Fact Checking the Candidates: Rob Curnock and Chuck Wilson

Rob Curnock
During an interview with KBTX Channel 3, Rob Curnock made the following claims:

Claim: Edwards voted to pull troops out of Iraq “in defeat.”

Check: The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, included a timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and was passed by Congress but vetoed by the President George W. Bush. The bill included a provision requiring troop redeployment to begin within 120 days of enactment of the legislation and be completed by April 1, 2008. Considering the inability of those who continued to support the war in Iraq to define “victory,” the claim that Congressman Edwards voted to pull troops out of Iraq “in defeat” is a purely political claim.

Claim: Edwards voted to keep partial birth abortion legal.

Check: Congressman Edwards voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which prohibits the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion, a procedure that is usually performed during the fifth month of gestation or later. This law was upheld by the United States Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Carhart, when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in the dissenting opinion that "the absence of a health exception burdens all women for whom it is relevant—women who, in the judgment of their doctors, require an intact D&E because other procedures would place their health at risk." That Edwards did vote to keep partial birth abortion legal is factual.

Claim: Edwards won reelection “barley by 4 ½ percent.”

Check: Congressman Edwards defeated Curnock in the 2008 general election with 52.98% of the vote, and Curnock received 45.50% of the vote. In general the spread in which candidates are defeated is calculated by the determining the spread of the percentage, which in this case would be 7.48%. What Curnock is referring to is the 4.5% below 50% of the vote that he received. It should also be noted that Edwards received 19,011 more votes than Curnock who, in order to win, would have had to received 11,431 more votes than he received. The claim that Edwards won reelection by 4 ½ percent depends on the math, but the claim that Edwards barely won reelection is another purely political claim.

Claim: Edwards outspent Curnock by $2 million in the 2008 general election.

Check: During the 2008 election campaign Congressman Edwards spent $2,114,653, while Curnock spent $109,335. However, it should also be noted that Edwards raised $2,267,333 compared to $110,597 raised by Curnock. The numbers for the 2010 election campaign are similar; Edwards has raised $1,405,252, while Curnock has raised $138,763. During this election cycle Edwards may be able to outspent Curnock 10 to 1 as opposed to 20 to 1. Edwards did outspent Curnock by $2 million during the 2008 general election, but Edwards also raise more money than Curnock.

Claim: “Most central Texans are absolutely opposed” to health care reform and cape and trade.

Check: According to polling data, majority of Americans survey are opposed to the current health care reform legislation, however, the majority of Americans are support specific health care reform proposals and support health care reform in general. According to polling data, cap and trade and environmental policies are supported by the majority of Americans surveyed in recent polls. However, there is no specific polling data that suggest that most Texans or most central Texans are “absolutely opposed” to either health care reform or cape and trade. This type of claim is simply a political assertion and not based in any empirical evidence.

Claim: Edwards held no position on health care legislation until “until literally the last second.”

Check: Congressman Edwards did not announce his specific intention to vote against HR 3200 until the day that the vote was scheduled. However, Edwards did make clear the provisions that if included in the final bill that he would not support. On several occasions Edwards stated that he would not vote for any bill that he believed “would result in a Canadian–style, socialized health care system.” In an August 19, 2009 editorial in the Bryan-College Station Eagle, Edwards stated that he “strongly oppose any one-size-fits-all single-payer plan that socializes our health care system or prevents people from keeping the quality private health care plan of their choice.” While it might be fair to say that Edwards did not take a stand on the specific health care legislation until “the last second,” Edwards has made clear what his positions are on specific health care proposals throughout the debate.

Chuck Wilson
During an interview with KBTX Channel 3, Chuck Wilson made the following claims:

Claim: “There is no stimulus in that bill.” (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009)

Check: According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) is keeping large numbers of Americans out of poverty in states across the country. In addition to boosting economic activity and preserving or creating jobs, the recovery act is softening the recession’s impact on poverty by directly lifting family incomes. The American Enterprise Institute concluded in a recently published report that the economic stimulus worked and prevented the worsening of the recession, finding that the stimulus added about 4 percentage points to U.S. growth and that the economy would have contracted at about a 1 percent annual rate during the second half of 2009 without the stimulus. The claim that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 did not stimulate the economy is factually inaccurate.

Claim: Local Banks “weren’t part of the problem” that caused economic recession.

Check: While there are several causes to the economic crisis that resulted on the current economic recession, perhaps one of the most visible has been that of failed banks. However, the economic crisis did not just affect large banks. According to the Wall Street Journal, 181 banks have failed since January 2008, and many of them where local banks. To say that local banks were not the central cause of the economic recession might be fair, but to say that local banks were not part of the problem over looks much of the evidence.

Claim: Tax cuts will grow the economy.

Check: The tax cuts during President George W. Bush’s Administration have had a direct cost of $860 billion and a total effect on the deficit of $929 billion. According to the Economic Policy Institute, during the President George W. Bush the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased an average annual rate of 2.8%, well below the average 3.4% GDP growth rate. Any economic growth experienced during the Bush Administration was experienced exclusively by the upper class, median household income dropped, adjusted for inflation, by $1,175 between 2000 and 2007. The idea that simply cutting tax will grow the economy is unrealistic.

Claim: 70% of jobs are created by small businesses.

Check: The percentage of jobs created by small businesses depends on the definition of small businesses, or how many people that each business employees. According to the Small Business Administration, small businesses employ just over half of U.S. workers. Of 119.9 million nonfarm private sector workers in 2006, small firms with fewer than 500 workers employed 60.2. Firms with fewer than 500 employees accounted for 64 percent (or 14.5 million) of the 22.5 million net new jobs (gains minus losses) between 1993 and the third quarter of 2008. Even using the official definition of 500 employees, the claim that 70% of jobs are created by small business is an overestimate.