DebateGate

FACT CHECK: It's a perfect storm of Frankenfacts
By CALVIN WOODWARD | Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — And now, to conclude, a few parting misstatements.

Come Wednesday, or sometime later if the election result is still in the balance, only one man will be left standing and the loser's inventory of misleading claims, out-of-context assertions and warped-reality advertising will fade into some inglorious corner of history. But we're not quite done with them yet.

In campaign speeches that serve as closing arguments, President Barack Obama and Republican rival Mitt Romney are still at it. Romney is still misrepresenting the impact of Obama's health care law on your wallet. Obama is still masking the sticker shock of his plan to tax the rich.

Call it a perfect storm of Frankenfacts. Here's a sampling of the claims coming from the stump and the airwaves in the campaign's 11th-hour tempest:

OBAMA in Green Bay, Wis., on Thursday: "It's time to use the savings from ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to start paying down our debts here and rebuilding America. Right now, we can put people back to work fixing up roads and bridges. Right now, we can expand broadband into rural neighborhoods and make sure our schools are state of the art.

THE FACTS: If saying things over and over could make them true, this would be true.

But it's not. This claim is the kudzu of the Obama campaign, the weed that regrows no matter how many times it's whacked.

The wars were financed mostly with borrowing, so ending them does not free a pile of cash for anything else. "Rebuilding America" with war savings merely means continuing to borrow and pile up debt, but for purposes other than war.

___

ROMNEY campaign ad: "Obama took GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy and sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China. Mitt Romney will fight for every American job."

THE FACTS: You wouldn't know from this audacious account of the auto-industry crisis that:

—It's over.

—Romney also counseled bankruptcy for the automakers, but without the government bailout that represented its only realistic chance of succeeding.

—Chrysler says the possibility of making some of its Jeeps in China does not threaten Jeep production in the U.S.

—Romney wrongly predicted during the crisis that if the companies got a government bailout, "You can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye." Both companies have returned to profitability.

___

OBAMA in Green Bay: "If we're serious about the deficit, we've also got to ask the wealthiest Americans to go back to the tax rates that they paid when Bill Clinton was in office."

THE FACTS: His tax plan is not just a return to the good old days. Yes, he wants to return to Clinton-era tax rates for couples making over $250,000 and individuals making over $200,000. That means a top rate of 39.6 percent, up from 35 percent. But there's more. His administration has already enacted new taxes on the wealthy, through the health care law, imposing a 0.9 percent Medicare surcharge on richer households and a 3.8 percent tax on investment income for high earners.

Apart from the health care law, the president is also proposing a rule to ensure that households earning over $1 million pay a 30 percent minimum tax rate. And he supports raising Medicare premiums for well-to-do retirees.

___

ROMNEY in Roanoke, Va., on Thursday:

—"And that health insurance cost? They've gone up $2,500 a family."

—"We're gonna restore that funding to Medicare, and also we're gonna repeal and replace Obamacare so your premiums don't go up by $2,500 a year."

THE FACTS: First, Romney's suggestion that premiums have gone up $2,500 a year bears no semblance to reality. They haven't gone up by quite that much over four years, either.

The total contribution of workers and their employers to a family health care plan has risen $2,370 on average since 2009, Obama's first year in office, according to annual surveys of workplace health insurance by the Kaiser Family Foundation, an authority cited by both political parties. That's an average increase of less than $600 a year.

Second, premiums paid by workers have gone up much less than that. Employers pay the largest share of health insurance and have absorbed most of the increases.

Health insurance premiums paid by workers have risen $801 for a family plan over four years, or $172 for an individual plan.

Moreover, Obama's health care law came into effect in 2010. Over the period since then, the total cost of a family plan is $1,975 higher on average, and the share paid by workers is up $319 in that time — altogether a far cry from the notion that Obamacare is already costing families thousands of dollars a year. Indeed, Kaiser's experts, along with nonpartisan analysts in the government, say Obama's law thus far has played only a marginal role in rising costs. Its main effects don't start until 2014, when coverage expansion kicks off. Obama has clearly oversold the ability of his law to bring costs down, but Romney's assertion that it already is breaking the bank is fanciful.

___

OBAMA in Green Bay: :

—"Another $5 trillion tax cut that favors the wealthy isn't change."

—"But if the price of peace in Washington is cutting deals that will kick students off of financial aid, or get rid of funding for Planned Parenthood, or eliminate health care for millions on Medicaid who are poor or elderly or disabled, just to give a millionaire a tax cut, I'm not having it."

THE FACTS: This supercharged critique of Romney's agenda assigns a misleading price tag to the Republican's tax plan, which calls for tax cuts for all income groups, not just millionaires. Romney is not proposing to "eliminate health care" for Medicaid recipients or to throw students to the wolves, although it's within the bounds of political debate to assume the worst of your rival's policy ideas.

Obama gets the $5 trillion figure from a forecast by the Tax Policy Center that Romney's tax cuts would reduce federal revenue by $465 billion in 2015 — in the ballpark of $5 trillion if spread over 10 years. But Obama is ignoring a crucial feature of the plan: that Romney says he would greatly lower its cost by reducing or eliminating some tax credits, deductions and exemptions, especially for wealthier taxpayers. Romney won't be specific, but it's clear $5 trillion is just one side of the equation.

___

ROMNEY in Roanoke: "We're gonna create 12 million new jobs and more take-home pay."

THE FACTS: Romney never gets to the nitty-gritty of how these jobs would be created. He merely sketches a general five-point plan calling for lower taxes, more trade, better worker training, deficit cuts and accelerated energy production.

Still, he could well succeed in this goal, because it is not particularly ambitious.

Most economists think that about that many jobs will return over the next four years no matter who wins, absent another big economic setback. It doesn't take boom times to create jobs at a rate of 3 million a year.

To reach Romney's job pledge, the workforce would have to grow at an average of 250,000 a month. While that's above recently depressed averages, it's not abnormally high for non-recessionary times when the economy is growing at close to 3 percent or higher. Since July, the economy has created an average of 173,000 jobs a month.

In essence, then, Romney with this claim is promising a return to modest economic growth. Saying 12 million jobs sounds better.

___

Associated Press writers Tom Raum and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar contributed to this report.

EDITOR'S NOTE _ An occasional look at political claims that take shortcuts with the facts or don't tell the full story

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-perfect-storm-frankenfacts-164835491--election.html

New Orleans Tells New York, 'Y'all Will Make It Through This'
Rebecca Greenfield | Atlantic Wire

Following New York City's experience with a devastating, city-changing hurricane, many have drawn some parallels between New Orleans after Katrina and post-Sandy New York this week. Perhaps nothing drives that point home better than the moving Tumblr Nola to New York. Created by freelance journalist Andy Kopsa, a New Yorker who once lived in New Orleans, the site asks people who lived through Katrina to write their messages of support to New Yorkers. The result is been touching, to say the least.

Of course, the comparison between the two post-hurricane disaster zones isn't perfect—Katrina left more than a thousand dead in the area and displaced hundreds of thousands more. There was looting, crime, and chaotic days and nights in the Superdome. Recovery from the disaster has been long. Sandy has displaced many, and destroyed homes. But this evening, many of Manhattan's refugees will return downtown to power. People in Queens, Staten Island, and the Rockaways aren't so lucky. And overall, the death toll from Sandy stands at 41 for the city and nearly 100 in the U.S.
 
But regardless of any dissimilarities, the people who experienced Katrina definitely understand what the people in the Tri-State area are going through, and the kind of empathy they deserve. (Kindness, unfortunately, was not all that New Orleans got following Katrina, when many outside had a "serves you right" attitude.) On Monday, before we knew how bad it would be, Times Picayune columnist Jarvis DeBerry in a prescient column described the special relationship that would form: "But no matter how bad it gets, the people in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast will be able to empathize. Many of us lost just about everything -- but not our capacity to reach out to victims of other storms with kindness," he wrote. Nola to New York proves how true that is.

Of course, the people of New Orleans understand what happens post-hurricane on a practical level, too. The city sent up its pumps to help drain the New York City subway system. It also offered up some of its workers to do the work. And, for all those people who have damaged homes, the people of Nola put together this guide to fixing your house, published in The Times Picayune. Not only does New Orleans get you, New York. It's also got your back. That has to feel pretty nice right now.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/11/new-orleans-tells-new-york-yall-will-make-it-through/58661/

In Benghazi timeline, CIA errors but no evidence of conspiracy
David Ignatius. Opinion Writer | Washington Post

A detailed CIA timeline of the assault on U.S. facilities in Benghazi paints an anguishing picture of embattled Americans waiting for Libyan security forces who didn’t come and courageous CIA officers who died on a rooftop without the heavy weapons they needed, trying to protect their colleagues below.

It’s a story of individual bravery, but also of a CIA misjudgment in relying on Libyan militias and a newly formed Libyan intelligence organization to keep Americans safe in Benghazi.

While there were multiple errors that led to the final tragedy, there’s no evidence that the White House or CIA leadership deliberately delayed or impeded rescue efforts.

The CIA is now reviewing its security plans around the world to make sure the agency isn’t relying on shaky local forces. This is a difficult task because the United States has vulnerable arrangements in dozens of places.

The CIA timeline was described to me Thursday by a senior intelligence official. The narrative of events is dramatic and disturbing. Rather than try to parse each detail, let’s look at a summary of the highlights. The times listed are Benghazi time on the night of Sept. 11 and the morning of Sept. 12:

?9:40 p.m.: A senior State Department security officer at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi called the CIA base, at an annex about a mile away, and requested assistance: “The compound is under attack. People are moving through the gates.” CIA officers at the base can hear the alarm, and a team immediately begins gathering weapons and preparing to leave.

?10:04 p.m.: A six-person rescue squad from the agency’s Global Response Staff (GRS) leaves in two vehicles. The team leader is a career CIA officer; the team includes a contractor named Tyrone Woods, who later died. During the previous 24-minute interval, the CIA base chief calls the February 17 Brigade, other militias and the Libyan intelligence service seeking vehicles with .50-caliber machine guns. Nobody responds. The team leader and the base chief agree at 10:04 that they can’t wait any longer, and the squad heads for the consulate.

The senior intelligence official said that he doesn’t know whether Woods or any of the other team members agitated to go sooner but added that he wouldn’t be surprised. “I want them to have a sense of urgency,” he said.

?10:10 p.m.: The rescue team reached a chaotic intersection a few blocks from the consulate. Militias gathered there have several .50-caliber machine guns, which the CIA team tries unsuccessfully to commandeer; three militiamen offer to help. The rescue party now includes 10 people: six GRS officers, a CIA translator and the three Libyan volunteers.

?10:20 p.m.: A reconnaissance party of two GRS officers heads to the consulate; at 10:25, three more GRS officers enter the main gate and begin engaging the attackers. The firefight lasts about 15 minutes.

?10:40 p.m.: Members of the CIA team enter the burning inferno of “Villa C,” where Ambassador Christopher Stevens is believed to be hiding. CIA officers try numerous times to reach the “safe room” but are driven back by the intense smoke and fire. Small-arms fire continues from the Libyan attackers.

?11:11 p.m.: An unarmed military Predator drone arrives over the compound to provide aerial reconnaissance. The drone had been diverted from a mission over Darnah, about 90 minutes away. But without weapons, it can’t help much.

?11:15 p.m.: The CIA team puts a group of State Department officers into a vehicle and sends it to the agency base; at 11:30, the CIA officers depart under fire and reach the annex six minutes later.

?11:56 p.m.: CIA officers at the annex are attacked by a rocket-propelled grenade and small arms. Sporadic attacks continue for about another hour. The attacks stop at 1:01 a.m., and some assume the fight is over.

?1:15 a.m.: CIA reinforcements arrive on a 45-minute flight from Tripoli in a plane they’ve hastily chartered. The Tripoli team includes four GRS security officers, a CIA case officer and two U.S. military personnel on loan to the agency. They don’t leave the Benghazi airport until 4:30 a.m. The delay is caused by negotiations with Libyan authorities over permission to leave the airport; obtaining vehicles; and the need to frame a clear mission plan. The first idea is to go to a Benghazi hospital to recover Stevens, who they rightly suspect is already dead. (Also killed was a State Department communication specialist.) But the hospital is surrounded by the al-Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Sharia militia that mounted the consulate attack.

?5:04 a.m.: The team from Tripoli arrives at the CIA base. Glen Doherty, one of the GRS men from Tripoli, goes to the roof and joins Woods in firing positions.

?5:15 a.m.: A new Libyan assault begins, this time with mortars. Two rounds miss and the next three hit the roof. The rooftop defenders never “laser the mortars,” as has been reported. They don’t know the weapons are in place until the indirect fire begins, nor are the mortars observed by the drone overhead. The defenders have focused their laser sights earlier on several Libyan attackers, as warnings not to fire. At 5:26 the attack is over. Woods and Doherty are dead and two others are wounded.

?6 a.m.: Libyan forces from the military intelligence service finally arrive, now with 50 vehicles. They escort the Americans to the airport. A first group of 18, including two wounded, depart at 7 a.m. A second group of 12, plus the four dead, leave at 10 a.m. for Tripoli and then the long flight back to America.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-cias-benghazi-timeline-reveals-errors-but-no-evidence-of-conspiracy/2012/11/01/a84c4024-2471-11e2-9313-3c7f59038d93_story_1.html

How Republicans will explain a Romney loss
By The Week's Editorial Staff | The Week

Real reasons and contrived excuses

Here's a way to explain just about every general election result in the modern era: A small percentage of Americans preferred your guy over the other guy. The emphasis should be on small, even in elections with clear historical vectors, like in 2008. Elections are more than the sum of their parts, but they can't be reduced to any single part, certainly not in defeat.

Nonetheless, we see patterns in the void, and Republicans and Democrats are likely to have more self-serving, self-sustaining justifications for why their side lost.

Here's what Republicans are likely to say in the event that President Obama is re-elected.

(1) It's the liberal/drive-by/lamestream media's fault. It always is. They covered for President Obama's lapses in Benghazi, failed to hold him to account for his obvious failures, generally failed to vet him properly in 2008, and ignored the scandals during his first term. They tipped the scales. And in the last week, they covered his response to Hurricane Sandy as if he were a conquering hero. They hated Mitt Romney because they were jealous of his success. They ignored Chicago's relentless negative campaign.

(2) The party had the right message and the wrong messenger. Romney was flawed from the start, even if he was manifestly a different person from the plutocrat portrayed in Democratic ads. He never really crossed the presidential threshold, and his campaign had no strategy to defend against the Bain attacks, which stuck to him, artificially holding him down even after the first debate. He emerged too flawed from the GOP primary, which was not well controlled by the party.

(3) Democrats managed to engage in massive voter fraud; illegal immigrants and non-voters tipped the balance, aided by thuggish union bosses desperate to cling to power.

(4) GOP ideas are ascendant, but only Nixon can go to China, and voters think that President Obama will cut the deficit in a kinder way than Mitt Romney would. This is a corollary to explanation 2.

(5) Rush Limbaugh's explanation: The Republican Party will blame the Romney campaign for being too conservative, although Romney actually ran as a liberal. The GOP's low propensity voters were too frustrated with the party and with government in general to vote. There is a silent majority out there who refused to endorse a party that doesn't reflect their core values. Glenn Beck may take this a step further: The soul of the electorate is rotten. The soul of those who voted for Romney and didn't vote are purer.

(6) The party alienated Hispanics, young voters, and women — or allowed the press to magnify hecklers in the party who don't reflect its true core values. But generally, the party has to keep the same platform while somehow expanding their coalition. The party still hasn't figured out how to convince voters in these demographic groups that their interests are best served by conservative policies and politicians.

If Romney loses, here are the real reasons:

The economy overall hasn't improved much since President Obama took office, but the indicators are pointing in the right direction. Voters trust and like Obama more than Romney. The auto bailout issue helped in the Midwest, particularly among white voters. The GOP's demographic share of the electorate continues to shrink proportionally; white voters did not cross the percentage threshold needed for Romney to offset the Obama coalition.

In my next post, I'll look at reasons Democrats will give for an Obama loss.

http://news.yahoo.com/republicans-explain-romney-loss-135800204.html

Terrorist Offers Hurricane Aid, US Says No Thanks
By MUHAMMAD LILA | ABC News

The U.S. has turned down an offer of post-Hurricane Sandy assistance from one of the world's most wanted men, a Pakistani terror leader with a $10 million U.S. bounty on his head.
 
Hafiz Saeed, an Islamist militant who is alleged to have masterminded the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks that left more than 160 people dead, issued a written statement Wednesday saying his organization was willing to send supplies and volunteers to help the U.S. East Coast recover.
 
"We are ready to send food items, medicines and doctors to the U.S. for the people affected by the storm," said Saeed. "America [may] fix bounties on our heads but as followers of the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him), we feel it is our Islamic duty to help Americans trapped in a catastrophe." Saeed noted that the charity he heads had provided aid in Sri Lanka and Indonesia after the 2004 tsunami.
 
Saeed is the founder of Lashkar-e-Taiba, a terror group banned by the Pakistani government, and still heads its charity wing, Jamaat ud Dawa. Earlier this year the U.S. State Department offered a $10 million reward for information leading to his capture or arrest.
 
After Saeed's offer of assistance, the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan declined his help via Twitter. "We respect the Islamic tradition of help to the needy," said the tweet, "but we can't take Hafiz Saeed's offer seriously."
 
Saeed founded Lashkar-e-Taiba more than 25 years ago and has mounted many attacks against India as part of a campaign to wrest the Kashmir region from Indian control. Saeed is accused of masterminding the Nov. 26, 2008 terror attacks on the city of Mumbai. Ten gunmen took part in the multi-day assault, which cost the lives of at least 166 people, including six Americans. The lone surviving attacker, who faces a death penalty, has accused Saeed of hatching the plot.
 
Pakistan kept Saeed under house arrest after the attacks for some months but then released him. He maintains a high public profile inside the country. In September, he led street protests against the anti-Islam film "Innocence of Muslims."
 
On April 2, when the State Department announced its $10 million reward for Saeed, it said the bounty had "everything to do with Mumbai and his brazen flouting of the justice system."
 
Saeed responded to the announcement of the bounty by publicly taunting the U.S. government.
 
"I am here, I am visible," said Saeed on April 4. "America should give that reward money to me."
 
"I will be in Lahore tomorrow. America can contact me whenever it wants to," said Saeed. He also expressed surprise that the U.S. did not know where he was, offered to face charges in an American court, and said America had "gone blind" because of its hatred of Islam.
 
State Department spokesman Mark Toner reacted to Saeed's taunts by stressing that the reward was for information leading to his arrest or conviction, not his location. "We all know where he is," said Toner. "Every journalist in Pakistan knows where he is." Toner said it was unfortunate that Saeed was free to give press conferences, but that the U.S. hopes "to put him behind bars" and is seeking information that would "give the Pakistani government the tools to arrest him."
 
The $10 million bounty makes Saeed among the top five most-wanted on the U.S. terror list; al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri is worth a $25 million reward. The U.S. also offered up to $2 million for information leading to the arrest and conviction of Saeed's brother-in-law, who is the deputy leader of Lashkar-e-Taiba.
 

http://gma.yahoo.com/terrorist-offers-hurricane-aid-us-says-no-thanks-151821686--abc-news-topstories.html

Obama and Romney make young girl cry
By Chris Moody, Yahoo! News | The Ticket

After months of buildup leading to the presidential election in November, 4-year-old Abigael Evans has had enough.
 
The Fort Collins, Colo., girl broke down in tears after listening to yet another report on the radio about the race between President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney, a local NBC TV station reported.
 
"I'm tired of Bronco Bamma and Mitt Romney," said the sobbing girl, who lives in a battleground state.
 
She's probably not the only one.

Story and video at http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-romney-little-girl-cry-145605083--election.html

Romney’s Clean Energy Whoppers

Mitt Romney made numerous bogus claims in the Oct. 3 debate about the $90 billion in grants, guaranteed loans and tax breaks for energy projects in the stimulus bill:

 ?Romney falsely claimed “about half” of the clean-energy companies that received U.S.-backed loans “have gone out of business.” But 26 companies received loan guarantees under a loan program cited by Romney, and three of those have filed for bankruptcy. The three firms were approved for about 6 percent of the loan guarantees.
 ?Romney incorrectly claimed the “$90 billion in breaks to the green energy world” was provided “in one year.” It was over several years.
 ?He stated at one point that Obama put $90 billion “into solar and wind.” But only $21 billion went for renewable energy projects, “such as the installation of wind turbines and solar panels,” according to a White House document cited by the Romney campaign. The spending also included $18 billion for transit projects and $10 billion to upgrade the nation’s electrical grid.
 ?He falsely claimed the $90 billion was equal to “about 50 years’ worth of what oil and gas receives” in tax breaks, which he estimated at $2.8 billion. By his own figures, it would have been 32 years’ worth. But it’s even less than that. The administration estimates that eliminating oil and gas tax preferences would raise about $3.9 billion a year (23 years’ worth). The industry itself says the administration would increase its taxes by $8.5 billion a year (10.5 years’ worth).
 ?He falsely claimed Obama “put $90 billion into green jobs … that would have hired 2 million teachers.” But that $90 billion included loans, not just grant money, and the government can’t hire teachers with loans.
 

The $831 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 — better known as the stimulus — has long been derided by Republicans as wasteful. A favorite target is the clean-energy programs — particularly the $535 million invested in Solyndra, a California solar company that announced in August 2011 that it would file for bankruptcy.
 
Romney repeatedly made references in the Oct. 3 debate in Colorado to the $90 billion contained in the stimulus for energy projects. He claimed, falsely, at one point that Obama had “put $90 billion … into solar and wind.”

Romney: But don’t forget, you put $90 billion, like 50 years’ worth of breaks, into — into solar and wind, to Solyndra and Fisker and Tesla and Ener1. I mean, I had a friend who said you don’t just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers, all right?
 
We asked the Romney campaign about the $90 billion, and it referred us to a July 14, 2010, administration report on the economic impact of the stimulus. But that report said only about $21 billion went “for Renewable Generation, such as the installation of wind turbines and solar panels.”
 
The seven other sub-categories of “clean-energy” projects identified in the report were:

 ?$29 billion for energy efficiency, including $5 billion for the weatherization of low-income homes;
 ?$10 billion to modernize the nation’s electric grid;
 ?$6 billion for domestic manufacturing of advanced batteries and other components of alternative vehicles and fuel technology;
 ?$18 billion for transit projects, including high-speed rail;
 ?$3 billion for researching and developing clean-coal technology;
 ?$3 billion for job training;
 ?$2 billion in manufacturing tax credits.
 
So, clearly, the $90 billion wasn’t just for wind and solar projects.
 
We note, too, that Romney said during the debate that he likes “clean coal,” which got $3 billion from the stimulus.
 
“And, by the way, I like coal,” Romney said, “I’m going to make sure we can continue to burn clean coal.”
 


As part of his statement we cited above, Romney criticized Obama for wasting money on Solyndra and other wind and solar projects — saying “you don’t just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers.” He expanded on that by falsely saying that “about half” of the companies that received federal help “have gone out of business.” He also made a bogus claim about how many teachers could have been hired with the $90 billion.
 
Romney: But you make a very good point, which is that the place you put your money just makes a pretty clear indication of where your heart is. You put $90 billion into — into green jobs. And I — look, I’m all in favor of green energy. $90 billion, that would have — that would have hired 2 million teachers. $90 billion.
 
And these businesses, many of them have gone out of business, I think about half of them, of the ones have been invested in have gone out of business. A number of them happened to be owned by people who were contributors to your campaigns.

We were surprised by the claim that “about half” of the companies went out of business. As we have written before, an independent review of the Department of Energy loan and loan guarantee programs found that the failure rate was lower than Congress had expected.
 
When we asked the Romney campaign for information on this claim, we were told that it refers only to companies that received so-called section 1705 loans — a program created by the stimulus. A second program — the so-called section 1703 loan program — was created under the Bush administration, but loans were approved by the current administration. Also, Romney counted only section 1705 loan guarantees approved in the Obama administration’s first two years — ignoring the past two years.
 
Romney did not say any of that during the debate.
 
By limiting his scope to just the first two years of the program, Romney arrives at seven companies and three of them — including Solyndra — have filed for bankruptcy protection. The others were Beacon Power, which received a loan guarantee of $43 million, and  Abound Solar, which was approved for a $400 million loan but borrowed only $70 million against that. So, combined the three companies were approved for a total of $978 million in U.S.-backed loans and borrowed $648 million of that.
 
But there were a total of 26 companies that received approval for $16 billion in loan guarantees under the section 1705 program. So, 11.5 percent of the companies — not half — have filed for bankruptcy. And those companies were approved for a little more than 6 percent of the $16 billion in total loan guarantees.
 
Two other companies were awarded a total of $10.3 billion in loan guarantees by the Obama administration under the section 1703 program. So, if you count them, the bankruptcy rate would fall to under 11 percent, and the money at risk drops to about 4 percent.
 
The money loaned to Solyndra is largely lost, and it is unclear how much if any the U.S. will recover of the $70 million borrowed by Abound. However, as we wrote before, the government expects to recover as much as 70 percent of the $43 million it guaranteed to Beacon Power.
 
Also, as part of that same statement above, Romney said that the $90 billion “would have hired 2 million teachers.” (That means the teachers would receive a total compensation of $45,000 — including benefits, and are hired for only one year. The median pay for elementary teachers is about $51,000.)
 
But here’s the problem with Romney’s math: The $90 billion isn’t all grant money. Some of that money was in the form of loans. It included, for example, $3.25 billion in additional borrowing authority for the Bonneville Power Authority.
 
You can’t pay teachers in loans.
 
There is a cost to the government for guaranteeing loans, as the Romney campaign was quick to note. But it is only a fraction of the value of each loan.
 

Romney made three false claims in this single statement:
 
Romney: And in one year, you provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world. Now, I like green energy as well, but that’s about 50 years’ worth of what oil and gas receives. And you say Exxon and Mobil. Actually, this $2.8 billion goes largely to small companies, to drilling operators and so forth.
 
First, the $90 billion was not given out “in one year.” It was provided over several years to numerous federal agencies. For example, the Department of Energy was authorized to spend $41.7 billion – “$35.2 billion for projects and activities and $6.5 billion in borrowing authority” – but had spent only 36 percent of its stimulus funds as of March 10, 2011, according to a Government Accountability Office report.
 
Second, he compares the “breaks to the green energy world” ($90 billion) with “what oil and gas receives” (which he put at $2.8 billion). This is problematic on a couple of levels.
 
Let’s set aside the fact that the “breaks” are not comparable — the clean-energy “breaks” included money for infrastructure projects, such as rail and the electrical grid — and look at his math. Fifty years of $2.8 billion would be $140 billion, not $90 billion (and that’s unadjusted for inflation). It would be more like 32 years. So, he’s wrong by his own accounting.
 
But also the $2.8 billion is a low estimate for how much the oil and gas industry receives in tax breaks.
 
The Obama administration in its proposed budget for fiscal year 2013 estimates that eliminating tax preferences for fossil fuels would raise $38.6 billion over 10 years, or about $3.9 billion a year, according to a Congressional Research Service analysis of the administration’s tax proposals for the industry. The industry itself says that the administration’s proposals would cost it $85 billion over 10 years, or $8.5 billion a year.
 
Clearly, the $90 billion would cover far less than 50 years’ worth of tax breaks by anyone’s account, including Romney’s.
 
In summary, Romney said a lot about the $90 billion in stimulus spending on clean energy — and very little of it was accurate.
 
Correction, Oct. 8: An earlier version of this article said the $90 billion in stimulus funding was provided over two years. Actually, it was over several years. The article also was updated to note that the $90 billion cited by Romney included loans that must be repaid.

– Eugene Kiely

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/romneys-clean-energy-whoppers/