referred to only by code names. But neither of them was the Gotion plant, according to Detroit News’ reporting. Slotkin’s agreement was later amended to include “any potential Development Project identified as confidential,” which Slotkin’s opponents have argued covers the Gotion plant. However, that amendment was added in December 2022, two months after Gov. Gretchen Whitmer publicly announced the Gotion development. 

    The Detroit News reported in September “there’s no evidence currently available” that Slotkin’s nondisclosure agreement named Gotion. 

    We can’t know for certain what was discussed under the amended agreement, but there’s no evidence Slotkin’s signature helped facilitate the Gotion deal, as Rogers said. Rogers’ campaign pointed us to a Foreign Agents Registration Act filing by Gotion that showed it had conversations with the Michigan Economic Development Corporation after the deal was publicly announced; the filing did not name Slotkin. 

    Immigration

    Rogers: “FEMA spent almost $700 million on housing illegals, and now just told North Carolina they don’t have enough money to take care of American citizens who are in desperate need in the middle of a disaster.”

    This is misleading.

    Congress in 2023 appropriated $650 million to FEMA’s new Shelter and Services Program. Customs and Border Patrol funds the program; FEMA administers it. The program gives money to state and local governments and nonprofit organizations that temporarily shelter, feed and transport migrants.

    None of that money came from FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund, which is a separate program that Congress funds each year. 

    Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said this month that the agency does not have the funding to make it through the hurricane season and the department has requested more funding from Congress, but Mayorkas did not say FEMA does not have the money to care for current hurricane victims. He said FEMA is “meeting the immediate needs with the money that we have.”

    Health care

    Slotkin: “Mike Rogers voted five times against allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices.”

    This is generally accurate. Rogers opposed allowing Medicare to negotiate the price of drugs when he was in Congress, and he has opposed the policy while campaigning for Senate this year. 

    Rogers supported the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, which created the Medicare Part D drug benefit and expressly prohibited Medicare from negotiating drug prices. 

    He also voted against the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007, which would have changed the Part D program and allowed Medicare to negotiate drug prices, and against multiple amendments offered in the House to do the same thing. 

    Medicare was allowed to negotiate drug prices for the first time because of the Inflation Reduction Act, which Democrats passed and President Joe Biden signed in 2022. Rogers has said on the campaign trail he does not believe Medicare should be negotiating drug prices, arguing it will raise the costs of Medicare Part D premiums.

    Slotkin: Mike Rogers “voted to raise the retirement age.”

    This is misleading. 

    People born after 1960 can start to receive Social Security retirement benefits at 62, with full retirement benefits starting at age 67. Rogers never voted to raise that age. Congress last changed the retirement age in 1983, when it was gradually increased from 65 to 67. 

    Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., proposed broadly overhauling Medicare when he House Budget Committee chair from 2011 to 2015, and a Congressional Budget Office analysis in 2011 said his “Path to Prosperity” plan called for raising the age for Medicare eligibility, not Social Security, from 65 to 67 over several years.

    Based on that plan, Rogers voted in favor of fiscal year 2013, 2014 and 2015 budget proposals. The legislation covered broad statements of priorities rather than specific policy details, though, and the bills voted on in the House did not set a specific Medicare eligibility age. 

    President Barack Obama didn’t sign the Republican budgets into law, and the final budgets Congress approved those years did not include raising the age for receiving Medicare benefits. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Sam Brown misleads on Nevada abortion referendum limits

    Sam Brown misleads on Nevada abortion referendum limits

    [ad_1]

    Republican Nevada Senate candidate Sam Brown recently expressed disapproval of a Nevada ballot measure to enact constitutional protections for abortion.

    Brown said the ballot measure would put “essentially no limit on access to abortion.”

    The Nevada Independent obtained a recording of Brown answering a question about his stance on the ballot measure at an Aug. 28 meet and greet in Las Vegas. The statement was the most direct position Brown has taken on the ballot measure as he wages a competitive race to defeat incumbent Democrat Jacky Rosen. 

    “I’m not for changing our existing law,” Brown said in the recording. “Our existing law has been in place for over 34 years. The ballot measure would change the law and essentially (create) no limit on access to abortion,” the Independent reported that he said.

    Legal and policy experts say Brown misstates what the constitutional amendment would do.

    The proposed constitutional amendment places a clear limit on abortions: after fetal viability — the point at which a fetus is likely to survive outside the womb, typically considered to be around 24 weeks of pregnancy — the state can ban abortion unless it is needed to protect the  pregnant woman’s health or life.

    Nevada voters will weigh the amendment on their November ballots. It would prohibit the state from restricting abortion access before fetal viability. 

    That language is very similar to Nevada’s current law. Voters approved the current law in a 1990 ballot measure; it allows abortion until 24 weeks of pregnancy, and after that if a doctor determines the abortion is “necessary to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman.”

    We contacted Brown’s campaign to ask for evidence and received no reply. 

    How the proposed amendment affects Nevada’s abortion access 

    If passed, the amendment would constitutionally protect abortion access during the first trimester of pregnancy, and throughout most of the second trimester. Although the existing law protects abortion up to 24 weeks, the amendment would prohibit the state and local governments from infringing on that right without a “compelling state interest.” 

    That will largely codify the protections already in place under state law, said David Orentlicher, health law program director at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas law school and a Democratic representative in the Nevada Legislature. That means before viability, there would be few limits on abortion access, he said.

    After fetal viability, though, the state could restrict abortion access. 

    Brown “seems to be just referring to subsection one (of the amendment) and ignoring subsection two,” Orentlicher said.

    The constitutional amendment would also be harder to repeal than the existing Nevada law, Orentlicher said. The ballot measure would need to be approved by a majority of voters in November and again in 2026 in order to be added to the state’s constitution. 

    Gretchen Ely, a University of Tennessee, Knoxville social work professor who studies abortion access, said Brown’s statement that the amendment places “no limit” on abortion access is wrong.

    The amendment “does actually put limitations on abortion in a similar way to what the current law does,” she said. “The limit is up to viability … unless there’s a medical reason for needing one after that point in time.” 

    The proposed amendment defines “viability” as the point at which “there is a significant likelihood of the fetus’ sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures,” as determined by a health care provider. 

    The proposed amendment’s opponents, including Nevada Right to Life, have argued the language will let physicians determine that pregnancies are not viable later in pregnancy, allowing for abortions after 24 weeks. 

    Abortions late in pregnancy are rare

    Abortions after 21 weeks of pregnancy are rare, accounting for 1% of all abortions in the U.S., according to KFF, a health policy research organization. In 2021, 93% of abortions happened in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data. 

    Abortions after 24 weeks’ gestation are almost all the result of medical problems that endanger the fetus or the pregnant woman, Orentlicher and Ely said.

    “This person’s experiencing some kind of an unexpected medical situation that either puts their life at risk or their health at risk, or they know for some reason that the fetus won’t develop into a viable infant,” Ely said.

    Our ruling

    Brown said Nevada’s proposed constitutional amendment would place “essentially no limit on access to abortion.”

    The amendment does place a limit: abortions after fetal viability, typically around 24 weeks, would be restricted unless needed to protect the pregnant woman’s health. 

    We rate this claim False.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Senate Republicans mislead about Slotkin, stimulus checks

    Senate Republicans mislead about Slotkin, stimulus checks

    [ad_1]

    The National Republican Senatorial Committee recently claimed in an ad that Michigan’s Democratic U.S. Senate candidate, Elissa Slotkin, gave taxpayer money to immigrants who were in the U.S. illegally.

    The Instagram ad, which began running Aug. 28, says Slotkin “gave your hard-earned tax money to illegal immigrants.” 

    The ad cited Slotkin’s vote for the 2021 American Rescue Plan Act, which included stimulus checks of up to $1,400 to eligible people. 

    We asked the committee for evidence that the payments went to immigrants in the country illegally, and received no reply.

    Immigrants in the country illegally were generally ineligible for the stimulus payments, said Valerie Lacarte, a senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank. 

    The eligibility criteria required people to have Social Security numbers to receive the payments, and the vast majority of people in the country illegally do not have Social Security numbers. 

    Immigrants in the country illegally could receive payments on behalf of their U.S.-born children who are citizens, Lacarte said. It’s also possible, though rare, that immigrants with Social Security numbers who lost their authorization to work could have received payments.

    Slotkin, who represents Michigan’s 7th Congressional District, is running against former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, a Republican, to replace outgoing Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow.

    Who was eligible for pandemic relief benefits? 

    The 2021 American Rescue Plan Act, which Congress passed and President Joe Biden signed in 2021, was the third COVID-19 relief package to give direct payments to Americans. Individual taxpayers making less than $75,000 annually were eligible for $1,400 in direct payments; couples filing jointly who made up to $150,000 annually were eligible for $2,800 payments.

    Slotkin joined nearly all House Democrats in voting for the bill. Every House Republican voted no. The previous two pandemic relief bills, which also distributed checks, passed with large bipartisan majorities under then-Republican President Donald Trump. 

    To receive the payments, the law said a person had to have a valid Social Security number and could not be a “nonresident alien.” Exceptions to the Social Security number requirement included dependents with an adoption taxpayer ID and people married to military service members. 

    In most cases, people in the country illegally lack Social Security numbers, Lacarte said. Many immigrants in the country illegally pay taxes, but they do so using an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number. Taxpayers with these numbers were not eligible for the stimulus payments. 

    Some noncitizens, including those granted temporary work visas, receive Social Security numbers to pay taxes.

    If people lost work authorization but kept paying taxes through their Social Security numbers, they could have received a stimulus payment, Janet Holtzblatt, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan think tank, said. But Lacarte said that situation is very unlikely. 

    “This is a pretty improbable scenario, because if you’re out of status, it’s very unlikely that you’ll be filing taxes,” Lacarte said.

    The Center for Migration Studies of New York estimates that 46% of immigrants in the country illegally as of 2017 overstayed a visa. Of those who overstayed visas in 2022, 70% were visitors and ineligible to receive Social Security numbers, according to the Department of Homeland Security. The agency does not separate out those who overstayed work visas, but it is only a portion of the remaining 30%. 

    In a change from previous pandemic relief bills, under the American Rescue Plan, when a couple filed a tax return — one without legal immigration status using an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number and the other a U.S. citizen using a Social Security number — the spouse and dependents who had valid Social Security numbers could receive payments. The filer using an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number did not receive a stimulus check.  

    In previous pandemic relief bills, U.S. citizens were ineligible to receive stimulus checks if they filed a tax return with a spouse who was using an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, or if they were a dependent whose parent filed a tax return using such a number.

    “There may be confusion out there because of the fact that people who are unauthorized can apply for those benefits in the name of somebody, who’s usually their child, who’s a U.S. citizen, who is eligible,” Lacarte said. 

    Our ruling 

    The National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee said Slotkin “gave your hard-earned tax money to illegal immigrants,” citing Slotkin’s vote for the 2021 American Rescue Plan Act in 2021, which included stimulus checks.

    Slotkin did not vote in favor of giving stimulus checks to immigrants in the country illegally. The bill required a person to have a Social Security number to receive the checks, and most immigrants in the country illegally do not have Social Security numbers.  

    Immigrants in the country illegally could claim payments on behalf of their children if those children were U.S. citizens.

    It’s not impossible that immigrants in the country illegally received stimulus checks, but that scenario is hypothetical. The burden of proof is on the speaker, and the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee did not provide evidence that immigrants in the country illegally received the checks. 

    We rate this claim False.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Claim that Bob Casey backed oil sales to China misleads

    Claim that Bob Casey backed oil sales to China misleads

    [ad_1]

    Pennsylvania’s U.S. Senate candidates, incumbent Democrat Bob Casey and Republican Dave McCormick, are jockeying to show they are tough on China, whether it’s about investments, donations or votes. 

    In an ad released Aug. 25, McCormick’s campaign listed Casey’s purported ties to China. Among the claims: Casey “even voted to sell American oil to China.” 

    President Joe Biden’s administration sold oil to a Chinese state-owned company in 2022, as part of a large Strategic Petroleum Reserve drawdown. But the Senate never voted on those sales. Casey voted no on a procedural vote about whether to consider an amendment that would have limited foreign exports of oil from the reserve. He later voted in favor of similar limits.

    The McCormick ad cites a July 2022 article from the conservative Washington Free Beacon, which details the Biden administration’s sale of oil to Unipec America. China Petrochemical Corp., commonly known as Sinopec, the largest state-owned oil company in China, owns Unipec. 

    The federal Energy Department sold at least 180 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve throughout 2022 to combat high gasoline prices exacerbated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The oil sales followed a competitive bidding process required by law. In April and July of that year, the administration sold a collective 1.9 million barrels of oil to Unipec.

    The Strategic Petroleum Reserves sales were executive actions that required no Senate action. So, Casey did not vote on them. 

    Senate voted to restrict oil exports to China 

    When contacted for comment, the McCormick campaign pointed to an August 2022 Senate vote on whether to consider an amendment that would have blocked the sale of American oil reserves for export to China. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, offered the amendment to the Democratic-backed Inflation Reduction Act. 

    The Senate voted on whether to consider Cruz’s amendment. The motion to consider, which required 60 votes to pass, failed with a 54-46 vote. Four Democrats joined Republicans to vote in favor of considering the amendment, but Casey was not among them. 

    Reporting on the “vote-a-rama” at the time, Roll Call said Democrats used the procedure so its party members who faced competitive elections could “show their support for the underlying amendment” without it being added to the bill. 

    Casey’s campaign, when reached for comment, said Casey’s nay vote was for a procedural measure — the motion to consider — not the amendment itself. 

    A year later, when Cruz proposed a similar amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2024, Casey joined most Democrats in voting in favor of it. The amendment passed on an 85-14 vote, but the provision was stripped in the bill that the House and Senate agreed to and that Biden signed into law.

    This year, Casey co-sponsored a bill fellow Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman introduced that also would limit oil exports from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It would ban sales from the reserve to China, North Korea, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Cuba or “any entity owned, controlled or influenced” by any of those countries or the Chinese Communist Party. The energy secretary could issue a waiver to allow sales that were deemed in the interest of national security.

    The Senate referred the bill to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, but it received no further action. 

    Petroleum reserve is part of a global market

    The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve is an emergency supply of crude oil used to stabilize oil prices in the U.S. during crises. 

    Responding to soaring gasoline prices after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Biden announced a plan to draw down and sell 180 million barrels of oil from the reserve. Republicans accused Biden of tapping the reserves to lower gasoline prices in an election year.

    By law, the petroleum reserves must be sold through a competitive bidding process, and the sale goes to the highest bidders. The oil sometimes goes to foreign-owned companies, as long as the federal government authorizes them and they operate in the U.S., said Hugh Daigle, a University of Texas at Austin associate professor in the Department of Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering.

    Selling to an American company doesn’t guarantee that oil stays in the U.S., Daigle said.

    Oil companies buy and sell on a global market, and an American company is just as likely as a foreign company to export its oil to China, he said. There’s also no record of the oil sold to Unipec being exported to China, he said, because the U.S. does not track the oil after it leaves the reserve. 

    “It can be really difficult even to keep track of where that specific oil goes,” Daigle said. “It can be mixed with other oil in a crude tanker. Unless you’re tracking individual molecules it can be incredibly difficult to verify that no strategic petroleum reserve oil has ever gone to China.” 

    Our ruling

    A McCormick campaign ad said Casey “voted to sell American oil to China.” 

    Casey never participated in a Senate vote that led to the sale of American oil to China. Sales from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to a Chinese-owned company in 2022 were an executive action that required no Senate vote. 

    Casey voted against a procedural measure that would have allowed consideration of an amendment to ban exports of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to China. He later voted in favor of a similar amendment, and backed a bill with stricter limits on Strategic Petroleum Reserve sales this year. 

    We rate the statement False.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Jacky Rosen didn’t say ending tips would ‘hurt’ Nevadans

    Jacky Rosen didn’t say ending tips would ‘hurt’ Nevadans

    [ad_1]

    After Nevada Democrat Sen. Jacky Rosen co-sponsored a bill to end federal taxes on tips, her Republican opponent for U.S. Senate countered that Rosen’s show of support was disingenuous.

    Sam Brown, a former U.S. Army captain hoping to unseat Rosen in the competitive swing state contest this November, said Rosen once described ending taxes on tips as harmful.

    Rosen, he wrote in an Aug. 9 X post, “said ending taxes on tips would ‘hurt working Nevada families.’ She couldn’t be any more detached.”

    He made similar statements during interviews Aug. 9 and Aug. 12.

    Brown endorsed eliminating taxes on tips after former President Donald Trump first campaigned on the issue June 9 during a rally in Las Vegas. On Aug. 11, Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris also endorsed the concept at a Las Vegas rally.

    With more than 22% of Nevada’s workforce employed by the service and hospitality industry, the issue is of high interest in this battleground state. Some economists and budget experts  doubt the efficacy or plausibility of ending federal taxes on tips, but the platform has gathered a lot of support.

    But did Rosen really call this tax policy potentially harmful for the state’s working families? 

    We asked the Brown campaign for evidence of the claim, but received no response. Our review of Rosen’s statements found Brown’s characterization to be wrong and misleading.

    An NBC News story may provide context

    Three days after Trump called for the federal tip tax’s repeal, NBC News published a story that quoted Brown calling Trump a “visionary” for focusing on the issue and saying he had also planned to advocate for it.

    Also in the story, Brown said Rosen was not championing the issue and Rosen’s campaign spokesperson, Johanna Warshaw, responded. NBC News paraphrased a portion of Warshaw’s comments. 

    Here’s how that part of the story read (we have bolded the relevant portion):

    “In states like this where we have a strong service-based economy, it makes a lot of sense,” Brown said of the no-taxes-on-tips proposal. “And I wonder why Jacky Rosen hasn’t brought this up and isn’t a champion on it.”  

    Rosen’s campaign spokesperson Johanna Warshaw hit back at Brown, casting the promise as a distraction from what the campaign characterized as a tax agenda that would hurt the working class.

    “Nevada workers know they can’t trust empty talking points from self-serving politicians like Sam Brown trying to cover up their actual agenda of giving away more tax breaks to billionaires and corporate special interests,” Warshaw said in a statement. “Jacky Rosen supports cutting taxes for tipped workers and all hardworking Nevadans, and that’s why she’s been fighting for years to deliver tax relief and pass a broad-based middle class tax cut while also lowering costs and raising the minimum wage.”

    In its full context, the “hurt the working class” paraphrase describes Rosen’s assessment of Brown’s overall tax agenda, not Rosen’s assessment of ending taxes on tips.

    Rosen’s stance on ending taxes on tips

    Following Trump’s Las Vegas rally, Rosen was one of the first Democratic elected officials to back ending federal taxes on tips, NBC News reported June 21.

    She and Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., became the lone Democratic co-sponsors of the No Taxes on Tips Act, a bill Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, proposed. 

    “Nevada has a higher percentage of tipped workers than any other state, and getting rid of the federal income tax on tips would deliver immediate financial relief for service and hospitality staff across our state who are working harder than ever while getting squeezed by rising costs,” Rosen said in a July 12 press release announcing she had joined the Cruz bill.

    The Rosen campaign also provided a July 16 letter she wrote to the Senate Finance Committee that urged the committee and Congress to end tip taxes.

    Our ruling

    Brown said Rosen said a proposal to end federal taxes on tips would “hurt working Nevada families.”

    We found no evidence of Rosen saying that, nor Brown’s variation it would “hurt working class Nevadans.” A Rosen campaign statement included in a June 12 NBC News report described Trump’s promise as “empty talking points,” but Rosen also said she supports cutting taxes on tipped workers. 

    Rosen publicly supported ending federal taxes on tips days later and, about a month later, signed on to Cruz’s No Taxes on Tips Act.

    We rate the claim False.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Mucarsel-Powell misleads on Scott’s abortion stance

    Mucarsel-Powell misleads on Scott’s abortion stance

    [ad_1]

    Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Debbie Mucarsel-Powell recently launched a Spanish-language radio ad across Florida that accused incumbent Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., of supporting limits on abortion without exceptions.

    The ad said Scott “wants to take away women’s reproductive rights with no exceptions.” (In Spanish, the ad says, Rick Scott “quiere quitarles los derechos reproductivos a las mujeres sin excepciones.”)

    Laws that govern abortion come with different exceptions, which vary by state. Some of the strictest state laws, such as in Texas and Louisiana, ban abortion at any point in pregnancy, and provide few exceptions. Other states provide more exceptions and later cutoffs.

    Does Scott, a former two-term Florida governor, support restrictions “with no exceptions?” No.

    Scott has defined himself as “pro-life” and supports limits on abortion, but with exceptions. He has said that if he were still Florida’s governor he would have signed the state’s current six-week abortion ban, which includes some exceptions. 

    Scott has also said he prefers abortion limits at 15 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the pregnant woman, because he believes that’s what most Americans support.

    Seven in 10 Americans think abortion should be legal in all or most cases, a July AP-NORC poll found. About one quarter of the respondents who said women should be able to get abortions for any reason also said states shouldn’t allow abortion after 15 weeks, The Associated Press reported.

    Jonathan Turcotte, a spokesperson for Scott’s reelection campaign, told PolitiFact that “Scott opposes a national abortion ban and supports the consensus at 15-weeks with exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother.”

    Scott’s abortion stance 

    Scott served as Florida’s governor from 2011 to 2019 and signed many anti-abortion policies into law, including an ultrasound-viewing requirement before women can undergo abortions. 

    Nothing he signed rivaled the six-week abortion ban Gov. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., signed into law.

    On April 13, 2023, Scott said on X that he would sign Florida’s six-week abortion ban if he were still governor.

    He reiterated his position a year later in an interview with Spectrum Bay News 9. “If I was the sitting governor and the six-week abortion ban came in front of me, I would sign it. I’d always said I would sign it,” Scott said April 16.

    Florida’s six-week ban includes exceptions in cases of rape, incest and human trafficking through 15 weeks of pregnancy, and if the pregnant woman’s health or life is “at serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment.”

    Scott has also repeated that, while he would have signed the law, he prefers a 15-week abortion limit, with exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the pregnant woman.

    “So if I was writing a bill, I’d think that 15 weeks with the limitations (for rape, incest and to protect the life of the pregnant woman) is where the state’s at. I think it’s important we do what there’s consensus” for, Scott told The Hill in an April interview. 

    Mucarsel-Powell’s campaign pointed to Scott’s support of Florida’s six-week law, saying it didn’t have mental health exceptions or exceptions for rape, incest and human trafficking. Florida had to clarify the exceptions in its law shortly after it took effect May 1, but it does have rape, incest and human trafficking exceptions, up to 15 weeks, and exceptions for the pregnant woman’s health.

    PolitiFact reviewed news archives from Scott’s tenure as Florida governor and found no evidence he has ever supported zero exceptions for abortions.

    Reproductive health experts say abortion exceptions are vague or require complicated steps that often don’t work in practice. Doctors say they wrestle with legal language that makes it difficult to determine whether a patient’s case qualifies.

    For example, Alabama outlaws abortion except when there are serious health risks to the pregnant woman. Its health exception includes mental health, but requires a psychiatrist to diagnose the pregnant woman with a “serious mental illness” and document that it’s likely the woman will engage in behavior that could result in her death or the fetus’s death, KFF reported. The law doesn’t define “serious mental illness” and doesn’t allow physicians to determine what illnesses qualify for the exception. 

    In complicated cases, physicians find themselves weighing patients’ medical conditions against concerns about their legal liability. The penalties for mistakes can be severe: In some states, violating abortion laws is considered a felony, and can be punishable by large fines and from a  decade to life in prison. 

    Our ruling

    Mucarsel-Powell said Scott does not support abortion exceptions.

    This is inaccurate. 

    Scott supports some exceptions. He has said that, if he were Florida’s governor, he would have signed the state’s current six-week abortion ban, which includes exceptions for rape and incest through 15 weeks of pregnancy and the pregnant woman’s health and life.

    Scott says he prefers abortion limits at 15 weeks of pregnancy with those three exceptions, because he believes that’s what most Americans support. 

    We found no examples of Scott saying exceptions should not be allowed.

    We rate this claim False.

    RELATED: All abortion bans include exceptions for a mother’s life. But are they working? 

    PolitiFact Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fact-checking Trump on immigration, economy in Montana rally

    Fact-checking Trump on immigration, economy in Montana rally

    [ad_1]

    In his first campaign rally since Vice President Kamala Harris selected Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate for the 2024 presidential election, former President Donald Trump attacked Walz and rallied support for a crucial Senate seat in Montana. 

    “If Comrade Walz and Comrade Harris win this November, the people cheering will be the pink-haired Marxists, the looters, the perverts, the flag burners,” Trump said, invoking a common but misleading line of attack that seeks to paint Democrats’ policies as socialist. 

    Trump took the stage later than expected at his Friday night rally in Bozeman, Montana, after a mechanical problem forced his plane to divert 140 miles east to Billings. The plane landed without incident. Trump’s vice presidential running mate, Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, did not attend.

    In his speech, Trump zeroed in on the state’s Democratic senator, Jon Tester, criticizing the votes Tester took to support major legislation passed under President Joe Biden’s administration, such as the Inflation Reduction Act. Tim Sheehy, the Republican running to unseat Tester, spoke alongside Trump.

    Trump also criticized Harris and Biden on issues such as immigration and the economy. We fact-checked five of his claims.

    Trump: I handed Biden “a surging economy with no inflation.” 

    This is inaccurate. Trump has made this claim before. 

    Although inflation was lower during Trump’s presidency than it has been under Biden’s, the Consumer Price Index 12-month change was never at zero percent. 

    It fell close to zero in April and May 2020, shortly after the COVID-19 pandemic’s onset. The lowest inflation rate was 0.1% in May 2020.

    That’s because the American economy took a major hit as the demand for goods and services plunged during the pandemic’s initial lockdowns. Trump claiming credit for the low inflation at that time ignores that the rate dropped because of economic crisis, not success.

    For much of Trump’s presidency until the pandemic, inflation ranged from 1.5% to 3%. When Biden entered office in January 2021, inflation was at 1.4%.

    Trump: “By the millions and millions, (immigrants are) coming from prisons, they’re coming from jails.” 

    Pants on Fire!

    Trump’s claim that immigrants are flowing across the border from prisons and mental institutions lacks evidence, and data and expert analysis reveal his description of them coming by the “millions and millions” to be so implausible as to be ridiculous.

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection data shows that officials have arrested just more than 110,000 noncitizens with criminal convictions, whether in the U.S. or abroad. Not all were let into the country. The data reflects numbers the federal government knows about, but it isn’t exhaustive. 

    There have been about 8 million encounters at the border since Biden took office. But encounters data represents events, not people. For example, if one person tries to cross the border three times and is stopped each time, that would count as three encounters. 

    Trump: Harris “wants to get rid of ICE.”

    False.

    Harris was critical of the U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement — the agency in charge of detaining and deporting immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally — during Trump’s presidency. She criticized many of his border policies, including one that led to family separations at the border, but she hasn’t called to abolish the agency.

    She said in a 2018 MSNBC interview that Immigration and Customs Enforcement should exist, but she called for reexamining its role and scope. During a separate interview in 2018, she said that the U.S. should “reexamine ICE and its role” and mission, and “even think about starting from scratch.” Harris has not stumped in 2024 to end the agency; her campaign has not released a written policy platform for her 2024 run. But her 2019 presidential primary immigration platform did not called for restructuring the agency, not abolishing it. 

    Trump: “They’re destroying Social Security and Medicare by allowing all of these people to come in on the plan.”

    False.

    Most immigrants in the country illegally are not eligible for Social Security. Some who have been granted humanitarian parole for more than one year may be eligible for Social Security for up to seven years, according to the Congressional Research Service. 

    Immigrants in the U.S. illegally are typically ineligible to enroll in federally funded health care programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Some states offer Medicaid coverage under state-funded programs regardless of immigration status, and immigrants are eligible for emergency Medicaid regardless of status. 

    Immigration also does not threaten Social Security’s sustainability. The program has shortfalls because the ranks of retirees outpace the numbers of workers feeding their tax dollars into the system. Immigrants who meet the legal requirements to receive retirement benefits can access Social Security only after working and contributing to Social Security taxes for a minimum of 10 years.

    Trump: Harris “wants to have all of your guns taken away.” 

    Mostly False.

    As presidential candidate in 2019, Harris said she supported a “mandatory gun buyback program” for assault weapons.

    The proposed program did not apply to all guns. Handguns, which would not have been affected, make up the majority of guns sold in the U.S. 

    Since Harris has become the Democratic presidential nominee, her campaign has said she does not support a mandatory buyback program. The campaign said she supports banning assault weapons but not requiring people to sell them to the federal government.

     

    [ad_2]

    Source link