Clinton campaign says she left 9/11 event feeling overheated, later diagnosed as pneumonia and dehydration.( Staff Writers Republished with permission of the NY Times)
"She felt overheated so departed to go to her daughter's apartment, and is feeling much better," her campaign said
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, center, accompanied by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., center left, Rep. Joseph Crowley, D-N.Y., second from left, and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, center top, attends a ceremony at the Sept. 11 memorial, in New York.(Credit: AP)
Hillary Clinton unexpectedly left Sunday’s 9/11 anniversary ceremony in New York after feeling “overheated” and retreated to her daughter’s nearby apartment. She was later diagnosed with pneumonia and dehydration put on antibiotic and re hydrated. As she exited the apartment shortly before noon, Clinton said, “I’m feeling great.”
Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said in a statement that Clinton attended the morning ceremony for 90 minutes “to pay her respects and greet some of the families of the fallen.
“During the ceremony, she felt overheated so departed to go to her daughter’s apartment, and is feeling much better,” Merrill said.
Clinton walked out of her daughter’s apartment on her own and made a brief comments to the reporters waiting outside, saying “It’s a beautiful day in New York. and 'I feeling fine:” She waved and posed for a photo with a young girl before getting into her motorcade.
Donald Trump supporters have tried to make the case that she’s physically unfit for the White House, citing a concussion she sustained in December 2012 after fainting. Her doctor attributed the episode to a stomach virus and dehydration.
Trump attended the same memorial service at ground zero in lower Manhattan, along with New York’s Democratic senators, Chuck Schumer and Kirstin Gillibrand. The weather was'extremely warm and very humid in New York on Sunday, and there was no breeze at the crowded memorial plaza during the ceremony.
Clinton’s departure from the event was not witnessed by the reporters who travel with her campaign, which did not offer any information about why she left and her whereabouts for more than an hour but it later transpired that she went to her daughters newby apart ment as previously arranged where she was examine by her doctor.
Asked after the event about Clinton’s health incident, Trump said, “I don’t know anything about it.”
Neither Trump nor Clinton spoke at the event, in keeping with the solemn nature of the annual remembrance of the deadliest terror attack on American soil.
Clinton campaign says she left 9/11 event feeling overheated, later diagnosed as pneumonia and dehydration."She felt overheated so departed to go to her daughter's apartment, and is feeling much better," her campaign said
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, center, accompanied by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., center left, Rep. Joseph Crowley, D-N.Y., second from left, and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, center top, attends a ceremony at the Sept. 11 memorial, in New York.(Credit: AP)
Hillary Clinton unexpectedly left Sunday’s 9/11 anniversary ceremony in New York after feeling “overheated” and retreated to her daughter’s nearby apartment. She was later diagnosed with pneumonia and dehydration put on antibiotic and re hydrated. As she exited the apartment shortly before noon, Clinton said, “I’m feeling great.”
Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said in a statement that Clinton attended the morning ceremony for 90 minutes “to pay her respects and greet some of the families of the fallen.
“During the ceremony, she felt overheated so departed to go to her daughter’s apartment, and is feeling much better,” Merrill said.
Clinton walked out of her daughter’s apartment on her own and made a brief comments to the reporters waiting outside, saying “It’s a beautiful day in New York. and 'I feeling fine:” She waved and posed for a photo with a young girl before getting into her motorcade.
Donald Trump supporters have tried to make the case that she’s physically unfit for the White House, citing a concussion she sustained in December 2012 after fainting. Her doctor attributed the episode to a stomach virus and dehydration.
Trump attended the same memorial service at ground zero in lower Manhattan, along with New York’s Democratic senators, Chuck Schumer and Kirstin Gillibrand. The weather was'extremely warm and very humid in New York on Sunday, and there was no breeze at the crowded memorial plaza during the ceremony.
Clinton’s departure from the event was not witnessed by the reporters who travel with her campaign, which did not offer any information about why she left and her whereabouts for more than an hour but it later transpired that she went to her daughters newby apart ment as previously arranged where she was examine by her doctor.
Asked after the event about Clinton’s health incident, Trump said, “I don’t know anything about it.”
Neither Trump nor Clinton spoke at the event, in keeping with the solemn nature of the annual remembrance of the deadliest terror attack on American soil.
These 5 charts prove that the economy does better under Democratic presidents
Conservatives love to tout their economic bona fides. But the data reveal a far different story
As the 2016 election cycle heats up, the key question at stake for most Americans is economic growth and jobs. The debate, then, will center around what to do with the fragile recovery that overwhelmingly benefits the rich; the stagnation of middle class incomes; and unemployment — which, particularly for young people of color, remains dispiritingly high.
The right likes to argue that these conditions mark a clear failure of progressive policies, and in particular of the Obama administration. In the process, they reject policies that have, however imperfect, unequivocally strengthened the economy over the past seven years, such as the stimulus packages that came in response to the economic crisis.
Meanwhile, while conservatives often claim that their policies are good for the middle class, systematic studies by economists, political scientists and sociologists suggest these claims are overblown.
Economic Growth
At the heart of the question is economic growth: Which party is better at delivering it?
While economic growth alone is not sufficient for middle class and working class income growth, it is certainly necessary. The most systematic investigation of how parties affect economic growth was performed by economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson. Their results are unequivocal:
“The U.S. economy has performed better when the President of the United States is a Democrat rather than a Republican, almost regardless of how one measures performance. For many measures, including real GDP growth (on which we concentrate), the performance gap is both large and statistically significant.”
The chart below shows the gaps in various indicators between Republican and Democratic presidents. Democratic presidents average 4.35 percent GDP growth, compared with 2.54 percent under Republicans. Democrats also presided over a lower unemployment rate, higher stock market returns, higher corporate profits, higher compensation growth and higher productivity increases. These results remain even after various controls are applied. Though the authors want to chalk these results up to luck, I have outlined a few reasons to suspect other factors may be at work.
Inequality
The middle and working class have increasingly fallen behind as the richest Americans have seized a larger share of income and wealth. So while economic growth is certainly important, how it’s distributed is important as well.
In a 2004 paper and a further analysis earlier this year, esteemed political scientist Larry Bartels has demonstrated that income growth is faster and more equal under Democratic presidents. He cites differences in policies like the minimum wage driving this gap. As he notes, the real value of the minimum wage increased 16 cents a year under Democrats, but decreased by 6 cents a year under Republicans.
The chart below suggests this effect is driven by both market conditioning (see the gap in pre-tax income at the bottom) and redistribution (the post-tax gaps across the board).
Bartels’ analysis is strengthened by a recent study from political scientists Elizabeth Rigby and Megan Hatch, who identify three major policies that states can pursue to slow growing inequality: higher taxes on the wealthy, lower taxes on the poor, and labor market policies that benefit workers (minimum wages, lack of right to work). They find that if states had adopted more liberal policies, the increase in inequality (as measured by the Gini Coefficient) would have been 60 percent smaller — and the share going to the top 1 percent would have been cut in half.
At the state level, political scientists Anne Case and Timothy Besley find that Democrats boost spending and taxes, particularly in the areas of worker’s compensation and family assistance. Studies of the Medicaid expansion have overwhelmingly shown that Republican control of government is among the most important factors in predicting whether a state will expand Medicaid. Given thepositive economic and social benefits of the Medicaid expansion, this illustrates how conservative ideology can hamper good governance.
Unemployment
Possibly the most important question for Americans is jobs, and a study by political scientist Douglas Hibbs finds that “the unemployment rate was driven downward by Democratic and Labor administrations and upward by Republican and Conservative governments.” A recent study by political scientists Bryan Dettrey and Harvey D. Palmer finds that
“economic growth under Republican presidents has a stronger effect on stimulating stock market performance, while economic growth under Democratic presidents has a stronger effect on reducing unemployment.” (see chart)
More recently, political scientists Christopher Witko and Nathan Kelly discovered that when economic growth is low, liberal and conservative governments perform similarly with regard to unemployment. However, when growth increases, Democrats do a better job turning that growth into lower unemployment. Further, in another study, they find that state-level outcomes have played an increasingly important role in shifting the income distribution, meaning that these effects are even more meaningful.
Taxes
In a new book, “Welfare for the Wealthy,“ political scientist Christopher Faricy showsthat the rise of tax subsidies as an alternative to direct public spending — a shift that Republicans have been eager to push for — has had the effect of increasing inequality. (see chart)
In a recent study, Faricy finds that parties don’t use the tax code in the same way: Democrats favor tax credits, which help the poor, while Republicans favor tax deductions, which benefit the rich. The effect is powerful:
“A switch to a Democratic president produces an immediate increase of over $83 million in the level of tax credits.”
A study by economist Howard Chernick finds that at the state level, “Party control by Republicans is associated with a more regressive tax structure.” Economist Olivier Bargain and others find, “tax reforms passed by Republican governments had a positive effect on the income shares of taxpayers in the top quintile, whereas Democrats targeted the bottom 80 percent of the income distribution.”
Race
People of color make up an increasingly large share of the middle and working class. In the past, as historian Ira Katznelson notes, government policy favored white upward mobility and left people of color behind. And a recent study by political scientists Zoltan Hajnal and Jeremy Horowitz finds that there is even now a large partisan gap in who policy benefits. They find that under Democratic presidents black poverty declined by 38.6 percent, while it grew by 3 percent under Republicans. They find that
“Across 35 years of Republican presidencies, black unemployment went up a net of 13.7 percentage points. Across 22 years with Democrats, the black unemployment rate fell 7.9 points.”
The authors also examined Latinos, though the data were available for fewer years. They write,
“For Latinos, Democratic presidencies are associated with large annual gains in income, substantial declines in poverty, and real drops in unemployment. By contrast, under Republican administrations Latinos tend to lose income, become poorer, and experience greater unemployment.”
Further, they find deep gaps in income growth between Democrats and Republicans, with all racial groups seeing far faster gains under Democrats than Republicans, though Republicans still ensure whites gain the most (see chart).
Economic policy dramatically affects presidential races. A recent study had a bombshell finding: Federal reserve policy benefitted Republicans by reducing interest rates before elections when Republicans control the White House, but hiking them when Democrats do. The authors write,
“The behavior we have observed is consistent with the possibility that the Fed seeks to aid the election and reelection of Republican presidents.”
This dynamic was noted by Bartels in “Unequal Democracy,” where he found that economic growth was slower during Republican presidencies, but the gap closed in the last year before elections. Ironically, then, Democrats gain very little in terms of electoral victories because of their superior economic management.
In addition, as I’ve noted, factors like low turnout, the rise of the donor class andglobalization make it harder for progressives to shift the income distribution.
Two new studies of finance show that Democrats have shifted to the right on financial deregulation, dramatically increasing inequality. (One of the studies linkscampaign contributions to Dodd-Frank roll call votes.) A study by political scientists Alexander Hertel-Fernandez and Theda Skocpol finds that the rise and mobilization of the small-business lobby has divided Democrats on tax issues. Further, a study by a group of political scientists notes that the strong status quo bias, exacerbated by conservative obstructionist politics, makes it increasingly difficult to implement inequality-reducing policies.
The results of a broad range of studies are clear, then: Progressive policies are better for economic growth, better at creating a racially equitable society, better at strengthening the middle class and better at reducing unemployment.
However, progressives must still grapple with the constraints imposed by globalized markets, the declining strength of organized labor, the rise of the donor class andlow voter turnout. But the arguments that conservative policies are beneficial to the working class, or that there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties, are difficult to square with the research.
Trump takes heat over political donations
Donald Trump is defending himself against claims that he donated $25,000 to a group supporting the Florida attorney general to sway her office’s review of fraud allegations at Trump University.
Donald Trump, who has repeatedly denounced pay-to-play politics during his insurgent campaign, is now defending himself against claims that he donated $25,000 to a group supporting the Florida attorney general, Pam Bondi, to sway her office’s review of fraud allegations at Trump University.
Trump’s payment this year of a $2,500 penalty to the Internal Revenue Service over that 2013 campaign gift amounted to only the latest slap of his wrist in a decades-long record of shattering political donation limits and circumventing the rules governing contributions and lobbying.
In the 1980s, Trump was compelled to testify under oath before New York state officials after he directed tens of thousands of dollars to the president of the New York City Council through subsidiary companies to evade contribution limits. In the 1990s, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) fined Trump for exceeding the annual limit on campaign contributions by $47,050, the largest violation in a single year. And in 2000, the New York state lobbying commission imposed a $250,000 fine for Trump’s failing to disclose the full extent of his lobbying of state legislators.
For the most part, Trump has seemed unrepentant. Testifying in 1988 about a $50,000 bank loan he had first guaranteed, and then repaid, on behalf of Andrew Stein’s successful campaign for New York City Council president, Trump made no bones about the move.
“I was under the impression that I was getting my money back,” he told the New York State Commission on Government Integrity.
In the Florida case, Trump is accused of using a large and timely political donation in 2013 to ward off a potentially thorny investigation by Bondi’s office: Days before the donation was made, The Orlando Sentinel reported that the New York state attorney general’s office had sued Trump University and noted that Bondi’s office was weighing whether to join in that litigation.
A political aide to Bondi told The Associated Press earlier this year that the attorney general had solicited the donation in a conversation with Trump weeks before the Sentinel’s article. But Trump made the donation from his charitable foundation, in violation of tax regulations, and paid the penalty, as first reported by The Washington Post last week.
Trump and Bondi, who is supporting his campaign, have denied any connection between his donation and her office’s decision not to proceed with an investigation. Asked about the subject Monday, he called Bondi “beyond reproach” and said he “never spoke to her about that at all.”
A spokesman for the Florida attorney general’s office, Gerald Whitney Ray, said the inquiry into Trump University never came across Bondi’s desk: Lower-level staff members made the decision not to proceed with an investigation on their own. Ray also said the office never gave any thought to joining in the New York attorney general’s case.
But Democrats and liberal watchdogs seized the opportunity to accuse Trump of practicing exactly the sort of corrupt politics that he rails against on the campaign trail.
Campaigning in Tampa, Fla., on Tuesday, Hillary Clinton demanded details of the conversation in which Bondi solicited Trump’s donation.
“The American people deserve to know what was said, because clearly the attorney general did not proceed with the investigation,” she told reporters.
Though Trump denies it in the case of Bondi, he has been brazen in asserting that he has used political donations to buy influence — and routinely asks voters to trust that, because he possesses that insider’s knowledge, he can reform a system he calls “rigged.”
During a Republican debate last summer, Trump responded about his ability to curry favor with public officials when he was confronted with one of his own statements: “When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.”
“You’d better believe it,” Trump responded. He added: “When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them, they are there for me.”
Indeed, Trump’s history of political giving stretches back decades — and has repeatedly drawn regulatory scrutiny.
When a New York state commission investigated contributions to state and local officials in the 1980s, it subpoenaed Trump, who had contributed $150,000 to candidates in 1985. Under oath, he said he had circumvented the state’s $50,000 individual and $5,000 corporate contribution limits by disbursing his contributions to Stein, the city councilman, through 18 subsidiary companies.
“My attorneys basically said that this was a proper way of doing it,” Trump testified.
In an interview, Stein said he did not recall what Trump had sought in return for his contributions, or for a $50,000 campaign loan that Trump first guaranteed and then repaid. He denied ever agreeing to do Trump any favors.
Years later, Trump came under fire from the FEC for violating a $25,000 annual limit on contributions in the late 1980s. Trump resisted paying a fine, insisting that he had been unaware of the federal limit and that, once informed, he sought refunds.
Only when the commission threatened to take him to court did Trump agree to a $15,000 civil penalty, records show.
It was with similar reluctance that, in 2000, Trump apologized for failing to disclose to New York state officials that he had spent $150,000 to finance ads opposing a proposed casino in the Catskills, which he saw as a threat to his Atlantic City properties. The ads were created and placed by a political consultant, Roger Stone, and appeared under the name of a front group, the Institute for Law and Society.
A settlement led to what, at the time, was the largest penalty ever imposed by the state lobbying commission: Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts paid $50,000, and Stone and the front group each paid $100,000, without admitting wrongdoing. In a statement, all three said they “apologize if anyone was misled.”
In recent years, Trump has made tens of thousands of dollars in contributions to at least four state attorneys general — Bondi of Florida and Greg Abbott of Texas, both Republicans, and Democrats Eric Schneiderman of New York and Kamala Harris of California — whose offices have looked into complaints about Trump University.
Abbott, whose office considered a lawsuit against Trump University before the company left Texas in 2010, is now supporting Trump — who donated $35,000 to Abbott’s successful 2014 gubernatorial campaign.
Harris’ office said it, too, was investigating the company, and an aide said she donated the $6,000 from Trump to charity.
Schneiderman’s fraud lawsuit is still pending. But Trump, whose donation of $12,500 to Schneiderman preceded his election, filed a state ethics complaint alleging that Schneiderman continued to seek donations, calling the fraud case a “shakedown.”
The state ethics panel declined last year to pursue Trump’s complaint.
Trump takes heat over political donations
Donald Trump is defending himself against claims that he donated $25,000 to a group supporting the Florida attorney general to sway her office’s review of fraud allegations at Trump University.
Donald Trump, who has repeatedly denounced pay-to-play politics during his insurgent campaign, is now defending himself against claims that he donated $25,000 to a group supporting the Florida attorney general, Pam Bondi, to sway her office’s review of fraud allegations at Trump University.
Trump’s payment this year of a $2,500 penalty to the Internal Revenue Service over that 2013 campaign gift amounted to only the latest slap of his wrist in a decades-long record of shattering political donation limits and circumventing the rules governing contributions and lobbying.
In the 1980s, Trump was compelled to testify under oath before New York state officials after he directed tens of thousands of dollars to the president of the New York City Council through subsidiary companies to evade contribution limits. In the 1990s, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) fined Trump for exceeding the annual limit on campaign contributions by $47,050, the largest violation in a single year. And in 2000, the New York state lobbying commission imposed a $250,000 fine for Trump’s failing to disclose the full extent of his lobbying of state legislators.
For the most part, Trump has seemed unrepentant. Testifying in 1988 about a $50,000 bank loan he had first guaranteed, and then repaid, on behalf of Andrew Stein’s successful campaign for New York City Council president, Trump made no bones about the move.
“I was under the impression that I was getting my money back,” he told the New York State Commission on Government Integrity.
In the Florida case, Trump is accused of using a large and timely political donation in 2013 to ward off a potentially thorny investigation by Bondi’s office: Days before the donation was made, The Orlando Sentinel reported that the New York state attorney general’s office had sued Trump University and noted that Bondi’s office was weighing whether to join in that litigation.
A political aide to Bondi told The Associated Press earlier this year that the attorney general had solicited the donation in a conversation with Trump weeks before the Sentinel’s article. But Trump made the donation from his charitable foundation, in violation of tax regulations, and paid the penalty, as first reported by The Washington Post last week.
Trump and Bondi, who is supporting his campaign, have denied any connection between his donation and her office’s decision not to proceed with an investigation. Asked about the subject Monday, he called Bondi “beyond reproach” and said he “never spoke to her about that at all.”
A spokesman for the Florida attorney general’s office, Gerald Whitney Ray, said the inquiry into Trump University never came across Bondi’s desk: Lower-level staff members made the decision not to proceed with an investigation on their own. Ray also said the office never gave any thought to joining in the New York attorney general’s case.
But Democrats and liberal watchdogs seized the opportunity to accuse Trump of practicing exactly the sort of corrupt politics that he rails against on the campaign trail.
Campaigning in Tampa, Fla., on Tuesday, Hillary Clinton demanded details of the conversation in which Bondi solicited Trump’s donation.
“The American people deserve to know what was said, because clearly the attorney general did not proceed with the investigation,” she told reporters.
Though Trump denies it in the case of Bondi, he has been brazen in asserting that he has used political donations to buy influence — and routinely asks voters to trust that, because he possesses that insider’s knowledge, he can reform a system he calls “rigged.”
During a Republican debate last summer, Trump responded about his ability to curry favor with public officials when he was confronted with one of his own statements: “When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.”
“You’d better believe it,” Trump responded. He added: “When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them, they are there for me.”
Indeed, Trump’s history of political giving stretches back decades — and has repeatedly drawn regulatory scrutiny.
When a New York state commission investigated contributions to state and local officials in the 1980s, it subpoenaed Trump, who had contributed $150,000 to candidates in 1985. Under oath, he said he had circumvented the state’s $50,000 individual and $5,000 corporate contribution limits by disbursing his contributions to Stein, the city councilman, through 18 subsidiary companies.
“My attorneys basically said that this was a proper way of doing it,” Trump testified.
In an interview, Stein said he did not recall what Trump had sought in return for his contributions, or for a $50,000 campaign loan that Trump first guaranteed and then repaid. He denied ever agreeing to do Trump any favors.
Years later, Trump came under fire from the FEC for violating a $25,000 annual limit on contributions in the late 1980s. Trump resisted paying a fine, insisting that he had been unaware of the federal limit and that, once informed, he sought refunds.
Only when the commission threatened to take him to court did Trump agree to a $15,000 civil penalty, records show.
It was with similar reluctance that, in 2000, Trump apologized for failing to disclose to New York state officials that he had spent $150,000 to finance ads opposing a proposed casino in the Catskills, which he saw as a threat to his Atlantic City properties. The ads were created and placed by a political consultant, Roger Stone, and appeared under the name of a front group, the Institute for Law and Society.
A settlement led to what, at the time, was the largest penalty ever imposed by the state lobbying commission: Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts paid $50,000, and Stone and the front group each paid $100,000, without admitting wrongdoing. In a statement, all three said they “apologize if anyone was misled.”
In recent years, Trump has made tens of thousands of dollars in contributions to at least four state attorneys general — Bondi of Florida and Greg Abbott of Texas, both Republicans, and Democrats Eric Schneiderman of New York and Kamala Harris of California — whose offices have looked into complaints about Trump University.
Abbott, whose office considered a lawsuit against Trump University before the company left Texas in 2010, is now supporting Trump — who donated $35,000 to Abbott’s successful 2014 gubernatorial campaign.
Harris’ office said it, too, was investigating the company, and an aide said she donated the $6,000 from Trump to charity.
Schneiderman’s fraud lawsuit is still pending. But Trump, whose donation of $12,500 to Schneiderman preceded his election, filed a state ethics complaint alleging that Schneiderman continued to seek donations, calling the fraud case a “shakedown.”
The state ethics panel declined last year to pursue Trump’s complaint.
