LT Fact Checks
The facts matter for all arguments and forms of deliberation. But, we might say that they matter or can matter more depending on what is at stake. This is best illustrated by our current political environment. While some might point out that politics has always been ugly with politicians going to great lengths in making their opponents appear less noble, this fact does not help us deal with what in front of us: an electorate that is perhaps more than ever highly skeptical of the facts and unsure where to find them.With this in mind, we here at Lawrence Talks with the help of graduate students in philosophy, have taken upon ourselves to assist in this fact finding by evaluating some of the claims made throughout this year’s presidential campaign. We are late to the party, but we hope to continue these efforts beyond the election. For our first entry, we start with those comments made during the one and only VP Debate between Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Vice President Mike Pence (R-In). Many of their responses to questions posed by moderator Susan Page echo many of the claims made by the respective campaigns. We hope you find this entry helpful and that you share it with others.
Entry authors: Nadia Ruiz (Philosophy of Economics), Damian Fisher (Philosophy), David Tamez (Philosophy of Law)
On the topic of political morality and the legitimacy of Supreme Court nominations, Senator Harris made the following claim:
“In 1864, one of the, I think, political heroes – certainly the president, and I assume to you as well, Mr. Vice President – is Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln was up for reelection, and it was 27 days before the election, and a seat became open on the United States Supreme Court. Abraham Lincoln's party was in charge, not only in the White House, but the Senate. But honest Abe said it's not the right thing to do. The American people deserve to make the decision about who will be the next president of the United States, and then that person can select who will serve for a lifetime on the highest court of our land. And so Joe and I are very clear: the American people are voting right now. And it should be their decision about who will serve on this most important body for a lifetime.”
LT commentary: History often requires more context to fully appreciate the contours that went into a historical figure’s political decision-making. The decision made by Lincoln to postpone his nomination to replace Roger Taney (following his death on October 12, 1864) as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is no exception. While Senator Harris is right, in a trivial way, that Lincoln postponed the nomination until after the election because it was “the right thing to do” she leaves out why exactly it was the right thing to do.
Although historian Michael Beschloss initially agreed with Harris’ interpretation of history, many other historians have at least said that of the facts available, none definitively point to a yes or a no. President Lincoln’s decision-making at this time, as is the case with many of the decisions he made during his presidency, serves as an example of sound practical reasoning as opposed to mere moral reasoning. What’s the difference? Well we might think that morality ought to be followed no matter the sort of consequences it might produce or that the means by which we bring about the moral end matter a great deal. Whereas in practical reasoning consideration of means extends only to the extent in which they bring about a desired end and only the consequences matter.
In this case, it is argued that Lincoln was only concerned with ensuring that he got the nominee he wanted confirmed. He was not, unfortunately, concerned with establishing some sort of moral principle about when a president should or should not name their nominee to fill an important seat.
Whereas Senator Harris’ statement suggests that President Lincoln decided to wait based on the principle that a high profile political seat ought not be filled so close to an election so as to keep it for the elected party, Lincoln based his decision on many other factors, this moral principle most likely being the least important.
Although Chase was a member of Lincoln’s cabinet – serving as the Treasury Secretary – the two men were also believed to be fierce political rivals. Through his time as a political candidate and into Lincoln’s renomination as the Republican Party’s candidate for president, Chase was involved in a number of attempts to replace Lincoln or to even serve as the nominee for a new branch of radical Republicans (a historical label, not our own) seeking to establish full rights of citizenship (including the right to vote and hold office) to freed persons.
While these attempts would eventually be quelled by Lincoln’s perceived commitment to these ends, it would eventually create questions about Chase’s loyalty or interest in being Lincoln’s nominee. Provided this, Lincoln was not confident that Chase would accept the nomination or even wanted the job. So, he sought to postpone his nomination of Chase more so out of a desire to prevent any sort of embarrassment, which itself would have given the impression that the Republican Part was very much a divided party, until after the election to allow time for a confirmation that Chase would accept.
So, how do we evaluate Senator Harris’ claim? Well there appears to be consensus that Lincoln was far more preoccupied with ensuring that Chase would accept his nomination and that the newly formed Republican party remain strong and united, especially in their abolition efforts. Unfortunately, Harris’ claims fails to provide full context of the sort of decision Lincoln had in front of him, and so, the sentiment that she claims to be at work just was not there.
With all this said, it can certainly be asked whether we need to look towards history for potential reasons to postpone nomination (now a moot point)?
Sources:
Court, S. J. (1993). An uneasy partnership: The political relationship between Salmon Chase and Abraham Lincoln. Northern Kentucky Law Review, 21(1), 215-224.
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/kamala-harris-honest-abe-and-the-supreme-court/
Kamala Harris' record as DA in California, Pence mentioned she oversaw an office that resulted in African-American men being 19x more likely to receive a conviction than their white counter parts. What is the story here?
Mike Pence: “I really need to make this point. When you were DA in San Francisco, when you left office, African-Americans were 19 times more likely to be prosecuted for minor drug offenses than whites and Hispanics. When you were Attorney General of California, you increased the disproportionate incarceration of blacks in California…you didn’t lift a finger to pass the first step back on Capitol Hill. I mean, the reality is your record speaks for itself…”
LT commentary: It is not clear whether Pence was referring to this study, but in 2012 a study from the nonprofit Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice and Criminal Justice shows that in 2009, during Harris second term as San Francisco DA, Black San Franciscans between 10-69 years were 19 time more likely to be arrested for drug related felonies. You can read the study here http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/Drug_Policy_2012_in_SF.pdf
What effect has Trump's tax cuts had on the economy and for the middle class?
Unemployment declined 7.9 in September, but the job growth had stalled. And that was before the latest round of layoffs and furloughs …Nearly 11 million jobs that existed at the beginning of the year have not been replaced. Those hardest hit include Latinxs, Blacks, and women.
The question: “Senator Harris, the Biden-Harris campaign has proposed new programs to boost the economy. And you would pay for that new spending by raising four trillion dollars in taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations. Some economists warn that could curb entrepreneurial ventures that fuel growth and create jobs. Would raising taxes put recovery at risk?
The quote:
Harris’ answer: “Donald Trump who measures the strength of the economy based on how rich people are doing, which is why he passed a tax bill benefiting the top one percent and the biggest corporations of America, leading to a two trillion dollar deficit that the American people are going to pay for”.
LT commentary: Harris was referring to the “Tax cuts and Jobs Act” (TCJA), which Trump singed on Dec. 22, 2017. This bill involves so many changes that in order to know how the tax bill affects YOU depends on your personal situation. For example, how many children you have, mortgage interest and state/local taxes, earnings, exemptions, etc.
In what follows, I will be describing how the TCJA benefits the most and the effects on middle class households.
Higher income taxpayers:
US tax code is progressive––higher incomes are taxed at higher rates. The new TCJA bill is progressive, however, it lowers the rates applied to most tax brackets, which sounds good for most, but NOTE it also increases the income necessary to jump to the next higher rate––“the tax rates for five of the seven tax rates drop under the new regime and the wealthiest American will see some of the deepest tax cuts”. https://lawshelf.com/blogentryview/the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-of-2017-what-it-means-for-you/
For example “for a single filer tax rates applicable to various brackets are decreased up to 4% and the amount one needs to earn to be in the top tax bracket increases from $426, 700 to $500, 000. https://fortune.com/2017/12/20/gop-tax-bill-brackets/ Similarly for married couples filling jointly––taxes are decrease but levels of income to reach such brackets are increased.
Middle class households:
Deductions: although under the new bill almost doubles standard deductions, which seems to be a good thing, some deductions were eliminated or reduced. For example, alimony or spousal support payments. The effect of eliminating alimony deduction could complicate how child support is calculated, it might also prolong divorce process. https://money.cnn.com/2017/12/15/pf/taxes/alimony-tax-bill/index.html
If you own a house and live in an area with high property taxes (like New York or California), you will be affected by the new $10, 000 limit on state and local tax deductions from your federal income taxes. Regarding the Mortgage Interest Tax deduction, which supposedly was an incentive to buy a house, was affected by the other standard deductions, which were almost double. There is no reason to itemize this expense anymore. https://lawshelf.com/blogentryview/the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-of-2017-what-it-means-for-you/
Also read the consequences of eliminating the ACA’s individual mandate during COVID19 to middle class households and low-income households.
Good benefits for both–– Child Tax credit. https://www.efile.com/do-i-qualify-for-the-child-tax-credit-who-is-eligible/
Health Insurance Individual Mandate long term consequences: The new tax bill eliminates the “individual mandate”, which under the Affordable Care Acted charged a tax penalty of about $700 on taxpayers who meet some income thresholds and choose not to purchase health insurance. Although for some this seems good, the elimination of the “individual mandate” entails that, one, premiums would not be kept down; two, because premiums will rise, more people then will drop healthcare coverage ––“13 millions of Americans will become uninsured over the next ten years due to the mandate repeal” https://fortune.com/2017/12/20/tax-bill-individual-mandate-obamacare/ COVID19 with ACA: It is worth acknowledging that prior to ACA, individuals vulnerable of losing their jobs during recession were excluded from Medicaid––if income was above two-thirds of the poverty line parents would not be eligible to apply for Medicaid for their children; similarly, individuals without children were not eligible to Medicaid at all. Now, Medicaid expansion and ACA offering coverage to this group it is expected for a better response to heath coverage during this recession. “Evidence suggests mid-year sign-ups for ACA marketplace coverage have risen as well, particularly in state-based marketplaces that created special enrollment opportunities and conducted other outreach during the pandemic” https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/emergency-special-enrollment-period-would-boost-health-coverage-access-at-a-critical . It is also worth noting that solid data on 2020 uninsured rates become available for a better analysis and conclusions could confirm that ACA as a health safety net is working. COVID19 without ACA:“Fewer people had coverage at the start of the pandemic, and more will become uninsured during the downturn, due to some state policymakers’ refusal to take up the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid and to federal policies that have undermined Medicaid and the ACA marketplaces. The consequence is that more people will go without needed care or will incur unaffordable medical expenses during the crisis. Higher uninsured rates also weaken the response to the pandemic, since some people without health insurance may forgo testing or treatment for COVID-19” https://news.gallup.com/poll/309224/avoid-care-likely-covid-due-cost.aspx
The Economic Recovery:
Page: Vice President Pence, your administration has been predicting a rapid and robust recovery, but the latest economic report suggests that's not happening. Should Americans be braced for an economic comeback that is going to take not months, but a year or more? You have two minutes to answer, uninterrupted.
Pence: When President Trump and I took office, America had gone through the slowest economic recovery since the Great Depression. When Joe Biden was vice president they tried to tax, and spend, and regulate, and bail our way back to a growing economy. President Trump cut taxes, across the board. Despite what Senator Harris says, the average American family of four had $2,000 in savings in taxes. And with the rise in wages that occurred, most predominantly for blue-collar, hard working Americans, the average household income for a family of four increased by $4,000 following President Trump's tax cuts. But America, you just heard Senator Harris tell you, on day one Joe Biden's gonna raise your taxes. It's really remarkable to think, Susan – I mean, right after a time where we're going through a pandemic that lost 22 million jobs at the height, we've already added back 11.6 million jobs because we had a president who cut taxes, rollback regulation, unleashed American energy, fought for free and fair trade, and secured $4 trillion from the Congress of the United States to give direct payments to families, saved 50 million jobs through the paycheck protection program. We literally have spared no expense to help the American people and the American worker through this. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris want to raise taxes. They want to bury our economy under a $2 trillion Green New Deal, which you were one of the original co-sponsors of in the United States Senate. They want to abolish fossil fuels and ban fracking, which would cost hundreds of thousands of American jobs all across the Heartland. And Joe Biden wants to go back to the economic surrender to China that when we took office, half of our international trade deficit was with China alone. And Joe Biden wants to repeal all of the tariffs that President Trump put into effect to fight for American jobs and American workers. Joe Biden says democracy's on the ballot. Make no mistake about it, Susan. The American economy, the American comeback is on the ballot with four more years of growth and opportunity – with four more years of President Donald Trump. 2020 economic year in the history of this country.
The slowest economic recovery is right now. Each vice-presidential candidate didn’t directly answer their economic questions. After introducing the Biden-Harris economic plan involves repealing the Trump-Pence tax cuts, that mainly benefit the very wealthy, to raise four trillion dollars to invest in infrastructure to create jobs, Susan Page asks, if this plan risks slowing the current economic recovery. Harris did not answer directly and instead loosely discussed the aspects of the economy that will be addressed. Page then points out that Trump-Biden predict a rapid and robust economic recovery, asking Pence, “should American be braced for an economic comeback that is going to take not months, but a year or more?” Pence side-stepped a direct answer. Instead expressing empirically inaccurate claims about past economic recoveries and the current one. If we look at the data, the Recovery Act, managed by Biden, successfully responded to the then worst economic recession since the Great Depression (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/04/joe-biden-oversaw-recovery-during-last-recession/609646/), i.e. the 2008 financial crisis, ensure the recovery was not slow or at least as slow as it could’ve been (https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/why-was-last-recovery-slower-usual-actually-it-wasnt). But according to the Minneapolis Federal Reserve, the current economic recession is deeper and worse than the 2008 Great Recession. (https://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/recession-in-perspective) Ultimately, every recession is unique – for a more nuanced look at the Great Depression and Great Recession (https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/essay/two-recessions-two-recoveries/) – but the data concludes the worst economic recession is occurring now, and it is a safe assumption that Harris and especially Pence avoided direct answers to these issues because the recovery will likely be long and arduous. Truth rating: 5-10.
The unanswered questions:
Susan Page: Vice President Pence, there have been a lot of repercussions from this pandemic. In recent days, the president's diagnosis of COVID-19 has underscored the importance of the job that you hold, and that you are seeking. That's our second topic tonight, it's the role of the vice president. One of you will make history on January 20, you will be the vice president to the oldest president the United States has ever had. Donald Trump will be 74-years-old on Inauguration Day. Joe Biden will be 78-years-old. That already has raised concerns among some voters, concerns that have been sharpened by President Trump's hospitalization in recent days. Vice President Pence, have you had a conversation or reached an agreement with President Trump about safeguards or procedures when it comes to the issue of presidential disability? And if not, do you think you should? You have two minutes without interruption.
Mike Pence: Well, thank you but, I would like to go back. Because the reality is that we're going to have a vaccine, Senator, in record time, in unheard of time, in less than a year. We have five companies in phase three clinical trials. And we're right now producing 10s of millions of doses. So, the fact that you continue to undermine public confidence in a vaccine if the vaccine emerges during the Trump administration, I think is unconscionable. And Senator, I just asked you, stop playing politics with people's lives. The reality is that we will have a vaccine, we believe, before the end of this year, and it will have the capacity to save countless American lives. And your continuous undermining of confidence in a vaccine is just, it's just unacceptable. And let me also say, you know the reality is when you talk about, about failure in this administration, we actually do know what failure looks like in a pandemic. It was 2009. The Swine Flu arrived in the United States. Thankfully, it was, ended up not being as lethal as the coronavirus. But before the end of the year, when Joe Biden was Vice President of the United States, not seven and a half million people contracted the swine flu, 60 million Americans contracted the swine flu. If the swine flu had been as lethal as the coronavirus in 2009 when Joe Biden was vice president, we would have lost 2 million American lives. His own Chief of Staff Ron Klain would say last year that it was pure luck. That they did “everything possible wrong”. And we learned from that. They left the Strategic National Stockpile empty. They left an empty and hollow plan, but we still learned from it. And I think –
Susan Page: Senator Harris, let me ask you the same question that I asked Vice President Pence, which is have you had a conversation, or reached an agreement with Vice President Biden, about safeguards or procedures when it comes to the issue of presidential disability? And if not, and if you win the election next month, do you think you should? You have two minutes, uninterrupted.
Kamala Harris: So let me tell you first of all, on the day I got the call from Joe Biden, it was actually a Zoom call, asking me to serve with him on this ticket was probably one of the most memorable, memorable days in my life. I, you know, I thought about my mother, who came to the United States at the age of 19, gave birth to me at the age of 25 at Kaiser Hospital in Oakland, California. And the thought that I'd be sitting here right now I know would make her proud and she must be looking down on this. You know Joe and I were raised in a very similar way. We were raised with values that are about hard work, about the value and the dignity of public service and about the importance of fighting for the dignity of all people. And I think Joe asked me to serve with him because I have a career that included being elected the first woman District Attorney of San Francisco, where I created models of innovation for law enforcement, in terms of reform of the criminal justice system. I was elected the first woman of color, and black woman, to be elected Attorney General of the state of California, where I ran the second largest Department of Justice in the United States, second only to the United States Department of Justice. There I took on everything from transnational criminal organizations, to the big banks that were taking advantage of homeowners, to for profit colleges that were taking advantage of veterans. And then, of course, now I serve in the United States Senate as only the second black woman ever elected to the United States Senate. I serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee where I've been in regular receipt of classified information about threats to our nation and hotspots around the world. I've traveled the world. I've met with our soldiers in our, in war zones. And I think Joe has asked me to serve with him because he knows that we share, we share a purpose, which is about lifting up the American people. And after the four years that we have seen of Donald Trump, unifying our country around our common values and principles.
They do not answer the question
With shifting demographics (interactive guide: https://www.pewresearch.org/2020/09/23/the-changing-racial-and-ethnic-composition-of-the-u-s-electorate/) – e.g. Generation Z now account for 1 and 10 votes (https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/essay/an-early-look-at-the-2020-electorate/) – and the novel Coronavirus, it is unsurprising that Harris and Pence do not answer. By pivoting to vaccines, Pence creates a false sense of stability and reassurance predicated on a safe vaccine being widely available by the end of this year. There will not be a safe vaccine widely available by the end this year. – interactive guide: https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2020/oct/14/covid-vaccine-tracker-when-coronavirus-vaccine-ready. Rather than answer, Harris pivots to an appeal to credibility, assuming people have forgotten her own presidential run, and this isn’t unintentional. Both Biden and Trump are most at risk for developing severe COVID symptoms (https://www.yalemedicine.org/stories/2019-novel-coronavirus/), and it isn’t an absurdity to consider the vice-president becoming the president during the next four years. I understand that answering Page’s question would likely ripple into a maelstrom of unintended consequences, from geopolitical to how votes are cast. The subtext is imperative—Pence discussed an untenable vaccine hope; Harris, her credentials. Either Harris is critiquing the credibility of a Trump-Pence presidency while Pence works to build that up – truly unlikely based on their response order. Or Harris is cognizant of Page’s concern and considers, at minimum privately, while Pence, subsequently Trump, do not. Pence: 3/10. Harris: 5/10
China:
Page: I'd like to talk about China. We have, as our next topic, we have no more complicated or consequential foreign relationship than the one with China. It is a huge market for American agricultural goods. It’s a potential partner in dealing with climate change and North Korea. And in a video tonight, President Trump again blamed it for the coronavirus, saying “China will pay.” Vice President Pence, how would you describe our, our fundamental relationship with China? Competitors? Adversaries? Enemies? You have two minutes.
Pence: Thank you Susan. Well let me, before I leave that, let me, let me speak to voting records, if I can. You know, everybody knows that NAFTA costs literally thousands of American factories to close. We saw automotive jobs going south of the border. President Trump fought to renegotiate NAFTA, and the United States, Mexico, Canada agreement is now the law of the land. American people deserve to know Senator Kamala Harris was one of only 10 members of the Senate to vote against the USMCA. It was a huge win for American auto workers. It was a huge win for American farmers, especially dairy in the upper Midwest. But, Senator, you said it didn't go far enough on climate change, that you put your, your radical environmental agenda ahead of American auto workers and ahead of American jobs. I think the American people deserve to know that. It's probably why Newsweek magazine said that, that Kamala Harris was the most liberal member of the United States Senate in 2019, more liberal than Bernie Sanders, more, more liberal than any of the others in the United States Senate. So, now with regard to China, Susan, first and foremost -- China is to blame for the coronavirus. And President Trump is not happy about it. He's made that very clear. He made it clear again today. China and the World Health Organization did not play straight with the American people. They did not let our personnel into China to get information on the coronavirus until the middle of February. Fortunately, President Trump, in dealing with China from the outset of this administration -- standing up to China, that had been taking advantage of America for decades -- in the wake of Joe Biden's cheerleading for China, President Trump made that decision before the end of January to suspend all travel from China. And again, the American people deserve to know, Joe Biden opposed President Trump's decision to suspend all travel to China. He said it was hysterical, he said it was xenophobic [but President Trump has stood up to China and will continue to stand strong]. We want to improve the relationship, but we're going to level the playing field and we’re going to hold China accountable for what they did to America with the coronavirus
Page: Thank you. Senator Harris, I’m going to ask you the same question that I asked the Vice President. How would you describe our fundamental relationship with China? Are we competitors, adversaries, enemies? You'll have two minutes, uninterrupted.
Harris: Susan, the Trump administration's perspective, and approach to China has resulted in the loss of American lives, American jobs and America's standing. There is a weird obsession that President Trump has had with getting rid of whatever accomplishment was achieved by President Obama and Vice President Biden. For example, they created, within the White House, and office that basically was just responsible for monitoring pandemics. They got away, they got rid of it. There was a team of disease experts that President Obama and Vice President Biden dispatched to China to monitor what is now predictable and what might happen. They pulled them out. We now are looking at 210,000 Americans who have lost their lives. Let's look at the job situation we mentioned before, the trade deal – the trade war, they wanted to call it – with China. It resulted in the loss of over 300 manufacturing jobs, and a manufacturing recession, and the American consumer paying thousands of dollars more for goods, because of that failed war, that they called it. And let's talk about standing. Pew, a reputable research firm, has done an analysis that shows that leaders of all of our formerly allied countries have now decided that they hold a greater esteem and respect Xi Jinping, the head of the Chinese Communist Party, than they do Donald Trump, the President of the United States, the commander in chief of the United States. This is where we are today, because of a failure of leadership by this administration
The second question directly posed to both vice-presidential candidates, and neither person answered the question directly. To begin, NAFTA doesn’t pertain to the question and the loss of manufacturing jobs in the United States is mainly due to technological innovation, so manufacturing jobs shrink while output grows (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/25/most-americans-unaware-that-as-u-s-manufacturing-jobs-have-disappeared-output-has-grown/). And appealing to Midwestern farmers ignores that the US-China Trade War didn’t help agriculture concerns (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-farmers-subsidies-analysis/u-s-farmers-still-dependent-on-trade-aid-after-china-deal-idUSKBN20Y1B7). There may be credibility to Pence’s statement (https://www.wired.com/story/inside-the-early-days-of-chinas-coronavirus-coverup/), but it too does not address the question. Harris may not be entirely truthful about the complexity of the pandemic oversight that Trump-Pence may have disbanded (https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-trump-fired-pandemic-team/partly-false-claim-trump-fired-entire-pandemic-response-team-in-2018-idUSKBN21C32M). Answering Page’s question directly is a labyrinthian task – Page deserves praise for such tough questioning. The evidence, however, shows that US-China relations have oscillated due to varying interests – i.e. economic interests, geopolitical interests, etc. – and these relations are dramatically worse than even four years ago. And the Trump-Pence presidency, specifically Trump, is culpable (https://www.cfr.org/timeline/us-relations-china, https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/01/16/relationship-under-extreme-duress-u.s.-china-relations-at-crossroads-pub-78159, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/08/07/more-pain-than-gain-how-the-us-china-trade-war-hurt-america/). An explicit answer from Pence or Harris would assuredly create geopolitical tensions; Not attempting a response expresses the problematic status of US-China relations. It’s sometimes better to be like Icarus then never make the jump, and that is especially true here as voters may have better understood the current issues the next president and vice-president will be facing. Pence: 4/10. Harris: 6/10
Transcript From: