THE CLAIM: Biden Claimed That ObamaCare Would Not Require Religious Groups Or Institutions To Finance Contraceptives. BIDEN: “With regard to the assault on the Catholic Church, let me make it absolutely clear: No religious institution, Catholic or otherwise - including Catholic Social Services, Georgetown Hospital, Mercy, any hospital - none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact.” (Vice President Joe Biden, Vice Presidential Debate, Danville, KY, 10/11/12)

THE FACTS: “Biden Went A Bit Far Saying It Is A Fact That They Will Not Pay For Contraceptives.” “But there are still unsettled issues in this matter, so Biden went a bit far saying it is a fact that they will not pay for contraceptives.” (Josh Hicks, “Fact Check: Biden Goes A Bit Far On Birth Control,” The Washington Post , 10/11/12)

• The Obama Administration Has Yet To Come Up With An Accommodation For Religious Groups So That They Will Not Pay For Contraceptive Coverage. Some church organizations still object to the mandate despite the exemption for religion-affiliated groups, arguing that they could end up paying for birth control indirectly if the mandate causes their health insurance costs to rise. Furthermore, the Obama administration said in March that it will come up with an accommodation for religiously affiliated employers that self-insure, but it has not yet decided how to handle that seven months later.” (Josh Hicks, “Fact Check: Biden Goes A Bit Far On Birth Control,” The Washington Post , 10/11/12)

Obama’s Backtrack On The Mandate Was An Absurd Plan Which Will Result In Higher Health Care Premiums

The Wall Street Journal : Obama’s Backtrack Is Absurd In Which “A Political Mandate Will Be Compounded By An Uneconomic One.” “Here’s a conundrum: The White House wants to impose its birth-control ideology on all Americans, including those for whom sponsoring or subsidizing such services violates their moral conscience. The White House also wants to avoid a political backlash from this blow to religious freedom. These goals are irreconcilable. So you almost have to admire the absurdity of the new plan President Obama floated yesterday: The government will now write a rule that says the best things in life are ‘free,’ including contraception. Thus a political mandate will be compounded by an uneconomic one-in other words, behold the soul of ObamaCare.” (Editorial, “Immaculate Conception: An ‘Accommodation’ That Makes The Birth-Control Mandate Worse,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/13/12)

• The Wall Street Journal : Costs Associated With The Contraception Mandate Will Bring On Higher Health Care Premiums. “Insurance companies won’t be making donations. Drug makers will still charge for the pill. Doctors will still bill for reproductive treatment. The reality, as with all mandated benefits, is that these costs will be borne eventually via higher premiums. The balloon may be squeezed differently over time, and insurers may amortize the cost differently over time, but eventually prices will find an equilibrium. Notre Dame will still pay for birth control, even if it is nominally carried by a third-party corporation.” (Editorial, “Immaculate Conception: An ‘Accommodation’ That Makes The Birth-Control Mandate Worse,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/13/12)

The Catholic Bishops And Catholic Health Association Oppose The Backtrack Because It Still Disregards Religious Liberty

U.S. Conference Of Catholic Bishops: Rule Still Mandates Contraception Coverage Nationwide. “First, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said the administration’s plan still includes a ‘nationwide mandate of insurance coverage of sterilization and contraception, including some abortifacients.’” (Jennifer Haberkorn, “Bishops: Contraception Deal ‘Unacceptable,’” Politico, 2/11/12)

• Obama’s Plan Doesn’t Go Far Enough In Exempting Religious Employers. “And while Obama’s new plan allows religious-affiliated employers to refrain from paying for contraceptive coverage - insurers would be obligated to provide the coverage for free - the bishops said the change doesn’t go far enough.” (Jennifer Haberkorn, “Bishops: Contraception Deal ‘Unacceptable,’” Politico, 2/11/12)

• Religious Employers Are Not Exempted From The Mandate. “‘It would still mandate that all insurers must include coverage for the objectionable services in all the policies they would write,’ the bishops said. ‘At this point, it would appear that self-insuring religious employers, and religious insurance companies, are not exempt from this mandate.’” (Jennifer Haberkorn, “Bishops: Contraception Deal ‘Unacceptable,’” Politico, 2/11/12)

The Catholic Health Association Said That Obama’s Contraception Rule Does Not Address Its “Religious Liberty Concerns.” “The White House has lost perhaps its most prominent Catholic ally in its controversial effort to expand contraception coverage, with the huge Catholic Health Association saying Friday that the mandate for most religious employers to offer coverage would not ‘adequately meet the religious liberty concerns.’ The change of position at the association, the country’s largest group of nonprofit health-care providers, comes as polls show President Obama and Mitt Romney tied among registered Catholic voters. For the past four of five presidential races, the candidate who won Catholics won the presidency.” (Michelle Boorstein, “Catholic Group Says Obama’s Contraception Effort Falls Short,” The Washington Post , 6/18/12)

• In The Letter Addressed To Health And Human Services, The Catholic Health Association’s Asked The Administration To Reconsider The Rule To “Broaden The Exemption For Religious Groups That Say Facilitating The Use Of Contraception In Any Way Goes Against Their Beliefs.” “In a five-page letter to the Department of Health and Human Services, leaders of the association said the group supports Obama’s overall health-care overhaul but thinks he should broaden the exemption for religious groups that say facilitating the use of contraception in any way goes against their beliefs.” (Michelle Boorstein, “Catholic Group Says Obama’s Contraception Effort Falls Short,” The Washington Post , 6/18/12)

Last Night, Biden Suggested “The White House Might Be Willing To Accept Higher Tax Rates On Families Earning More Than $1 Million, A Higher Threshold Than The $250,000 Limit It Has Stood By For Years.” “Vice President Joe Biden on Thursday night delved into one of the most contentious political issues in Washington—taxes—and he might have tweaked the White House’s bargaining stance in the process. He suggested that the White House might be willing to accept higher tax rates on families earning more than $1 million, a higher threshold than the $250,000 limit it has stood by for years.” (Damian Paletta and John D. McKinnon, “Did Biden Open Door For Tweak In Tax Talks,” The Wall Street Journal, 10/11/12)

• Biden: “[P]eople Making A Million Dollars Or More Will Begin To Contribute Slightly More.” BIDEN: “The middle class will pay less, and people making a million dollars or more will begin to contribute slightly more.” (Vice President Joe Biden, “2012 Vice Presidential Debate”, Danville, KY, 10/11/12)

The Washington Post’s The Fact Checker:  “Obama’s Proposed Tax Increase Reaches Farther Down The Income Ladder Than Millionaires.” “Obama’s proposed tax increase reaches farther down the income ladder than millionaires. He wants to roll back Bush-era tax cuts for individuals making over $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000.” (Glenn Kessler, “Fact Check: Biden on Bin Laden,” The Washington Post’s The Fact Checker, 10/11/12)

Rep. Pelosi, Sen. Schumer And Senate Democrats Disagree With Obama’s Definition Of Rich

Democrats Are Increasingly Abandoning Their Biggest Talking Point On Taxes: Families Earning More Than $250,000 A Year Are ‘Wealthy’ And Should Pay More.” “Democrats are increasingly abandoning their biggest talking point on taxes: Families earning more than $250,000 a year are ‘wealthy’ and should pay more. That figure — $250,000 for a household — has been at the tip of the tongue of so many Democratic candidates and lawmakers in the past few elections that it’s become ingrained in the party’s tax philosophy.” (Manu Raju, “Democrats: $250K Isn’t Rich,” Politico, 10/5/11)

• Democrats Have Become “Increasingly Divided On The Issue.” “But they’ve taken a beating from Republicans and have grown increasingly divided on the issue, since that income level would not only cause tax increases for some small businesses but also hit upper-middle-class suburban voters in swing states.” (Manu Raju, “Democrats: $250K Isn’t Rich,” Politico, 10/5/11)
• Senate Democrats Rejected Obama’s Tax On Incomes Over $250,000, Instead Proposing A Surtax For Incomes Over $1 Million. “And on Wednesday came clear evidence of this shift: Senate Democratic leaders scrapped Obama’s proposal to cover the cost of his jobs bill by raising taxes on income over $250,000 a year, the old Democratic standard for defining the wealthy. Instead, they are proposing a 5.6 percent surtax on annual income of more than $1 million.” (Lori Montgomery, “Democrats Shift The Definition Of ‘Rich’ In Battle Over Taxes,” The Washington Post, 10/5/11)

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Asked For The Bush Tax Cuts To Be Extended For Incomes Below $1 Million. “Is House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi abandoning President Barack Obama in his effort to raise taxes on households making more than $250,000? It sure sounded that way on Wednesday. In a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, Ms. Pelosi called on Republicans to pass a permanent extension of Bush-era tax levels for the middle class. The only group Ms. Pelosi singled out for a tax increase was people earning $1 million or more.” (John D. McKinnon, “Pelosi Pushes Tax Hike For Those Making $1 Million Or More,” The Wall Street Journal, 5/23/12)

• Rep. Pelosi: “Democrats Believe That Tax Cuts For Those Earning Over A Million Dollars A Year Should Expire And That We Should Use The Resulting Revenues To Pay Down The Deficit.” (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Letter To Speaker John Boehner, 5/23/12)

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Does Not Support Obama’s Tax On Incomes Over $250,000 Because That Is “Firmly In The Middle Class” And “Not Rich.” “But the president also wanted to raise taxes on families making more than $250,000 a year by limiting income-tax deductions they can take. That didn’t sit well with rank-and-file Democrats. Schumer said families that earn $250,000 or $300,000 a year aren’t rich enough to deserve extra taxes. He described them as ‘firmly in the middle class. They are not rich, and in large parts of the country, that kind of income does not get you a big home or lots of vacations or anything else that’s associated with wealth in America,’ he said.” (S.A. Miller, “Million-Dollar Idea,” New York Post, 10/6/11)

• Sen. Schumer Said That Raising Taxes On Families Over $250,000 “Fuzzies The Picture.” “Democrats have long argued that, in addition to cutting government spending, lawmakers should ask people at the top of the income spectrum to pay more in taxes to help tame the national debt. But setting the dividing line at $250,000, as Obama did during the 2008 campaign, ‘fuzzies the picture,’ said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), the leading architect of the surtax proposal.” (Lori Montgomery, “Democrats Shift The Definition Of ‘Rich’ In Battle Over Taxes,” The Washington Post, 10/5/12)
• Sen. Schumer Said Obama’s Tax Plan Would Unfairly Affect The New York Metropolitan Area. “Schumer said the $250,000 limit is unacceptable since it will hit the metropolitan area disproportionately because of the high cost of living here. ‘$250,000 makes you really rich in Mississippi but it doesn’t make you rich at all in New York and there ought to be some kind of scale based on the cost of living on how much you pay,’ Schumer said.” (“Sen. Schumer Expresses Reservations About President Obama’s Tax Plan,” CBS News, 9/20/11)

State Department Official Charlene Lamb Testified Before The House Oversight Committee That Budget Cuts Had Nothing To Do With Security Decisions In Benghazi. REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R-CA): “It has been suggested the budget cuts are responsible for lack of security in Benghazi, and I’d like to ask Ms. Lamb, you made this decision personally, was there any budget consideration and lack of budget that led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?” STATE DEPARTMENT DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS CHARLENE LAMB: “No, sir.”(U.S. House Of Representatives, Oversight And Government Reform Committee, Hearing, 10/10/12)

White House Refuses to Condemn Outrageous Ad And Biden Remarks

Carney Asked How Citing Romney Dog Is Part Of Lifting Up Dialogue

Question To Carney: Where’s The President’s Plan On Medicare?

White House Asked If Biden Still On Ticket

White House To Douglas Wilder: He Doesn’t Have A Point

Vice President Biden Claims The Obama Presidency Produced “Progress You Can See” But American Families Aren’t Feeling It

Vice-President Joe Biden: “We’ve made important progress, but there’s much more to do. But progress you can measure, just look at the chart. Progress that cannot be denied. Progress you can see. Progress people know are occurring.” (Vice President Joseph Biden, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Keene, NH, 5/22/12)

NOT BETTER OFF: Americans Are Taking Home Smaller Paychecks

According To Sentier Research “Real Median Household Income In March Was Down $4,300 Since Obama Took Office In January 2009 … “As a candidate in 2008, Obama blamed the reversals largely on the policies of Bush and other Republicans. He cited census figures showing that median income for working-age households — those headed by someone younger than 65 — had dropped more than $2,000 after inflation during the first seven years of Bush’s time in office. Yet real median household income in March was down $4,300 since Obama took office in January 2009 and down $2,900 since the June 2009 start of the economic recovery, according to an analysis of census data by Sentier Research, an economic- consulting firm in Annapolis, Maryland.” (Mike Dorning, “Obama Fails To Stem Middle-Class Slide He Blamed On Bush,” Bloomberg, 4/30/12)

• “In The Past Year, Most Americans Have Barely Seen a Bump In Earnings.” “Americans’ take-home pay - one of the critical economic benchmarks for presidents seeking reelection - declined in January and February. Research shows that the amount of money Americans earn after taxes and inflation is one of the most reliable predictors of a president’s November chances - more so than the unemployment rate. In the past year, most Americans have barely seen a bump in earnings, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.” (Josh Boak, “Shrinking Paychecks May Hurt Obama,” Politico, 4/3/12)

NOT BETTER OFF: Obama’s Middle Class Jobs Haven’t Shown Up

The Recovery Has Failed To Produce The Middle Class Jobs Obama Campaigned On. “Barack Obama campaigned four years ago assailing President George W. Bush for wage losses suffered by the middle class. More than three years into Obama’s own presidency, those declines have only deepened. The rebound from the worst recession since the 1930s has generated relatively few of the moderately skilled jobs that once supported the middle class, tightening the financial squeeze on many Americans, even those who are employed.” (Mike Dorning, “Obama Fails To Stem Middle-Class Slide He Blamed On Bush,” Bloomberg, 4/30/12)

• “A President Who Attacked Bush’s Policies For Favoring The Rich Has Overseen A Recovery In Which The Wealthiest 1 Percent Captured 93 Percent Of Per-Capita Real Income Gains In 2010.” “A president who attacked Bush’s policies for favoring the rich has overseen a recovery in which the wealthiest 1 percent captured 93 percent of per-capita real income gains in 2010, according to an analysis of tax data by Emmanuel Saez, an economics professor at the University of California at Berkeley. On average, families in the top 1 percent saw their inflation-adjusted incomes rise by $105,637 that year from 2009, according to Saez.” (Mike Dorning, “Obama Fails To Stem Middle-Class Slide He Blamed On Bush,” Bloomberg, 4/30/12)

NOT BETTER OFF: The Middle Class Is Shrinking

97.3 Million Americans Now Qualify As Low-Income And Another 49.1 Million Are In Poverty; 48 Percent Of The Population. “About 97.3 million Americans fall into a low-income category, commonly defined as those earning between 100 and 199 percent of the poverty level, based on a new supplemental measure by the Census Bureau that is designed to provide a fuller picture of poverty. Together with the 49.1 million who fall below the poverty line and are counted as poor, they number 146.4 million, or 48 percent of the U.S. population. That’s up by 4 million from 2009, the earliest numbers for the newly developed poverty measure.” (Hope Yen, “Census Shows 1 In 2 People Are Poor Or Low-Income,” The Associated Press, 12/15/11)

• The Middle Class Is Shrinking And Millions Of Families Are Hurting. “The latest census data depict a middle class that’s shrinking as unemployment stays high and the government’s safety net frays. The new numbers follow years of stagnating wages for the middle class that have hurt millions of workers and families.” (Hope Yen, “Census Shows 1 In 2 People Are Poor Or Low-Income,” The Associated Press, 12/15/11)
• “Many Of The ‘New Poor’ Are The Former Middle Class.” “‘Many of the ‘new poor’ are the former middle class,’ broadcaster Tavis Smiley, who requested the study, said in a statement.” (Mary Wisniewski, “Poverty To Keep Rising Due To Slow Recovery: Study,” Reuters, 1/11/12)

NOT BETTER OFF: Americans Are Struggling To Stay In Their Homes

“Meanwhile, 2.5 Million Homes Have Been Lost To Foreclosure Since 2009 …” “Meanwhile, 2.5 million homes have been lost to foreclosure since 2009, an additional 4 million are in the foreclosure process or seriously delinquent, and home prices are still falling in much of the U.S., shrinking household wealth for millions of Americans.” (Julie Schmit, “What Went Wrong With Foreclosure Aid Programs,” USA Today, 12/12/11)

Obama Has Helped Only 1.7 Million Avoid Foreclosure Of The 9 Million Homeowners He Promised. “President Obama pledged at the beginning of his term to boost the nation’s crippled housing market and help as many as 9 million homeowners avoid losing their homes to foreclosure. Nearly three years later, it hasn’t worked out. Obama has spent just $2.4 billion of the $50 billion he promised. The initiatives he announced have helped 1.7 million people.” (Zachary A. Goldfarb, “Obama’s Efforts To Aid Homeowners, Boost Housing Market Fall Far Short Of Goals,” The Washington Post , 10/23/11)

As Of March 2012, Over 5,591,000 Million Mortgages Are Either In Foreclosure Or 30 Or More Days Delinquent. (Press Release, “LPS ‘First Look’ Mortgage Report,” Lender Processing Services, 4/24/12)

• The Administration’s Foreclosure Prevention Programs “Have Had Little Impact On The Overall Housing Sector.” “The administration is already using taxpayer funds from its $700 billion bank bailout program to help prevent foreclosures and give struggling Americans a reprieve on their mortgage payments. But the programs have had little impact on the overall housing sector.” (“White House Says Needs To Deal With Housing Problems,” Reuters, 6/5/11)
• “To Date, Administration Programs Have Permanently Reduced The Debt Of Just One Tenth Of 1 Percent Of Underwater Borrowers.” (Zachary A. Goldfarb, “Obama’s Efforts To Aid Homeowners, Boost Housing Market Fall Far Short Of Goals,” The Washington Post, 10/23/11)

NOT BETTER OFF: Millions More Rely On Food Stamps To Put Dinner On The Table

Since President Obama Took Office, The Number Of Americans Receiving Food Stamps Has Increased From 31.9 Million To A Record 46.3 Million, A 45Percent Increase. (Department Of Agriculture, 5/1/12)

45 Million People Received Food Stamps In 2011, A 70 Percent Increase From 2007, And Will Continue Growing Until 2014. “The Congressional Budget Office said Thursday that 45 million people in 2011 received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, a 70% increase from 2007. It said the number of people receiving the benefits, commonly known as food stamps, would continue growing until 2014.” (Damian Paletta, “Food Stamp Rolls To Grow Through 2014,” The Wall Street Journal’s “Real Time Economics,” 4/19/12)

• “Some 11.2 Million More People Have Joined The Rolls From 2009 Through 2011, Including 4.4 Million Last Year During What Was Ostensibly An Economic Recovery.” “But Mr. Obama is now outstripping that dubious achievement, and in only three years rather than eight. The 2009 stimulus bill increased maximum benefits and authorized more money for states to administer the program. Some 11.2 million more people have joined the rolls from 2009 through 2011, including 4.4 million last year during what was ostensibly an economic recovery.” (Editorial, “Food Stamps Nation,” The Wall Street Journal, 1/19/12)