AP Fact Check: Democratic debaters and the facts

WASHINGTON –  Bernie Sanders airbrushed the complexities of trying to overhaul health care all over again and Hillary Clinton offered a selective reading of her rival's record on gun control in the latest Democratic presidential debate.

A look at some of their claims and how they compare with the facts:

CLINTON on Sanders' proposal for a taxpayer-paid health care system: "I don't want to see us start over again with a contentious debate."

SANDERS: "We're not going to tear up the Affordable Care Act," but build on it.

THE FACTS: As Clinton suggests, Sanders' plan would indeed mean a radical change in direction -- one that makes the government the payer of health care for everyone, not just for the elderly or the poorest Americans or members of the military.

Whether that means building on President Barack Obama's health care law or ripping it up may be a semantic argument. But at the core, Sanders would switch the country away from a private health insurance system. Employees, employers and others would pay higher taxes in return for health care with no premiums or deductibles, a striking departure from the subsidies and conditions that Obama's law has overlaid on the existing system.

Clinton did not exaggerate in describing the huge political battle that it took just to achieve "Obamacare" and the inability to sell Congress on a taxpayer-paid system even when Democrats were in control. (She ran into her own buzz saw on the issue when she proposed an overhaul of health care as first lady under her husband's administration.)

Clinton's team and her supporters have persisted in a dubious, if not bogus, argument that Sanders would wreck Medicare and other health-care entitlements with his proposed overhaul. It would do so only in the course of establishing a health care system in which traditional Medicare, Medicaid and more would no longer be needed -- because the government would be insuring everyone.

She made that argument herself in an earlier debate but did not repeat it Sunday night.

------

CLINTON on effects of Obama's health care law: "We now have driven costs down to the lowest they've been in 50 years."

THE FACTS: Not so. Health care spending is far higher than a half century ago. What she must have meant is that the rate of growth of health care spending year to year is lower than it's been in 50 years -- closer to the truth, but still not right.

The government reported in December that health care spending in 2014 grew at the fastest pace since Obama took office, driven by expanded coverage under his law and rising drug prices. Not only that, but health care spending grew faster than the economy as a whole, reaching 17.5 percent of GDP. That means health care was claiming a growing share of national resources.

This was after five years of historically low growth in health spending -- the decline Clinton was trying to address. But the lull in health care inflation was attributed in large measure to the recession that Obama inherited and its aftermath, not his law. And part of the reason health spending increased after that was because of the economic recovery.

------

SANDERS: "I have a D-minus voting record from the NRA." "I have supported from Day 1 an instant background check," as well as a ban on assault-type weapons.

CLINTON: "He voted against the Brady bill five times," as well as for allowing guns in national parks and for shielding the gun industry from lawsuits.

THE FACTS: Both are singling out aspects of Sanders' record that suit them, but that record is nuanced. Sanders indeed supported an instant background check, and at certain points a three-day waiting period. But he opposed longer waiting periods -- of five or seven days -- which gun control advocates see as a more effective way to flag people who should not be getting a gun.

Clinton is right that he opposed various versions of the Brady bill with longer waiting periods. But his poor marks from the NRA reflect a record that does lean toward stronger gun controls. Sanders now says he would support exposing gun makers to lawsuits.

------

CLINTON: "One out of three African-American men may well end up going to prison. That's the statistic."

THE FACTS: That's a stale statistic, and Clinton isn't the only person to use it. Sanders has said nearly the same thing. Both drew on 13-year-old data that stated this as a projection, not a fact.

A 2003 report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics said, "About 1 in 3 black males, 1 in 6 Hispanic males, and 1 in 17 white males are expected to go to prison during their lifetime, if current incarceration rates remain unchanged." But it went on to say that at the time, 16.6 percent of adult black males had actually ever gone to prison, or 1 in 6. The incarceration rate for black men has gone down since then, according to the Sentencing Project.

------

SANDERS: "You have three out of the four largest banks today, bigger than they were when we bailed them out. ... I think it's time to put the government back on (the banks') backs."

CLINTON: "We have Dodd-Frank. It gives us the authority already to break up big banks that pose a risk to the financial sector."

THE FACTS: It's true, as Clinton said, that the 2010 financial overhaul law, known as Dodd-Frank, already gives the president the authority to force large banks to break up. Sanders has pledged to use that power if elected, while Clinton has not.

Yet such a move would require the support from numerous regulators, potentially including the chair of the Federal Reserve and head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Sanders would appoint some of those regulators, if elected, but the Senate would have to approve them, and it's unlikely that anyone supporting breaking up the banks would win Senate approval.

Dodd-Frank has also given the government more tools to regulate banks and potentially wind them down if they fail, rather than bail them out. Yet despite Clinton's faith in the law's ability to curb Wall Street's excesses, many of those provisions have not yet been tested and analysts disagree on how effective they will be.

Dodd-Frank also requires large banks to hold more capital as a cushion against loans that might go sour and subjects banks to "stress tests" to ensure they can survive economic downturns.
Those greater capital requirements have caused many banks, including JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and Citi, to shed assets in order to avoid growing larger and triggering further oversight.

------

SANDERS: "This is a responsibility for the U.S. Justice Department to get involved. Whenever anybody in this country is killed while in police custody, it should automatically trigger a U.S. attorney general's investigation."

THE FACTS: The department already investigates some such deaths, but focuses only on those in which a federal civil rights violation appears possible, such as if there's an indication that an officer knowingly used unreasonable force.

A blanket trigger such as what Sanders proposes would strain resources, because hundreds of Americans are killed annually in confrontations with police, and it might be at odds with the department's emphasis on enforcing federal rather than local laws.

Though police shootings invariably draw the attention of federal investigators who monitor events on the ground, only a small number prompt federal probes and even fewer result in criminal charges.

Federal investigations are time-consuming and to build a case, prosecutors must satisfy a challenging legal burden -- establishing a willful and knowing civil rights violation. In perhaps the most notable case of the last two years, the Justice Department opened an investigation after the fatal August 2014 shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown, but ultimately closed the probe without bringing any charges.

Clinton sharpens tone at last debate before Iowa, Sanders claims ‘momentum’

Hillary Clinton sharpened her attacks on insurgent rival Bernie Sanders Sunday night at the final Democratic presidential debate before the Iowa caucuses, accusing him of trying to “tear up” ObamaCare and siding with the gun lobby – as Sanders denied the claims and said he’s the candidate with the “momentum” in the race.
Reflecting the tougher tone on the campaign trail in recent days, the debate in Charleston, S.C., saw Clinton aggressively challenging the Vermont senator’s record in a bid to arrest his rise in the polls. In a throwback to the 2008 race, the former first lady, New York senator and secretary of state also stressed her experience and readiness for the job, while Sanders repeatedly called for “political revolution.”
Highlighting that divide, Clinton slammed Sanders for his universal health plan to offer “Medicare for all,” the details of which were released just hours before the debate. Clinton said she wants to improve on ObamaCare, but accused Sanders of moving to unravel the Obama administration’s signature domestic policy.
“I do not want to see the Republicans repeal it, and I don’t want to see us start over again with a contentious debate,” Clinton said. “To tear it up and start over again … I think is the wrong direction.”
Sanders fired back, calling some of Clinton’s criticism “nonsense.”
He said he wants to move to “Medicare for all” in order to provide health care “as a right” and extend insurance to the millions who still don’t have it. His plan calls for an array of tax hikes to pay for it.
As for the existing law, he said, “We’re not going to tear up the Affordable Care Act -- I helped write it.”
The two top-polling rivals, as well as former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, took the stage for just their fourth debate of the season. The debate was hosted by NBC News.
Clinton is stepping up her attacks as she tries to ensure she starts off the 2016 election cycle better than she did in 2008, when she lost Iowa to then-Sen. Barack Obama. But Sanders jabbed at Clinton early on by reminding her Sunday that he’s tightened the race in the first two contests.
“In Iowa, New Hampshire, the race is very, very close,” he said, adding, “We have the momentum.”
Clinton and Sanders also clashed over gun control, with Clinton accusing Sanders of siding with the gun lobby and only recently reversing his stance on a key piece of gun legislation.
“He has voted with the NRA, with the gun lobby numerous times,” Clinton said.
Sanders over the weekend changed his position and backed legislation to reverse a law he once supported that would give gun manufacturers legal immunity. Clinton said she was pleased Sanders had “reversed his position on immunity,” but said the industry has been given a “total pass” so far.
Sanders, though, accused Clinton of being “very disingenuous” on guns. The Vermont senator said he “stood up to the gun lobby” on several fronts.
Clinton, meanwhile, stressed her experience throughout the debate, reminding voters of her time advising Obama in the Situation Room and leading key foreign policy decisions – even defending controversial policies like the “reset” with Russia.
“We need a president who can do all aspects of the job,” Clinton said. “I’m prepared and ready to take it on.”
Sanders, though, called for a “political revolution” that would “transform this country,” urging an overhaul of the campaign finance system he claims has undermined American democracy. 
Another pre-debate twist was a spat over Sanders’ medical fitness to be president.
After a recent report claimed a Clinton ally was preparing to seek the 74-year-old Vermont senator’s medical records, the Sanders campaign called the move a “personal” and unfounded attack. The Clinton camp quickly distanced itself from the reported plan – though Sanders on Sunday declared he would release his medical records anyway. The issue did not come up onstage.
Sanders had one seemingly awkward moment at Sunday’s debate, when he didn’t properly hear a YouTube question on police shootings and asked a moderator to repeat it. He then drew applause from the audience by calling for a Justice Department investigation whenever someone is killed in police custody.
The candidates clashed again over Wall Street ties, with O’Malley accusing Clinton of having a “cozy relationship” with Wall Street, while Sanders criticized her for getting hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs.
Clinton responded that O’Malley raised money from Wall Street as head of the Democratic Governors Association. O’Malley countered by saying that he was not using that money for his current campaign.
O’Malley only is polling at about 2 percent nationally and once again was sidelined throughout much of Sunday night’s debate. He frequently protested and tried to interject.
Sanders, though, has emerged as an insurgent candidate with grassroots support, challenging Clinton’s once-presumed lock on the nomination – a situation all too familiar for the candidate who ran in 2008 under similar conditions.
Sanders arguably faces more questions about his electability in a general election than did Obama in 2008 -- and tried to ease those concerns by claiming Sunday that various branches of the Democratic Party would eventually support him. While Clinton maintains her lead both nationally and in vital early-voting southern states, Sanders has been closing the gap in Iowa and currently leads in most polls in New Hampshire – which votes Feb. 9.
The Iowa caucuses are Feb. 1.
Foreign policy also took center stage Sunday, one day after the Obama administration secured the release of four Americans held in Iran in exchange for seven Iranians. A fifth American also was freed, though officials said that was unrelated to the swap – which coincided with the implementation of key terms of the Iran nuclear deal.
Sanders said Sunday that the U.S. should eventually move to “normalize relations with Iran”, while Clinton seemed to urge more caution.
“We’ve had one good day over 36 years. And I think we need more good days” before moving to normalize relations, she said. 

Iranian Foreign Minister Cartoons

McConnell scolds Reid over threat to vote on Trump proposals

BALTIMORE –  The Republican leaders of the House and Senate took time out Thursday from laying out their 2016 agenda to warn they won’t stand for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s bid to drag the presidential campaign onto the Senate floor.
Earlier Thursday, the Nevada senator had threatened to seek votes on GOP candidate Donald Trump’s proposals. "If Republicans are afraid to bring their standard-bearer's policies up for votes, Democrats will hold Republicans accountable by seeking floor votes on Trump's policies ourselves,” Reid said.
But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., suggested lawmakers could, in the same vein, call up amendments related to the Democratic candidates’ proposals.
But, he said, “I’m trying to avoid turning the Senate into a [TV] studio” for the campaign.
“Let’s let the candidates run their race, and we’ll try to do the people’s business,” McConnell said.
He and House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., spoke as they laid out their ambitious 2016 agenda at their annual retreat, vowing to help their party win the White House while cautiously avoiding the fiery campaign battles.
Looking forward, McConnell said he’s set a goal of passing all 12 appropriations -- or spending – bills this year, something Congress has struggled to do year after year, contributing to the periodic budget chaos on the Hill.
“It’s not going to be titillating,” he acknowledged.
Ryan, standing next to McConnell during a press conference at the retreat in Baltimore, also said his chamber would work on the budget early.
The leaders acknowledged their respective chambers, by design, have different missions and rhythms but insisted they are united in the effort to pass bills and set a “pro-growth” agenda to help Americans, while the candidates wrangle for their votes.
“We’re asking ourselves, ‘What could we do if we had a Republican in the White House?’” Ryan added.
A major debate at the retreat is whether Reid will make good on a comment he made last month about changing the chamber’s filibuster rules to get spending bills passed more easily.
“At least Democrats are saying the right things,” McConnell said.
Those at the retreat acknowledged discussions about rule changes to restore so-called “regular order” but made clear that key committee leaders have made no formal efforts in that direction.
Ryan and others said they plan to start the appropriations process early in this election year, perhaps in February or early March to allow for the extra month or so this summer that Congress will be out for the conventions.
However, Ryan made clear he had no idea when the bills will be completed and sent to the Senate, because as the new speaker he’s committed to letting members “have their say.”

Iranian foreign minister confident nuke deal will be completed Saturday

He's thinking "Dumb Ass Americans".

 Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said a historic nuclear deal reached last summer between Iran and six world powers would go into effect on Saturday, according to Iran’s semiofficial ISNA news agency.
“Today is a good day for the Iranian people, and the sanctions will be annulled today,” Mr. Zarif told reporters after arriving in Vienna to conclude the implementation, according to the agency.
The deal is expected to take effect following the release of a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency verifying that Iran completed a number of preliminary commitments, including shutting down thousands of uranium-enrichment centrifuges and removing the reactor core at its Arak heavy-water facility near Tehran.
Mr. Zarif said he would meet with IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini following an expected joint statement announcing the implementation of the deal, ISNA reported.
Mr. Zarif said the meetings would “make sure the [nuclear deal] is carried out appropriately.”
Under the July deal, Iran agreed to curtail its nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief.

Conn. gov, state Dems under fire as GE ships up to Boston

They might be breaking out the bubbly in Boston, but the mood in Connecticut is anything but celebratory.
Democratic Gov. Dannel Malloy: Photo below

is facing growing criticism from lawmakers, business leaders and residents after General Electric, one of the state’s largest employers, announced it would relocate to neighboring Massachusetts.
State Republicans were quick to blame Malloy and the Democratic-led legislature for playing – and losing – what came down to an expensive game of chicken with the Dow titan.
“This is proof positive that the Democrat majority’s fiscal plans are failures,” Connecticut Senate Minority Leader Leonard Fasano said in a statement, blaming the state's tax policies and warning "many more businesses" could follow in GE's footsteps.
GE announced Wednesday it would move its global headquarters to Boston after four decades in Fairfield, Conn., as part of an effort to transform itself into a dominant player in the digital era. With it, the company will take hundreds of jobs.

'We win some, we lose some. This hurts'
- Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy

The company moved in part because the business-friendly relationship it had with Connecticut had started to sour in recent years. GE’s decision to relocate came after two of the largest corporate tax hikes in Connecticut history were passed by state lawmakers in 2011 and 2015. GE had hinted it would to leave but some state leaders believed the company was bluffing.
They were not.
Massachusetts beat out other “competitive” bids in New York and Rhode Island to lure GE to the state by offering $120 million in grants and other financial incentives, while the city of Boston threw in an extra $25 million in tax relief. GE also is eligible for $1 million in workforce training grants.
Fasano said Connecticut residents “deserve an apology from every Democrat lawmaker whose disrespectful comments mocked companies like GE when they raised legitimate concerns about the state budget."
Democrats tried to downplay the move, while Malloy told reporters at a press event in Middletown, Conn., “We win some, we lose some. This hurts.”
However, he maintained the state was still “highly competitive.”
“You’re not going to turn Connecticut around on a dime.”
But others fear GE’s move could have lasting effects on the community that will be difficult to reverse.
“A move like this is a seismic event,” David Lewis, president of Operations Inc., a human resources consulting company based in Connecticut, told FoxNews.com.
“It sends a message about whether or not this county is still a viable place to do business,” he said. “That I think is one of the biggest concerns.”
State Sen. Tony Hwang, who represents the town of Fairfield, said for now, the plan is to move forward.
“I know our community is strong,” Hwang said in a written statement. “I know we will all work hard with one another to build back what we are losing.”
Boston was among 40 potential sites formally considered in a process that began in June but had been in the works for more than three years.
“In addition to adding hundreds of high-paying jobs to our state, we look forward to partnering with GE to achieve further grown across a spectrum of industries and are confident GE will flourish in the Commonwealth’s inventive economy,” Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker said in a statement announcing the deal.
GE said it would employ around 800 people in Boston: 200 for its corporate staff and 600 designers, developers and industrial project managers. The company has roughly the same number of employees at its Fairfield location.
The move to Boston -- aside from allowing the company to reap the massive financial incentives offered by Massachusetts – also allows GE to tap new talent from a cluster of tech and research universities in the area including Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Obama administration announces halt on new coal leases

The King has Spoken.

WASHINGTON –  The Obama administration announced Friday it will temporarily halt new coal leases on federal lands until it completes a comprehensive review to determine whether fees charged to mining companies provide a “fair return” to taxpayers. 
The decision immediately triggered accusations from business groups and Republican lawmakers of a renewed "war on coal."
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, on a conference call, stressed that the move “is not a pause on coal production” entirely -- but will give the government time to study the benefits of coal as well as its impact on the environment.
Jewell told reporters she is “confident” the pause on new leases will not disrupt the country’s ability to meet production needs.
Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for 21st Century Energy, slammed the decision. Herbert called the move “a foolish crusade” that strips America of one of its “diverse mix of energy sources.”
"Another day, another front on the war on coal from this administration,” she said in a statement following the announcement. “At this point, it is obvious that the president and his administration won't be satisfied until coal is completely eradicated from our energy mix.”
Roughly 40 percent of the coal produced in the United States comes from federal lands. The vast majority of that mining takes place in Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico.
It's unclear what impact the moratorium will have on many coal companies given the declining domestic demand for coal and the closure of numerous coal-fired power plants around the country. Coal companies have already stockpiled billions of tons of coal on existing leases.
But the announcement will no doubt please environmental groups that have long said the government's fee rates encouraged production of a product that contributed to global warming.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called Friday's announcement the "latest front in an ideological war on coal that has contributed to devastation in communities in Eastern Kentucky and to the loss of thousands of jobs across the commonwealth."
The administration held a handful of public hearings last year to get feedback on the adequacy of the fees charged companies for coal mined on federal lands. The government collects a 12.5 percent royalty on the sale price of strip-mined coal. The rate was established in 1976. The money is then split between the federal government and the state where the coal was mined. Coal companies also pay a $3 fee annually for each acre of land leased.
Government auditors have in the past questioned whether the rate provided an appropriate return, though they did not make specific recommendations to raise it. Industry groups counter that any increase in royalty rates will hurt consumers and threaten high-paying jobs.
President Obama said during the State of the Union address Tuesday that he would push to change the way the federal government manages its oil and coal resources.
The review will look at such issues as how, when and where to lease, how to account for the public health impacts of coal, and how to ensure American taxpayers earn a fair return on their resources.  An administration official noted that reviews of the federal coal program have occurred twice before, once in the 1970s and again in the 1980s, and pauses on the approval of new mining leases accompanied each review.
Jewell said some exceptions to the moratorium will be allowed, most notably for small lease modifications. And while the federal government will proceed with environmental reviews for pending lease applications, no final decision will be made.
The administration held hearings in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico last year on the federal coal program. Several people representing tribes, local ranchers and environmental groups spoke in favor of increasing royalty rates, saying it would hasten the transition to cleaner energy sources.
Several GOP lawmakers sent staff to relay their concerns about the Interior Department's efforts.
For example, Penny Pew, a district director for Republican Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona, said that "President Obama and his agency minions are trying to put the coal industry out of business by imposing a flurry of draconian mandates not based in reality."
Industry officials also voiced concerns.
Meanwhile, David J. Hayes, a senior fellow at the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress, said Thursday the current rules for coal mining on federal lands were written when people could still smoke on planes and dump sewage in the ocean.
"President Obama and (Interior) Secretary (Sally) Jewell are absolutely right to launch this comprehensive review and to set the federal coal program in a more fiscally and environmentally responsible direction," Hayes said.

Sanders gaining ground on Clinton, in echoes of 2008

New national polling is showing Bernie Sanders gaining ground on Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, casting into doubt Clinton as the inevitable nominee for the party, and recalling the 2008 race where Clinton was eventually beaten by underdog Barack Obama.
Despite a 30 percent-plus lead over Sanders in the summer in many polls, Clinton's lead has shrunk drastically in recent months as she continues to be dogged by doubts about her candidacy, while Sanders continues to gain strength in key states and across the U.S.
With key votes in Iowa and New Hampshire just weeks away, Clinton's apparent firm hold on the nomination seems to be slipping away.
Polls now show Sanders with a comfortable lead in New Hampshire. A Fox News Poll released last week showed Sanders with a commanding 13 point lead in the Granite State, with a 50-37 point margin. The poll shows a stunning increase for Sanders, who was only one point ahead in a similar poll in November.
Meanwhile in Iowa, Clinton's once solid lead is dwindling and it seems the Hawkeye State is up for grabs. The Real Clear Politics average shows Clinton with a four point lead, with some polls showing the two tied and a recent Quinnipiac poll actually showing Sanders with a five point lead.
Should Sanders win the coveted prizes of both Iowa and New Hampshire, it would hand him momentum going into trickier states such as South Carolina, and would raise serious questions about Clinton's ability to secure the nomination.
It isn’t just in the vital states of Iowa and New Hampshire where Clinton’s lead is narrowing – polls are showing Sanders gaining ground nationally.
The latest Fox News Poll showed Clinton with a 15 point lead nationally. That’s down from a 25 point advantage as recently as two months ago, suggesting the race is tightening and that Sanders may be a serious concern for the Clinton camp.
Clinton’s troubles sealing the nomination despite being labeled by many as the inevitable nominee has echoes of the 2008 Democratic primary, in which she held a similar status but was beaten in Iowa by then-Sen. Barack Obama. Obama gained enormous momentum from the win in Iowa and eventually went on to win the nomination.
The Washington Post’s Philip Bump compared the 2016 and 2008 races and concluded that Clinton was actually doing better in 2008 than she is now.
“Nationally, she was doing much better in 2008 than she is right now, perhaps in part because the anti-Clinton vote in 2008 was still split between two people -- Barack Obama and John Edwards -- instead of just one. But that recent trend line, a function of two new national polls that were close after a bit of a lull, is not very good news [for Clinton],” Bump wrote.
The narrowing of the race comes as Sanders and Clinton have ratcheted up the rhetoric at each other.  Clinton has called for Sanders to be more specific about his proposals and how he would pay for proposals such as a single-payer health care system.
"I wish that we could elect a Democratic president who could wave a magic wand and say, 'We shall do this, and we shall do that,' " Clinton said this week in Iowa. "That ain't the real world we're living in!"
Sanders for his part has also turned up the heat on the former Secretary of State and released a TV spot Thursday that appeared to take a shot at Hillary Clinton’s record on Wall Street.