Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleTruth Squad: fact-checking the GOP presidential debate
Published Tuesday, Oct. 18, 2011 | 7:48 p.m.
Updated Tuesday, Oct. 18, 2011 | 9:09 p.m.
Candidates pick fights during GOP debate
Viewing video requires the latest version of Adobe's Flash Player
KSNV coverage of a heated GOP debate among presidential candidates at the Sands Convention Center, Oct. 18, 2011.
Herman Cain talks 9-9-9 tax plan
Viewing video requires the latest version of Adobe's Flash Player
KSNV interview with Republican candidate Herman Cain to discuss his purposed tax plan, Oct. 18, 2011.
The Las Vegas Sun fact-checked several of the claims made during tonight’s GOP presidential debate. Here’s what we found.
The claim (by Mitt Romney):
“Obamacare ... is a huge burden on this economy.”
The background:
Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010, which opponents have labeled “Obamacare.” Its most prominent feature mandates that individuals be insured.
This, according to an analysis by the state of Nevada, will cost the state $613 million between 2014 and 2019. The state is putting together a plan to implement most parts of the federal health care legislation, even as Nevada is a party in a lawsuit arguing that parts of the legislation are unconstitutional.
More immediately, a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis found that although health care premiums rose sharply last year — about 9 percent — the federal health care legislation was responsible for only 1-2 percent of the increase.
True or false?:
It’s in the eye of the beholder, as so much is with the health care law.
Only a few provisions of the health care legislation have taken effect. Most won’t kick in until 2014.
And from those that have, the impact so far is minimal. For example, in Nevada only about 300 people have enrolled in a program to provide health insurance to individuals with pre-existing medical conditions.
•••
The claim (by Mitt Romney):
Herman Cain's tax plan would add a 9 percent sales tax on goods on top of state and local sales taxes.
The background:
Cain has proposed a so-called 9-9-9 tax plan — a 9 percent flat tax on businesses (“Gross income less all purchases from other U.S. located businesses, all capital investment, and net exports”); 9 percent individual flat tax on income after charitable deductions; and a 9 percent sales tax.
Cain said his plan would lower taxes and costs on goods elsewhere, adding that state taxes and federal taxes were "apples and oranges."
That prompted Mitt Romney to quip that Nevadans would get a "fruit basket" of taxes.
True or false?:
True. It would add a 9 percent sales tax to other sales taxes. (In Clark County, the sales tax rate is 8.1 percent.)
•••
The claim (by Rick Perry): Mitt Romney employed illegal immigrants.
The background: Perry made the claim to argue that Romney had no credibility when it came to taking a tough stance against illegal immigration.
Romney tried to brush it off as false, but Perry persisted.
The claim was made during Romney's 2008 campaign, from a report by the Boston Globe, following up on another report from December 2006 about the crew caring for Romney's 2 1/2-acre yard.
True or false?: True.
According to the newspaper stories, Romney hired a landscaping company that hired undocumented workers.
"The employees told the Globe that company owner Ricardo Saenz never asked them to provide documents showing their immigration status and knew they were illegal immigrants," the Globe reported in 2006.
Perry's point was that Romney never verified the immigration status of those workers even after the first story ran. "Romney continued to employ the same landscaping company — until today," according to the story in December 2007. Reporters interviewed workers who said they were in the country without documentation.
•••
The claim (by Mitt Romney): Gingrich supported an individual mandate for health insurance before he opposed it.
The background: To some GOP voters, Romney wears a scarlet H for the health care bill he signed as governor of Massachusetts, which is similar to the 2009 health care legislation passed by Congress and signed by Obama. The plan, as noted above, would require individuals to get health insurance or face a tax penalty.
Romney’s defense Tuesday night was that Gingrich and other conservative groups, like the Heritage Foundation think tank, originally proposed such a mandate.
True or false?: True.
During the 1980s and 1990s, Democrats pushed for a requirement that employers provide health insurance or a “single-payer” system. In an effort to come up with an alternative, the mandate for individuals to get health insurance was indeed a Republican idea.
Gingrich took issue with Romney tagging him with the idea. But pressed, he conceded he supported the Heritage Foundation’s plan for health insurance.
Here’s the CNN transcript:
ROMNEY: Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you.
GINGRICH: That's not true. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.
ROMNEY: Yes, we got it from you, and you got it from the Heritage Foundation and from you.
GINGRICH: Wait a second. What you just said is not true. You did not get that from me. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.
ROMNEY: And you never supported them?
GINGRICH: I agree with them, but I'm just saying, what you said to this audience just now plain wasn't true.
ROMNEY: OK. Let me ask, have you supported in the past an individual mandate?
GINGRICH: I absolutely did with the Heritage Foundation against Hillarycare.
ROMNEY: You did support an individual mandate? Oh, OK. That's what I'm saying. We got the idea from you and the Heritage Foundation.
GINGRICH: OK. A little broader.
ROMNEY: OK.
Discussion: 4 comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
Everything Under the Sun
Blogs
The Kats Report
Clint Holmes is a big deal at Cabaret Jazz and 'The Carlyle!'; Playboy's furry-ous closing; Elvis is a 'Legend'
Joe Pesci remembers his own honeymoon in Vegas -- meeting the Rat Pack (1 Comment)
Las Vegas Philharmonic says search for new music director to begin 'immediately' (1 Comment)
With Shenandoah project stalled, Wayne Newton hits back legally (7 Comments)
Where does a Playmate play when she turns 21? Vegas! (3 Comments)
Ice Ice Billy
The road to six-toed cats and Mayor Bubba
The Kats Report
David Itkin tells L.V. Philharmonic officials he's on his way out (14 Comments)
- Locally owned and independent since 1950; Winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, best news website in the nation & DuPont Award for broadcast journalism
Article: "Perry's point was that Romney never verified the immigration status of those workers even after the first story ran."
Uh, you say it's true. So Romney, and therefore all of us, are supposed to check the immigration status of the employees of companies we hire? When you hire a contractor, like the landscaping COMPANY Romney hired, they are not your employees. How can you check the status of someone else's employees, people you may never see since you're at work while they are landscaping your yard? Shall we demand to see the documents of all of the employees at the restaurants we patronize?
When I heard the accusation, I thought he hired a nanny who was here illegally. That person would be an employee.
Just like the state sales tax does not apply to every item, neither does Cain's 9% national sales tax. It has not been completely clear as to exactly what it will and will not be put on, but one thing that is known is that it does not apply to used goods, however they might be defined. It also has not been clarified if it will apply to food or will some sort of "pre-bate" that other "fair tax" plans incorporate to help redress the regressive nature of it.
That said, I do not like the "fair tax" and this is another incarnation of it, albeit at a much lower rate than others have proposed.
The rest of Cain's plan needs some very detailed analysis that takes a true 9% flat corporate rate without any payroll taxes into account. If this completely removes all loopholes for offshore profits and subsidies it could actually increase tax revenue significantly and remove some of the incentive to offshore manufacturing as well.
I still that a flat personal tax is too regressive, that there must be allowances for families at the very least. But with no payroll taxes it might not be as bad as some say.
Anyone who thinks the flat 9% corporate tax is a VAT is just plain ignorant.
boftx -
I actually argue against allowances for families when it come to income tax. We shouldn't be pushing social policy through the tax code. Having a family is a personal choice -- and you shouldn't get a tax break for it.
For the brief amount of the debate I could stomach, I think it was Santorum that said it's not right that a family with the same income as an individual that makes the same income would pay the same taxes. I think it is right -- that's the very definition of a flat tax.
Everyone blasted Cain's flat tax structure as awful due to it being unfair to the poor and middle class. Then 2 minutes later they were saying how they want to "simplify the tax code" and "flatten the tax structure". Isn't that the same thing?
Silly question, I know... But will there ever be a day when the Sun "fact check" anything thing Reid or Obama say???
That would be breaking and earth shattering news.
Something I've not seen anyone talking about...
Herman Cain's 999 Plan will REMOVE the MORTGAGE INTEREST DEDUCTION, which is currently allowed by the IRS. If that were to happen, how many people would then NOT be able to afford a mortgage? I suggest, most of the nation.
A large number of homeowners claim ADDITIONAL EXEMPTIONS to the monthly mortgage interest taxes they pay, to lower the cost of a their mortgage payment EACH MONTH. This makes the loan affordable (considering principal and interest, et al) for most people.
Thus, the mortgage interest costs that homeowners would normally get as a DEDUCTION when filing their tax return at the END OF THE YEAR - is instead SPREAD OUT over 12 MONTHS to reduce the size of the mortgage payment that must be paid each month.
The IRS allows this to ENABLE homeowners to buy homes. If Cain's 999 Plan would take this IRS mortgage interest deduction away, it would kill the housing market, AGAIN.
As a side-note, Republicans in Congress have been trying to remove this deduction for years - but it has been met with great resistance. The Democrats have just recently (past 2-3 years) become intersted in eliminating this deduction too - so they can collect more of this HUGE AMOUNT OF potential tax revenue.
Bottom-Line: "All that glitters is not gold" or, "the devil [REALLY IS] in the details."