October 7, 2008
As McCain said, Obama is number two in overall campaign money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Center for Responsive Politics puts Obama's receipts from Freddie and Fannie employees at $122,850. Christopher Dodd (D-CT, chair of the Senate Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs Committee), got $133,900 from Freddie and Fannie employees and PACs, making him number one. Both totals are since 1998, although obviously Obama hasn't been in the Senate that long and raised his money much more swiftly.
The McCain campaign has made much of the fact that Obama asked former Fannie CEO Jim Johnson -- one of Washington's Democratic heavyweights -- to lead his VP search committee. Johnston bowed out after questions arose about his personal finances. The GOP has also tried to promote the idea of a close tie between Obama and Franklin Raines, who succeeded Johnson at Fannie and left under a cloud. It's a stretch, based on one line in a Washington Post story that Raines denies and even the reporter suggests has been overblown.
McCain's way down the money list -- $21,300 since 1989.
But McCain's campaign manager and longtime consultant, Rick Davis, is a cofounder of Davis Manafort, a lobbying firm. Freddie and Fannie hired Davis Manafort several years ago at $30,000 a month to run the Homeowners Alliance, essentially a front group to promote Fannie and Freddie's interests in DC. The alliance closed down in 2006, and Freddie hired DM directly at $15,000 a month.
Davis Manafort did not register to lobby for Freddie, and Freddie didn't carry the contract on its lobbying budget. Two sources told me that it was a no-work contract to establish a good connection with McCain, as he made the transition from simply a powerful senator to presidential candidate.
McCain's campaign points out that Davis stopped taking a salary or ownership distribution from Davis Manafort when he joined the campaign.
But he still has an equity stake in the firm.
-- Peter Overby
11:46 PM ET
|
10- 7-2008
|
permalink
Sen. Obama has spoken since the Democratic Convention of ending our dependence on Middle East oil in 10 years. That would be tough.
If we simply bought oil from countries outside the Persian Gulf, we would not escape the influence of the Middle East. That's because oil is a global commodity, so the global price is determined by all the major producers, regardless of who buys from whom.
The US imports more than half of its oil. Of that, 20 percent comes from the Middle East. So the Gulf provides about 10 percent of the oil we use. If we reduced consumption by 10 percent, we would still need to import plenty of oil. And, again, the Middle East has a big say in the global price of oil. Production levels in the Persian Gulf would still affect the amount we pay at the pump.
Drilling offshore of the United States wouldn't yield significant amounts of oil for about 10 years, and even then we could not expect to pump as much from those sources as is currently produced in the Persian Gulf. We could possibly increase global oil production by a few percent, so that would not have a large effect on the price of oil.
As we have recently seen, our oil consumption can go down -- as long as the price goes up enough. Sustained high oil prices could help us limit the amount of oil we consume, but it would not make consumers happy in the process.
Researchers are working on alternatives to oil, such as biofuels made from plant material. However, that requires building a whole new industry. And it will take decades, not years, to ramp up production. It's reasonable to assume we can produce about 30 percent of our fuel needs by 2030 with these alternative fuels -- but the industry is not a sure bet.
-- Richard Harris
11:37 PM ET
|
10- 7-2008
|
permalink
McCain repeated his claim that Obama voted to raise taxes 94 times. Factcheck calls that a misleading statistic :
It's true that most of the votes the GOP counts would either have increased taxes for some, or set budget targets calling for such increases. But by repeating their inflated 94-vote figure, the McCain campaign and the GOP falsely imply that Obama has pushed indiscriminately to raise taxes for nearly everybody. A closer look reveals that he's voted consistently to restore higher tax rates on upper-income taxpayers but not on middle- or low-income workers. That's consistent with what he's said he'd do as president, which is to raise taxes only on those making more than $250,000 a year.
-- Evie Stone
h/t msblog
11:16 PM ET
|
10- 7-2008
|
permalink
Our intrepid librarian Barbara Van Woerkom notes a misquote from John McCain:
It's not "walk" softly or "talk" softly, like McCain said, but "Speak softly and carry a big stick", quoted by Theodore Roosevelt in a speech, April 2, 1903, Chicago. From the Columbia World of Quotations , via Bartleby.com
-- Evie Stone
10:42 PM ET
|
10- 7-2008
|
permalink
Health care has taken a higher profile in the campaign in recent days and the candidates took the opportunity to get in their slams at each other's plans in person.
Obama pointed out -- correctly -- that McCain's plan would tax employer-provided health benefits for the first time in addition to providing the tax credits McCain is so fond of talking about. But in saying "what one hand giveth, the other hand taketh away," Obama suggested that most people would come out even at best. In fact, most people who currently have employer-provided insurance would be better off -- at least at first -- because the tax credits; $2,500 for an individual and $5,000 for families, would in most cases be larger than the tax bills for current benefits. (McCain was guilty of suggesting several times that everyone would get a $5,000 credit; that's not the case). Tax analysts have pointed out, however, that because the tax credit would increase more slowly than health insurance premiums, over time its buying power would decline, and more people would end up with a tax liability on their employer-provided coverage, assuming their employers still provide coverage. At least two independent studies have found that 20 million people would no longer have employer-provided coverage after 10 years if Sen. McCain's plan were to become law.
McCain, for his part, accused Obama of injecting more government into the health care system. "He's...said government will do this and government will do that and then government will -- and he'll impose mandates. If you're a small business person, and you don't insure your employees, Senator Obama will fine you, will fine you. That's remarkable," said McCain. It's also not quite true. The smallest employers -- those with fewer than 10 workers -- would be totally exempt. Other small businesses would get significant tax credits to make that insurance more affordable.
-- Julie Rovner
10:40 PM ET
|
10- 7-2008
|
permalink
McCain was apparently referring to the 2005 energy bill, which he did vote against and Obama did vote for. It was in fact loaded with tax breaks and incentives for oil and gas companies, which is why Sen. McCain opposed it. The bill passed.
That said, the oil companies later said that they didn't end up benefiting from the tax cuts that were built into the energy bill for them. And the Congressional Research Service found that in the end, the oil companies ended up paying more taxes.
The bill also contained tax breaks for ethanol -- which is a fuel that Sen. Obama favored on behalf of the corn growers in Illinois. And it contained other money for alternative energy sources. However, the ethanol subsidy ended up encouraging farmers to grow corn for fuel instead of for food. And that played some role in the huge run-up in food prices -- exactly how much is debatable.
It also continued subsidies for nuclear power, wind and other alternatives, but did not effectively address global warming with measures such as a fuel-efficiency standard.
-- Richard Harris
10:35 PM ET
|
10- 7-2008
|
permalink
Obama is correct in saying that Al Qaeda is the strongest it has been since 2001, at least if you believe US intelligence estimates .
-- Michele Kelemen
10:33 PM ET
|
10- 7-2008
|
permalink
Obama said, "We're spending $10 billion dollars a month in Iraq, at a time when the Iraqis have a $79 billion dollar surplus -- $79 billion dollars."
Factcheck.org says it isn't so :
Biden said that Iraq had an "$80 billion surplus." The country was once projected to have as much as a $79 billion surplus, but no more. The Iraqis have $29 billion in the bank, and could have $47 billion to $59 billion by the end of the year, as we noted when Obama used the incorrect figure. A $21 billion supplemental spending bill, passed by the Iraqi legislature in August, knocked down the old projection.
-- Michael Olson
10:32 PM ET
|
10- 7-2008
|
permalink
McCain said the US has to advocate for Ukraine and Georgia's membership in NATO. This is an issue that has divided European allies.
-- Michele Kelemen
10:30 PM ET
|
10- 7-2008
|
permalink
Obama did in fact put out a statement about Russia in April. It's after the jump.
-- Michele Kelemen
Continue reading "Obama's Russia Record" »
10:26 PM ET
|
10- 7-2008
|
permalink
McCain criticized Obama for wanting to set a date for withdrawal from Iraq, but that is what the Iraqi government and the Bush administration are essentially doing right now.
On Darfur, Obama said we should be providing logistical support to the UN/AU force. The Bush administration has done that. As for setting up a no-fly zone, it may not be as easy as Obama suggests and some aid groups are worried about the prospect.
-- Michele Kelemen
10:19 PM ET
|
10- 7-2008
|
permalink
Steve Ellis of Taxpayers For Common Sense emails some background on that earmark request for the Chicago Planetarium.
In tonight's debate, Sen. McCain cited a $3M earmark Sen. Obama sought for a projector at a planetarium.
Here is the verbatim description from Sen. Obama's request:
"Adler Planetarium, to support replacement of its projector and related equipment, $3,000,000.
One of its most popular attractions and teaching tools at the Adler Planetarium is the Sky Theater. The projection equipment in this theater is 40 years old, and is no longer supported with parts or service by the manufacturer. It has begun to fail, leaving the theater dark and groups of school students and other interested museum-goers without this very valuable and exciting learning experience."
-- Evie Stone
h/t Overby
UPDATE : Twitter user tmcenroe points us to a page on Obama's Senate website detailing all the Senator's FY08 earmark requests. Re: the planetarium projector, tmcenroe writes "it's not exactly the Kodak your dad had..."
10:11 PM ET
|
10- 7-2008
|
permalink
McCain said that Obama would increase taxes on 50 percent of small business revenue. I think this may be true for revenue as a whole but it doesn't mean that 50 percent of small business owners would pay more. It also depends on what you consider small businesses. The Small Business Administration defines a small business as a company with fewer than 500 employees but I don't know where McCain gets his figures.
-- Jim Zarroli
10:03 PM ET
|
10- 7-2008
|
permalink
McCain says when people know there will be more oil prices will go down. Brazil discovered what are believed to be the world's third biggest reserves of oil undersea in April. Oil prices only climbed in the wake of that discovery.
-- David Welna
UPDATE : With regard to the eventual price effect when that oil does hit the market, our Richard Harris adds:
Offshore oil drilling would take many years to develop and would ultimately add less than 2 percent to the global oil supply. So it's a stretch to assert, as Sen. McCain did, that drilling will drive down the price of oil.
9:53 PM ET
|
10- 7-2008
|
permalink
McCain just said he'll give $5,000 to every American as a refundable tax credit on health insurance. In fact, it's $2,500 per person, or $5,000 per household.
-- David Welna
9:51 PM ET
|
10- 7-2008
|
permalink
McCain said Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill's sitting down to strike a deal on Social Security is a model for what to do now. Problem is, those two gents agreed to raise taxes to cover the Social Security gap...and McCain says on his campaign website he WON'T raise taxes to fix Social Security.
-- David Welna
9:48 PM ET
|
10- 7-2008
|
permalink
McCain puts earmarks at the top of his hit-list for cutting the budget. In fact, earmarks are a small percentage of what's called the discretionary budget -- as opposed to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, which dwarf discretionary spending. Earmark totals have gone down dramatically the past two years, although they're bobbing back up now.
-- Peter Overby
9:46 PM ET
|
10- 7-2008
|
permalink
@paulboccaccio Tweeted that Obama has been the second-highest recipient of donors from Fannie & Freddie employees.
Our Peter Overby confirms:
The Center for Responsive Politics puts Obama's receipts from Freddie and Fannie employees at $122,850. Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), chair of the Senate Banking Committee, got $133,900 from Freddie and Fannie employees and PACs, making him number one. Both totals are since 1998, although obviously Obama hasn't been in the Senate that long.
-- Evie Stone
9:44 PM ET
|
10- 7-2008
|
permalink
Obama talked about AIG executives on a junket which was apparently true, but they were from the clean side of the company, the insurance side, not financial products division. That's an important distinction.
McCain says Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lit the fire of the mortgage crisis. Most people would say that they played a part but there was much more to it than that. Securitization of mortgages played a big role because it meant mortgage servicers had no real incentive to impose strict credit standards on borrowers. And there were key players as well, like overly aggressive mortgage brokers.
-- Jim Zarroli
9:40 PM ET
|
10- 7-2008
|
permalink
McCain starts out his litany of reform with "working across the aisle with Sen. Feingold for campaign finance reform." That's absolutely true -- but it's not something he says to Republican audiences, since the GOP leadership fought the McCain-Feingold bill with everything they had.
-- Peter Overby
9:25 PM ET
|
10- 7-2008
|
permalink
The presidential candidates are prepping for another debate tonight - and once again, we'd like your help fact-checking their claims.
As we did during the Palin-Biden debate , we're challenging you to help us prove which claims are accurate and which ones aren't. If you hear something that sounds fishy, do some digging and find a primary source that sheds some light on the claim. Once you've found a source, send us the URL. The best way to get the information to us is to post it on Twitter and include the phrase #factcheck , including the pound sign at the start of the word. We'll monitor what you post on Twitter, and anyone else can follow along , too. We'll also be tweeting throughout the night at twitter.com/nprpolitics . We may even come up with some research assignments for you on-the-fly. And if you're not a member of Twitter, no worries - you can always post your research to this discussion thread instead.
We'll sort through your posts and pass them off to our reporters to investigate further. Be sure to check back to Vox Politics throughout the night to see the results - you may just see yourself getting a hat-tip from us.
-- Andy Carvin , aka acarvin on Twitter
11:15 AM ET
|
10- 7-2008
|
permalink
October 2, 2008
Palin said she wished she'd been able to veto some of that legislative spending, making it sound as if the legislature forced her to increase spending. I just talked to a couple of legislators who say HER budgets came to the legislature already significantly higher than previous budgets. Here are the budget numbers for her first two years ...2008 is her first budget year. For comparison, here are the past several years' budgets .
Also, she says she wants the state to divest its oil fund money from Darfur-involved countries. Yes... but her administration initially opposed it -- "mocked it," in the words of the bill's sponsor -- and came around to supporting it only late in the legislative session, when it was already de facto dead.
-- Martin Kaste
11:20 PM ET
|
10- 2-2008
|
permalink
Biden did misspeak at point when he talked about kicking Hezbollah out of Lebanon...he probably meant Syria.
Palin talked about making Middle East peace talks a priority, though McCain barely mentioned the peace process when he addressed AIPAC earlier this year, giving a speech that focused much more on Iran.
Palin also repeated a line that we often hear from candidates, but has never happened -- the idea of moving the US embassy to Jerusalem.
-- Michele Kelemen
UPDATE : The Biden quote is as follows
When we kicked -- along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said move NATO forces in there, fill the vacuum, because if you don't know -- if you don't, Hezbollah will control it. Now what's happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel.
In his first reference, Biden should have said "when...we kicked Syria out of Lebanon" -- not Hezbollah. The rest of the statement is accurate; after Syria left Lebanon, Hezbollah stepped in to fill the power vacuum. Biden misspoke.
-- Evie Stone
11:03 PM ET
|
10- 2-2008
|
permalink
Addressing some of our fact-check backlog -- wolkingsworld Tweeted early in the debate wondering about Biden's statement that Obama sounded the alarm two years ago about subprime mortgages.
Our fantastic reference librarian Mary Glendinning found this from The IRE Journal March 2006 - April 2006 (a publication of Investigative Reporters and Editors, Inc.):
...The reaction to our five-part series was swift. Citing the Tribune's report, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama called on the Senate Banking Committee to hold hearings on "the growing predatory practice of mortgage fraud."...
A Chicago Tribune article about Obama's call for a hearing is reproduced on Obama's website .
-- Evie Stone
10:54 PM ET
|
10- 2-2008
|
permalink
Shockingly, both campaigns are claiming victory in their post-debate statements.
Obama-Biden campaign manager David Plouffe:
Joe Biden won a clear victory tonight because he made a passionate case for change from the disastrous economic and foreign policies of the last eight years, and Sarah Palin defended them. While Governor Palin blindly supports John McCain's plan for more of the same policies that have devastated Main Street and let Wall Street run wild, Joe Biden spoke clearly and strongly about Barack Obama's plan for a tax cut for the middle class, health care that is affordable, and an end to the war in Iraq. Tonight, the American people saw why Barack Obama chose Joe Biden, a statesman from Scranton who clearly has the experience and knowledge to be a great Vice President.
Tonight, Governor Palin proved beyond any doubt that she is ready to lead as Vice President of the United States. She won this debate, putting Joe Biden on defense on energy, foreign policy, taxes and the definition of change. Governor Palin laid bare Barack Obama's record of voting to raise taxes, opposing the surge in Iraq, and proposing to meet unconditionally with the leaders of state sponsors of terror. The differences between the Obama-Biden ticket and the McCain-Palin ticket could not have been clearer. The American people saw stark contrasts in style and worldview. They saw Joe Biden, a Washington insider and a 36-year Senator, and Governor Palin, a Washington outsider and a maverick reformer. Governor Palin was direct, forceful and a breath of fresh air.
-- Evie Stone
10:49 PM ET
|
10- 2-2008
|
permalink
BIDEN:
Look, we have spent more money -- we spend more money in three weeks on combat in Iraq than we've spent on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in Afghanistan building that country. Let me say it again. Three weeks in Iraq; seven years -- seven years, or six and a half years, in Afghanistan.
Senator Biden appears to be contrasting the spending on combat operations in Iraq with the spending on reconstruction and other diplomatic activities ("building that country"). Over seven years (not including FY 09), according to the Congressional Research Service, the United States has spent $11.8 billion on foreign aid and diplomatic operations in Afghanistan. The Pentagon in FY 08 has spent $145 billion in Iraq. This works out to about $8.4 billion per three week period.
-- Tom Gjelten
10:35 PM ET
|
10- 2-2008
|
permalink
She says she cut taxes. Sort of. AK has no state income or sales tax to cut. She raised production taxes on oil producers. She suspended -- for one year -- Alaska's 8-cent-gal tax on gas.
I think that counts as a temporary tax cut.
-- Martin Kaste
10:33 PM ET
|
10- 2-2008
|
permalink
Both candidates talked about enforcing a no-fly zone in Darfur, though, as I understand it, the US military has not viewed this as a realistic option in a vast area of Western Sudan. Biden also threw out a death toll of thousands or tens of thousands, though there are no good numbers on that. Palin also talked about divesting from companies invested in Sudan. The US has sanctions on Sudan, so most of the divestment movement is from companies in China and Europe that do business with Sudan.
--Michele Kelemen
10:24 PM ET
|
10- 2-2008
|
permalink
Palin said Obama's tax plan would raise taxes on millions of small business owners. McCain has actually put the figure at 23 million. This is false, according to factcheck.org .
23 million is an old census number for ALL businesses -- most of which employ at least hundreds of people. In addition, most people who run small businesses do not file as individuals but as companies.
In fact, Obama's plan would raise taxes on couples making more than $250,000.
-- Frank Langfitt
10:21 PM ET
|
10- 2-2008
|
permalink
brent_maxwell Tweets:
Bosniak is right. Bosnian refers to a citizen of Bosnia & Herzegovina; Bosniak refers to a person of Bosnian ethnicity.
The CIA World Factbook says:
Ethnic groups:
Definition Field Listing
Bosniak 48%, Serb 37.1%, Croat 14.3%, other 0.6% (2000)
note: Bosniak has replaced Muslim as an ethnic term in part to avoid confusion with the religious term Muslim - an adherent of Islam
The Washington Post uses the term, but always defines it like this: Bosniaks, or Bosnian Muslims.
The Congress of North American Bosniaks uses that term as well.
-- Mary Glendinning
(title h/t Andy Carvin )
10:18 PM ET
|
10- 2-2008
|
permalink
She got a delay in the deadline for her financial disclosure form with the FEC ... so we'll know for sure Monday.
As to whether she was middle-class during the Governor's race in 2006, this is what the Anchorage Daily News reports:
WASILLA - Sarah Palin and her husband have pieced together a uniquely Alaskan income that reached comfortably into six figures even before she became governor, capitalizing on valuable fishing rights, a series of land deals and a patchwork of other ventures to build an above-average lifestyle.
Add up the couple's 2007 income and the estimated value of their property and investments and they appear to be worth at least $1.2 million. That would make the Palins, like Democratic vice presidential rival Joe Biden and his wife, Jill, well-off but not nearly as wealthy as multimillionaire couples John and Cindy McCain and, to a lesser extent, Barack and Michelle Obama.
-- Martin Kaste
h/t OroroDC , me_crooks-smaller_normal , Sargent , toldorknown
10:12 PM ET
|
10- 2-2008
|
permalink
General David McKiernan, the US commander in Afghanistan this week said "Afghanistan is not Iraq. .. What I don't think is needed -- the word I don't use in Afghanistan is the word surge."
On the other hand, speaking today, McKiernan said more troops should be rushed to Afghanistan "as quickly as possible." So while he doesn't believe in using the word surge because it resonates of Iraq, he does believe in rushing more troops to Afghanistan -- a surge by another name.
-- Tom Gjelten
10:08 PM ET
|
10- 2-2008
|
permalink
On May 25, 2006 the House voted , 225-201, to allow oil and gas drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), marking the 12th time it had done so since 1995.
So, people supporting the ban would have voted against the bill.
Here are a handful from both sides of the country.
yes no not voting
-- Mary Glendinning
10:05 PM ET
|
10- 2-2008
|
permalink
Biden was misleading but not totally wrong on the tax ramifications of McCain's health care plan.
He taxes as income every one of you out there, every one of you listening who has a health care plan through your employer. That's how he raises $3.6 trillion on your -- taxing your health care benefit, to give you $5,000 plan, which, his website points out, will go straight to the insurance company. And then you're going to have to replace a $12,000 -- that's the average cost of the plan you get through your employer; it costs $12,000 -- you're going to have to pay -- replace $12,000 plan, because 20 million of you are going to be dropped.
McCain's plan WOULD tax the value of health benefits -- but for most people, the tax credit would offset that tax increase. The 20 million is the number of people who would be dropped by their employers according to a critique of the plan published in the policy journal Health Affairs.
-- Julie Rovner
10:01 PM ET
|
10- 2-2008
|
permalink
Obama did, early in the campaign, say he would sit down at a presidential level with leaders of Iran and other "rogue states," without preconditions. But he did not mention Ahmadinejad by name and.
Further, as Biden pointed out tonight, Ahmadinejad is not necessarily the most powerful person in Iran.
Biden was also right in saying that US allies, particularly in Europe, have been urging the US to open a dialogue with Iran.
-- Michele Kelemen
9:59 PM ET
|
10- 2-2008
|
permalink
The 300 billion figure refers to McCain's plan to reduce corporate income tax rates. McCain likes to say that US has world's second highest corporate tax rate.
Obama says that's true, until you count loopholes, which lower the EFFECTIVE tax rate.
McCain always says Obama's plan to raise taxes on the 250K-plus crowd would affect small businesses that file taxes as individuals. True, although factcheck says there are far fewer genuine businesses (with employees) that file as individuals.
The best source on the distribution of tax burden is the Tax Policy Center . Bottom line: 80 percent of country gets a bigger tax break under Obama's plan. The top 20 percent get a bigger break from McCain (and especially top 5, 1 , 0.1 percent).
The other argument Obama's camp makes is: if tax cuts are so good for job creation, why has job growth during the Bush presidency been 1/4 what it was under Clinton.
-- Scott Horsley
9:53 PM ET
|
10- 2-2008
|
permalink
Senator Biden says Iraq is running an $80 billion surplus. That's a bit of an exaggeration. The figure comes from the Government Accountability Office, which has reported that Iraq could have a nearly $80 billion budget surplus over four years based on projected oil revenues. But this is a four year figure. For 2008, the GAO estimates a budget surplus of between $38.2 billion to $50.3 billion
-- Tom Gjelten
9:51 PM ET
|
10- 2-2008
|
permalink
Here's what Biden said at the top of the debate:
Matter of fact, John recently wrote an article in a major magazine saying that he wants to do for the health care industry, deregulate it and let the free market move, like he did for the banking industry.
This has been chided by factcheck.org (and by me on our air ) as misleading. The comment in the magazine of the American Academy of Actuaries about banking referred to interstate use of ATMS (or at least so McCain's aides say).
More broadly, however, Biden is correct that McCain wants to significantly deregulate health care by allowing people to purchase individual health insurance policies across state lines -- thus depriving state insurance regulators of their ability to protect their own state residents. That bill -- originally introduced by Arizona Rep. John Shadegg, has been vehemently opposed by many state insurance commissioners, attorneys general, and consumer advocates.
-- Julie Rovner
9:40 PM ET
|
10- 2-2008
|
permalink
Palin talks about "breaking up a monopoly" of the big oil companies in AK. Not clear what she means by "monopoly," but she has pushed to get new companies (besides the big three already in AK) involved in the construction of a proposed new gas pipeline. That pipeline has not yet been built, and it's not clear it can get built without the expertise of the big three.
In broader terms, this is her record of "opposing" the oil companies:
Palin's predecessor, Governor Frank Murkowski, had negotiated a change to the state's production tax on oil. It was negotiated with the big three oil companies, then presented to the state legislature. (It wasn't a simple increase or decrease -- it was a change in how the tax was calculated, and the final result would depend on market prices, etc.) The legislature passed it (after contentious debate).
Later that year (fall 2006), the FBI raided several Republican legislators' offices, the first sign of what would become the VECO oil company bribery scandal. Palin was elected a couple months later. She re-opened the issue of the oil production tax, and it was raised slightly (though I think -- think -- they stuck with the same basic method of calculating it).
Really, the FBI did the heavy lifting, politically.
-- Martin Kaste
9:37 PM ET
|
10- 2-2008
|
permalink
Sarah Palin reiterated the familiar McCain campaign line about Barack Obama raising taxes on the middle-class.
As Biden correctly responded, Obama did vote for a non-binding budget resolution that provided guidelines that assumed the Bush tax cuts will sunset in 2011. That's not the same as voting for a tax increase. And Obama's current tax plan does call for tax cuts for everyone making less than $250,000 a year.
Factcheck.org has repeatedly taken McCain to task on this one. Here's their explanation :
The measure Obama supported contained a provision -- which is not part of his current tax proposals -- that would have increased the rate paid by those who have taxable income high enough to fall into the 25 percent tax bracket. The 25 percent rate would have increased to 28 percent, as it was before the Bush tax cuts. The effect would have been to increase taxes for a single taxpayer with as little as $32,550 in taxable income in 2008, after all deductions and exclusions from total annual earnings.
-- Evie Stone
9:27 PM ET
|
10- 2-2008
|
permalink
Sarah Palin said McCain's health care tax credit is budget neutral. That is NOT true. There is currently no budget estimate of the cost of McCain's plan, much to the consternation of McCain's top domestic policy advisor, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the former head of the (estimating agency) Congressional Budget Office.
-- Julie Rovner
UPDATE : The Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates the McCain plan would cost $141 billion in 2013.
9:22 PM ET
|
10- 2-2008
|
permalink
September 26, 2008
McCain: Missile defense "was a major factor in the ending of the Cold War"
This is a debatable proposition. Some analysts say the United States was spending so much in defense spending (on missile defense and OTHER things) that the Soviet Union could not keep up, and its economy imploded as a result. But other Soviet experts say the USSR collapsed under its own weight.
-- Tom Gjelten
10:37 PM ET
|
09-26-2008
|
permalink
In the last minutes of the debate, the spin rooms assemble. As if conjured by Jim Lehrer's question about whether another 9/11 is possible, Rudy Giuliani emerges and sets up shop right next to our workspace, where he'll offer responses to the arguments made tonight. The bright TV lights are on him, a group of journalists huddles around, and we radio folk get ready for the post-debate special (on a member station near you, or streaming live from our website !).
For Obama, the spinning signs say Axelrod, Plouffe, Gibbs, and Douglass.
-- Laurel Wamsley
10:32 PM ET
|
09-26-2008
|
permalink
Obama said that Russia has to remove itself from South Ossetia and Abkhazia, but the Europeans, who negotiated the six point peace plan between Russia and Georgia, don't have quite that clear a deal. The Russians did have "peacekeepers in the region beforehand" and they will remain.
McCain called Obama naive for calling on both sides to be calm. Even the Bush administration had been warning Georgia in the weeks leading up to this not to take the Russian bait. The Russians say they were responding to Georgian aggression against South Ossetia. McCain also seemed to suggest that Russia is behind the political turmoil inside Ukraine. That is possible, but these are states that are always at odds.
-- Michele Kelemen
10:29 PM ET
|
09-26-2008
|
permalink
A big chunk of The American Foreign Policy Establishment came out in support of engagement with Iran :
Five former U.S. secretaries of state said on Monday the next American administration should talk to Iran, a foe President George W. Bush has generally shunned as part of an "axis of evil." [...]
The five -- Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, Warren Christopher, James Baker and Henry Kissinger -- all said they favored talking to Iran as part of a strategy to stop Tehran's development of a nuclear weapons program.
Kissinger specifically came out in favor of negotiating with Iran "without conditions ."
The fact that McCain occasionally talks to Henry Kissinger is occasionally offered as evidence that McCain is hearing from a diverse group of foreign policy advisers. The fact that Kissinger advocates a course that McCain has derided as naive and irresponsible should be a huge clue as to whom McCain actually listens.
-- Loren Jenkins
10:21 PM ET
|
09-26-2008
|
permalink
These George Washington University students say yes .
As we know, North Korea suffered chronic food shortage due to series of drought and crop failures (also the fundamental flaw of the socialist system of collective farming). The articles says that average height difference is significant, as of 2005, the average height of people aged between 20 and 39 in North Korea is 154.9cm (5.08ft) for females and 165.6cm (5.43ft) for males, while the average height for the South Korean is 159.1cm (5.21ft) for females and 172.5cm (5.65ft) for males.
-- Evie Stone
h/t Tom Gjelten
10:17 PM ET
|
09-26-2008
|
permalink
While McCain thinks that he can lead an international coalition to impose sanctions on Iran, European countries tend to want to go through the UN Security Council first. The European Union follows UN sanctions and strengthens them, but many in Europe have business interests in Iran, which make bilateral sanctions much harder to do. Obama is correct in saying that meaningful sanctions would have to include Russia and China.
McCain quotes Obama as saying he would sit down with Ahmadinejad without preconditions. Obama did originally say that he would sit down with "Iranian leaders," though he has more recently talked about tough diplomacy, which could start with low level talks. And he pointed out correctly that the Bush administration recently sent a State Department official to a mutli-lateral meeting that included Iran.
-- Michele Kelemen
10:11 PM ET
|
09-26-2008
|
permalink
While Obama and McCain debate whether or not they should speak in public about US military action inside Pakistan, it is important to note that Pakistan's new President Zardari (not Kadari as McCain said) made clear this week "we cannot allow our sovereignty to be violated by friends." Pakistan argues that any attack plays into the hands of terrorists.
-- Michele Kelemen
10:01 PM ET
|
09-26-2008
|
permalink
Obama said "there was no al Qaeda in Iraq" when the war broke out there. There was, however, a Kurdish group known as Ansar al-Islam operating in a corner of Iraq not fully controlled by Saddam Hussein's regime. This is from the Wikipedia entry on Ansar :
Defense Intelligence Agency describing Ansar al-Islam as "an independent organization that receives assistance from al- Qa'ida, but is not a branch of the group."[3] It has however been established that the later leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi stayed in the Ansar al-Islam enclave in 2002/2003 [4].
The US military considers Ansar Al-Islam a "loose franchise" of AQ.
-- Tom Gjelten
9:57 PM ET
|
09-26-2008
|
permalink
McCain says both Osama Bin Laden and General David Petraeus agree that Iraq is the "central battleground" in the war on terrorism. Osama has never said that. I'm not even sure Petraeus has.
-- Loren Jenkins
UPDATE : Tom Gjelten points out that the White House has made that argument .
9:55 PM ET
|
09-26-2008
|
permalink
McCain: "that same strategy [IRAQ] will be applied in Afghanistan by this great general."
Petraeus, speaking today in Paris, contrasted the challenge in Afghanistan with the challenge in Iraq, saying the challenge in Afghanistan would be greater.
"In Iraq, you are rebuilding. In Afghanistan, you are building."
-- Tom Gjelten
9:52 PM ET
|
09-26-2008
|
permalink
One factual flub by Obama actually undercut his own argument.
In describing McCain's health plan, Obama said that employers would begin to pay taxes on the value of health benefits provided to their workers. Actually, the workers themselves would have to pay taxes on the value of benefits provided by their employers. Now, for most workers, that tax would be offset by a new tax credit McCain would also institute. Still, those with very generous benefits -- particularly union workers who have given up wage increases over the years in exchange for more generous health insurance -- could find themselves paying higher taxes as a result. Such benefits are currently provided on a tax-free basis.
-- Julie Rovner
9:50 PM ET
|
09-26-2008
|
permalink
McCain said:
I have opposed the President on the way the Iraq war was conducted...the war was badly mishandled.
and
I went there in 2003...And came back and said this requires a fundamental change of strategy.
McCain here is speaking truthfully but he may be slightly exaggerating the degree to which he "opposed" the President on the way the war was conducted. In 2005, he said, "Some serious mistakes were made, but...I think we've got to stay the course here."
It is true that he was one of the first on Capitol Hill to argue that MORE troops were needed in Iraq ... at a time when Def Secy Rumsfeld and others were saying it was not necessary.
-- Tom Gjelten
9:48 PM ET
|
09-26-2008
|
permalink
McCain says after arguing for years that US had to change a losing strategy in Iraq, the US finally came up with a general (Petraeus) and a strategy "that has succeeded!"
That is a stretch. Not even Gen. Petraeus says the war has succeeded. He says it has vastly improved conditions on the ground but that these improvements are still "fragile" and therefore reversible.
-- Loren Jenkins
9:46 PM ET
|
09-26-2008
|
permalink
Obama said basically that the home-owners who are struggling to pay their mortgages and at risk of foreclosure are at the heart of this whole financial mess and we need to help them too with this bailout.
But in just the past 2 days he backed away a bit from the most powerful proposal to help home-owners being pushed by democrats in Congress. The proposal is to give bankruptcy judges the power to restructure loans for home-owners who have decent jobs and didn't buy a house far beyond their means...but who borrowed a bit too much and/or got themselves into loans with high interest rates that they can't afford. Democrats like the idea. Republicans and the banking industry are strongly opposed. Obama says he's for it. But yesterday he said it needn't be included in this current bailout bill if it would slow it down. That surprised housing advocates who feel this is the best chance for getting the measure passed.
-- Chris Arnold
9:44 PM ET
|
09-26-2008
|
permalink
The candidates are trading shots on their tax plans here. This is the breakdown according to the independent Tax Policy Center on what the plans would mean for Americans come tax time.
Basically, both Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama have proposed lower overall , but their plans are very different.
Obama has proposed lower taxes for most Americans -- and would raise taxes for the richest
About 80 percent of American households get a break on their taxes. Only 10 percent see any actual tax increase.
McCain also would offer tax breaks, but the majority of the break would go to the richest Americans.
So... if you divide Americans into 5 groups by income... that middle fifth under Obama would get a $1100 tax cut in 09. Under McCain would get a $325 tax cut.
Now... when you look at the richest Americans there are big differences:
The top 1 percent of Americans next year:
Obama would raise their taxes by 7 percent - $94,000 dollars next year.
McCain would give them a tax cut of 3.7 percent or $50,000
For the Top .1 (1/10th) percent next year:
Under Obama they'd pay 9 percent more. $550,000 more in taxes next year.
Under McCain the top .1 percent would get a $290,000 tax cut.
-- Chris Arnold
CORRECTION : Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center emailed us that Chris misstated the percentage tax changes in the candidates' plans. He writes:
In fact, the percentage changes are changes in after-tax income, not changes in taxes. Thus, for example, Obamas plan would reduce the after-tax income of people in the top 1% of the income distribution by 7%. The percentage increase in their tax bills would be much larger.
9:31 PM ET
|
09-26-2008
|
permalink
Listen to the best political stories of the last few days in one podcast, including the latest from the battleground states and analysis from NPR.
