WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton underplayed the role of big money in her campaign, and Bernie Sanders leaned again on outdated stats on his signature issue, income inequality, in the weekend Democratic presidential debate.
A look at some of the claims Saturday night and how they compare with the facts:
SANDERS: “I am running a campaign differently than any other candidate. We are relying on small campaign donors, 750,000 of them, 30 bucks a piece. That’s who I’m indebted to.”
CLINTON: “I have hundreds of thousands of donors, most of them small.”
THE FACTS: It’s hardly unusual for most of a candidate’s donors to be people who send small amounts. What’s more telling about the nature of a candidate’s appeal is how much of the campaign’s money comes from small and big givers.
People are also reading…
On that score, Clinton is taking the big money while Sanders is the one drawing from the grass roots.
Over the course of her presidential campaign, through the end of September, 17 percent of her total fundraising haul has come from donors giving $200 or less. For Sanders? Nearly 74 percent.
Moreover, Sanders has not blessed any super PACs to spend money on his behalf.
By contrast, some of Clinton’s top former aides are entrenched at a super PAC that is expecting to raise more than $100 million to help her throughout the course of the presidential race.
That group has already netted at least seven separate $1 million checks from some of the wealthiest Democratic donors in the country.
Wage gains
SANDERS: “People are working longer hours for lower wages, and almost all of the new income and wealth goes to the top 1 percent.”
THE FACTS: As he did in the last debate, Sanders leaned on outdated data.
In the first five years of the economic recovery, 2009-2014, the richest 1 percent captured 58 percent of income growth. That’s according to Emmanuel Saez, a University of California economist whose research Sanders uses. That’s a hefty share, but far short of “almost all.”
In the first three years of the recovery, 2009-2012, the richest 1 percent did capture 91 percent of the growth in income. But part of that gain was an accounting maneuver as the wealthiest pulled income forward to 2012 in advance of tax increases that took effect in 2013 on the biggest earners.
Many companies paid out greater bonuses to their highest-paid employees in 2012 before the higher tax rates took effect. Those bonuses then fell back in 2013. And in 2014, the bottom 99 percent finally saw their incomes rise 3.3 percent, the biggest gain in 15 years.
Tax rates
MARTIN O’MALLEY: “Under Ronald Reagan’s first term, the highest marginal rate was 70 percent.”
THE FACTS: O’Malley’s comment suggests that the economic recovery of 1983-84 occurred with a 70 percent tax rate on the richest Americans. Actually, one of President Ronald Reagan’s first tax-cut bills, enacted into law in 1981, lowered the top tax rate from 70 percent to 50 percent. And in 1986, Reagan worked with Congress on a bipartisan bill to further lower the top rate to 28 percent.
Big banks
SANDERS: Break-up the big banks “and re-establish Glass-Steagall.”
O’MALLEY: “We should have reinstated a modern version of Glass-Steagall.”
CLINTON: “I just don’t think it will get the job done” on preventing future financial crises.
THE FACTS: Economists tend to side with Clinton on this one.
The Glass-Steagall legislation was passed in the midst of the Great Depression and separated commercial from investment banking, among other things. The idea was to keep risky Wall Street business apart from retail banking, particularly since retail deposits are guaranteed by the federal government.
President Bill Clinton signed a law repealing Glass-Steagall in 1999, and many commentators argue that his move was an early example of a trend toward financial deregulation that made the 2008 financial crisis worse.
Yet many economists note that nearly all the large financial institutions that failed in the crisis, including Lehman Brothers, AIG and Bear Stearns, were investment banks or insurance companies, and their failure wouldn’t have been prevented if Glass-Steagall had still been in effect.
Minimum wage
SANDERS: Speaking of calls to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour: “You’re seeing cities like Seattle. You’re seeing cities like San Francisco, cities like Los Angeles doing it, and they are doing it well and workers are able to have more disposable income.”
THE FACTS: The jury is still out on whether a $15 minimum wage will cause job losses in those big cities. Even some economists who argue that modest increases in the minimum don’t cost jobs point out there is little research on the impact of such a large increase, which is more than double the current $7.25.