Editor's Note: PolitiFact.com is a project of the St. Petersburg Times that aims to help you find the truth in politics. Every day, reporters and researchers from the Times examine statements by members of Congress, the president, etc. They research their statements and then rate the accuracy on their Truth-O-Meter.

Republican Party of Florida says Obama will "indoctrinate" schoolchildren with "socialist ideology"

Florida RNC Chairman Jim Greer appears on CNN September 07, 2009.

Schoolchildren across the nation "will be forced to watch the president justify his plans for government-run health care, banks, and automobile companies, increasing taxes on those who create jobs, and racking up more debt than any other president."

-Republican Party of Florida on Tuesday, September 1st, 2009 in a press release

The Truth-O-Meter says: PANTS ON FIRE

Read more: We didn't realize studying hard was socialist ideology

Did Obama really call for redistributing wealth?

The Statement

At a campaign event Thursday, October 30, in Defiance, Ohio, Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain said, "So we finally learned what Senator Obama's goals are ... to spread the wealth. In a radio interview revealed this week, he said the same thing, that one of the - quote - tragedies of the civil rights movement is that it didn't bring about redistributive change. You see, Senator Obama believes in redistributing wealth and income, not in policies that grow our economy and create jobs."

Get the facts!

The Facts

McCain was referring to a radio program that aired January 18, 2001, on Chicago public radio station WBEZ. Obama and two other law professors took part in a panel discussion titled "The Court and Civil Rights," focusing on U.S. Supreme Court rulings primarily in the 1950s and '60s. Obama was a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School and an Illinois state senator at the time of the program.

During the 53-minute program, the discussion of "redistributive change" was started by one of the other professors in the context of how civil rights lawyers and courts interacted decades ago on issues such as poverty.

Obama said, "One of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that."

McCain's statement links Obama's "redistributive change" reference in 2001 to "redistributing wealth and income," a line of attack his campaign has used to suggest Obama wants to change the tax code in a way that would take money from some wage earners and give it to others - including those who don't pay taxes.

Obama's campaign says McCain twisted Obama's words from the program. "In this seven-year-old interview, Senator Obama did not say that the courts should get into the business of redistributing wealth at all," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a written statement. Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, an Obama legal advisor, said Obama was discussing "redistribution" in a narrow legal context.

A legal expert contacted by CNN said "redistributive change" has no specific definition in legal terminology. Mary L. Dudziak of the University of Southern California Law School said that, after listening to the entire 53-minute program from 2001, "nothing in the interview suggests that he's (Obama) thinking of redistribution of income directly from one person to another."

Dudziak, a legal scholar and historian whose expertise includes constitutional law, likened "redistributive change" as used in the context of the program to "restructuring governance." Obama and the other two professors were talking in legal academic terms about who should deal with various issues - courts or legislatures - not about how a specific issue should be dealt with, she said.

The discussion program focused on U.S. Supreme Court cases "that have a 'redistributive' impact in that the (Supreme) Court was asked to order that government resources be spent to fix a problem," Dudziak said in an e-mail. "That is 'redistributive' if we think of federal tax dollars being shifted from one program to another."

The Verdict:

Misleading. During the panel discussion, Obama talked about court rulings and "redistributive change" from a historical legal perspective but there's no indication that he was advocating "redistributing wealth and income" as McCain's statement implies.

The Statement
Speaking at a campaign event Sunday. Nov. 2, in Columbus, Ohio, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama criticized the rhetoric of his Republican opponents. "Despite what our opponents may claim, there are no real or fake parts of this country," he said. "There is no city or town that is more pro-America than anywhere else - we are one nation, all of us proud, all of us patriots."

Get the facts!

The Facts
The Obama campaign pointed to several remarks made on the campaign trail, including ones from Republican nominee Sen. John McCain, his running mate Gov. Sarah Palin and a McCain aide speaking in Virginia, to support Obama's assertion.

Palin told a fund-raiser in Greensboro, North Carolina, on Oct. 16 that "we believe that the best of America is in the small towns that we get to visit, and in the wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard-working, very patriotic, very pro-America areas of this
great nation." She made a similar comment earlier that day in Elon, North Carolina.

Palin clarified her stance in an Oct. 21 interview with CNN's Drew Griffin, who asked her about the comments. Palin said she had been compelled to call regions where her rallies are held as the "true America" because of the moving patriotic spirit and fervor displayed at those events. "I certainly don't want that interpreted as one area being more patriotic or more American than another," she said. "If that's the way it's come across, I apologize."

Other comments cited by the Obama campaign, while tackling similar subject matter, do not match Obama's description as fully. McCain adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer said Oct. 18 on MSNBC that "as a proud resident of Oakton, Virginia, I can tell you that the Democrats have just come in from the District of Columbia and moved into Northern Virginia. And that's really what you see there. But the rest of the state, real Virginia, if you will, I think will be very responsive to Sen. McCain's message."

Asked if she wanted to retract her comment, she said, "I mean 'real Virginia' because Northern Virginia is where I've always been, but 'real Virginia' I take to be the this part of the state that is more Southern in nature, if you will. Northern Virginia is really metro D.C."

Another example Obama's campaign cited was an Oct. 23 interview of McCain and Palin with NBC's Brian Williams in which they were asked about their descriptions of some of their opponents as "elite." Palin said in her Sept. 3 nomination acceptance speech that "I've learned quickly these last few days
that, if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone." At the interview, she was asked exactly who was a member of the elite.

She said "I guess just people who think that they're better than anyone else," underscoring that it's a state of mind - not geography. McCain then said, "I know where a lot of them live" and cited Washington and New York City. He never characterized all residents of Washington or New York as "elite."

Verdict: Misleading. Obama accurately alludes to Palin's Oct. 16 comments. But while Obama continues making the claim, she has backed away from the statements and is not repeating them on the campaign trail. The comments by McCain and Pfotenhauer do not fully match Obama's description.

Was McCain the 'biggest cheerleader' for launching the war in Iraq?.

The Statement:
At a rally Sunday, Nov. 2, in Columbus, Ohio, Sen. Barack Obama cited Sen. John McCain's "endorsement" from Vice President Dick Cheney. "He worked hard for it," Obama joked, pointing to McCain's support for the vast majority of the Bush administration's policies. And, Obama added, "He had to serve as Washington's biggest cheerleader for going to war in Iraq."

Get the facts!

The Facts:
Sen. John McCain was an early supporter of launching a war against Iraq. "I believe Iraq is a threat of the first order, and only a change of regime will make Iraq a state that does not threaten us and others," he said in a speech to the Center for Strategic & International Studies on Feb. 13, 2003.

McCain was a cosponsor of legislation authorizing the use of force against Iraq. The Web site of the Library of Congress lists him as one of 16 cosponsors. Others included Sen. Jesse Helms, who attended the ceremony in which the president signed the legislation; Sen. Zell Miller, who fervently
supported the war, and Sen. Evan Bayh, who was a co-chair of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, along with McCain. While it is impossible to quantify exactly how much any lawmaker supported launching the war in Iraq, there is no doubt that McCain was one of the most prominent.

At a speech this past August in Orlando, Florida, Obama described McCain as "a leading supporter" of the Iraq war. In recent days, he has repeatedly called McCain "Washington's biggest cheerleader" for it. The CNN Truth Squad asked the Obama campaign Sunday why Obama had made that change. The campaign sent a list of quotes by McCain about the war. Topping the list is a remark McCain made to a radio program, The Mike Gallagher Show, in March: "No one has supported President Bush on Iraq more than I have."

That remark referred to McCain's support for the war in general, not just the drum-up to it in 2003. And it could mean that McCain believes other lawmakers supported the Iraq war equally - just not more. The Truth Squad asked the McCain campaign whether McCain considers himself to have been the biggest supporter in Congress of launching the Iraq war. McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds responded that other lawmakers were equal in their support. And, Bounds added, "John McCain has never been a 'cheerleader' for any war."

The Verdict:
Misleading. In August, Obama called McCain "a leading supporter" of launching the war, which was accurate. McCain was one of 16 cosponsors of legislation authorizing the use of force, and he was among those who spoke out publicly for the war. But there is no proof that he was the "biggest cheerleader."

McCain has pushed for more nuclear power – and claimed Obama is completely opposed to it.

The Statement: Sen. John McCain, speaking at a rally in Newport News, Virginia, on November 1, touted his energy plan and said, "We'll invest in all energy alternatives, wind, solar, tide and safe nuclear power." Then he said, "You know, Senator Obama doesn't think that nuclear power is safe."

Get the facts!

The Facts: The Obama campaign says Obama "has consistently been supportive of more nuclear power."

The Obama-Biden Web site says that "nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our noncarbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power is considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, wastestorage, and proliferation."

The senator voted for the 2005 energy bill, a measure that contains provisions providing tax credits and loan guarantees as incentives for new nuclear plant construction. Obama also introduced a 2006 bill requiring plants to notify officials "whenever there is an unplanned release of fission products in excess of allowable limits." The bill never became law.

Obama said on December 30, 2007, at a town hall meeting in Newton, Iowa, that he isn't a "nuclear energy proponent" and that "nuclear energy is not optimal." But at the same event, he said he couldn't rule out nuclear power if it is clean and safe. And on several occasions, Obama has expressed his support for pursuing safe ways to develop nuclear power.

Frank Bowman, the president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, a nuclear energy industry group, issued a press release praising the "favorable comments" from Obama and McCain about nuclear energy at the October 7 debate in Tennessee.

The McCain campaign, repeatedly asked for specifics to back up McCain's assertion, declined.

The Verdict: False. Obama's voting record and public statements indicate he is receptive to harnessing safe nuclear power, and there is no evidence he believes the proper deployment of the technology is intrinsically unsafe.

The Obama-Biden campaign released an ad called Rear View on Thursday.

The Statement: In a television ad titled "Rear View," that began airing Thursday, October 30, the campaign for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama attacks Republican opponent Sen. John McCain's economic policies, saying, in part, that McCain "would tax your health care benefits for the first time ever."

Get the facts!

The Facts: The ad refers to one of the key elements of McCain's health care plan. McCain says his plan would eliminate the existing tax exemption for insurance premiums that are paid through employers. But in a major shift in how most Americans are covered, he would replace it with a health-insurance tax credit of $2,500 for individuals or $5,000 for families. The idea is that this money would allow workers to seek out and buy their own insurance.

Independent analysts have predicted that many employers would drop health coverage because of this change. But they predict roughly the same number would enroll in "nongroup" coverage –although they say the quality and price of those independent plans would vary.

Analysts note that McCain's plan could shift the amount of money an employer currently pays for a worker's health care from a tax-free benefit to part of the employee's salary. As such, it would increase the amount that would be taxed and, in some cases, bump the employee into a higher tax bracket. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center cites this example: A single worker making $75,000 and receiving $7,000 in healthcare premiums currently is in the 25 percent tax bracket. McCain's plan, the center says, would push that worker's taxable salary to $82,000, which is in the 28 percent tax bracket.

Employer contributions for accident and health insurance plans were nontaxable in the original income tax ratified in 1913, although there was some confusion about that in the years that followed. The Revenue Act of 1954, passed by Congress, excluded employers' contributions to accident and health plans for their employees and clarified that such contributions had always been deductible as business expenses.

The Verdict: True, but incomplete. The ad accurately describes McCain's plan, but doesn't mention his tax credit meant to help pay for nongroup coverage.

Is Obama right about McCain's tax plan?

The Statement:
At a rally Thursday, October 30, in Columbia, Missouri, Sen. Barack Obama said, "The choice in this election isn't between tax cuts and no tax cuts, it's whether you believe we should only reward wealth or whether we should also reward work and the workers who create it."

Get the facts!

The Facts:
Sen. John McCain's tax plan offers across-the-board tax cuts for all income brackets, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. As the CNN Truth Squad has reported previously, McCain offers larger tax cuts to higher income brackets. Obama offers larger tax cuts for lower- and middle-income Americans than McCain does, and Obama vows to raise taxes on individuals making more than $200,000 and families making more than $250,000.

The context of Obama's remarks in Columbia makes clear the "reward" he is referring to involves tax cuts. He goes on to speak about his plan to give tax breaks to virtually all American workers who pay taxes. Obama has argued previously that McCain's plan gives 100 million middle-class Americans no tax relief. The CNN Truth Squad ruled that "false."

Both candidates have put forward numerous proposals to help lower- and middle-income families, as well as small businesses. McCain has pointed to his call for lowering the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, which he says would assist those trying to build businesses. McCain certainly views that as rewarding "work and the workers who create it."

The Verdict:
False. McCain offers policies to help workers at all income levels. While he offers higher tax cuts to higher income brackets, he does not "only reward wealth."

The Statement
Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, in an interview October 31 on ABC's "Good Morning America," praised his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, saying in part that she has "more experience than Senator Biden and Senator Obama put together."

Get the facts!

The Facts:
McCain doesn't clarify what he means by "experience." But during the campaign, Palin, 44, has said she has ore governmental "executive experience" than Obama.

She served as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, from 1996 to 2002, and has been governor of that state since December 2006, a total of nearly eight years executive experience. She also served for four years on Wasilla's City Council.

Obama and Biden have held elected posts as lawmakers, but have not, like Palin, served in elected executive posts, such as mayor or governor. However, they have around four times the amount of elected office experience combined than Palin.

Obama, 47, has 11 years and around eight months of experience. He served in the Illinois State Senate from January 1997 to November 2004. He was elected to the U.S. Senate in Illinois in 2004 and was sworn in on January 3, 2005.

Biden, 65, has 37 years of elected office experience. He served two years on the New Castle County Council in Delaware and then was elected to the U.S. Senate in Delaware in 1972. He was sworn into the Senate on January 5, 1973, and has served there since.

McCain, 72, himself has more elected office experience than Palin, with nearly 26 years of experience in Congress. He was elected to the House in Arizona in 1982 and then was elected to the Senate in 1986.

The Verdict:
Misleading. McCain didn't use the caveat "executive experience." Obama and Biden combined have four times the amount of elected office experience than Palin. McCain himself has more than twice the amount of experience.

The Statement
The campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, on Wednesday, October 29, responded to Republican opponent Sen. John McCain criticism of Obama's relationship with Rashid Khalidi, an Arab studies professor at Columbia University, by suggesting that McCain also had a link to Khalidi. It said, "John McCain should answer why, under his own chairmanship, the International Republican Institute repeatedly funded an organization Khalidi founded, the Center for Palestine Research and Studies, over the course of many years."

Get the facts!

The Facts
McCain and vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin have raised the issue of Barack Obama's relationship with Khalidi, a scholar who has been critical of Israel and U.S. foreign policy. Palin, on October 29 in Ohio, described him as a "radical professor from the neighborhood who spent a lot of time with Barack Obama going back several years." She also called him a "political ally" of Obama.

Obama knows Khalidi from their days in Chicago, but his campaign says he "has been clear and consistent on his support for Israel, and has been clear that Rashid Khalidi is not an adviser to him or his campaign and that he does not share Khalidi's views."

Since 1993, McCain has been chairman of the International Republican Institute - a nonprofit and nonpartisan group that helps promote democratic practices and institutions across the globe.

The IRI, in an October 29 press release, said it "gave grants" to the Center for Palestinian Research and Studies for polling in the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza. The IRI said its "relationship with CPRS ended in 2000, and we understand that it no longer exists."

"We understand that Rashid Khalidi was one of the many founders of CPRS, and we understand that he was for some (unclear) amount of time a board member," the IRI said.

A defunct CPRS Web site lists Khalidi was one of the seven people who founded the group in March 1993. CPRS described itself as "an independent academic research and policy analysis institution."

"Because CPRS is independent of political factions, it is in a unique position of being able to serve as a forum for meetings of Palestinian and international researchers from various political backgrounds and ideologies in a free academic and professional atmosphere," the group said.

Michael Goldfarb, a McCain spokesman, told CNN on October 29 that "John McCain has never met Rashid Khalidi, while Barack Obama has acknowledged a close friendship with him."

The Verdict: True. There was a relationship in the 1990s between the IRI, chaired by McCain, and the CPRS, co-founded by Khalidi, which received IRI funding.

Would Obama’s plan really cost the country jobs?

The Statement

In a news release Thursday, October 30, responding to news that the U.S. gross domestic product fell in the third quarter of this year, the campaign for Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain criticized Democratic opponent Sen. Barack Obama's tax proposals. "According to the independent Center for Data Analysis, Barack Obama's new policies will destroy nearly 6 million jobs over the next decade," the release said.

Get the Facts!

The Facts

The Center for Data Analysis is part of the Heritage Foundation, a fact the McCain release does not mention. The Heritage Foundation Web site describes the group as a think tank "whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies."

An analysis posted October 30 on the Web site studies McCain and Obama's tax proposals, using a computer program that predicts how business owners and others would respond to the candidates' tax plans. A synopsis of the study predicts "much slower output and employment growth" under Obama's plan. But the analysis itself says the number of jobs in the country would increase under either candidate - although the conservative think tank says jobs would increase more under McCain.

The figure McCain uses comes from the synopsis, which says "total employment" would fall an average of 589,000 a year under Obama's plan. According to the foundation, that number represents the number of jobs that would exist compared to the potential number of jobs that could exist under current tax law. It actually says the number of jobs that would exist under McCain would be 182,000
jobs greater than the current potential because of the changes he would make to tax law.

The Verdict:

False. The study does not say Obama's plan would "destroy" jobs but that fewer jobs would be created under his plan than McCain's.

Does Obama's 'tax calculator' show what an individual's tax cut would be?

The Statement: On its Web site and in a television commercial, the campaign of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama is featuring a "tax calculator" that the campaign says voters can use to see how much their tax cut would be under Obama's plan.

Get the facts!

The Facts: Obama's tax calculator asks users to input information, ranging from an approximate income range to mortgage balance and number of dependents. If the user qualifies for a tax cut under Obama's plan, the calculator produces a specific dollar estimate for "tax savings" and compares that with any estimated tax change for that user under McCain's plan.

For incomes over $250,000, where there would be a possible increase under Obama's plan, the calculator does not provide dollar estimates and tells the user, "You will probably not get a tax cut under the Obama-Biden plan."

McCain supporters and conservative groups such as Americans for Tax Reform criticize the Obama calculator, saying it fails to spell out how tax hikes in Obama's plan would affect a given individual and excludes corporate taxes in its calculations.

In a question-and-answer section, the Obama Web site says it "calculates only how individuals' income taxes change" and does not deal with proposed changes in corporate tax rates by either Obama or McCain.

Robertson Williams, principal research associate for the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, said that, while his group has not checked all of the calculator's results and was not involved in creating it, the numbers it produces for individual tax cuts "look reasonable" given that they are for income estimates - not specific amounts - and that not all tax factors are included.

"It generally appears to give accurate estimates of the tax savings under Obama's tax proposals - for those who get tax cuts," Williams said, adding that the calculator avoids pointing out possible tax increases or giving estimated amounts of increases. "That clearly focuses attention on the tax cuts rather than the tax increases. But it does not appear to give incorrect results, given very basic assumptions about other factors influencing tax bills," Williams said.

The Verdict: True, but incomplete. While the Obama tax calculator gives what a nonpartisan authority describes as generally accurate estimates for taxpayers who would qualify for tax cuts under Obama, it does not calculate possible increases for some taxpayers or the effects of corporate tax changes.

Get the facts about Gov. Palin's statements Wednesday.

The Statement: Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, speaking on Oct. 29 in Bowling Green, Ohio, said Barack Obama "spent a lot of time with" Rashid Khalidi. "Rashid Khalidi, he, in addition to being a political ally of Barack Obama, he's a former spokesperson for the Palestinian Liberation Organization," she said.

Get the facts!

The Facts: Rashid Khalidi is Arab studies professor at Columbia University in New York.

His university profile says he specializes "in the history of Syria, Palestine, Lebanon and Egypt; the growth of nation-state; nationalism in the Arab World; problems of modern Middle East historiography" and is an expert on Palestinian issues.

He has authored scholarly works on Palestinian issues, has been an activist for Palestinian causes, and has been a critic of U.S. foreign policy toward Israel.

In a 2004 Washington Times story, he denied ever being a spokesman for the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Sen. Obama, on his Web site, described Khalidi as "a former neighbor and university colleague." But their relationship has sparked questions about Obama's stance on Israel and what Obama calls "ugly insinuations." Obama has said he has been a "clear and consistent" supporter of Israel and doesn't share Khalidi's views.

ABC News on May 22 aired comments Obama made at a Boca Raton, Florida, synagogue, where Obama faced questions from Jewish voters and addressed the issue. He said he knew Khalidi and had conversations with him in Chicago, where both men taught at the University of Chicago. And, he said, their children went to the same school.

"He is not one of my advisers; he's not one of my foreign policy people," Obama said. "He is a respected scholar, although he vehemently disagrees with a lot of Israel's policy."

"To pluck out one person who I know and who I've had a conversation with who has very different views than 900 of my friends and then to suggest that somehow that shows that maybe I'm not sufficiently pro-Israel, I think, is a very problematic stand to take," Obama said. "So we gotta be careful about guilt by association."

An April 10 Los Angeles Times story that explored the Khalidi-Obama relationship said Khalidi and his wife lived near the Obamas in Chicago and "the families became friends and dinner companions."

"In 2000, the Khalidis held a fund-raiser for Obama's unsuccessful congressional bid. The next year, a social service group whose board was headed by Mona Khalidi (Khalidi's wife), received a $40,000 grant from a local charity, the Woods Fund of Chicago, when Obama served on the fund's board of directors. At Khalidi's going-away party in 2003, the scholar lavished praise on Obama, telling the mostly Palestinian-American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat," the Times reported.

When asked about these details, the Obama campaign pointed to the May 22 comments aired by ABC News. Khalidi, asked by CNN to respond to Palin's assertions, declined to comment.

In a New York Daily News story published March 6, 2007, Khalidi said he hosted the fund-raiser because he had been friends with Obama in Chicago. "He never came to us and said he would do anything in terms of Palestinians," Khalidi is quoted as saying.

The Los Angeles Times report said, "though Khalidi has seen little of Sen. Obama in recent years, Michelle Obama attended a party several months ago celebrating the marriage of the Khalidis' daughter."

The Verdict: Misleading. While Khalidi eight years ago hosted a political fund-raiser for Obama, the two men strongly disagree over the Israeli-Palestinian issue and there's no evidence of a continuing political relationship.

What have Obama and Biden said about their tax cuts?'

The Statement

In a campaign speech Tuesday, October 28, in Hershey, Pennsylvania, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain accused Democratic opponent Sen. Barack Obama and his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, of being inconsistent on taxes.

"Senator Obama has made a lot of promises. First he said people making less than $250,000 would benefit from his plan. Then this weekend he announced in an ad that if you're a family making less than $200,000, you'll benefit," McCain said. "But yesterday, right here in Pennsylvania, Senator Biden said tax relief should only go to middle class people, people making under $150,000 a year .... It's interesting how their definition of rich has a way of creeping down."

The Facts
Obama has said throughout the campaign that families making less than $250,000 a year will not see a tax increase. Those making less than $200,000 will get a tax cut, he says. "If you make less than a quarter of a million dollars a year, you will not see a single dime of your taxes go up," Obama said during an October 7 presidential debate in Nashville, Tennessee. "If you make $200,000 a year or less, your taxes will go down."

The campaign ad McCain refers to, titled "Defining Moment," does have a graphic appear on the screen that says, "Families making less than $200,000 get tax cut." Obama says, "If you have a job, pay taxes and make less than $200,000 a year, you'll get a tax cut," which is, again, consistent with the plan he has
laid out.

Biden was speaking Monday, October 27, in an interview with WNEP in Scranton, Pennsylvania. He said, "(An) $87 billion tax break doesn't need to go to people making an average of $1.4 million. It should go like it used to. It should go to middle class people - people making under $150,000 a year." Biden never
says that tax breaks should "only" go to such people. The Obama campaign says he was merely using that figure as an example and that the statement does not represent a change in policy.

The Verdict: False. What McCain is doing here, in part, is comparing apples and oranges. He compares two different aspects of Obama's tax plan as if they were the same. And Biden never said people making less than $150,000 are the "only" people who would get a tax cut under Obama's policies.

What are the facts about McCain's tax cuts?

The Statement:
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, speaking in Canton, Ohio, on October 27, referred to Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain's tax plans and said, "It's not change when he wants to give $200 billion to the biggest corporations or $4 billion to the oil companies."

Get the facts!

The Facts:
Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said the numbers cited by Obama come from two studies analyzing McCain's tax proposals, including cuts in the corporate tax rate. The two studies were done by unrelated organizations. LaBolt also said that Obama's remarks do not refer to two separate tax cuts - the $4 billion in purported cuts to oil companies is part of the larger $200 billion.

Both studies project the effects of McCain's proposal to cut the corporate tax rate from the current maximum of 35 percent to a maximum of 25 percent in a phased reduction over the next seven years.

One analysis, published in March by the liberal Center for American Progress Action Fund, predicted how large oil companies would fare under McCain's proposed corporate tax reductions. Based on taxes that the five largest American oil companies paid in 2007 and calculating what the study called "savings under McCain plan," the study concludes that those five companies would realize a total tax cut of $3.8 billion a year under McCain's plan to cut the corporate rate.

On its Web site, the organization refers to the tax reduction as "nearly $4 billion." LaBolt said the Obama campaign uses the $4 billion figure because the study included only the five largest American oil companies, and the total tax cut to all American oil companies would be bigger. Also, 2008 earnings for oil companies are expected to be higher than earnings in 2007.

The other study - a detailed analysis of both McCain's and Obama's tax plans - was done by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. That study predicted the impact of McCain's tax proposals on revenue in several categories. The Obama campaign arrived at its $200 billion figure by combining various categories in that study. Roberton Williams, principal research associate for the Tax Policy Center, said the Obama campaign's calculation of $200 billion from McCain's proposed reduction in corporate taxes was an accurate conclusion.

The McCain campaign contends that lowering the corporate tax rate will enhance business development and create jobs in the United States. In an interview on CNN's "The Situation Room" on Oct. 22, McCain cited lower tax rates in other countries as being a key reason American companies move business overseas. "We should be cutting corporate tax for every business in America," he said. "To somehow allege that a company or corporation that can be international is not going to go where they pay the lowest taxes and create the most jobs is just foolishness."

The Verdict: True. Obama's statement accurately reflects two studies of McCain's tax proposals.

What did Joe the Plumber say about Obama's tax plans?

The Statement:
Vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, speaking at an October 27 rally in Leesburg, Virginia, referred to Barack Obama's October 12 conversation about tax policy with Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, the citizen now known as "Joe the Plumber." She said Obama said he "wants to spread the wealth" and that "Joe the Plumber said to him, it sounded like socialism."

Get the facts!

The Facts:
Obama met Wurzelbacher at a campaign stop outside Toledo, Ohio, on October 12, Wurzelbacher told Obama he was getting ready to buy a company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 a year and asked, "Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" Under Obama's plan, taxes would rise for individuals who make more than $200,000 a year and families with incomes above $250,000.

Obama went into a lengthy explanation of his plan. He said he wants to cut taxes "a little bit more for the folks who are most in need; and for the 5 percent of the folks who are doing very well - even though they've been working hard and I appreciate that - I just want to make sure they're paying a little bit more in order to pay for those other tax cuts."

He argued that if consumers had more money to spend, it would be good for enterprises such as a plumbing business. "Right now everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody, and I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Wurzelbacher invoked a common small-business concern with Obama: that higher taxes compromise hard-earned profits. "I've worked hard. I'm a plumber. I work 10-12 hours a day and I'm buying this company and I'm going to continue working that way. I'm getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American dream."

He never told Obama at the time his idea "sounded like socialism." But two days later, in an interview on Fox News, Wurzelbacher said, "he wants to distribute wealth. I'm not trying to make statements here. That's kind of a socialist viewpoint."

In an interview with CNN that aired October 16, Wurzelbacher clarified that the company he wants to buy makes well less than $250,000 a year - which, under Obama's plan, means his taxes would not be increased.

McCain and Palin frequently refer to "Joe the Plumber" on the campaign trail. Since his encounter with Obama, Wurzelbacher has received much notoriety and has signaled his support for McCain.

Wurzelbacher told conservative talk radio host Laura Ingraham on October 24 that he's considering a run for Congress in 2010. That would pit Wurzelbacher against longtime Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur for Ohio's 9th District on the state's northern border, which includes Toledo and Sandusky.

"I'll tell you what, we'd definitely be in one heck of a fight, Marcy Kaptur definitely has a following in this area," he said of the possibility. "But, you know, I'd be up for it."

Wurzelbacher was expected to campaign with former U.S. Rep. Rob Portman in Ohio on October 28 on behalf of the McCain campaign.

The Verdict: True. However, while Wurzelbacher has said Obama's plan comes from a "socialist viewpoint," he did not say that directly to Obama.

Sen. McCain spoke in Sarasota, Florida Friday.

Note: The McCain campaign says Sen. John McCain has been delivering his closing argument “every day for the past week.” The CNN Truth Squad looked at Obama’s "closing argument" speech and one McCain delivered Friday, October 23, in Sarasota, Florida.  To help sort out the reality from the rhetoric, a transcript of the speech is reproduced in full below with links to related Fact Checks from the CNN Truth Squad.

. . . .

You know, my friends, we've heard a lot of words over the course of this election. After months of campaign trail eloquence we'vefinally learned what Senator Obama's economic goal is. As he told Joe the plumber up in Ohio, he wants to spread the wealth around.

He believes in redistributing in wealth, not in policies that grow our economy and create jobs and opportunities for all Americans. Senator Obama is more interested in controlling who gets your piece of pie than he is growing the pie.

Senator Obama may say he's trying to soak the rich but it's themiddle class who are going to get wet.

You know a lot of his promised tax increases miss the target. Pay for nearly a trillion dollars of new government spending, his tax increase would impact 50 percent of small business income in this America and the jobs of 16 million middle class Americans who work for those small businesses.

So I ask our small business people to raise your hands so we can thank you. Thank you, Joe the doctor, Joe the plumber, the car dealer, thank you all.

Thank you, the men and women who are making our economy grow. Our economy is in trouble, my friends. We know that. We've lost over 700,000 jobs and it's 300,000 jobs that have been created by small business. My friends, whether you're Joe the plumber in Ohio or Gary the dentist in Alamonte Springs or Jesus the restaurant owner in Orlando or Christine the florist in Plant City or Bob the boat builder and Tony the teacher, we shouldn't be taxing our small businesses more as Senator Obama wants to do.

We need to be helping them expand their businesses and create jobs. These small-business owners have achieved the same dream Joe the plumber has. They now own their own businesses and combined employ hundreds of thousands of workers because they've been successful. Senator Obama wants to spread their wealth around.

That's exactly the wrong approach in an economic slowdown. Just today, just today we received news that jobless claims has increased by 15,000. Senator Obama's tax increases would put even more people out of work.

The answer to a slowing economy is not higher taxes but that's exactly what is going to happen when the Democrats have total control of Washington. We can't let that happen and I won't let it happen.

Now I don't how much you've seen but we've already seen a preview of their plan and it's pretty simple: Tax and spend. Now, the chairman of a powerful committee in the House of Representatives said this week that they quote, "Are going to focus on an immediate increase in spending" and then he went on to say there are quote "a lot of very rich people out there who we can tax." Really? Is there really? Is there really?

You know my friends, you've got Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama, you've got... you've got a recipe for tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend. What should concern the American people is that the Democratic budget plan they passed just this year with Senator Obama's help called for raising taxes on people making just $42,000 per year.

No wonder he thinks there are a lot of very rich people out there. Everybody is rich when you define rich as $42,000 a year.

This week we learned that Senator Obama is concerned that his plan for wealth redistribution is welfare so he just added a work requirement. Thirteen days to go in this election and he changed his tax plan because the American people had learned the truth about it and they didn't like it.

My friends, that's just another example that he'll say anything to get elected.

So now if you're unemployed Senator Obama's plan won't help you at all even as his tax increase makes fewer jobs available so you can back to work and that's the problem with Senator Obama's approach on taxes. He's more concerned about using taxes to spread the wealth than creating a plan that creates job and grows our economy.

Now, my friends, the McCain-Palin tax plan is the real thing. We're going to double the tax deduction for every family. We'll cut the capital gains tax. And we'll cut business taxes to help create jobs and keep American businesses in America.

As Joe and small business owners across this country have now reminded us all, America didn't become the greatest nation on Earth by giving our money to the government to spread the wealth around. In this country, in this country we believe in spreading opportunity for those who need jobs and those who create them.

And that's exactly what I intend to do as president of the UnitedStates.

My friends, you know the next president won't have time to get used to the office. We face many challenges here at home and many enemies abroad in this dangerous world.

This weekend, this weekend Senator Biden guaranteed, he guaranteed, he said: "Mark my words, that if Senator Obama is elected we will have an international crisis to test America's new president."

We don't want a president who invites testing from the world at a time when our economy is in crisis.

Americans are fighting already in two wars. Yesterday Senator Obama tried to explain this away, this warning, by saying that his running mate sometimes engages in rhetorical flourishes. Now, that's another of saying that he accidentally delivered some straight talk.

My friends, Senator Biden referred to how Jack Kennedy was tested in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

I have a little personal experience in that. I was a Navy pilot onboard the USS Enterprise. And I was ready to go into combat at any moment.

I was ready to go into combat at any moment and I know how close we came to a nuclear war. And I will not be a president that needs to be tested. I have been tested. Senator Obama hasn't.

My friends, it shows in his responses to our challenges abroad. What's more troubling is that Senator Obama told their campaign donors that when that crisis hits they would have to stand with him because it wouldn't be apparent that Senator Obama would have the right response. Forget apparent, we know Senator Obama won't have the right response.

Senator Obama said this morning if you want to know how he would respond in a crisis, look what he's done during his campaign. But we've seen the wrong response from him over and over during this campaign. He opposed the surge strategy that is bringing us victory in Iraq and will bring us victory in Afghanistan.

My friends, I will bring our troops home but I will bring them home in victory and honor and not defeat.

He said he would sit down unconditionally with the world's worst dictators ... including the Castro brothers.

When Russia invaded Georgia, Senator Obama said the invaded country should show restraint. He has been wrong on all of these.

My friends, you know we can't spend the next four years as we have spent much of the last eight hoping for our luck to change at home and abroad. We have to act. We need a new direction and we have to fight for it, my friends.

I've been fighting for this country since I was 17 years old and I have the scars to prove it.

If I'm elected - If I am elected president I will fight to shake up Washington and take America in a new direction from my first day in office until my last. I am not afraid of the fight, I am ready for the fight.

I'm not going to spend $750 billion of your money just bailing out the Wall Street bankers and brokers that got us into this mess. I am going to make sure we take care of the working people who are devastated by the excesses, greed and corruption of Wall Street and Washington.

Now, my friends. We all know what triggered this crisis. The subprime lending, the home loan crisis. My friends, we've got to keep people in their homes.

I have a plan to protect the value of your home and get it rising again by buying up bad mortgages and refinancing them so you can afford it so if your neighbor defaults he doesn't bring down the value of your house with him. We must preserve the American dream. We have to keep people in their homes and those home values rise, that's the American dream. Let's stop taking care of Wall Street. Let's start taking care of the homeowners of American and let them realize the American dream.

I have a plan to let retirees and people nearing retirement to keep their money in their retirement accounts longer so they can rebuild their savings.

I have a plan to hold the line on taxes and cut them to make America more competitive and create jobs here at home.

Raising taxes makes a bad economy much worse. Keeping taxes low creates jobs, keeps money in your hands and strengthens our economy.

The explosion of government spending - my friends - the explosion of government spending over the last eight years has put us deeper in debt to foreign countries that don't have our best interests at heart. It weakened the dollar and made everything you buy much more expensive. If I am elected president, when I'm elected president I won't spend nearly a trillion dollars more of your money. Senator Obama will and he can't do that without raising your taxes or digging
us further into debt. I am going to make government live on a budget just like you do.

I will freeze government spending on all but the most important programs like defense, veterans' care, Social Security and health care until we scrub every single government program, get rid of
the ones that aren't working for the American people.

And every single earmark pork barrel bill that comes across my desk, I will veto them, and I will make them famous and you will know their names.

I want to tell you again, I will make them famous, these pork barrelers, we'll get rid of them.

If I - When I am elected president I won't make it harder to sell our goods overseas and kill more jobs. Senator Obama will. I'll open new markets to goods made in America. And make sure our trade is free and fair and I'll make sure we help workers who have lost a job that won't come back, find a new one that won't go away.

Senator Obama wants to raise taxes and restrict trade. The last time America did that in a bad economy it led to a Great Depression. You know they say that those who don't learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

Well, I know my history lessons and I won't make the mistakes that Senator Obama seeks to repeat.

When I am elected president we are going to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries to buy their oil that don't like us very much.

The other night in the debate I acknowledged Senator Obama's eloquence but you had to pay attention to his words.

For example, he said he would quote, "consider" offshore drilling, consider. My friends when I am president we will drill offshore, we are going to drill offshore and we've got to drill now, and I've got to tell you also, let me also tell you...

Let me also tell you - Let me also tell you - I want to also tell you, and I've committed this to Charlie Crist in the state of Florida and all those states. You need to get a lot more of those revenues to stay in the state of Florida if we're going to drill offshore of the state of Florida.

And the state of Florida deserves more of those revenues and my friends, that's what this is all about.

Senator Obama wants to delay drilling, he is against building new nuclear power plants in America.

And when I am president we will start and we will invest in all energy alternatives, nuclear, wind, solar, tide, we will encourage the manufacture of hybrid, flex - hybrid, flex and electric automobiles.

We'll invest in clean coal technology. We will lower the cost of energy within months and we will create millions of new jobs in America, my friends.

Let me give you a little straight talk, my friends. We have less than two weeks until the election. And what America needs now is a fighter, someone who puts all of his cards on the table and trusts the judgment of the American people.

I have fought for you most of my life. There are other ways to love this country but I've never been the kind to do it from the sidelines.

My friends, look, I know you're worried. I know you're worried. America is a great country but we're at a moment of national crisis that will determine our future.

Let me ask you, will we continue to lead the world's economies or will we be overtaken? Will the world become safer or more dangerous? Will our military remain the strongest in the world? Will our children and grandchildren's future be brighter than ours?

My answer to you is yes, yes we will lead.

Yes, we will lead, yes we will prosper, yes we will be safer, yes we will pass on to our children a stronger, better country but we must be prepared to act swiftly, boldly, with courage and wisdom. My friends, I'm an American and I choose to fight. Don't give up hope. Be strong. Have courage and fight.

Fight for a new direction for our country. Fight for what's right for America.

Fight to clean up the mess of corruption, infighting and selfishness in Washington.

Fight to get our economy back out of the ditch and in the lead. Fight for the ideals and character of a free people. Fight for our children's future. Fight for justice and opportunity for all.

Stand up to defend our country from its enemies. Stand up. Stand up. Stand up and fight. America is worth fighting for.

Nothing is inevitable. We never give up, we never quit, we never hide from history, we make history.

Now let's go win this election and get this country moving again. Thank you and God bless you and God bless America. And thank you all. Thank you.

Sen. Obama gave what his campaign calls his closing argument of his presidential bid during a speech in Canton, Ohio Monday.

Note: On Monday, October 27, Sen. Barack Obama delivered what his campaign called a “closing argument speech” in Canton, Ohio. The CNN Truth Squad looked at Obama’s "closing argument" speech and one McCain delivered Friday, October 23, in Sarasota, Florida.  To help sort out the reality from the rhetoric, a transcript of the speech is reproduced in full below with links to related Fact Checks from the CNN Truth Squad.

. . . .

After decades of broken politics in Washington, eight years of failed policies from George Bush, and twenty-one months of a campaign that has taken us from the rocky coast of Maine to the sunshine of California, we are one week away from change in America.

In one week, you can turn the page on policies that have put the greed and irresponsibility of Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of folks on Main Street.

In one week, you can choose policies that invest in our middle-class, create new jobs, and grow this economy from the bottom-up so that everyone has a chance to succeed; from the CEO to the secretary and the janitor; from the factory owner to the men and women who work on its floor.

In one week, you can put an end to the politics that would divide a nation just to win an election; that tries to pit region against region, city against town, Republican against Democrat; that asks us to fear at a time when we need hope.

In one week, at this defining moment in history, you can give this country the change we need.

We began this journey in the depths of winter nearly two years ago, on the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois. Back then, we didn’t have much money or many endorsements. We weren’t given much of a chance by the polls or the pundits, and we knew how steep our climb would be.

But I also knew this. I knew that the size of our challenges had outgrown the smallness of our politics. I believed that Democrats and Republicans and Americans of every political stripe were hungry for new ideas, new leadership, and a new kind of politics – one that favors common sense over ideology; one that focuses on those values and ideals we hold in common as Americans.

Most of all, I believed in your ability to make change happen. I knew that the American people were a decent, generous people who are willing to work hard and sacrifice for future generations. And I was convinced that when we come together, our voices are more powerful than the most entrenched lobbyists, or the most vicious political attacks, or the full force of a status quo in Washington that wants to keep things just the way they are.

Twenty-one months later, my faith in the American people has been vindicated. That’s how we’ve come so far and so close – because of you. That’s how we’ll change this country – with your help. And that’s why we can’t afford to slow down, sit back, or let up for one day, one minute, or one second in this last week. Not now. Not when so much is at stake.

We are in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. 760,000 workers have lost their jobs this year. Businesses and families can’t get credit. Home values are falling. Pensions are disappearing. Wages are lower than they’ve been in a decade, at a time when the cost of health care and college have never been higher. It’s getting harder and harder to make the mortgage, or fill up your gas tank, or even keep the electricity on at the end of the month.

At a moment like this, the last thing we can afford is four more years of the tired, old theory that says we should give more to billionaires and big corporations and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. The last thing we can afford is four more years where no one in Washington is watching anyone on Wall Street because politicians and lobbyists killed common-sense regulations. Those are the theories that got us into this mess. They haven’t worked, and it’s time for change. That’s why I’m running for President of the United States.

Now, Senator McCain has served this country honorably. And he can point to a few moments over the past eight years where he has broken from George Bush – on torture, for example. He deserves credit for that. But when it comes to the economy – when it comes to the central issue of this election – the plain truth is that John McCain has stood with this President every step of the way. Voting for the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy that he once opposed. Voting for the Bush budgets that spent us into debt. Calling for less regulation twenty-one times just this year. Those are the facts.

And now, after twenty-one months and three debates, Senator McCain still has not been able to tell the American people a single major thing he’d do differently from George Bush when it comes to the economy. Senator McCain says that we can’t spend the next four years waiting for our luck to change, but you understand that the biggest gamble we can take is embracing the same old Bush-McCain policies that have failed us for the last eight years.

It’s not change when John McCain wants to give a $700,000 tax cut to the average Fortune 500 CEO. It’s not change when he wants to give $200 billion to the biggest corporations or $4 billion to the oil companies or $300 billion to the same Wall Street banks that got us into this mess. It’s not change when he comes up with a tax plan that doesn’t give a penny of relief to more than 100 million middle-class Americans. That’s not change.

Look – we’ve tried it John McCain’s way. We’ve tried it George Bush’s way. Deep down, Senator McCain knows that, which is why his campaign said that “if we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.” That’s why he’s spending these last weeks calling me every name in the book. Because that’s how you play the game in Washington. If you can’t beat your opponent’s ideas, you distort those ideas and maybe make some up. If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run away from. You make a big election about small things.

Ohio, we are here to say “Not this time. Not this year. Not when so much is at stake.” Senator McCain might be worried about losing an election, but I’m worried about Americans who are losing their homes, and their jobs, and their life savings. I can take one more week of John McCain’s attacks, but this country can’t take four more years of the same old politics and the same failed policies. It’s time for something new.

The question in this election is not “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” We know the answer to that. The real question is, “Will this country be better off four years from now?”

I know these are difficult times for America. But I also know that we have faced difficult times before. The American story has never been about things coming easy – it’s been about rising to the moment when the moment was hard. It’s about seeing the highest mountaintop from the deepest of valleys. It’s about rejecting fear and division for unity of purpose. That’s how we’ve overcome war and depression. That’s how we’ve won great struggles for civil rights and women’s rights and worker’s rights. And that’s how we’ll emerge from this crisis stronger and more prosperous than we were before – as one nation; as one people.

Remember, we still have the most talented, most productive workers of any country on Earth. We’re still home to innovation and technology, colleges and universities that are the envy of the world. Some of the biggest ideas in history have come from our small businesses and our research facilities. So there’s no reason we can’t make this century another American century. We just need a new direction. We need a new politics.

Now, I don’t believe that government can or should try to solve all our problems. I know you don’t either. But I do believe that government should do that which we cannot do for ourselves – protect us from harm and provide a decent education for our children; invest in new roads and new science and technology. It should reward drive and innovation and growth in the free market, but it should also make sure businesses live up to their responsibility to create American jobs, and look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road. It should ensure a shot at success not only for those with money and power and influence, but for every single American who’s willing to work. That’s how we create not just more millionaires, but more middle-class families. That’s how we make sure businesses have customers that can afford their products and services. That’s how we’ve always grown the American economy – from the bottom-up. John McCain calls this socialism. I call it opportunity, and there is nothing more American than that.

Understand, if we want get through this crisis, we need to get beyond the old ideological debates and divides between left and right. We don’t need bigger government or smaller government. We need a better government – a more competent government – a government that upholds the values we hold in common as Americans.

We don’t have to choose between allowing our financial system to collapse and spending billions of taxpayer dollars to bail out Wall Street banks. As President, I will ensure that the financial rescue plan helps stop foreclosures and protects your money instead of enriching CEOs. And I will put in place the common-sense regulations I’ve been calling for throughout this campaign so that Wall Street can never cause a crisis like this again. That’s the change we need.

The choice in this election isn’t between tax cuts and no tax cuts. It’s about whether you believe we should only reward wealth, or whether we should also reward the work and workers who create it. I will give a tax break to 95% of Americans who work every day and get taxes taken out of their paychecks every week. I’ll eliminate income taxes for seniors making under $50,000 and give homeowners and working parents more of a break. And I’ll help pay for this by asking the folks who are making more than $250,000 a year to go back to the tax rate they were paying in the 1990s. No matter what Senator McCain may claim, here are the facts – if you make under $250,000, you will not see your taxes increase by a single dime – not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes. Nothing. Because the last thing we should do in this economy is raise taxes on the middle-class.

When it comes to jobs, the choice in this election is not between putting up a wall around America or allowing every job to disappear overseas. The truth is, we won’t be able to bring back every job that we’ve lost, but that doesn’t mean we should follow John McCain’s plan to keep giving tax breaks to corporations that send American jobs overseas. I will end those breaks as President, and I will give American businesses a $3,000 tax credit for every job they create right here in the United States of America.

I’ll eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-up companies that are the engine of job creation in this country. We’ll create two million new jobs by rebuilding our crumbling roads, and bridges, and schools, and by laying broadband lines to reach every corner of the country. And I will invest $15 billion a year in renewable sources of energy to create five million new energy jobs over the next decade – jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced; jobs building solar panels and wind turbines and a new electricity grid; jobs building the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow, not in Japan or South Korea but here in the United States of America; jobs that will help us eliminate the oil we import from the Middle East in ten years and help save the planet in the bargain. That’s how America can lead again.

When it comes to health care, we don’t have to choose between a government-run health care system and the unaffordable one we have now. If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change under my plan is that we will lower premiums. If you don’t have health insurance, you’ll be able to get the same kind of health insurance that Members of Congress get for themselves. We’ll invest in preventative care and new technology to finally lower the cost of health care for families, businesses, and the entire economy. And as someone who watched his own mother spend the final months of her life arguing with insurance companies because they claimed her cancer was a pre-existing condition and didn’t want to pay for treatment, I will stop insurance companies from discriminating against those who are sick and need care most.

When it comes to giving every child a world-class education so they can compete in this global economy for the jobs of the 21st century, the choice is not between more money and more reform – because our schools need both. As President, I will invest in early childhood education, recruit an army of new teachers, pay them more, and give them more support. But I will also demand higher standards and more accountability from our teachers and our schools. And I will make a deal with every American who has the drive and the will but not the money to go to college: if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford your tuition. You invest in America, America will invest in you, and together, we will move this country forward.

And when it comes to keeping this country safe, we don’t have to choose between retreating from the world and fighting a war without end in Iraq. It’s time to stop spending $10 billion a month in Iraq while the Iraqi government sits on a huge surplus. As President, I will end this war by asking the Iraqi government to step up, and finally finish the fight against bin Laden and the al Qaeda terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.

I will never hesitate to defend this nation, but I will only send our troops into harm's way with a clear mission and a sacred commitment to give them the equipment they need in battle and the care and benefits they deserve when they come home. I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century, and I will restore our moral standing, so that America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future.

I won’t stand here and pretend that any of this will be easy – especially now. The cost of this economic crisis, and the cost of the war in Iraq, means that Washington will have to tighten its belt and put off spending on things we can afford to do without. On this, there is no other choice. As President, I will go through the federal budget, line-by-line, ending programs that we don’t need and making the ones we do need work better and cost less.

But as I’ve said from the day we began this journey all those months ago, the change we need isn’t just about new programs and policies. It’s about a new politics – a politics that calls on our better angels instead of encouraging our worst instincts; one that reminds us of the obligations we have to ourselves and one another.

Part of the reason this economic crisis occurred is because we have been living through an era of profound irresponsibility. On Wall Street, easy money and an ethic of “what’s good for me is good enough” blinded greedy executives to the danger in the decisions they were making. On Main Street, lenders tricked people into buying homes they couldn’t afford. Some folks knew they couldn’t afford those houses and bought them anyway. In Washington, politicians spent money they didn’t have and allowed lobbyists to set the agenda. They scored political points instead of solving our problems, and even after the greatest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, all we were asked to do by our President was to go out and shop.

That is why what we have lost in these last eight years cannot be measured by lost wages or bigger trade deficits alone. What has also been lost is the idea that in this American story, each of us has a role to play. Each of us has a responsibility to work hard and look after ourselves and our families, and each of us has a responsibility to our fellow citizens. That’s what’s been lost these last eight years – our sense of common purpose; of higher purpose. And that’s what we need to restore right now.

Yes, government must lead the way on energy independence, but each of us must do our part to make our homes and our businesses more efficient. Yes, we must provide more ladders to success for young men who fall into lives of crime and despair. But all of us must do our part as parents to turn off the television and read to our children and take responsibility for providing the love and guidance they need. Yes, we can argue and debate our positions passionately, but at this defining moment, all of us must summon the strength and grace to bridge our differences and unite in common effort – black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American; Democrat and Republican, young and old, rich and poor, gay and straight, disabled or not.

In this election, we cannot afford the same political games and tactics that are being used to pit us against one another and make us afraid of one another. The stakes are too high to divide us by class and region and background; by who we are or what we believe.

Because despite what our opponents may claim, there are no real or fake parts of this country. There is no city or town that is more pro-America than anywhere else – we are one nation, all of us proud, all of us patriots. There are patriots who supported this war in Iraq and patriots who opposed it; patriots who believe in Democratic policies and those who believe in Republican policies. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America – they have served the United States of America.

It won’t be easy, Ohio. It won’t be quick. But you and I know that it is time to come together and change this country. Some of you may be cynical and fed up with politics. A lot of you may be disappointed and even angry with your leaders. You have every right to be. But despite all of this, I ask of you what has been asked of Americans throughout our history.

I ask you to believe – not just in my ability to bring about change, but in yours.

I know this change is possible. Because I have seen it over the last twenty-one months. Because in this campaign, I have had the privilege to witness what is best in America.

I’ve seen it in lines of voters that stretched around schools and churches; in the young people who cast their ballot for the first time, and those not so young folks who got involved again after a very long time. I’ve seen it in the workers who would rather cut back their hours than see their friends lose their jobs; in the neighbors who take a stranger in when the floodwaters rise; in the soldiers who re-enlist after losing a limb. I’ve seen it in the faces of the men and women I’ve met at countless rallies and town halls across the country, men and women who speak of their struggles but also of their hopes and dreams.

I still remember the email that a woman named Robyn sent me after I met her in Ft. Lauderdale. Sometime after our event, her son nearly went into cardiac arrest, and was diagnosed with a heart condition that could only be treated with a procedure that cost tens of thousands of dollars. Her insurance company refused to pay, and their family just didn’t have that kind of money.

In her email, Robyn wrote, “I ask only this of you – on the days where you feel so tired you can’t think of uttering another word to the people, think of us. When those who oppose you have you down, reach deep and fight back harder.”

Ohio, that’s what hope is – that thing inside us that insists, despite all evidence to the contrary, that something better is waiting around the bend; that insists there are better days ahead. If we’re willing to work for it. If we’re willing to shed our fears and our doubts. If we’re willing to reach deep down inside ourselves when we’re tired and come back fighting harder.

Hope! That’s what kept some of our parents and grandparents going when times were tough. What led them to say, “Maybe I can’t go to college, but if I save a little bit each week my child can; maybe I can’t have my own business but if I work really hard my child can open one of her own.” It’s what led immigrants from distant lands to come to these shores against great odds and carve a new life for their families in America; what led those who couldn’t vote to march and organize and stand for freedom; that led them to cry out, “It may look dark tonight, but if I hold on to hope, tomorrow will be brighter.”

That’s what this election is about. That is the choice we face right now.

Don’t believe for a second this election is over. Don’t think for a minute that power concedes. We have to work like our future depends on it in this last week, because it does.

In one week, we can choose an economy that rewards work and creates new jobs and fuels prosperity from the bottom-up.

In one week, we can choose to invest in health care for our families, and education for our kids, and renewable energy for our future.

In one week, we can choose hope over fear, unity over division, the promise of change over the power of the status quo.

In one week, we can come together as one nation, and one people, and once more choose our better history.

That’s what’s at stake. That’s what we’re fighting for. And if in this last week, you will knock on some doors for me, and make some calls for me, and talk to your neighbors, and convince your friends; if you will stand with me, and fight with me, and give me your vote, then I promise you this – we will not just win Ohio, we will not just win this election, but together, we will change this country and we will change the world. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless America.

###

Did Gov. Palin veto a half-billion dollars in spending?.

The Statement
Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin, speaking October 27 at a rally in Leesburg, Virginia, said that, acting as Alaska's governor, "I put the veto pen to nearly half a billion dollars in wasteful spending."

Watch: Palin and budget cuts
Get the facts!

The Facts
Maria Comella, Palin's spokeswoman, cited news stories from the Anchorage Daily News about $499 million in capital spending cuts Palin made for fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

In 2007, the governor cut $231 million from the capital budget for construction projects for the following fiscal year, according to a July 6, 2007, Anchorage Daily News article. The article said the move "pleased many Alaskans who voted for the self-described fiscal conservative to rein in government spending."

A June 30, 2007, Associated Press article quoted Palin as saying "we need to live within our means. ... Even though we have a surplus, that doesn't warrant a spending spree on an unlimited credit card. Now is the time to save for the future."

A May 24, 2008, Anchorage Daily News article said Palin "axed about 10 percent of the spending that state legislators approved for hometown projects," a total amounting to $268 million. The newspaper reported that it was the "second year in a row Palin vetoed projects dear to legislators."

Verdict: True

Has McCain called for less regulation 21 times this year?.

The Statement
At a campaign appearance Monday, October 27, in Dayton, Ohio, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama repeated his assertion that his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, supported deregulation that Obama argues helped lead to this year's financial collapse. "When it comes to the economy, when it comes to the central issue of our time - the central issue of this election - the plain truth is that John McCain has stood with this president every step of the way ... calling for less regulation 21 times just this year - those are the facts."

Watch: McCain's votes on regulation
Get the facts!

The Facts
To back this claim, the Obama campaign provided CNN with a list of 21 media reports of comments McCain has made this year regarding deregulation. Many of them are, in fact, fairly direct calls for less government regulation of industry and financial markets.

In a February 20 article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, McCain answered a question about how he'd show Ohioans he's in touch with them economically. "Reduce their taxes, reduce interest rates, reduce regulation ... ," he said.

In a July 2 interview with ABC's "Good Morning America," McCain said the way to improve an economy that is in "terrible shape" is "to take specific actions, keep their taxes low, less regulation, start exploring and exploiting offshore oil deposits."

But several of the quotes are more general comments about McCain's long-standing stance in favor of deregulation or calls for government to not increase regulation - as opposed to Obama's claim that they were all calls for less. For example, the Obama camp cites a February 17 article in the Providence
(Rhode Island) Journal, in which McCain said of Democrats: "They want bigger government, higher taxes, more regulation," and counts it as calling for less regulation.

The deregulation McCain has long supported has been blamed by many analysts for the banking and lending industry meltdowns. While McCain has defended his past support of deregulation, saying he thinks it helped grow the economy, he has shifted his stance to embrace some government oversight since the financial market collapse. "I will make sure that the SEC enacts and enforces rules that
keep our markets safe and competitive," McCain said October 27 after a meeting with financial advisors. "I will demand complete transparency into the accounts and activities at all banks and insurance companies so they cannot take on the kind of risk that brought down the financial system. We will have strict rules of conduct on Wall Street and if they are broken executives will be severely
punished."

The Verdict: Misleading. Obama's campaign provided 21 McCain references to deregulation. But while many are calls for less regulation, more than a third are not.

The Statement:
During a speech Friday, Oct. 24, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Gov. Sarah Palin noted that parents of children with special needs often set up trusts to help ensure long-term assistance. "Many families with special needs children or dependent adults" are concerned that Sen. Barack Obama "plans to raise taxes on precisely these kinds of financial arrangements," she said. "They fear that Senator Obama's tax increase will have serious and harmful consequences, and they're right."

Get the facts!

The Facts:
Some parents create special needs trusts in order to help ensure that their children with disabilities or other special needs will have help well into the future, after the parents retire or die. The Federal Citizen Information Center Web site explains that the primary advantage of a trust, rather than a
gift or inheritance, is that the assets are owned by the trust, not the beneficiary. So, funds will be available to the person with special needs, but will not cause that person to be disqualified from the government-run Medicare program. The trust funds typically provide for such things as glasses,
independent checkups, transportation, equipment, training, education, and other programs, the Web site says.

The way most of these trusts are structured, the interest they gain is taxed as part of the parents' income. Palin, in her remarks, suggests that Obama will increase taxes on these trusts in general, thereby reducing the funds in them. The McCain campaign did not respond to requests to explain or comment on the record.

Obama has pledged to increase taxes only on individuals with incomes over $200,000 and families with incomes over $250,000. He is not offering an exception for interest in special needs trusts - that income counts toward the total. So, if someone's taxes go up under Obama, the interest in a trust fund is part of what will be taxed at a higher rate.

But Obama does not have a plan to increase taxes on special needs trusts in general. And Jason Furman, economic adviser for the Obama campaign, noted that Obama has vowed to fix his plan if any individual making less than $200,000 or family making less than $250,000 is left paying higher taxes. So, if Obama's tax plan, unintentionally, forced taxes up on a special needs trust for someone
at a lower income, the tax plan would change, and the person's taxes would not go up, Furman said.

Sen. John McCain is promising across-the-board tax cuts, so no one with a special needs trust would see a tax hike under his plan. As the CNN Truth Squad has reported, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center says Obama's tax cuts would be larger for people in middle and lower income ranges.

Before Palin launched this attack Friday, the McCain campaign told the Wall Street Journal that it was coming. The newspaper, in an article published online Friday, quoted Andy Imparato, president of the nonpartisan American Association of People with Disabilities, saying he has not heard any complaints
from constituents about Obama's tax plan. It was not clear what Palin's evidence was that "many families" were concerned about Obama's plan.

The Verdict:
Misleading. Obama's plan would increase taxes on individuals making more than $200,000 and families making $250,000, and it would include the income on interest in special needs trusts. But Obama does not have a plan to raise taxes on special needs trusts in general.

The Statement: Speaking at a campaign event Saturday, Oct. 25, in Reno, Nevada, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama described elements of his tax plan and said, "Under my plan tax rates will actually be less than they were under Ronald Reagan." He made the same statement earlier in the week at campaign events in Richmond, Virginia, and Miami and Tampa, Florida.

Get the facts!

The Facts: Brian Deese, deputy economic policy director of the Obama campaign, said the statement refers to two tax rates: individual income tax rates for middle-income taxpayers, and capital gains tax for families earning more than $250,000.

Deese said the campaign projects that under Obama a median-income family of four will pay an annual effective income tax rate of 4.32 percent. That number, Deese said, comes from the campaign's calculations based on projections in the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center's analysis of the candidates' tax plans.

According to Tax Policy Center historical data, a rate of 4.32 would be lower than during the Reagan years, when average rates for a median-income family of four ranged from 11.79 in 1981 to 9.30 in 1988. By comparison, rates during the Bush administration have ranged from 6.71 percent in 2001 to 5.91 last year.

"Given that they (the Obama campaign) are starting with an already-low level from the Bush tax cuts, and then layering more cuts on, that rate (4.32 percent) is not an unreasonable projection," said Roberton Williams, Tax Policy Center principal research associate. Williams said the question is how many specific individuals would qualify for all the specific cuts under Obama to get to that lowest rate. "That's an unknown at this point," Williams said.

Deese also cites Obama's proposed capital gains rate of 20 percent for families earning over $250,000. That would be lower than the 28 percent capital gains rate Reagan signed into law in 1986. Currently the top capital gains rate for taxpayers in that income group is 15 percent, according to Williams of the Tax Policy Center.

On his Web site, Obama says his "tax relief for middle-class families is larger than the revenue raised by ... tax changes for families over $250,000." Spending cuts including ending the war in Iraq will make up the difference, according to the site.

The Verdict: Misleading. While Obama says that his tax rates will be lower than under Reagan, according to his economic adviser he is referring to specific rates out of the many rates in the tax system. Also, it is not clear how many taxpayers would qualify for the lowest projected income tax rates.

What are the facts?

The Statement
At a campaign speech Friday, October 24, in Denver, Colorado, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain criticized Democratic opponent Sen. Barack Obama for how his policies would impact the jobless. "Just yesterday, we received news that jobless claims increased by 15,000," McCain said. "Yet, just this week, Senator Obama announced that his plan would have a work requirement, meaning that those unemployed receive no help under the Obama plan ... ."

Get the facts!

The Facts
Campaign spokesman Brian Rogers confirmed that McCain's comment is a reference to Obama's universal mortgage credit plan, which Obama says is intended to give tax relief to homeowners who don't itemize their taxes. An Obama advisor said on October 21 that the plan had been changed - adding a work requirement in order to receive the $500 credit.

While McCain accurately describes that single aspect of Obama's tax plan, the Obama campaign Web site lists several proposals it says will create jobs and help unemployed people find them. Obama says he would spend $210 billion on a 10-year plan to create jobs in construction and environmental industries –
plans he estimates will create millions of jobs. He also proposes spending $1 billion over five years in job training with "transitional jobs" and "career pathway" programs."

As recently as this week, the McCain campaign criticized the earlier version of the mortgage credit plan, calling it "welfare" because some of the homeowners that would receive the credit are unemployed. The Obama camp said those people amounted to merely "a sliver" of the 10 million homeowners who would get the credit. The October 21 change, an advisor said, was meant to eliminate the McCain campaign's argument against it. McCain then criticized Obama for changing the plan so close to the election. And then on Friday, he attacked it for not helping the unemployed - essentially the opposite of the argument he'd made earlier in the week.

The Verdict:

Misleading. Narrowly applied to Obama's mortgage tax credit, McCain's statement is true. But to say "unemployed receive no help under the Obama plan" is inaccurate.

Does McCain offer 'more tax cuts for job outsourcing?'.

<
The Statement
At a campaign stop Thursday, October 23, in Indianapolis, Indiana, Sen. Barack Obama said Sen. John McCain had "made kind of a strange argument that the best way to stop companies from shipping jobs overseas is to give more tax cuts to companies that are shipping jobs overseas. More tax cuts for jobs outsourcing, that's what Senator McCain proposed as his answer to outsourcing. He said that's, quote, 'simple, fundamental economics.'"

Get the facts!

The Facts:
Obama was referring to remarks McCain made on CNN's "The Situation Room" on Wednesday, October 22. CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked McCain about his plan to cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent.

In part of his answer, McCain noted that when many companies "have the ability to go overseas, unfortunately they do go overseas," because there are tax incentives in those countries to do so. "If they go to Ireland, they're only paying 11 percent (taxes)," he said. "So where are they going to go where they can create wealth and create jobs? It's simple fundamental economics."

McCain added, "So, to somehow allege that a company or corporation that can be international is not going to go where they pay the lowest taxes and can create the most jobs is just foolishness."

At no point did McCain propose "more tax cuts for jobs outsourcing." When asked for evidence to back up Obama's assertion, the Obama campaign sent CNN a statement arguing that McCain's plan "does not eliminate the provision in the tax code that encourages U.S. companies to outsource jobs," and that the across-the-board tax cut McCain is calling for "would reward companies even if they fail to create a single new job or make a single new investment in the United States." Neither of these comprises offering "more tax cuts for jobs outsourcing."

McCain and Obama disagree over how to handle the issue of outsourcing. McCain argues that lowering taxes inside the United States will give companies incentives to keep, and build, operations inside the United States. Obama calls for cracking down on tax loopholes that encourage companies to shift operations overseas, and offers a tax credit for companies that increase domestic operations.

The Verdict:
False. McCain is not offering "more tax cuts for jobs outsourcing." The quote Obama refers to comes from a CNN interview in which McCain argued that lower taxes could help prevent outsourcing.

The Statement
Speaking on Fox News's "Hannity & Colmes," Republican vice-presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin expanded a GOP attack that Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama's running mate said his presidency would invite international trouble. "And it wasn't just Biden making that comment," Palin said. "That was confirmed by former Secretary Madeleine Albright, where she said yes, she believes that Biden was just stating fact. Now, I don't want a president who invites that kind of testing."

Get the facts!

The Facts
On Sunday, October 19, Democratic vice-presidential candidate Sen. Joe Biden was speaking at a fundraiser in Seattle, asking for support in the event Obama is elected. "Watch - we're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy," Biden said. "I don't know what the decision is going to be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history, and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it is going to happen."

The McCain campaign seized on the comment to argue Obama is not experienced enough and that a lack of experience will encourage nations like Russia and groups like al Qaeda to challenge his resolve. The Obama camp has responded, arguing that Biden meant to say that the next president will be tested regardless of who is elected.

Speaking Wednesday, October 21, on CNN's "American Morning," Madeleine Albright, former secretary of state and an Obama supporter, was asked about the statement. "Well, I think it is - it's just a statement of fact, frankly. And in my book, I talk about the fact that ... something unexpected, you always have to be prepared for that. And that's why, I actually think that Senator Obama is a terrific person to be president because he has this capability of assessing the situation in a calm way, of listening to a lot of different opinions ... ."

She continued, "Well, I think that what you see is the fact that there's something happening in the world all the time. ... So, I think that it's a statement of fact, and I think Barack Obama is a terrific person to handle it."

The Verdict: Misleading. Palin takes out of context part of a comment by Albright, who was actually praising Obama's ability to handle a crisis

Will McCain offer tax cuts for outsourcing?

The Statement
At a campaign stop Thursday, October 23, in Indianapolis, Indiana, Sen. Barack Obama said Sen. John McCain had "made kind of a strange argument that the best way to stop companies from shipping jobs overseas is to give more tax cuts to companies that are shipping jobs overseas. More tax cuts for jobs outsourcing, that's what Senator McCain proposed as his answer to outsourcing. He said that's, quote, 'simple, fundamental economics.'"

Get the facts!

The Facts:
Obama was referring to remarks McCain made on CNN's "The Situation Room" on Wednesday, October 22. CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked McCain about his plan to cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent.

In part of his answer, McCain noted that when many companies "have the ability to go overseas, unfortunately they do go overseas," because there are tax incentives in those countries to do so. "If they go to Ireland, they're only paying 11 percent (taxes)," he said. "So where are they going to go where they can create wealth and create jobs? It's simple fundamental economics."

McCain added, "So, to somehow allege that a company or corporation that can be international is not going to go where they pay the lowest taxes and can create the most jobs is just foolishness."

At no point did McCain propose "more tax cuts for jobs outsourcing." When asked for evidence to back up Obama's assertion, the Obama campaign sent CNN a statement arguing that McCain's plan "does not eliminate the provision in the tax code that encourages U.S. companies to outsource jobs," and that the across-the-board tax cut McCain is calling for "would reward companies even if they fail to create a single new job or make a single new investment in the United States." Neither of these comprises offering "more tax cuts for jobs outsourcing."

McCain and Obama disagree over how to handle the issue of outsourcing. McCain argues that lowering taxes inside the United States will give companies incentives to keep, and build, operations inside the United States. Obama calls for cracking down on tax loopholes that encourage companies to shift
operations overseas, and offers a tax credit for companies that increase domestic operations.

The Verdict:
False. McCain is not offering "more tax cuts for jobs outsourcing." The quote Obama refers to comes from a CNN interview in which McCain argued that lower taxes could help prevent outsourcing.

Did Obama change his tax plan just before the election? .

The Statement
Speaking at a campaign event Wednesday, October 22, in Cincinnati, Ohio, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain criticized the tax plan of his Democratic opponent, Sen. Barack Obama. "And by the way, this week we learned that Senator Obama is concerned that his plan is seen as welfare so he just added a work requirement," McCain said. "Thirteen days to go in the election and he changed his tax plan ... ."

Get the facts!

The Facts
McCain is referring to Obama's proposed universal mortgage credit, which he says is designed to give tax relief to homeowners who don't itemize their taxes. According to his campaign Web site, the credit would give an average of $500 to 10 million homeowners. The McCain campaign criticized this plan because a portion of those homeowners do not work - at least one campaign ad called it "welfare."

At a Tuesday, October 21, discussion with McCain's chief economic advisor, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, at the Council on Foreign Relations, senior Obama economic advisor Austan Goolsbee acknowledged the campaign had changed the proposal to cover a "sliver" of non-workers that would have received the credit. "We had ... 98 percent of our money was tied to work," Goolsbee said. "They (the McCain
campaign) started saying, 'Ah ... this is welfare.' So, just so that they would absolutely not be able to say that, we said, 'Fine - for the last 2 percent we'll simply add a work requirement. They tried to seize on the 2-percent sliver that wasn't (tied to work) and say, 'See? They want to give a handout.' "

When questioned by Holtz-Eakin, Goolsbee said he didn't know exactly when the change was made but said he thought it was "about two weeks ago." He later told ABC News that it may have been about a week later - after the McCain campaign's attacks had started - and argued it was a clarification of a policy that was always meant to benefit the working class. On Thursday, October 23,
campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor also said it was assumed at the campaign that the credit was for workers, saying "all of Senator Obama's tax credits only go to workers and they always have."

The Verdict: True.

Sen. Biden said Bush is now supporting Obama's troop withdrawal plan.

The Statement
Democratic vice-presidential candidate Sen. Joe Biden, speaking at a rally in Colorado Springs, Colorado, on Wednesday, October 22, said, "finally after six years, George Bush is now backing the plan that Barack Obama suggested, which is to set a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq and turn over responsibility to the Iraqis. That's the agreement we're negotiating now."

Get the facts!

The Facts
The Bush administration has consistently opposed setting "artificial" timelines for U.S. troop withdrawals. It repeatedly has stressed that withdrawals need to be based on conditions in the country, such as the improving the performance of Iraqi security forces.

Citing improving security conditions, the Bush administration on July 18 began calling for a "general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals" for troop withdrawals. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino on October 17 told reporters the administration had been working on "aspirational" dates for troop withdrawal.

This comes as the United States and Iraq this year have been negotiating a "status of forces" agreement, a bilateral pact that will spell out the U.S. troop role in Iraq after a U.N. mandate governing their role expires on December 31.

A draft of the agreement - obtained by CNN last week - includes withdrawal dates based on the improved performance of Iraqi security forces and their "taking over" security responsibilities. The draft agreement says that U.S. combat forces "should withdraw" from Iraqi cities and villages by July 30,
2009, and U.S. forces "should withdraw from Iraqi territories within the deadline of December 31, 2011." The draft includes a mechanism for both sides to cut or extend the time period for the combat troop withdrawals. It also allows the Iraqi government to ask the U.S. government "to leave certain forces for training and for support purposes for the Iraqi forces."

In his Colorado remarks, Biden outlined the troop withdrawal proposal now under negotiation, but failed to mention the keystone of Obama's proposal - that troops would be withdrawn in 16 months.

Biden and Obama have called for a "responsible and phased" troop withdrawal from Iraq. "We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010," Obama said in a New York Times column on July 14 titled "My Plan for Iraq." They believe a commitment to troop withdrawal should be a major underpinning of status of forces negotiations. The campaign supports a "residual force" for missions against al Qaeda in Iraq, "protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces," the Times column said.

The Verdict: Misleading. The Bush administration, like the Obama campaign, is considering a troop withdrawal timetable. But the Bush proposals are based on security improvements in Iraq, while Obama's are based on a 16-month timetable.

The Statement
In a new automated telephone call being sent out by the Republican National Committee in battleground states, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Republican and former presidential candidate, says, "I'm calling for John McCain and the Republican National Committee, because you need to know that Barack Obama opposes mandatory prison sentences for sex offenders, drug dealers, and murderers. It's true, I read Obama's words myself."

Get the facts!

The Facts
During a debate as a senatorial candidate in October 2003, Obama was asked whether he'd vote to abolish mandatory-minimum sentences. "I would vote to abolish mandatory minimum sentences," he said. "One of the things that I've done in the state Senate has been to try to reform the capital justice system ..., trying to make sure that our criminal justice system is in fact just. ... (W)e need to do the same thing at the federal level; the mandatory minimums take too much discretion away from judges." Obama did not specifically mention sex offenders, drug dealers and murderers.

Speaking at Howard University in Washington, D.C., almost four years later, on September 28, 2007, Obama gave a more detailed answer to a similar question. "I think it's time we also took a hard look at the wisdom of locking up some first-time, non-violent drug users for decades. Someone once said that '...long minimum sentences for first-time users may not be the best way to occupy jail space and-or heal people from their disease.' That someone was George W. Bush - six years ago. I don't say this very often, but I agree with the president. The difference is, he hasn't done anything about it." Obama said that, as president, he'd work to "reduce the blind and counterproductive warehousing of
nonviolent offenders."

A page on Obama's campaign Web site says he "will immediately review these sentences to see where we can be smarter on crime and reduce the ineffective warehousing of nonviolent offenders." According to a CNN review, no direct votes on mandatory minimums have come before the Senate since Obama has been a member.

Many judges and judges' organizations are against mandatory-minimum sentences - saying they take away a judge's ability to deal with cases that may have special circumstances. "This would require one-size-fits-all justice," said U.S. District Judge Paul G. Cassell, chairman of the Criminal Law Committee of the Judicial Conference, the judicial branch's policy-making body. He was speaking in June 2007, when the Bush administration was pushing to reinstate mandatory minimums after they'd been thrown out by the Supreme Court. "Judges are the ones who look the defendants in the eyes. They hear from the victims. They hear from the prosecutors," Cassell said.

The Verdict: Misleading. Obama made a general comment about voting to eliminate mandatory-minimum sentences four years ago. But more detailed comments and his campaign Web site specify that he'd focus on nonviolent drug offenses, not violent crimes.

Did obama only spend 300 days in the Senate before becoming a presidential candidate?.

The Statement:

GOP vice-presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin, in an interview on CNN's "Situation Room" on Tuesday, October 21, questioned Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama's experience, saying he "served for his 300 days before he became a presidential candidate."

Get the facts!

The Facts
Palin was referring to Obama's career in the U.S. Senate. Maria Comella, Palin's spokeswoman, told CNN that from the time Obama was sworn in on January 3, 2005, to the announcement of his exploratory committee on January 16, 2007, the Senate was in session 304 days. The secretary of the U.S. Senate told CNN the numbers are correct.

But lawmakers also work when the Senate is not in session. Obama served 743 days in the Senate from his swearing in to the announcement of his exploratory committee, the first official step when considering a run for the presidency. He served 768 days from the start of his career in the Senate to February 10, 2007, when he formally announced his candidacy for president. Palin served as governor of Alaska for 634 days before Republican nominee Sen. John McCain named her as his running mate.

The Verdict: Misleading. Palin failed to give credit for Obama's work on days when the Senate was not meeting.

Sen. Obama said he's supported plans to improve the economy McCain was against.

The Statement:
Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama, speaking at a campaign event Tuesday, October 21, in Miami, Florida, said he's supported plans to improve the economy that Republican opponent Sen. John McCain was against. "Nine months ago - back in January - I called for a stimulus plan to provide immediate relief for states, along with tax rebates to get money directly to middle class families and a foreclosure-prevention fund to help people keep their homes. Senator McCain, on the other hand, insisted that the fundamentals of the economy were strong. His advisors openly mocked the stimulus plan before Congress - one referred to it, and I quote, as 'borrowing money from the Chinese and dropping it from helicopters.' Another dismissed it as 'junk.' "

Get the facts!

The Facts
In January, McCain's campaign had been reluctant to back an economic stimulus package floated by Congress, the White House and other candidates from both parties. On January 24, Kevin Hassett, a top McCain advisor, speaking during an economic panel, made the "borrowing money from the Chinese" comment. "Just raining cash down - which seems like what Congress wants to do - is not going to have much of an effect," he said.

McCain financial advisor and former Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, in an article published January 10 in U.S. News & World Report, was quoted as saying that sometimes Congress can turn stimulus packages into an excuse for pork-barrel spending. "See, you usually end up with a lot of junk," he said. Holtz-Eakin also clarified that he was speaking of his own opinions and not on behalf of the McCain campaign.

Obama announced his plan on January 13, two days after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent a letter to President Bush asking for his help in putting together a stimulus package. Some elements of Obama's proposals did appear in the bill that was ultimately approved, but he was just one of many politicians from both parties that worked on the plan.

And when the economic stimulus plan that was being kicked around came up for a vote in the Senate on February 7, McCain voted in favor of it. Obama, in the middle of a tight Democratic primary race, was not present for that vote. But he had voted the day before to move the bill forward. That effort fell two votes short, which is why the final vote was not until the following day.

The Verdict: Misleading. Obama accurately quotes one comment, but the "junk" comment is taken out of context. He appears to overstate his role in the creation of the stimulus plan, which McCain ultimately supported

Was Sen. McCain right about Sen. Obama and taxes? Get the facts!

The Statement: Speaking during a campaign stop Monday, Oct. 20 in Belton, Missouri, Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain criticized Democratic opponent Sen. Barack Obama's proposals on taxes. "The Obama tax increase would come at the worst possible time for America, and especially for small businesses like the one Joe dreams of owning," McCain said. "The small businesses Senator Obama would tax provide 16 million jobs in America."

Get the facts!

The Facts: McCain's criticism appears primarily aimed at Obama's personal income tax proposals - which he says would give tax cuts or leave taxes the same for individuals who make less than $200,000 or families that earn less than $250,000 - but increase them on people making more. Roughly 85 percent of small businesses are taxed at the owner's personal income tax rate, according to an editorial in the Wall Street Journal. Most of those businesses earn less than $250,000 a year.

The McCain campaign uses figures from a National Federation of Independent Business survey to back up its claim. The survey says 12 percent of business owners who employ between one and nine people earn more than $200,000 a year - as do 27 percent of those who employ 10-19 people and 50 percent of those who employ between 20 and 250 workers. Obama says $200,000 is the lowest income level at which an individual would see a tax increase under his plan.

But in assuming all of those business owners would see an increase, the McCain campaign appears to suppose that all of the business owners making between $200,000 and $250,000 would file their taxes individually, not jointly with a spouse or other family member. And roughly 15 percent of small businesses aren't taxed based on the owner's personal income rate, as the Journal notes. Based on those facts, it's impossible to know exactly how many of those business owners would see a tax hike - but it surely would not be 100 percent.

The McCain campaign uses census figures to estimate how many people work for the businesses it says would be impacted - an effort McCain spokesman Brian Rogers acknowledges is "admittedly a rough estimate." The NFIB says the number of jobs small businesses create is "impossible to calculate," in part because some people only work at small businesses part-time while holding down full time jobs with a bigger employer.

The Verdict: False. McCain uses an overly broad interpretation of the NFIB survey's figures - applying Obama's tax plan to those figures in a way that is highly unlikely to match reality.

Was Sen. Obama about Sen. McCain's positions on the Bush tax cuts? Get the facts!

The Statement: In a campaign stop Monday, October 20, in Tampa, Florida, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama criticized Republican opponent Sen. John McCain for comments he's made about taxes. "It's true that I want to roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans and go back to the rate they paid under Bill Clinton. John McCain calls that socialism. What he forgets is that just a few years ago, he himself said those Bush tax cuts were irresponsible. He said he couldn't 'in good conscience' support a tax cut where the benefits went to the wealthy at the expense of 'middle-class Americans who most need tax relief.' "

Get the facts!

The Facts: On May 26, 2001, speaking on the Senate floor, McCain said, "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief."

McCain was one of only two Republicans to vote against President Bush's $1.35 trillion, 10-year tax cut. Two years later, in May, 2003, McCain was just one of three Republicans to vote against additional Bush tax cuts because, he said, the cost of the Iraq war was not yet known. He later told a Wall Street Journal reporter that he opposed the 2003 tax cut because it was "too tilted to the wealthy."

Then, on May 11, 2006, McCain sided with the president by voting for an extension of the tax cuts. On NBC's "Meet the Press," he said the reason for the change was that "the economy had adjusted - the tax cuts were there." He went on to say that voting against the extension would have been "tantamount to a tax increase."

In recent months, along the campaign trail, McCain has repeatedly said he supports making Bush's tax cuts permanent rather than have them run out when the law expires in 2010.

The Verdict: True. As Obama states, McCain did say he could not support President Bush's tax cuts in 2001, saying it was because they went to the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. He later supported extending them, saying the economy made them feasible at that later time.

Did Obama urge Georgia to 'show restraint after Russian invasion?.

The Statement
Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, speaking at a rally on October 21 in Bensalem, Pennsylvania, criticized Democratic opponent Sen. Barack Obama's foreign policy judgment. "We've seen the wrong response from him over and over during this campaign. ... When Russia invaded Georgia, Sen. Obama said the invaded country should show restraint."

Get the facts!

The Facts
The Russia-Georgia conflict erupted on August 7 when Georgia's military moved to secure its disputed region of South Ossetia, sparking the intervention of Russia, which pushed its troops into South Ossetia early August 8 and then into Georgia proper.

Obama, on August 8, issued a general statement strongly condemning the "outbreak of violence in Georgia" and urging "an immediate end to armed conflict." "Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war," Obama said in the statement. As facts emerged about the fighting, Obama issued a statement on August 9 condemning Russia's "aggressive actions" and saying Russia had "escalated the crisis." Obama reiterated his "call for an immediate cease-fire."

"As the initial developments unfolded, Obama was urging both sides to show restraint. Then, once it became clear that Russia was the aggressor, he condemned Russia's behavior," said Wendy Morigi, Obama's national security spokeswoman.

McCain, in a statement on August 8 that noted reports of Russian forces crossing the border into "sovereign" Georgian territory, said, "Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory. What is most critical now is to avoid further confrontation between Russian and Georgian military forces."

At a September 26 presidential debate in Oxford, Mississippi, McCain noted that Obama did initially say "both sides ought to show restraint."

The Verdict: Misleading. When the fighting erupted, Obama initially said both countries - not just Georgia - should "show restraint." But as facts emerged about Russia's actions, Obama's statements shifted to criticizing Russia.

Did Gov. Palin denounce McCain's campaign tactics?.

The Statement
Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama, speaking at a rally on Monday, October 20, in Tampa, Florida, about negative campaign tactics, said, "It's getting so bad that even Senator McCain's running mate denounced his tactics last night."

Get the facts!

The Facts
Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, took questions from reporters late Sunday after flying into Colorado Springs, Colorado. She was asked about the use of robocalls, an automated phone call tactic, sometimes used to spread negative messages the candidates themselves avoid. They've been condemned by some top Republicans and Democrats.

Voters in swing states have been receiving automated phone calls from the McCain campaign in recent days, and the messages have been criticized as negative and misleading. Among the examples are automated phone calls tying Obama to former Weather Underground radical William Ayers. McCain campaign officials have defended their use of robocalls, saying the messages they convey are based on fact.

Asked about the criticism, Palin at first dismissed the matter as "inside baseball stuff" and said it's "some of the campaign top brass's call on that." Asked whether she would approve the use of robocalls if she were running the campaign, Palin said, "If I called all the shots, and if I could wave a magic wand, I would be sitting at a kitchen table with more and more Americans, talking to them about our plan to get the economy back on track and winning the war, and not having to rely on the old conventional ways of campaigning that includes those robocalls, and includes spending so much money on the television ads that, I think, is kind of draining out there in terms of Americans' attention span."

The Verdict: Misleading. While Palin said she would prefer not to use automated calls as a campaign tool, she did not reject the calls' message.

Was Sen. Biden accurate about Sen. McCain's record on the minimum wage? Watch Alina Cho and get the facts!

The Statement

At a rally on Sunday, October 19, in Tacoma, Washington, Democratic vice-presidential candidate Sen. Joe Biden told a crowd, "John McCain voted 19 times against raising the minimum wage ...19 times!"

Get the facts!

The Facts

Sen. John McCain has voted 19 times against provisions to raise the minimum wage. However, in some cases the minimum wage provisions were contained in much larger bills on spending, and some were procedural votes that quashed attempts to raise the minimum wage.

What Biden did not mention is that McCain voted on at least five occasions to increase the minimum wage.

In explaining the disproportionate amount of no-to-yes votes, McCain told Fox's Chris Wallace on August 31, 2008, that he supports minimum-wage hikes "when they are not attached to other big-spending pork barrel."

As an example of how much conflict can exist on these votes, on May 17, 2007, McCain voted for a wage hike that was part of a much larger spending bill that included war spending and Hurricane Katrina recovery funds. Sen. Barack Obama voted against that bill, which ultimately passed and was signed into law by President Bush just over a week later.

Verdict:

Misleading. While McCain did vote 19 times against provisions that would have raised the minimum wage, some of those were parts of a much larger spending bill rather than an up-or-down vote on a wage increase. Also, Biden fails to mention that McCain has voted in favor of an increase on other occasions.

Is Sen. Obama attacking Joe the plumber? Watch and get the facts!

The Statement: Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, speaking at a rally in St. Charles, Missouri, on Monday, October 20, said "Joe the Plumber," an Ohioan who has become a central figure on the campaign trail, "didn't ask for the political attacks on him from the Obama campaign."

Get the facts!

The Facts: Sen. Barack Obama and Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, a plumber, discussed taxes on small businesses during a campaign stop on October 12 outside Toledo, Ohio. Wurzelbacher said he was about to buy a company that makes more than $250,000 a year and was concerned that Obama would tax him more because of it.

McCain - who seized on the exchange at last week's presidential debate in Hempstead, New York - dubbed the man "Joe the Plumber" and characterized him as a symbol of an everyman entrepreneur who would be burdened by Obama's tax plan. Since then, Wurzelbacher's life has been under a media microscope, and news outlets reported details including the fact that Wurzelbacher didn't have a plumbing license.

McCain spokesman Brian Rogers gave CNN three examples of "political attacks" the campaign says the Obama camp has made on Wurzelbacher - each from October 16:

–Obama said on MSNBC's "Race For the White House," that McCain is "trying to suggest that a plumber is the guy he is fighting for. How many plumbers do you know making $250,000 a year?"

–Sen. Joe Biden said on "The Tonight Show" that "I don't know many plumbers who are making $250,000 a year and worried about it. We're kind of worried about Joe the fireman, Joe the policeman, Joe the real plumber with a license."

– Speaking on the "Today" show, Biden also said said, "I don't have any 'Joe the Plumbers' in my neighborhood that make $250,000 a year and are worried."

In an interview with CNN on October 16, Wurzelbacher clarified that the company he wants to buy makes well less than $250,000 a year - which Obama says means his taxes would not be increased. Families making more than $250,000 could see taxes go up under Obama's plan, according to the campaign, while those making less than that amount would not see any raise.

The Verdict: In Dispute. McCain regards these comments as political attacks on Joe Wurzelbacher, but the comments also can be interpreted as Obama campaign commentary on the McCain campaign's rhetoric.

The Statement:
At a campaign stop Sunday, October 19, in Westerville, Ohio, Sen. John McCain cited Sen. Barack Obama's promise to "cut income taxes for 95 percent of Americans. You might ask, 'How do you cut income taxes for 95 percent of Americans when more than 40 percent pay no federal income taxes right now?' ... The government will write them all checks called a 'tax credit,' and the Treasury will have to cover those checks by taxing other people."

Get the facts!

The Facts

Obama, on his Web site, promises to "cut taxes for 95 percent of working families." He and his campaign officials have, at times, inaccurately described his plan as a tax cut for "95 percent of Americans." His economic policy adviser Jason Furman told CNN that the figure applies to working people and leaves out retirees.

Obama is offering a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500. Furman says the credit will go to 95 percent of American workers. It is designed to offset payroll taxes, which are different from federal income taxes. Payroll taxes include the fees the government takes out of paychecks to supply funding to Social Security and Medicare. Approximately 40 percent of Americans do not pay federal income taxes, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. But many of those people do pay payroll taxes. Those who pay federal income taxes would have the tax credit come out of what they owe the government; those who don't pay federal income taxes would receive a check in the mail.

Obama, on his Web site, describes the tax credit as a means to "cut income taxes ... for working families to offset the payroll tax they pay." So, when McCain refers to Obama as promising to "cut income taxes" through those tax credits, he is on firm ground.

Furman told CNN that funding for the tax credit would come in part from the tax increases Obama is calling on couples making at least $250,000 and individuals making at least $200,000. So, when McCain says the tax credits given to people who don't pay income taxes would be funded by "taxing other people," that is accurate.

McCain has tax credits at the center of one of his economic proposals as well. His health care plan calls for taxing the amount that Americans spend on employer-provided health insurance, while offering a $5,000 tax credit for families, and $2,500 for individuals. McCain has said he will fund those credits in part through the tax collected on for employer-provided health insurance. His campaign has said it would also cover some of the costs through cost-cutting in the Medicare program.

McCain has not called for raising taxes on some people in order to pay for his health care tax credits for others. According to the Tax Policy Center, McCain is offering across-the-board tax cuts - though, for lower- and middle-income Americans, his tax cuts would be smaller than Obama's. Also according to the center, McCain's health care plan would be a net tax cut for virtually all Americans through 2013, and for the middle class through 2018, which is as far as the center projected.

But the Tax Policy Center estimates that McCain's health care plan would effectively increase taxes for a sliver of Americans - the wealthiest 1 percent - by 2013, and for more Americans by 2018. If that estimate is accurate, McCain would effectively be raising taxes on some in order to carry out a program that includes tax credits.

The Verdict:
True. Obama is promising tax credits to 95 percent of American workers to offset payroll taxes. The credits would be funded in part by tax hikes on individuals making $200,000 or families making $250,000.

What is McCain's record on Medicare?

The Statement
In a campaign speech Friday, Oct. 17, in Roanoake, Virginia, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama criticized Republican opponent Sen. John McCain's record on supporting Medicare - the federal health-insurance program for people over 65. "In fact, Senator McCain has voted against protecting Medicare 40 times," Obama said. "Forty times he's failed to stand up for Medicare."

Get the facts!

The Facts
To support this claim, the Obama campaign provided CNN with a list of the 40 votes he refers to in this speech. An analysis by CNN showed that a handful of the votes can be viewed as fairly straightforward decisions on Medicare funding.

For example, McCain supported a hotly contested bill in 2005 that cut nearly $40 billion from the federal budget over five years by cutting spending on entitlement programs, including Medicare. The measure did provide some funding for Medicare to cancel planned pay cuts to doctors, but also reduced payments
to private health plans, froze payments for home-health care and curbed the amount paid for imaging such as MRIs. The bill passed the Senate on a 50-50 vote after Vice President Cheney broke the tie and ultimately passed the House, 216-214.

But much of the legislation that Obama mentions is not so clear-cut.

Several of the votes Obama's campaign cites are "sense of the Senate" resolutions. These are efforts that express the Senate's opinion on an issue but are not legally binding. In one example from 2003, McCain voted against a resolution that would have said it is the Senate's opinion that "the 1993 tax
increase on Social Security benefits can be repealed without harming the solvency of the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund." Previously, the CNN Truth Squad has made note of "sense of the Senate" resolutions that the McCain campaign has used to attempt to attack Obama's record.

Several others were for massive budget bills that included some cuts in Medicare funding in them. And others were procedural votes - from voting against Democratic amendments to Republican-sponsored bills to voting against efforts to move bills that were up for a vote back into a committee.

The Verdict: Misleading.
While some of the votes cited by the Obama campaign can be construed as voting against protecting Medicare, others are less clear-cut. Several would have had no practical impact and some were votes on large spending bills that had Medicare as one component of them.

What did Obama say?

The Statement
Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, during a speech on October 16 outside Philadelphia, recounted the story of "Joe the Plumber," a man who held a conversation with Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama and who became the surprise star of the candidates' October 15 debate when McCain gave an account of the story. McCain said the man told Obama, "'Look, I've been working all my life - 10, 12 hours. I want to buy the business I'm in, but you're going to raise my taxes.' And you know what Senator Obama had to say to Joe? He wanted to spread his wealth around. He wanted to spread his wealth around."

Get the facts!

The Facts
Sen. Obama had been campaigning outside Toledo, Ohio, on October 12 when he met Joe Wurzelbacher, 34, who works for Newell Plumbing & Heating Co., a small firm in the Toledo area. "I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes $250-270-80 thousand a year," Wurzelbacher said. "Your new tax plan is going to tax m more, isn't it?"

Obama explained his tax plan during the roughly five-minute exchange - telling Wurzelbacher that the tax rate on the portion of his income that was more than $250,000 would be increased from 36 percent to 39 percent. But he also mentioned that his plan includes a 50 percent small-business tax credit for health care and a proposal to eliminate the capital-gains tax for small businesses that increase in value. Obama said his tax plan, which he said focuses on bigger breaks for people making lower incomes, would be good for the economy. "If you've got a plumbing business, you're going to be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you," he said. "Right now, everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody. And I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Wurzelbacher said, "The reason I ask you about the American Dream, I mean I've worked hard. I'm a plumber. I work 10, 12 hours a day and I'm buying this company and I'm going to continue working that way. ... I'm getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American Dream."

In an interview with CNN on Thursday, October 16, Wurzelbacher said he had misunderstood Obama's plan and that the company he wants to buy makes well less than $250,000 a year - which Obama says means his taxes would not be increased.

The Verdict:
Misleading. McCain's remark was an oversimplification of a five-minute-long conversation. Obama replied in great detail about his tax plan, and the "spread the wealth" remark was one small part of the conversation.

Does McCain have a plan?

The Statement

Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama, in a speech on October 16 in Londonderry, New Hampshire, said of his Republican opponent, "Sen. McCain's top economic adviser actually said the other day that they have no plan to invest in college affordability because we can't have a giveaway to every special interest."

Get the facts!

The Facts

McCain campaign spokesmen have said at least twice in recent weeks that he has no specific plan for new spending to defray the cost of college. In a "Good Morning America" interview on September 3, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain's chief economic policy adviser said, "No, we don't have a big expansion. We want to make sure student loan programs work effectively. This summer, for example, a lot of lending got cut back because of the credit crunch. We have solutions to those problems."

An Associated Press story published this month about the college education policies of Sens. Obama and McCain said both men have said that "college education should be affordable to anyone." However, it said there ardifferences in how both men would address the issue.

The story quoted Holtz-Eakin as saying "We don't have any new college proposals in terms of massive expansions of funding. There is a budgetary reality; we have enormous spending pressures already. It would be irresponsible to go to every interest group and promise them lots of money. The other campaign does that. We don't."

McCain's Web site has a section spelling out his higher education policy. It calls for "simplifying" tax benefits that would ensure "a lower tax burden" for families which it says would help them send their children to college. McCain calls for simplifying the financial aid process to help students get aid and fixing problems with student loan programs.

Sen. Obama has proposed a yearly $4,000 tuition credit for students who perform public service.

At the October 15 debate, Obama stated his tuition credit plan, and McCain stressed the need for making student loans available for prospective students. "We need to give them a repayment schedule that they can meet. We need to have full student loan program for in-state tuition. And we certainly need to adjust the certain loan eligibility to inflation."

A campaign spokesman for McCain did not respond to messages seeking further clarification of McCain's plans.

Verdict: True, but incomplete. While McCain has no plan directly addressing college costs, his campaign maintains that his tax plans and improving student loan programs will make it easier to pay for college.

Would McCain make 'drastic cuts' in Medicare?.

The Statement:
At a campaign stop Friday, October 17, in Roanoke, Virginia, Sen. Barack Obama took aim at Sen. John McCain's health care plan. "The Wall Street Journal recently reported that it was actually worse than we thought. It turns out Senator McCain would pay for part of his plan by making drastic cuts in
Medicare - $882 billion worth," Obama said, adding, "It would mean a cut of more than 20 percent in Medicare benefits next year."

Get the facts!

The Facts:
The Wall Street Journal article that Obama is referring to, published October 6, says McCain would reduce Medicare and Medicaid funding to help pay for his health care plan. The article does not say how much. It leads with this: "John McCain would pay for his health plan with major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid, a top aide said, in a move that independent analysts estimate could result in cuts of $1.3 trillion over 10 years to the government programs."

The $1.3 trillion figure comes from a study by the Tax Policy Center. That nonpartisan group, in an analysis of the candidates' tax plans published September 12, offered a "preliminary" look at both candidates' health plans. It says, "Under our assumptions, if the plans took effect in 2009, the McCain plan would cost about $1.3 trillion over ten years and the Obama plan would cost about $1.6 trillion."

The Wall Street Journal article cites McCain's senior policy adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, saying McCain's plan is budget neutral because it assumes savings in Medicare and Medicaid. "He said the savings would come from eliminating Medicare fraud and by reforming payment policies to lower the overall cost of care," the article says. "He said the new tax credits (McCain is offering) will help some low-income people avoid joining Medicaid. The campaign also proposes increasing Medicare premiums for wealthier seniors."

An ad Obama released Friday, titled, "It Gets Worse," attributes the $882 billion assertion to the Center for American Progress Action Fund. The liberal group put out a news release on October 7 saying that, "assuming Sen. McCain's $1.3 trillion cut is taken proportionately from Medicare and Medicaid," McCain would "cut $882 billion from the Medicare program."

In his remarks on the stump, Obama did not cite the Center for American Progress Action Fund, and left the impression that the Wall Street Journal had reported the $882 billion figure. He did the same thing on his Web site, which read, "the Wall Street Journal now reports that McCain would pay for the rest of his plan by making 'major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid,' eight hundred and eighty two billion from Medicare alone."

The idea that McCain would look to save money in the Medicare and Medicaid systems as part of his health care plan is not new. The section of his Web site focusing on his health care plan includes this subtitle: "Medicaid and Medicare: Reforming The Payment System To Cut Costs." It says, "We must reform the payment systems in Medicaid and Medicare to compensate providers for diagnosis, prevention and care coordination. Medicaid and Medicare should not pay for preventable medical errors or mismanagement."

In response Friday, the McCain campaign issued a statement citing Obama's calls for saving billions of dollars in Medicare spending as well. On a phone call with reporters, Holtz-Eakin called Obama's attack "patently false." He disputed the idea that McCain's plan would cost more than a trillion dollars. And he argued that the reforms McCain seeks would cut costs without cutting the benefits people rely on. He estimated, for example, that eliminating Medicare fraud could save as much as $700 billion over 10 years.

To back up Obama's assertion about a "more than 20 percent" cut in benefits next year, the Obama campaign pointed to figures from the Congressional Budget Office showing spending projections for 2009 for Medicare and Medicaid. The campaign then calculated the percentage that $130 billion represents of that total - arguing that that is how much McCain would need to cut in order to achieve a savings of $1.3 trillion over 10 years. While the CBO says its figures generally do not include "administrative costs," they do include costs that the McCain campaign said it could cut without removing benefits from the people who rely on them.

The Verdict: Misleading. The figure Obama cites came from an analysis by a liberal group, not the Wall Street Journal. And the McCain campaign says the changes it is calling for would reduce costs, not cut benefits.

Would Obama make it harder to sell goods overseas?.

The Statement:
At a campaign stop Friday, October 17, in Miami, Florida, Sen. John McCain said, "If I'm elected president, I won't make it harder to sell our goods overseas ... as Sen. Obama proposes. I'll open new markets to goods made in America and make sure our trade is free and fair."

Get the facts!

The Facts:
Under several regional free trade agreements, tariffs on many goods exported to and imported from other nations have been eliminated. The deals expand opportunities for U.S. exporters to sell their products to those specific countries. But critics say they lead to job losses.

On the campaign trail, McCain and Obama have argued over free trade pacts, generally involving nations in the Western Hemisphere. While both say they support free trade, McCain is a stronger defender of the free trade deals, and Obama is a much more vocal critic. Obama voted for a pact with Peru, but against the Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA),
which McCain supported. Obama also opposes a free trade deal with Colombia, which McCain supports.

The issue of free trade played a major role during the Democratic primary, when Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton skewered each other's records on the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) - which key Democratic voting blocs oppose. At a debate in February, Obama vowed to "renegotiate" NAFTA, using "the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced." Two months later, speaking to a manufacturing group in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Obama cited his opposition to both NAFTA and CAFTA.

But in the general election campaign, Obama has softened his stance on NAFTA. Fortune magazine, in an article published online by CNNMoney.com, reported in June that Obama "backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn't want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA."

The article quoted Obama saying, "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified."

On his Web site, Obama vows to "fight for fair trade" and "use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world and stand firm against agreements like the Central American Free Trade Agreement that fail to live up to those important benchmarks." He also says he will amend NAFTA "so that it works for American workers."

In the final presidential debate this week, McCain called a free trade deal with Colombia "a no-brainer," and described Colombia as "our largest agricultural importer of our products." The U.S. Department of Agriculture lists Colombia as the 12th largest U.S. agricultural importer, but the largest in South America. Obama responded that he opposes the deal with Colombia because "labor leaders have been targeted for assassination on a fairly consistent basis and there have not been prosecutions." He added, "We have to stand for human rights."

Obama has also argued that some trade deals need to be reformed to make it easier for U.S. businesses to export their products. "We cannot let foreign regulatory policies exclude American products," he said at a speech in June. At this week's debate with McCain he pointed to a deal with South Korea that he opposes and McCain supports. Obama complained that U.S. automakers have only been able to export to South Korea a fraction of the cars that South Korea has sent to the United States. "That is not free trade," Obama said.

The Verdict:
True, but incomplete. Obama's opposition to certain free trade agreements would make it harder for some U.S. exporters to sell their products, but only in some countries covered by those deals.

Sen. McCain attacked Obama for his stance on abortion.

The Statement: During an October 15 presidential debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York, Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain attacked Democratic opponent Sen. Barack Obama for his stance on abortion. "Sen. Obama, as a member of the Illinois State Senate, voted in the Judiciary Committee against a law that would provide immediate medical attention to a child born of a failed abortion," McCain said.

Get the facts!

The Facts: McCain is citing a 2003 vote Obama made in the Illinois senate's Judiciary Committee. The bill's language said "a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law."

Obama justified his vote against the bill, saying its language would have undermined the legal protections for abortion provided by Roe vs. Wade. At the October 15 debate he also defended it, saying, "there was already a law on the books in Illinois that required providing life-saving treatment."

A law passed in Illinois in 1975 does require life-saving treatment if a child is born alive during an abortion. Under the law, if a child is delivered alive during an abortion, a doctor "shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician" for any other newborn.

The 2003 bill did not make it out of the Judiciary committee.

Verdict: Misleading. Obama voted against the legislation, but said doing so was not a vote against caring for the children, because there was already an Illinois law that required treating babies born alive during abortions.

The Statement

In remarks for a campaign event at Downington, Pennsylvania, on Oct. 16, Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain said, "If I'm elected President, I won't fine ... families with children, as Senator Obama proposes, to force them into a new huge government-run health care program, while I keep the cost of the fine a secret until I hit you with it."

Get the facts!


The Facts

Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama's health care plan, as outlined on his campaign Web site, says an Obama administration "will require that all children have health care coverage." The site refers to coverage for children as a "mandate." The plan says parents will be assisted in signing up their children for coverage either through private insurers, government programs such as Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) or unspecified "options established by the Obama plan."

Beyond raising the possibility that parents may have to prove health care coverage before children can be enrolled in daycare or school, the Web site does not address fines or any other penalties for parents who do not obtain health care coverage for their children.

Obama was quoted last year during the Democratic primary campaign as saying he would fine parents if they did not enroll their children.

According to the Des Moines (Iowa) Register, Obama told reporters in November 2007: "If they don't have health care, we will work with the parents to make sure that it's provided, and it would be mandatory. Parents will not have an option. And I would fine parents if for some reason they refused." He did not specify the amount of any fine.

Neera Tanden, Obama's director of domestic policy, told CNN on Oct. 16 that the campaign had no plans to levy fines against parents if they refuse to enroll their children. "This will be automatic enrollment - any child that comes to school or enters the health care system for any reason will automatically be enrolled," she said. Asked specifically about fining parents who refuse to enroll their children, Tanden repeated that there was no plan for a fine because the campaign believes with automatic enrollment no fines would be necessary.

The Verdict:

Misleading. Obama's health care plan leaves open the option of private insurance, and, while it mandates coverage for children, it does not "force them into a new huge government-run health care program" as McCain stated. However, Obama was quoted last year as saying he would fine parents if they refused to enroll their children. A campaign spokeswoman said there are currently no plans for such fines.

Did Biden really call for Iraq to be divided into three countries?

The Statement

Sen. John McCain, speaking at the October 15 presidential debate in Hempstead, New York, said Sen. Joe Biden, the Democratic vice-presidential candidate, "had this cockamamie idea about dividing Iraq into three countries."

Get the facts!


The Facts

Sen. Biden co-authored an opinion piece in The New York Times on May 1, 2006, that proposed a five-point plan "decentralizing" Iraq, greatly beset at the time by civil warfare between Shiites and Sunni Arabs.

The column, also authored by Council on Foreign Relations President Emeritus Leslie H. Gelb, likened Iraq's sectarian woes to those in Bosnia - "torn apart by ethnic cleansing and facing its demise as a single country" after the breakup of Yugoslavia last decade.

The column noted that the Dayton Accords - the agreement that ended the Bosnian war - kept Bosnia intact by "dividing it into ethnic federations, even allowing Muslims, Croats and Serbs to retain separate armies." The result was that Bosnians "have lived a decade in relative peace."

The column argues that Iraq should "maintain a united Iraq by decentralizing it, giving each ethno-religious group - Kurd, Sunni Arab and Shiite Arab - room to run its own affairs, while leaving the central government in charge of common interests." It underscores the fact that Iraq's Constitution "provides for a federal structure and a procedure for provinces to combine into regional governments."

The proposal, which became known as the Biden-Gelb plan, generated attention in Washington and Baghdad, and the U.S. Senate on September 26, 2007, voted for a Biden amendment expressing support for a U.S.-backed political settlement that would include a federal system.

The Verdict:

False. Biden proposed decentralizing Iraq's government, but not breaking up the country.

Does McCain have any economic plans that are different than Bush’s?

The Statement

At a presidential debate Wednesday, Oct. 15 at Hofstra University Sen. Barack Obama criticized Republican opponent Sen. John McCain's stance on the economy. "Because in three debates and over 20 months, John McCain hasn't explained a single thing that he would do differently from George Bush when it comes to the most important economic issues we face today. Not one," Obama said.

Get the facts!


The Facts

During the course of the campaign, both McCain and Obama have talked about the economy particularly in the wake of last month's financial-sector meltdown that has seen the stock market plummet and the government take over lending institutions Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and offer $97 billion to bail out lender AIG, which sits on the brink of collapse. Congress passed a sweeping economic bailout package that allows the Treasury secretary to buy up to $700 billion in troubled assets in an effort to kick-start lending.

In his response to the first question of the Oct. 15 debate, McCain repeated his proposal to use $300 billion from a bailout plan passed by Congress to purchase the leases on troubled home loans. He criticized Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, a Bush appointee, for not making homeowners a bigger part of the original bailout plan.

He went on to propose an across-the-board spending freeze for the federal government and cutting the federal business tax. The day before the debate, McCain unveiled what he calls his "Pension and Family Security Plan," which, among other things, would lower taxes for seniors tapping their retirement accounts, reduce capital-gains taxes for the next two years and eliminate taxes on unemployment benefits.

A day after the Oct. 15 debate, the Obama campaign pointed to a statement made by Sen. Lindsey Graham, a McCain supporter, during a televised interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulous in June in which his response to a question asking whether McCain supports "an extension, or maybe even enhancement of the Bush policies" with the words, "Yeah. Absolutely." They also cited a July CNN interview in which South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, a McCain supporter, said he was momentarily "drawing a blank" on differences between Bush and McCain's economic policies before mentioning differences over the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The Verdict:

False. McCain has repeatedly mentioned new economic ideas in recent weeks. The interviews with McCain supporters that Obama campaign cites to back up its assertion are outdated.

Questions have been raised about voter registration forms and Barack Obama's 'involvement' with ACORN.

The Statement

Sen. Barack Obama, discussing his connections to Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, at the Oct. 15 debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York, said "the only involvement I've had with ACORN" was representing them in a voter registration case in Illinois.

Get the Facts!

The Facts:
ACORN, a grass-roots community organizing group, faces allegations of filing fraudulent voter registrations in several states. Sen. John McCain, reflecting rising Republican concerns about ACORN, said at the debate "we need to know the full extent of Senator Obama's relationship with ACORN." Obama said any fraudulent registration "had nothing to do with us. We were not involved." And members of the Obama campaign have said the campaign has never paid ACORN to register voters.

On its Web site, ACORN confirms Obama's legal work, saying he "was one of the attorneys there who successfully represented a coalition of groups including ACORN in a legal case that won better enforcement of the National Voter Registration Act in Illinois." The case was filed in 1995. While ACORN said Obama "never organized with or worked for ACORN," it does mention other ties. Obama "accepted two invitations to be an unpaid guest speaker at training for volunteer community leaders organized by Chicago ACORN." That was in the early 1990s.

Additionally, the Obama campaign paid a political consulting group called Citizens' Services' Inc. more than $800,000 early this year for vote canvassing, such as knocking on doors and urging people to vote. The group in turn subcontracted a "small amount" of those funds to ACORN "for recruitment and training of canvassers," ACORN said. Obama campaign advisers stressed in an Oct. 14 teleconference that the campaign paid Citizens' Services Inc. for canvassing, but not voter registration.

The Verdict:
False. Obama's legal work was his only professional tie to the group, but he also spoke at volunteer training sessions and his campaign had a contract with a group that worked with ACORN.

Would McCain's education program only help those in D.C.?.

The Statement:

At a presidential debate Wednesday, Oct. 15, in Hempstead, New York, Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama criticized Republican opponent Sen. John McCain's education proposals. "The centerpiece of Senator McCain's education policy is to increase the voucher program in D.C. by 2,000 slots," Obama said. "That leaves all of you who live in the other 50 states without an education reform
policy from Senator McCain."

Get the facts!

The Facts:

McCain supports providing government money in the form of school vouchers to parents seeking to send their children to private schools. He proposes expanding what's called The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, which currently provides vouchers for more than 1,900 students in the nation's
capital. The children's families have an average annual income of $23,000, according to McCain's campaign Web site, and another 7,000 have applied. He proposes increasing funds for the program from $13 million to $20 million, opening it to roughly 1,000 more families.

McCain's other proposals for education, as detailed on his campaign Web site,include expanding funding for at least one Head Start center in each state. Head Start is a program designed to help at-risk students get an early start on their education. McCain also proposes requiring all federally supported preschools to offer comprehensive teaching in subjects including literacy, math readiness and social skills.

The site says McCain would devote a set percentage of funding to states to recruit top teachers, provide bonuses to teachers who move to underperforming schools, give principals more control over spending and invest in online education.

The Verdict:

False. While education has been less prominent than issues like the economy and the war in Iraq in both candidate's campaigns, McCain has several education proposals other than school vouchers.

Did Obama vote against Supreme Court Justice Breyer and Roberts?.

The Statement:

During a presidential debate Wednesday, Oct. 15, in Hempstead, New York, Republican nominee Sen. John McCain criticized Democratic opponent Sen. Barack Obama's votes on Supreme Court nominees. "Senator Obama voted against Justice Breyer and Justice Roberts on the grounds that they didn't meet his ideological standards," McCain said. "That's not the way we should judge these nominees."

Get the facts!

The Facts:

McCain's statement includes a clear slip of the tongue. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, a nominee of then-President Bill Clinton, was confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court by the Senate in 1994. Obama was elected to the Senate in 2004. McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers said McCain meant to refer to Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, who was confirmed in 2006.

Obama voted against both nominees of President Bush. McCain voted in favor of both. Prior to the vote on Alito, Obama issued a statement saying "after a careful review of his record, I simply cannot vote for his nomination." "(I)n examining Judge Alito's many decisions, I have seen extraordinarily consistent support for the powerful against the powerless, for the employer against the employee, for the President against the Congress and the Judiciary and for an overreaching federal government against individual rights and liberties."

In a Senate speech, Obama said the decision to vote against Roberts "was not an easy one for me to make." He said he was impressed with Roberts when the two met, but found that he seemed to side with "those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process." He added that Roberts "seemed dismissive of the concerns that it's harder making it in this world and in this economy when you're a woman rather than a man."

The Verdict:

False. McCain mistakenly named Breyer, who was confirmed before Obama was elected to the Senate, instead of Alito.

The Statement:

During a presidential debate Wednesday, Oct. 15, in Hempstead, New York, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain explained his opposition to legislation that would have expanded the length of time in which a worker can sue an employer for pay discrimination. "Obviously, that law waived the statute of limitations, which, you know, could have gone back 20 or 30 years," McCain said. "It was a trial lawyer's dream."

Get the facts!

The Facts:

The legislation McCain was referring to was the Lilly Ledbetter Act of 2007. The bill was spurred by the case of Ledbetter, a former employee who sued Goodyear Tire, alleging that she had suffered years of unequal pay. Ledbetter's case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, only to be thrown out on the grounds that she should have filed suit within 180 days of the first unfair paycheck.

The legislation that was drafted in response to the high court decision would allow people who claim they are victims of wage discrimination to sue up to 180 days after the last instance of discrimination - not the first, as current law requires. Supporters say that would allow people who don't immediately
recognize they are being paid unfairly to seek relief.

The Obama campaign has repeatedly mentioned the legislation during the campaign. Lilly Ledbetter herself spoke at the Democratic National Convention. It passed the House, but on April 23, it failed to get the 60 votes needed to end a Republican-led filibuster. Obama and his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, voted for it. McCain was not present for the vote, but said on the campaign trail he was against it.

The Verdict:

False. The legislation does not waive the statute of limitations on discrimination suits, as McCain says,
but changes the interpretation of when the limitation begins in cases of continuing violations.