On Monday night, CNN hosted 5 back-to-back town halls with some of the top Democratic contenders for the 2020 primary.
Here’s a look at some claims from the candidates and how they measure up to the truth.
Amy Klobuchar
While lambasting Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, Sen. Amy Klobuchar said DeVos “tried to get rid of the Special Olympics funding.”
Facts First: Despite defending the cuts for several days, DeVos actually fought to keep the Special Olympics funds in the Education Department’s proposal, according to officials familiar with budget-proposal process.
When the White House released their proposed budget earlier this year, the Education Department proposed cutting funding for the entire Special Olympics program. (It’s important to note that Congress sets the federal budget and appropriates funds; the White House proposal is just that – a proposal.) When asked about this cut in particular, DeVos defended it. “The Special Olympics is not a federal program,” the statement said. “It’s a private organization. I love its work, and I have personally supported its mission. Because of its important work, it is able to raise more than $100 million every year.”
In late March, after a public uproar over the cuts, Trump told reporters that the federal funding for the Special Olympics would not be cut. “I heard about it this morning. I have overridden my people,” the President said. “We’re funding the Special Olympics.”
CNN’s Michael Warren reported at the time that the Office of Management and Budget, not the Education Department, pushed to remove Special Olympics funding from the proposal. “Department officials tried repeatedly to include the nearly $18 million in funding while still coming in under the White House’s budget cap,” Warren reported, “but officials at the Office of Management and Budget rejected each proposal,” according to an official familiar with the process.
OMB demanded the Education Department reduce its budget by 10%, and even when the department had submitted a proposal with that reduction while keeping Special Olympics funding, the office rejected the proposal.
After Trump reversed OMB’s efforts, DeVos released a statement saying that she was pleased with his decision, adding that she had “fought for behind the scenes over the last several years” for the funding.
Bernie Sanders
In defending his recent financial success via a best-selling book, Sanders repeated his claim that in the 2017 tax reform bill “83 percent of the benefits going to the top 1 percent.” CNN’s FactsFirst investigated this claim when Sanders made it at his first CNN town hall in February. Here’s what we found.
Facts First: This isn’t true right now, but if certain tax cuts are not extended it will be the case in 2027, according to the Tax Policy Center.
The tax reform bill passed in December 2017 included tax cuts for corporations as well as individuals – but while the benefits for business were permanent, the individual taxpayer cuts will expire by 2027. If Congress does nothing to extend them, the top 1% will, at that point, receive roughly 83% of the tax cut benefits, according to estimates from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The same study said that for the 2018 tax year, the top 1% would receive 20.5% of the benefits from the tax cuts.
Why the 10-year timeline? That’s thanks to Senate rules that allow tax cuts to pass with fewer than 60 votes if they won’t increase the deficit in 10 years – a necessity for Republicans to get the tax reform through.
But it’s possible that a future Congress and President would vote to extend Trump’s tax cuts – even if Democrats are in charge. A vast majority of the last major round of tax cuts passed by President George W. Bush were made permanent under President Barack Obama.
Kamala Harris
California Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris was pressed at CNN’s town hall Monday night on her position about whether private insurance would continue to exist under Sen. Bernie Sanders’ “Medicare for All” plan, which she co-sponsored.
She agreed that private insurers would be phased out as the main source of coverage but noted: “There will still be access to supplemental insurance for whatever is not covered.”
Facts first: This is true. Private insurers would continue to exist under Sanders’ “Medicare for All” proposal.
The Medicare for All bill introduced by Sanders, a Vermont independent who is also seeking the 2020 Democratic nomination, would shift all Americans to a government-run insurance plan over four years. The plan would cover the vast majority of medical needs, including hospitalization, doctor’s visits, prescription medication, vision and dental care, mental health, hearing aides and home- and community-based long-term care. Stays in nursing homes would still be covered by Medicaid.
But Medicare for All would allow private insurance to provide additional benefits, as long as they aren’t already covered by the government plan. This would greatly limit the scope of what insurers could offer. One potential area, for instance, would be cosmetic surgery.
Not surprisingly, insurers are among the leading opponents of Medicare for All proposals.
Harris’ stance, however, has shifted somewhat from her initial CNN town hall in January. “Let’s eliminate all of that. Let’s move on,” she said when asked whether she would be willing to eliminate private health insurance as part of creating a government-run, or single-payer, system. The comment sent a shockwave through the national health care debate and prompted Republicans to pounce, saying Harris would strip people of their plans even if they like them.
The next day, a Harris adviser signaled that the candidate would also be open to more moderate health reform plans, which would preserve the industry, being floated by other congressional Democrats. Harris is also a co-sponsor of Medicare and Medicaid buy in proposals, which would allow more people to join these government programs, and of so-called public option plans, which would create government-run policies on the Affordable Care Act exchanges.
On Monday, Harris said intermediate steps can be discussed, but the goal should be a right, not a privilege for those who can afford it.
“Let’s not be duped by a messaging campaign that has been waged for years by the insurance companies to have you [believe] you need to defend them, you need to defend yourself,” she said.
This story is ongoing and the article will be updated