Associated Press September 10, 2018
WASHINGTON (AP)
— Eager to dismiss his critics, President Donald Trump is fabricating the
circumstances regarding jobs, the economy and the social safety net.
He insists that
Social Security and Medicare are becoming stronger under his watch when the
most recent government report shows the financial condition of both programs
worsening. On the economy, his claims of spurring the strongest U.S. growth
ever fall way short.
The statements
were among varied misrepresentations from the White House and in hearings for
his Supreme Court nominee, coming in a remarkable week after an anonymous
senior official went public about an effort within the administration to thwart
his agenda. Trump also faces the special counsel's continuing Russia
investigation, fewer than 60 days before November's midterm elections.
A look at the
rhetoric and how it compares with reality:
MEDICARE AND
SOCIAL SECURITY
TRUMP:
"We're saving Social Security. The Democrats will destroy Social Security.
We're saving Medicare. The Democrats want to destroy Medicare. ...We will keep
it going. We're making it stronger. We're making Social Security
stronger." — remarks Wednesday.
TRUMP,
promoting Montana Republican Matt Rosendale's Senate campaign: "I'm going
to protect your Social Security. We're going to take care of your Social
Security. Matt Rosendale is going to make sure we're not touching your Social
Security and your Medicare is only going one way. That's stronger." —
Montana rally Thursday.
THE FACTS:
Trump hasn't made Medicare and Social Security stronger.
The
government's annual trustees reports on the programs released in June shows the
financial condition of both worsening significantly since last year. The
projected insolvency for Social Security stayed unchanged — in 2034 — but
Medicare's moved three years closer, to 2026.
Both programs
also will start tapping their reserves this year, meaning that income from
payroll taxes and interest earned by the Social Security and Medicare trust
funds will no longer cover costs. That threshold was still a few years away in
last year's report. As a result, Social Security and Medicare will need a $416
billion transfer from the government's general revenues this year, when the
federal deficit is already rising.
Last year's
Republican tax bill, which cut taxes on Social Security benefits, helped
exacerbate the shortfall. So did the Trump-supported repeal of the individual
mandate in so-called Obamacare. The repeal promises to increase the number of
people without health insurance and therefore Medicare payments for
uncompensated medical care.
Trump
campaigned on a promise not to cut Social Security or Medicare, but he hasn't
offered a blueprint for either program. Democrats want to expand the social
safety net by spending more.
Treasury
Secretary Steven Mnuchin has argued that tax cuts, rolling back regulations and
better trade agreements could boost economic growth and help stabilize Medicare
and Social Security. But nonpartisan government experts who produced the annual
Social Security assessment didn't seem to accept that, forecasting
"sustained moderate economic growth."
TRADE
TRUMP:
"'Ford has abruptly killed a plan to sell a Chinese-made small vehicle in
the U.S. because of the prospect of higher U.S. Tariffs.' CNBC. This is just
the beginning. This car can now be BUILT IN THE U.S.A. and Ford will pay no
tariffs!" — tweet Sunday.
THE FACTS: It's
not true that Trump's taxes on Chinese imports will now mean the Focus Active
can be built in the U.S.
Citing Trump's
new tariffs, Ford on Aug. 31 said it was dropping plans to ship the hatchback
vehicle to the United States from China.
But Ford said
in a statement Sunday "it would not be profitable to build the Focus
Active in the U.S.," given forecast yearly sales below 50,000. For now,
that means Ford simply won't sell the vehicle in the United States.
ECONOMY
TRUMP: "We
are breaking all Jobs and Economic Records." — tweet Saturday.
TRUMP:
"The Economy is booming like never before, Jobs are at Historic
Highs." — tweet Thursday.
THE FACTS: The
economy, though healthy, has been in better shape at many times in the past.
Growth reached
4.2 percent at an annual rate in the second quarter. That's the best in the
past four years. So far, the economy is growing at a modest rate compared with
previous economic expansions. In the late 1990s, growth topped 4 percent for
four straight years, from 1997 through 2000. In the 1980s expansion, growth
even reached 7.2 percent in 1984.
The
unemployment rate of 3.9 percent is strong but it's not at the best point ever.
It is near an 18-year low. The all-time low came in 1953, when unemployment
fell to 2.5 percent during the Korean War. Meanwhile, a greater percentage of
Americans held jobs in 2000 than now.
As a whole, the
economy is in its 10th year of growth, a recovery that began under President
Barack Obama, who inherited the Great Recession. The data show that the falling
unemployment rate and gains in home values reflect the duration of the
recovery, rather than any major changes made since 2017 by the Trump
administration.
2016 ELECTION
TRUMP:
"The Dems have tried every trick in the playbook-call me everything under
the sun. But if I'm all of those terrible things, how come I beat them so
badly, 306-223?" — tweet Saturday.
THE FACTS: For
the record, Trump misstates the Electoral College vote in his 2016 presidential
race against Democrat Hillary Clinton. The official count was 304 to 227,
according to an Associated Press tally of the electoral votes in every state.
Clinton won the
popular vote, receiving nearly 2.9 million more votes than Trump after racking
up more lopsided victories in big states such as New York and California,
according to election data compiled by AP. But she lost the presidency due to
Trump's winning margin in the Electoral College, which came after he narrowly
won less populous Midwestern states including Michigan and Wisconsin.
'FAKE NEWS'
MEDIA
TRUMP:
"Isn't it a shame that someone can write an article or book, totally make
up stories and form a picture of a person that is literally the exact opposite
of the fact, and get away with it without retribution or cost. Don't know why
Washington politicians don't change libel laws?" — tweet Wednesday.
TRUMP,
addressing GOP Sens. John Thune and Mike Rounds of South Dakota: "We have
lousy libel laws... 'Hey Mike and John, could you do me a favor? Create some
libel laws, that when people say stuff bad about you, you can sue them and if
you're right, you win.'" — remarks Friday at fundraising event in South
Dakota.
THE FACTS: He
misstates libel law in claiming that someone can "totally make up
stories" or freely write "fake news" without penalty.
Under
defamation laws, people can bring a lawsuit for slander or libel if they
believe someone's statements have injured their reputation. For public
officials such as Trump, they must meet a higher legal bar than ordinary people
due to First Amendment guarantees of a free press and show the statements were
made with "actual malice." That means a publication is at risk by
acting with reckless disregard for the truth.
Trump often
pledges to make it easier for people to sue for defamation, typically after the
publication of books or news articles that present an unflattering portrait of
the White House. But he has little influence to change the laws.
Libel laws are
set at the state level, which the president and Congress do not have authority
to change. Any attempt to loosen the laws would likely run afoul of the First
Amendment, barring a successful Supreme Court challenge or constitutional
amendment.
TREASON
TRUMP,
questioning whether one of his senior officials acted illegally about an
administration effort to thwart his agenda: "TREASON?" — tweet
Wednesday.
THE FACTS: Not
treason. The official who wrote anonymously in The New York Times about the
"quiet resistance" against Trump is surely disloyal to the president
but not a traitor in the legal sense.
Treason occurs
when a U.S. citizen, or a noncitizen on U.S. territory, wages war against the
country or provides material support, not just sympathy, to a declared enemy of
the United States.
For instance,
in the Cold War case of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who were executed for
giving atomic secrets to Russia, the Rosenbergs were convicted of espionage,
not treason, because the U.S. and Russia were not officially at war. No one has
been convicted of treason since the aftermath of World War II, few have been
through history and no one has been executed for that crime, says Carlton F.W.
Larson, a University of California law professor who has a book coming on
treason.
In 2006, the
Bush administration brought a treason indictment against Adam Gadahn, an
American who authorities say became an operative and spokesman for al-Qaida
abroad. The Obama administration said he was killed in a 2015 counterterrorism
operation in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region.
Treason is
addressed in the Constitution as part of an effort by the framers to prevent
the government from using it as a reason to suppress political speech, said J.
Richard Broughton, associate dean at University of Detroit Mercy and a member
of the Republican National Lawyers Association. Congress has little if any
power to change the definition and the executive branch can only bring charges
in extremely limited cases.
Trump's
opponents have used "treason" loosely as the special counsel
investigates contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia, and it is thrown
around widely in the public discourse by all sides.
Trump is using
the word loosely now.
KAVANAUGH
HEARINGS
DEMOCRATIC SEN.
AMY KLOBUCHAR of Minnesota, asking about Supreme Court nominee Brett
Kavanaugh's views on the scope of a president's executive power: "I'm
asking about your position that you stated in this law review article that a
president should be not subject to investigations while in office. You're only
saying that they should be subject to investigation as part of an impeachment
(proceeding by Congress) and that there's no other investigation that could
occur? Is that fair?" — Senate hearing Wednesday.
KAVANAUGH:
"No. ... On criminal investigation and prosecution, I did not take a
position on the constitutionality. Period."
THE FACTS: His
claim is highly questionable, based on his past writings.
In a 2009
Minnesota Law Review article, Kavanaugh cast doubt on whether a president should
be subject to what he described as "time-consuming" criminal
investigations, cautioning that it could distract the nation's chief executive
from doing the job. He wrote in a footnote that "a serious constitutional
question exists regarding whether a President can be criminally indicted and
tried while in office."
A decade
earlier, Kavanaugh wrote that the Constitution seems to dictate that
"congressional investigation must take place in lieu of criminal
investigation when the President is the subject of investigation, and that
criminal prosecution can occur only after the President has left office."
Special counsel
Robert Mueller has been investigating whether the Trump campaign coordinated
with Russia during the 2016 campaign to tip the election in his favor, and
whether Trump obstructed justice such as by firing FBI director James Comey.
DEMOCRATIC SEN.
DIANNE FEINSTEIN of California: "In the 1950s and 60s, the two decades
before Roe, deaths from illegal abortions in this country ran between 200,000
and 1.2 million. That's according to the Guttmacher Institute." — Senate
hearing Wednesday.
THE FACTS:
That's wrong, and she corrected herself Friday. Known deaths from illegal
abortion were much smaller. The California senator conflated the estimated
number of women who had an illegal abortion with the number who died from it,
according to the research she cites.
The Guttmacher
Institute, which supports abortion rights, cites estimates in a 2003 report
that 200,000 to 1.2 million illegal abortions were performed in the 1950s and
1960s in the U.S. The report says the number of deaths from illegal abortion
dropped from just under 1,700 in 1940 to just over 300 by 1950 and a little
under 200 by 1965. The Supreme Court established a constitutional right to
abortion in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.
RUSSIA
INVESTIGATION
TRUMP ATTORNEY
RUDY GIULIANI, citing a "60 day run-up to 2018 elections": "If
Mueller wants to show he's not partisan, then issue a report on collusion and
obstruction. They will show President Trump did nothing wrong." — tweet
Aug. 25.
THE FACTS: He's
wrong in suggesting there is a 60-day cutoff date before the Nov. 6 midterm
elections, which came Friday, for Mueller to wrap up the Russia investigation.
Trump and his
allies including Giulani often cite a Justice Department policy on the issue.
But in fact, no written policy setting a deadline exists and Mueller can
continue the probe and issue new indictments. He also has no time constraints
regarding finishing or releasing the findings of his investigation.
The only thing
that's changed is that Labor Day kicked off high election season in the battle
for control of the House and Senate. So any action by Mueller between now and
the Nov. 6 voting risks being seen as an effort to affect the outcome.
The Justice
Department does have guidelines about investigations in advance of an election,
which have been interpreted over the past decade to mean that investigators, if
possible, should avoid taking specific actions — such as indicting candidates
or raiding their office — in the run-up to an election.
"Law
enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of
investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting any
election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any
candidate or political party," one such memo from 2012 states.
But the policy
does not impose a specific cutoff date for investigations before an election.
Associated
Press writers Paul Wiseman, Christopher Rugaber, Josh Boak, Cal Woodward, Eric
Tucker and Laurie Kellman contributed to this report.
Find AP Fact
Checks at http://apne.ws/2kbx8bd
Follow
@APFactCheck on Twitter: https://twitter.com/APFactCheck
EDITOR'S NOTE _
A look at the veracity of claims by political figures
https://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/ap-fact-check-trumps-not-so-strong-medicare-economy-myths
No comments:
Post a Comment