Propaganda watch

[Armonica_Templar]

Democratic National Convention 2016: Fact-Checking the Speakers

The Democratic Party is holding its convention in Philadelphia this week.

Every day, ABC News will be fact-checking speakers at the Democratic National Convention.

DAY TWO: Tuesday, July 26

Fact Check: Clinton Voted for Some FTAs, Against Others
Claim: Hillary Clinton voted for some trade deals, against others

Rating: True. Clinton voted for some and against others. But she also pushed for trade deals as secretary of state, in at least one case after opposing it as a senator and a candidate.
Bill Clinton said, of Hillary Clinton’s time in the Senate, “She voted for and against some proposed trade deals.”

Background: Trade has become a major point of contention in Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, and while this claim is true, Clinton has also touted support for trade agreements in the past.

Notably, Clinton voted against the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement, also known as DR-CAFTA, on June 30, 2005. While running for president as a senator, she voiced opposition to a free-trade agreement with Colombia, which had sparked major opposition from unions over the murder of labor organizers on that country.

Clinton voted for other trade deals before those, and later backed a deal with Peru in 2007. In explaining her vote against CAFTA, Clinton noted she had voted for all other trade deals to come before the Senate until then.

As secretary of state, however, Clinton pushed for the Colombia deal she had opposed years earlier. Appearing with Colombia’s foreign minister in 2011, Clinton said the deal would “open new markets and create jobs and opportunities for both of our peoples.” Also as secretary of state, she pushed for Congress to pass free-trade deals with Panama and South Korea.

Fact Check: Clinton Launched a State Department Program to Counter Terrorists Online
Claim: Hillary Clinton launched a State Department program to counter terrorists online

Rating: True, but an independent review of the program reportedly found “scant evidence” it had diminished terrorism recruiting, and Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration have acknowledged the effort’s shortcomings

Bill Clinton said: “She launched a team -- this is really important today -- she launched a team to fight back against terrorists online and built a new global counterterrorism effort. We've got to win this battle in the mind field.”

Background: As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton created a program to discredit violent jihadist messages online and offer a counter-narrative aimed at dissuading would-be terrorist recruits.

But an independent review conducted last year by a panel comprising Google and Twitter veterans, as well as marketing experts and data scientists, reportedly found “scant evidence” the program had succeeded in its mission.

Another core finding was that counter-messaging originating from the United States lacked credibility, which Josh Earnest acknowledged in a White House press briefing in December. That recognition has led the Obama Administration to shift the focus away from U.S. government-produced content, toward partnering with allied governments who may be viewed as more credible messengers.

It’s perhaps not surprising the State Department has been outmatched by the likes of ISIS, whose followers produce an estimated 90,000 messages on social media per day. Hillary Clinton herself acknowledged as much on the campaign trail in December, saying: “Those efforts have not kept pace with the threat.”

Fact Check: U.S. Approval Rating 20 Points Higher When Clinton Left
Claim: Global favorability ratings of the U.S. rose 20 points during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of State

Rating: Unclear. Global opinions of the United States bottomed out during the Bush years and rose after Obama’s election—not necessarily on Clinton’s diplomacy. Numbers were presented differently in ’08 and ‘13, so an even comparison is difficult, but on a case-by-case basis, in many countries the U.S. rating rose by far less than 20 points.

Bill Clinton said: “[T]he approval of the United states was 20 points higher when she left the secretary of State's office than when she took it.”Background: The authorities on global opinions of the U.S. are the Pew Research Center, which publishes data on how the U.S. is viewed around the world, and Gallup.

In 2013, the year Hillary Clinton left the State Department, the global favorability rating of the U.S. was recorded at 63 percent.

In 2008, the last year before Clinton became secretary of State, Pew did not appear to render a global favorability rating, instead breaking out ratings by countries, so an apples-to-apples comparison does not appear to be possible.

Examining countries on a case-by-case basis, U.S. favorability changes from 2008 to 2013 present a mixed bag.

In Britain, it remained relatively constant, 53 percent in 2008 and 58 percent in 2013. In France, it rose from 2 percent to 64 percent. In Germany, it rose from 31 percent to 53 percent. In Russia, it rose from 46 percent to 51 percent. In South Korea, it rose from 70 percent to 78 percent. In Egypt, it fell from 22 percent to 18 percent.

Gallup similarly presents its data on a country-by-country basis, making it difficult to say how the overall U.S. approval rating changed.

Fact Check: Trump Received $150,000 in September 11 Recovery Funding
Claim: Trump received $150,000 in funding intended for small businesses recovering from the September 11 attacks.

Rating: True. A firm owned by Trump called “40 Wall Street, LLC” received $150,000 in aid money from a September 11 aid package, according to reports.

Background: Rep. Joseph Crowley said of Trump: “He cashed in. Collecting $150,000 in federal funds intended to help small businesses recover — even though days after the attack Trump said his properties were not affected.”

In 2006, the New York Daily News reported that one of Trump’s holdings, 40 Wall Street, LLC., received $150,000 in funding intended to help small businesses that were impacted by the September 11 attacks.

Politicians and reports debate various points about whether Trump’s holding qualified for the funding on the basis of differing definitions of a “small business.” The New York Times reported a back-and-forth between Rep. Jerrold Nadler and Donald Trump. Nadler had written an open letter, writing that Trump’s firm did not deserve the funds, which he said had $26.8 million in annual revenues: “Despite the federal definition of a small business as having less than $6 million in revenue, you accepted a $150,000 payout.”

Trump responded, according to the Times, “The company received this small amount of money after qualifying, given the limited number of employees working at the property.”

Despite debates on whether or not Trump’s company should have taken the money, it is true that his holding received money from these recovery funds.

Fact Check: Clinton Helped Win Health Care for Eight Million Children
Claim: Hillary Clinton helped win health coverage for 8 million American children

Rating: True. Hillary Clinton did help win passage of the Children’s Health Insurance Program
Bill Clinton commended Hillary Clinton for “helping win healthcare for 8 million children as First Lady of the United States”

Background: Politifact has rated as “mostly true” the notion that Clinton won health care for 8 million kids under the Children’s Health Insurance Program, enacted in 1997, noting that it’s not entirely accurate to say Clinton “won” it on her own.

But Clinton did play a key role in passing CHIP, and both Sen. Ted Kennedy and a top healthcare adviser to the senator said Clinton was critical to pushing the law through Congress.

Fact Check: Trump Wants to Punish Women for Having Abortions
Claim: Trump wants to punish women for having abortions

Rating: Mostly false. Donald Trump quickly reversed himself after saying women be punished for abortions, and appears to have abandoned that position.
Cecile Richards, CEO of Planned Parenthood, said: “Donald Trump has called women ‘fat pigs’ and ‘dogs.’ He wants to punish women for having abortions. And he says pregnancy is an ‘inconvenience’ for a woman’s employer.”

Background: Cecile Richards is apparently referring to Donald Trump’s March 30 town hall with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, during which the following exchange took place:

MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no as a principle?

TRUMP: The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.

MATTHEWS: For the woman.

TRUMP: Yeah, there has to be some form.

By that evening, as ABC News’ Meghan Keneally reported, Trump had walked back his statement that women who undergo abortions, if there were a ban on the procedure, should be punished. Trump’s new statement read:

"If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman.

The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb. My position has not changed -- like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions."
Trump statement that women should be punished for abortion was the first of five different positionson abortion Trump would take in three days—and one he appears to have quickly abandoned.

Fact Check: Donald Trump Wants to Defund Planned Parenthood
Claim: Donald Trump wants to defund Planned Parenthood

Rating: True. Donald Trump wants to defund Planned Parenthood as long as it performs abortions, even though he’s praised the group’s work on women’s health.

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, said: “Hillary has always been in Planned Parenthood’s corner, because she knows women deserve someone in theirs. Women like Dayna Farris Fisher, a mom in Dallas who was diagnosed with breast cancer two years ago. Today, Dayna is cancer-free. She says she couldn’t have done it without Vivian, the Planned Parenthood clinician who stuck with her all the way through treatment. When Donald Trump and Mike Pence say they’ll defund Planned Parenthood, they’re talking about cutting women like Dayna off from lifesaving care.”

Background: Last fall, when Donald Trump was asked if he’d shut down the federal government to cutoff taxpayer funds to Planned Parenthood, he replied “I would.” Since then, he’s clarified his position, saying, “The abortion aspect of Planned Parenthood should absolutely not be funded.” Over the course of his campaign, he’s repeatedly said he’d push for Congress to stop funding Planned Parenthood as long as they provide abortions.

Trump’s running mate, Gov. Mike Pence, is also on record firmly opposing the use of federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

Yet at the same time, Trump has distinguished himself among some Republicans for praising the group. Acknowledging his was “not a perfect conservative view,” Trump has lauded Planned Parenthood’s broader mission to provide women’s health, citing thousands of letters he’s received from women helped by the group, and saying “millions and millions of women -- cervical cancer, breast cancer -- are helped by Planned Parenthood.”

Federal funding reaches Planned Parenthood through two sources that both primarily serve lower-income Americans: a federal family planning program known as Title X and Medicaid, with the latter accounting for 75 percent of the federal funding, according to a Planned Parenthood spokesman quoted by NPR.

Under federal law, Title X funds may not be used to pay for abortions. Medicaid, however, does permit the funding of abortions in certain cases. The Hyde Amendment of 1977 allowed for Medicaid money to fund abortions in cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother.

Yet 17 states have expanded their exceptions to include "medically necessary" procedures, causing some to question whether groups like Planned Parenthood are performing taxpayer-funded abortions in violation of the law.

Regardless of the merits of such claims, it stands to reason that cutting off federal funds would impede Planned Parenthood’s ability to render services other than abortion (abortion services account for 3% of its overall medical services, according to its most recent annual report). The $528 million in government funding that Planned Parenthood received comprised more than 40 percent of its $1.3 billion annual revenue, the report states.

Fact Check: DOJ Cut Federal Prison Population and Crime Rate Together for First Time in 40 Years
Eric Holder made two claims: “…we cut the federal prison population and the crime rate together for the first time in more than 40 years. Now, that's right. That's right. Despite the fiction and the fear mongering you have heard from the other party's nominee, violent crime has gone down since President Obama took office.”

Claim 1: The Justice Department cut the federal prison population and the crime rate together for the first time in more than 40 years.

Rating: True. During Holder’s tenure at the Justice Department, the federal prison population and crime rate were both cut for the first time in decades. The federal prison population, however, did drop between 1976 and 1980. But the violent crime rate did not drop in this time period. Thus, it is true that the federal prison population and crime rate were cut together for the first time in 40 years.

Background: According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the first time that the federal prison population dropped since 1980 was between 2013 and 2014, when the population dropped from 219,298 to 214,149. Every other year, the federal prison population has grown.

This is not the case for the period between 1976 and 1980, however. According to the Department of Justice, the federal prison population dropped between 1976 and 1980. In 1976, the federal prison population was 26,980. In 1980, the federal prison population was 24,640. During this same period, however, the violent crime rate increased every year, according to the FBI.

Thus, between that and the fact that the violent crime rate was cut during the Obama administration (see claim below), Holder’s claim is accurate that it was the first time that violent crime and the federal population rate were cut together in 40 years.

Claim 2: Violent crime has gone down since President Obama took office.

Rating: True, as ABC previously reported. Violent crime rates have gone down during the Obama administration.

Background: The national violent crime rate on a national scale has gone down since President Obama took office, according to the FBI’s latest data.
The latest comparable annual data the FBI has made available is from 2014. In 2014, the FBI reported that there was a violent crime offense rate of 365.5 per 100,000 inhabitants. In 2013, the violent crime rate was 367.9 per 100,000. In 2009, President Obama’s first year in office, there was a violent crime offense rate of 431.9 per 100,000.

The FBI did release preliminary semiannual crime statistics for the first six months of 2015, showing a 1.7-percent increase in violent crime when compared to the number of violent crime offenses committed in the first six months of 2014. However, annual numbers for 2015 have not yet been released by the FBI, leaving us with 2014 as the latest comparable dataset of crime committed on an annual basis.

Fact Check: One in Three African-American Men Will Go to Prison
Claim: One in three African-American men will be incarcerated at some point in their lives

Rating: Questionable. The statistic is reliably sourced, but it comes from 2003. There do not appear to be more recent data to validate or contradict, but the African-American prison population has declined since 2000.

Former attorney general Eric Holder said: “When one in three black men will be incarcerated in their lifetimes, and when black defendants in the federal system receive sentences 20% longer than their white peers, we need a president who will end this policy of overincarceration.”

Background: While Holder is an authority on criminal-justice matters, this statistic is based on data from 2001.
It popped up in a Huffington Post headline after The Sentencing Project included it in a 2013 report to the UN Human Rights Commission. That report, however, sourced the statistic to a 2011 study, which in turn sourced a 2003 report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

That 2003 study, the original source, stated unequivocally that “one in three black men will be incarcerated in their lifetimes.”

It was based, however, on prisoner surveys between 1974 and 2001, examining how many had been imprisoned for the first time.

The Washington Post’s fact-checker, Glenn Kessler, has cast doubt on this claim, calling it “stale” and awarding it two Pinocchios. Elsewhere, the Post has noted that African-American incarceration rates have declined since 2000—from 3,457 inmates per 100,000 people in 2000 to 2,724 in 2014—suggesting it’s possible the trend from 2001 no longer holds.

Fact Check: Prison Sentences Twenty Percent Longer for African Americans
Claim: African-American defendants receive prison sentences 20 percent longer than whites

Rating: True. The statistic (actually 19.5 percent) comes from a U.S. Sentencing Commission study of sentences of black and white men from 2007 to 2011. Earlier time periods showed less disparity.

Former attorney general Eric Holder said: “When one in three black men will be incarcerated in their lifetimes, and when black defendants in the federal system receive sentences 20% longer than their white peers, we need a president who will end this policy of overincarceration.”

Background: This statistic comes from a multivariate regression analysis of sentences from 2007 to 2011. A similar analysis of 2003-2004 data showed a much smaller disparity.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission wrote, in a 2012 report:
"Sentences of similarly situated Black male offenders were 19.5 percent longer than those of similarly situated White male offenders during the Gall period."
[/url]View gallery

[url=https://gma.yahoo.com/photos/democratic-national-convention-2016-fact-checking-speakers-photo-030605763--abc-news-topstories.html]Democratic National Convention 2016: Fact-Checking the Speakers (ABC News)
That time period, the most recent studied, yielded the largest disparity of three timeframes examined. An earlier period, 2003-2004, showed black male offenders received sentences that were 5.5 percent longer than white defendants.

DAY TWO: Tuesday, July 26

Fact Check: Donald Trump Wants to Deport 11 Million Undocumented Immigrants
Claim: Trump wants to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants.

Rating: True. Trump has promised to deport undocumented immigrants, although he later said he would not describe his deportation policy as including “mass deportations.”

Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois described Trump as “someone who promises to round up and deport families, millions of families, and then put up a wall between them and us.”

Background: This claim is difficult to evaluate, since Trump has offered statements that seem to conflict.

On multiple occasions, Trump has made it clear that he intends to deport undocumented immigrants.

“We’re going to keep the families together, but they have to go,” he told “Meet the Press” in August 2015. “You’re going to have a deportation force, and you’re going to do it humanely,” Trump told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” in November. “They’re going to be [deported], and they’re going to come back, and they’re going to come back legally,” Trump said at a televised forum in April.

Trump later said in an interview with Bloomberg, “No, I would not call it mass deportations.”

While it does not matter what Trump calls his policy, it is worth pointing out that after promising to deport undocumented immigrants, Trump later said explicitly that his immigration policy does not include “mass deportations.”

Fact Check: Trump Wants to Eliminate Federal Minimum Wage
Claim: Trump wants to eliminate the federal minimum wage.

Rating: Mostly true. Asked about raising the minimum wage, Trump said the federal government should not set a wage floor. But he has also said the federal minimum wage should stay the same.

Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania said Trump “wants to get rid of the federal minimum wage.”

Background: Trump has said minimum wages are a state issue, not a federal one. Before that, he made contradictory statements.
In May, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Trump about calls to raise the minimum wage from its current $7.25 per hour. Trump said he was “actually looking at that.” He had said during a primary debate that the federal government should “leave it the way it is.”

Four days after the CNN interview, when NBC’s Chuck Todd asked why Trump was suddenly open to raising the minimum wage, Trump said, “I would like to see an increase of some magnitude. But I’d rather leave it to the states. You let the states decide.”

When asked, “Should the federal government set a floor?” Trump responded, “No, I’d rather have the states go out and do what they have to do.”
It’s not correct to say that Trump wants no minimum wage at all, PolitiFact notes. He has indeed indicated that the federal government should not set a wage floor, but since Trump was being asked about raising the minimum wage and since he previously said that the federal minimum wage should be left as is, it’s not entirely clear that Trump wants to do away with the federal minimum as it stands.

Fact Check: Trump Opposes Equal Pay for Women
Claim: Trump opposes equal pay for women.

Rating: Questionable. Trump has said he believes women deserve equal pay for equal work.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand said, “Donald Trump thinks that women should just work harder because — and I’m quoting — ‘You’re gonna make the same if you do as good of a job.’ Every woman in America knows that’s not true. Hillary [Clinton] believes that women deserve equal pay for equal work.”

Background: Asked on “Morning Joe” in August 2015 if he supports equal pay for women, Trump gave a discursive answer, calling it a “tricky question” because of the difficulty in determining when work is truly equal, then made a passing reference to global competitiveness. Yet he also said, “If they do the same job, they should get the same pay.” He concluded his response by saying equal pay is “one of the things that we have to look at very strongly.”

From this response, it seems fair to conclude Trump has expressed support for equal pay, with some reservations. This stance appears to be consistent with the quote Gillibrand cites from Trump’s remarks at the October 2015 No Labels Problem Solver Convention.

As the exchange below between Trump and an audience member shows, Trump does not suggest that women need to work harder to earn equal pay, contrary to Gillibrand’s claim:

Audience member: I want to get paid the same as a man, and I think you understand that. So if you become president, will a woman make the same as a man? And do I get to choose what I do with my body?Trump: You’re going to make the same if you do as good a job. And I happen to be pro-life. OK? I’m pro-life.

Ivanka Trump last week told the Republican National Convention that her father has “made it a practice at his company throughout his entire career” to pay women an equal wage and that “he will fight for equal pay for equal work.”

So there’s reason to believe Donald Trump supports equal pay — at least in theory.

An analysis of payroll data by The Boston Globe, however, revealed that men working for Trump’s presidential campaign in April made, on average, about 35 percent more than women working on the campaign. (In fairness, data show that Hillary Clinton’s Senate office paid women less and that the Clinton Foundation paid high-ranking female employees less than their male counterparts.) It should also be noted the Republican Party platform makes no mention of wage equality.

Fact Check: Origin of Trump Products
Claim: Trump-branded dress shirts are made in Bangladesh, furniture is made in Turkey, picture frames are made in India, wine glasses are made in Slovenia and neckties are made in China.

Rating: Mostly true. Various reports have confirmed that the provenance of most of these products with a Trump label as listed by Casey are true.

Background: Casey said, “Where are his, quote, tremendous Trump products made? Dress shirts, Bangladesh; furniture, Turkey; picture frames, India; wine glasses, Slovenia; neckties, China. China.”

According to several reports, Casey accurately stated the provenance of these products:

Dress shirts: The Washington Post reported that Trump shirts were made in Bangladesh, China and Honduras. Furniture: The New York Times reported that Trump furniture is made in Turkey. Picture frames: ABC News cannot confirm the origin of Trump picture frames. Wine glasses: In an interviewwith The New York Times, Trump confirmed that his glassware collection is made in Slovenia. Neckties: CNN reported that Trump neckties are made in China.

Fact Check: Trump Tax Cuts Would Come at Cost of Middle Class
Claim: Trump’s tax plan would hurt the middle class.

Rating: Questionable. Analysis of Trump’s tax plan shows he would cut taxes for everyone but the rich would see a larger cut.
Casey said Trump “would cut taxes for the richest Americans at the expense of the middle class.”

Background: Trump has proposed broad tax cuts, touting a “huge reduction in rates,” paid for by closing “loopholes” for corporations and “the very rich.” Its highest marginal rate is 25 percent for single people earning $150,000 or more. Workers making $50,000 to $149,999 would pay 20 percent.

Analysis by the Tax Policy Center, affiliated with the Brookings Institution, shows that Trump’s plan would mean tax cuts for everyone, just with larger cuts for the rich.

The analysis read, “The proposal would cut taxes at every income level, but high-income taxpayers would receive the biggest cuts, both in dollar terms and as a percentage of income. Overall, the plan would cut taxes by an average of about $5,100, or about 7 percent of after-tax income. However, the highest-income 0.1 percent of taxpayers (those with incomes over $3.7 million in 2015 dollars) would experience an average tax cut of more than $1.3 million in 2017, nearly 19 percent of after-tax income. Middle-income households would receive an average tax cut of $2,700, or 4.9 percent of after-tax income.”

Critics have questioned how Trump would pay for federal programs with such a tax plan, and Moody’s has concluded that Trump’s policies would add to the national debt and hurt the economy.

Casey’s assertion that the tax plan would come at the middle class’s expense appears to be a rhetorical point about the wealthy seeing greater benefits and an assumption that the purported economic effects of Trump’s plan would hurt the middle class more.

Fact Check: When Obama Took Office, 800,000 Jobs Were Being Lost
Claim: When President Barack Obama entered office, 800,000 people were losing their jobs every month.

Rating: True. In January 2009, nonfarm employment declined by 791,000. In March of that year, it declined by 823,000.
Bernie Sanders said, “Some 800,000 people a month were losing their jobs … That’s where we were when President Obama came into office.”

Background: Revised employment numbers show 823,000 jobs were lost in March 2009, two months after Obama became president. In January, the month he took office, 791,000 jobs were lost.

Click here for a Bureau of Labor Statistics chart covering the peak years of the financial crisis, expressing one-month changes in nonfarm payroll employment, in thousands.

Fact Check: Top One-Tenth of 1 Percent of Americans Have As Much Wealth as Bottom 90 Percent
Claim: The top one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans own nearly as much as the bottom 90 percent of Americans.

Rating: Mostly true. The comparison comes from a study conducted by economists in 2012, according to PolitiFact.

Background: Sanders said, “It is not acceptable and it is not sustainable that the top one-tenth of 1 percent now own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.”

PolitiFact studied this claim, which Sanders made in campaign speeches. According to PolitiFact, the number comes from a 2012 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Here’s how PolitiFact explained the study:

“The top 0.1 percent was composed of 160,000 families with average wealth of $72.8 million. All told, they owned 22 percent of the nation’s wealth. Meanwhile, the bottom 90 percent — 144 million families with average wealth of $84,000 — owned only 22.8 percent of the wealth.”

That study, however, omits Social Security income, PolitiFact noted in two checks of Sanders’ claim.

Fact Check: 1 in 5 Cannot Afford Medicine
Claim: One in five Americans can’t afford their medicine.

Rating: Mostly false. Even more have some difficulty paying, but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently reported that only 5.6 percent of Americans go without medicine because of costs.

Sanders said, “One out of five Americans are unable to afford the medicine they need.”

Background: Studies in the last several years have found that 1 in 5 Americans has trouble paying medical expenses, but 2015 data from the CDC suggest that Sanders’ claim overstates how many Americans can’t afford medicine.

When it comes to affording health care in general, the CDC found in 2013 that 1 in 5 Americans had trouble paying their medical expenses in the first six months of 2012. A Gallup poll in 2013 found that more than 3 in 10 said they put off medical treatment because of cost.

And an August 2015 Kaiser survey supports Sanders’ claim, with 24 percent of respondents saying they have trouble paying for drugs — more than the figure he cited.

But in 2013 the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics found that in 2011, 12.6 percent of Americans surveyed said they did not take medicine as prescribed because of cost. The NCHS’ most recent study, published in April 2016, suggests the figure is actually closer to 1 in 20:
“In 2014, 8.2 percent of persons reported delaying or not receiving needed medical care due to cost, 5.6 percent reported not receiving needed prescription drugs due to cost, and 10.0 percent reported not receiving needed dental care due to cost in the past 12 months (Table 63).

Among adults aged 18–64, the percentage who reported delaying or not receiving needed medical care, not receiving needed prescription drugs and not receiving needed dental care due to cost in the past 12 months increased 22 percent–31 percent during 2004–2010, and then declined 24 percent–32 percent during 2010–2014 (Table 63).”

Those data include only people 18 to 64, but in other studies, a lower percentage of older Americans expressed difficulty paying than the 18-to-64 group.
Sanders is right that 1 in 5 — even more, according to Kaiser — has difficulty paying for medications, but that’s not the same as not being able to afford them at all.

Fact Check: Trump Will Cut Medicaid for Lower-Income Americans
Claim: Trump will cut Medicaid for lower-income Americans.

Rating: Unclear. His statements on health care in general and Medicaid in particular have been inconsistent.
Sanders said, “And what is Donald Trump’s position on health care? No surprise there. Same old, same old Republican contempt for working families. He wants to abolish the Affordable Care Act, throw 20 million people off of the health insurance they currently have and cut Medicaid for lower-income Americans.”

Background: According to some Republican experts, Trump’s positions on health care are a mishmash. He has said he wants to replace the Affordable Care Act but also said, without spelling out how, that “everybody’s going to be taken care of” and “the government’s going to pay for it.”

His approach to Medicaid is also unclear. In its media section Trump’s campaign website refers to an interview he gave to The Daily Signal in May 2015 — before he announced his presidential run — in which he says he would not cut Medicaid as president.

The site discusses Medicaid in the positions section, saying Trump would distribute federal Medicaid funding to state governments through block grants. While it does not specify whether he would maintain federal funding at current levels, a reference to eliminating fraud, waste and abuse from Medicaid suggests he would seek cuts to the program.

He has repeatedly promised he would make sure no one slips through the cracks because of unaffordable insurance costs. But given his inconsistency and lack of policy details, it’s unclear whether his health care plan would cut Medicaid for lower-income Americans.

Fact Check: Job Creation From Clinton’s Infrastructure Plan
Claim: Clinton’s infrastructure plan would create millions of jobs.

Rating: Possibly true. It depends on how projects are set up and how workers are hired. Studies indicate that her $275 billion five-year spending plan would support fewer than 1 million jobs per year, but the total created could reach into the millions

Sanders said, “And she is determined to create millions of new jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure — our roads, bridges, water systems and wastewater plants.”

Background: Although studies suggest that fewer than 1 million jobs per year would be supported by Clinton’s infrastructure spending plan, it could create millions of jobs, depending on how and how long workers are hired for projects.

Clinton has proposed spending $275 billion on infrastructure over five years. A study from Duke University found that a “six-year transportation bill of at least $100 billion annually would support upwards of 2.18 million American jobs.”

Other sources use different numbers. Every $1 billion in highway and transit spending under the 2009 stimulus bill would support 13,000 jobs per year, the White House Council of Economic Advisers found. Clinton’s average of $55 billion per year would mean 715,000 jobs annually, by that measure. The University of Massachusetts found $1 billion in spending would mean 18,000 jobs per year.

Sanders’ claim is not accurate if we interpret it to mean that Clinton’s infrastructure plan would mean U.S. employment figures would be higher by millions of employed workers, sustained over the life of the five-year spending plan. For labor statistics purposes, Clinton’s plan would likely mean fewer than 1 million additional workers on payrolls in a given year.

Given the nature of infrastructure jobs, however, Clinton’s plan could very well create millions of jobs; it depends on how those jobs are set up.
For instance, if Clinton’s plan funded only five-year programs that employed the same workers over the life of the projects, it would create fewer than a million jobs.

That seems unlikely, however. Infrastructure projects begin in different areas and last for varying amounts of time over the life of a federal infrastructure spending plan, as we saw under the 2009 stimulus bill. To the extent that projects last fewer than five years and are replaced with new ones and to the extent that different workers are hired for different projects and across projects funded by the program, the number of individual employed as a result of Clinton’s plan could very well reach into the millions.