Now that the dust has settled on the first 2016 presidential debate hosted by Hofstra University in New York--one of the most highly-watched television programs of the year--an interesting story for civic leaders is what happened with the fact checking craze that ensued.
The masses were hot to fact check statements online during the debate, according to CBS St. Louis.
Fact checking was a theme for this debate from before it began with the Donald Trump fact checking machine on Hillary Clinton’s campaign website all the way through yesterday’s late-in-the-day, tit-for-tat roundup by USA Today.
According to a Google search expert, the majority of viewers searched general topics discussed during the debate, but also basic questions like, “What e-mails did Hillary Clinton delete?” Clinton reportedly received 60 percent of the candidate Google fact checking searches.
But even for the informed or government-focused, fact checking is becoming an important phenomenon of this election. The two main choices we have before us for the next American president are both guilty for spouting inaccuracies and misstatements.
Opposing candidates tend to talk over debate moderators, interrupt each other and veer off topic. In this regard, neither Trump nor Clinton disappointed in this week’s debate. As moderator, Lester Holt, the anchor of NBC Nightly News, was certainly pressed in continuing through his questions about America’s future.
Both Trump’s and Clinton’s comments ran the gamut from race relations, law enforcement and gun control to energy policies, jobs, trade deals and tax plans--subjects that are daily top of mind for civic leaders. Some of the factual misrepresentations from the debate are not as obvious as others, but luckily diligent National Public Radio (NPR) correspondents were fact checking in real-time.
In case you missed NPR’s winning live fact checking coverage, below is a sampling. The egregiousness of the candidates’ falsehoods are up to you; here Gov1 is presenting a few that are of particular interest to local government leaders.
NYC Murder Rate & Violent Crime Statistics
There were misstatements about the murder rate in New York since the policy of stop-and-frisk was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge. Trump insisted the murder rate increased after stop-and-frisk ceased, but it’s actually down, not up.
But Clinton was also not on top of her numbers with the latest crime stats either, saying that violent crime is one half of what it was in 1991 and that property crime is down 40 percent.
According to Scott Horsley,
Newly released FBI data report that violent crime increased by nearly 4 percent between 2014 and 2015, with murders rising by nearly 11 percent, but crime researchers said homicides and other violence still remain at low rates compared with a crime wave from 20 years ago. About seven cities are largely responsible for the increase in murders last year, but that pattern has not held steady into 2016, when homicides in some places, including Baltimore and Washington, have dropped. The Fair Punishment Project, a center based at the Harvard Law School, pointed out that the country is “safer under President Obama than under any other president in over a half-century.” “No year during George W. Bush’s, Bill Clinton’s, George H.W. Bush’s or Ronald Reagan’s presidency was as safe as 2015,” according to a summary prepared by the project leaders. “Violent crime in the U.S. is near historic lows and the country is dramatically safer than it was 45 years ago, 25 years ago, and 10 years ago.”
Jobs, Energy & Trade
Clinton said she wants to deploy enough solar panels to power every home along with a modern grid, which would result in jobs growth.
At that point, Trump jumped on energy policy: “Our energy policies are disaster. Our country is losing so much in terms of energy, in terms of paying off our debt,” he said.
According to Horsley:
Domestic oil and gas production have increased steadily during President Obama’s time in office. The U.S. has been the world’s leading producer of natural gas since 2011 and the top producer of oil since 2013.
The Energy Information Administration says gasoline prices averaged $2.17 a gallon last week — about a nickel cheaper than a year ago, and about 30 cents a gallon less than Obama’s first year in office, and about a buck and a half less than during George W. Bush’s last year in office.
From there the conversation went back to jobs, but not without imploding into a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) discussion that segued into their tax plans.
“You go to New England. You go to Ohio, Pennsylvania. You go anywhere you want, Secretary Clinton, and you will see devastation where manufacturing is down thirty, forty, sometimes fifty percent -- NAFTA is the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere but certainly ever signed in this country,” said Trump.
According to Marilyn Geewax,
Most studies show NAFTA had a relatively small impact on the economy. “NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses feared by the critics or the large economic gains predicted by supporters. The net overall effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to have been relatively modest,” according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.
“And all you have to do is look at Michigan and all you have to do is look at Ohio and look at all of these places where so many of their jobs and their companies are just leaving. They’re gone...So Ford is leaving, you see that their small car division, leaving. Thousands of jobs leaving Michigan, leaving Ohio, they’re all leaving,” said Trump.
According to Aarti Shahani,
Ford CEO Mark Fields says zero jobs will be lost in Michigan because Ford will build two new vehicles at that plant.
“And now you want to approve Trans-Pacific Partnership. You were totally in favor of it, then you heard what I was saying - how bad it is - and you said, I can’t win that debate. But you know that if you did win, you would approve that, and that will be almost as bad as NAFTA. Nothing will ever top NAFTA,” Trump continued.
Clinton then had to fumble through the awkwardness of explaining her changing positions on various trade deals.
“That is just not accurate. I was against it once it was finally negotiated and the terms were laid out. I wrote about in --,” she said, with Trump cutting her off:
“You called it the gold standard. You call it the gold standard of trade deals.”
According to Domenico Montanaro,
Hillary Clinton did write in her book, Hard Choices, that the TPP was the “gold standard” of trade deals and appeared very much in favor of it as President Obama’s secretary of state. She said it “would link markets throughout Asia and the Americas, lowering trade barriers while raising standards on labor, the environment, and intellectual property.” She called it “important for American workers, who would benefit from competing on a more level playing field.” She also called it “a strategic initiative that would strengthen the position of the United States in Asia.” Facing a serious populist primary challenge from Bernie Sanders, however, Clinton shifted her position left. Clinton has had a long time line of positions on trade, especially since her husband, Bill Clinton, signed NAFTA. Here’s a history.
Tax Plans
Their tax plans are truly different, and hold economic implications that cities as the front lines will face directly, and socioeconomically in a ripple effect. According to the BBC,
Mr. Trump is focusing on cutting taxes, eliminating regulation and ending trade deals...Mrs Clinton, on the other hand, wants to raise taxes on the wealthy, increase spending on job training and lower taxes on companies that hire more Americans.”
In the debate, Trump argued Clinton’s plan would push businesses out and that his tax cut would create a number of jobs because companies will not only bring their overseas operations back, but also expand their companies here in the U.S.
Clinton noted, “Independent experts have looked at what I’ve proposed and looked at what Donald has proposed. And basically they have said this -- that if his tax plan, which would blow up the debt by over five trillion dollars.”
According to Jim Zarroli,
This is from the Tax Foundation, which just put out a report saying Trump’s plan would balloon the deficit; Hillary’s plan, not so much.
Trump also says that money from U.S. overseas companies can’t come back to the U.S. because of taxes, saying that firms hold $5 trillion overseas.
Macroeconomic research firm Capital Economics estimated this month that American firms hold $2.5 trillion overseas. And that figure is echoed in other reports -- earlier this year, Citizens for Tax Justice (talking only about the top Fortune 500 companies) put it at $2.4 trillion. However, it’s not immediately apparent where the $5 trillion figure comes from. NPR is asking the Trump campaign and will update with any new information.
Hopefully the next two debates, scheduled for October 9th and 19th, will focus more on how their proposed tax and trade positions would affect our economy and jobs and less on erroneous figures that pander and fail to clarify their positions.
For a deeper dive into the candidates’ tax plans, see the analysis on the BBC website.
