Bernie Sanders Fact Checks

Claim: "The top 1% owns more wealth than the bottom 92% of Americans."

Sanders has frequently cited this statistic in speeches about wealth inequality, including during his presidential campaigns and Senate floor speeches.

Original Quote and Context:

"Today, the top 1% own more wealth than the bottom 92% of our population... Let me repeat that because it is almost unbelievable. The top 1% now owns more wealth than the bottom 92%." — Bernie Sanders, Senate floor speech, July 2021

Analysis:

According to the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) and research by economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman at the University of California, Berkeley, wealth concentration at the top has indeed reached these levels in recent years.

Their research shows that the wealthiest 1% of American households owned approximately 38.5% of America's wealth in 2021, while the bottom 90% owned about 22.9%. When you extend this analysis to the bottom 92%, the disparity becomes even more pronounced.

The Economic Policy Institute's research similarly found extreme wealth concentration, with their 2022 analysis showing that the wealthiest 1% of American households held more wealth than the bottom 90% combined.

It's worth noting that different methodologies for measuring wealth can yield slightly different results. For example, some analyses include only financial assets, while others include housing and other tangible assets.

Mostly True: The exact percentages may vary based on methodology and timing, but the general claim about extreme wealth concentration is well-supported by multiple independent economic analyses.

Claim: "The three wealthiest people in America own more wealth than the bottom half of American society."

Sanders has made this claim multiple times when discussing wealth inequality in America.

Original Quote and Context:

"In America today, the three wealthiest people own more wealth than the bottom half of our society — 160 million Americans." — Bernie Sanders, campaign speech, February 2020

Analysis:

This claim is based on a 2017 report by the Institute for Policy Studies that compared the Forbes list of the wealthiest Americans with Federal Reserve data on household wealth. At that time, the three wealthiest Americans—Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett—collectively held about $248.5 billion, while the bottom 50% of Americans held about $245 billion in wealth.

The accuracy of this claim fluctuates over time due to changes in stock market valuations (which affect billionaire wealth) and the overall economic situation of the bottom 50% of Americans. Since the original study, there have been both significant increases in billionaire wealth during parts of the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent decreases during market corrections.

More recent data from 2022-2023 suggests that while the concentration of wealth remains extreme, the specific claim about the three wealthiest Americans versus the bottom 50% may not hold true at all points in time due to these fluctuations.

Needs Context: The claim was accurate when originally made based on 2017 data, but wealth fluctuations mean it may not be consistently true at all points in time. The broader point about extreme wealth concentration, however, remains valid.

Claim: "The United States is the only major country that doesn't guarantee healthcare to all people."

Sanders has made this claim repeatedly when advocating for Medicare for All.

Original Quote and Context:

"Today, we are the only major country on Earth not to guarantee healthcare to all people as a right. Meanwhile, we continue to spend far more per capita on healthcare than any other nation." — Bernie Sanders, Medicare for All speech, April 2019

Analysis:

Among the 38 member countries of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), which represent the world's developed economies, the United States is indeed the only nation without universal healthcare coverage. Countries like Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Australia, Japan, and South Korea all provide universal healthcare through various systems.

However, the specifics of healthcare systems vary widely across countries:

• Some use single-payer systems (like Canada)
• Others use national health services (like the UK)
• Still others use regulated private insurance markets (like Germany's multi-payer system)
• Many use hybrid approaches combining elements of public and private coverage

Additionally, the definition of "major country" affects the scope of the comparison. If looking beyond the OECD to include large developing economies like India, Brazil, or Indonesia, there are other major countries that do not have fully universal healthcare systems, though many are working toward that goal.

Needs Context: The claim is broadly accurate when comparing the U.S. to other wealthy democratic nations in the OECD, but it simplifies the diversity of healthcare systems worldwide and depends on how "major country" is defined.

Claim: "We spend twice as much per capita on healthcare as any other nation."

Sanders has made this claim when discussing healthcare costs and efficiency.

Original Quote and Context:

"Right now, we spend twice as much per capita on healthcare as do the people of any other country. That's just not what we should be doing." — Bernie Sanders, CNN Town Hall, February 2020

Analysis:

According to the most recent OECD data (2022), the United States spends approximately $12,318 per capita on healthcare annually. This is significantly more than other developed nations—approximately 2.5 times the OECD average of about $5,829.

However, it's not exactly twice as much as "any other nation." Several countries have per capita healthcare spending that is more than half of U.S. spending:

• Switzerland: approximately $8,045 per capita
• Norway: approximately $7,217 per capita
• Germany: approximately $7,383 per capita

The U.S. does spend roughly twice as much as the average OECD country and more than twice as much as many individual nations including:

• Canada: approximately $5,905 per capita
• France: approximately $5,564 per capita
• United Kingdom: approximately $5,387 per capita
• Japan: approximately $5,013 per capita

Mixed: The U.S. does spend far more than other nations on healthcare, but the "twice as much as any other nation" claim is an overstatement. More accurate would be "roughly twice the OECD average and more than many major countries."

Claim: "We have more people in jail than any other country on Earth."

Sanders has referenced U.S. incarceration rates when advocating for criminal justice reform.

Original Quote and Context:

"We have more people in jail than any other country on Earth, including China, which is four times our size." — Bernie Sanders, Criminal Justice Forum, October 2019

Analysis:

According to the World Prison Brief, compiled by the Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research at Birkbeck, University of London, the United States does have the highest total number of incarcerated people globally, with over 2 million people in prisons and jails.

This exceeds the officially reported prison population of China (approximately 1.7 million), despite China having a total population more than four times larger than the United States. However, it's important to note that China's officially reported figures may not include all forms of detention, such as those in pre-trial detention or in political "re-education" camps.

In terms of incarceration rate per 100,000 population, the U.S. ranks near the top globally at approximately 629 per 100,000 residents. A few smaller countries like El Salvador and Turkmenistan have reported higher rates in some years, but data reliability varies significantly by country.

The U.S. incarceration rate is significantly higher than other liberal democracies:

• United Kingdom: 131 per 100,000
• Canada: 104 per 100,000
• France: 93 per 100,000
• Germany: 69 per 100,000
• Japan: 38 per 100,000

Mostly True: The United States unquestionably has the largest total prison population globally. In terms of incarceration rate per capita, it consistently ranks among the highest in the world, though a few smaller nations may have higher rates depending on the data source and year.

Claim: "Scientists tell us that we have 12 years to significantly cut carbon emissions or else there will be irreparable damage to the United States and countries all over the world."

Sanders has cited this timeframe when discussing climate change urgency.

Original Quote and Context:

"The scientists tell us that we have 12 years, not a lot of time, in order to significantly cut carbon emissions... If we don't take action, there will be irreparable damage." — Bernie Sanders, Climate Crisis Summit, December 2019

Analysis:

Sanders' claim refers to the 2018 Special Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which stated that global warming must be limited to 1.5°C to avoid the worst climate impacts. The report noted that to achieve this goal, global net human-caused CO2 emissions would need to fall by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 (12 years from the report's publication in 2018) and reach "net zero" by 2050.

However, the IPCC didn't specifically say that 2030 is a hard deadline after which all efforts would be futile. Rather, it presented 2030 as a key milestone for keeping warming to 1.5°C. Climate scientists emphasize that climate change is not a binary "cliff edge" where everything is fine before 2030 and catastrophic after. Instead, it's a continuum where every fraction of a degree of warming increases risks and impacts.

Many climate scientists have clarified that while urgent action is indeed necessary, the "12 years" timeframe should not be interpreted as an apocalyptic deadline but rather as an important milestone for limiting warming to safer levels.

Needs Context: Sanders accurately cites the IPCC report's timeline for significant emissions reductions by 2030, but the characterization somewhat oversimplifies the report's nuanced findings about climate tipping points and progressive impacts.

Claim: "The fossil fuel industry receives $650 billion in subsidies from the federal government."

Sanders has cited this figure when discussing his climate plan.

Original Quote and Context:

"Right now, the fossil fuel industry receives $650 billion in federal subsidies. We've got to end that." — Bernie Sanders, Green New Deal town hall, August 2019

Analysis:

The $650 billion figure appears to be derived from a global estimate from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that includes both direct subsidies and "implicit subsidies" in the form of unpriced environmental and health externalities. These implicit subsidies account for things like the social cost of carbon emissions and air pollution that aren't reflected in market prices.

When focusing specifically on direct U.S. federal subsidies to the fossil fuel industry—such as tax breaks, incentives, and direct spending—the figures are much lower:

• Environmental and Energy Study Institute: $20 billion annually
• Oil Change International: $15-20 billion annually
• U.S. Treasury Department estimates: $4-6 billion annually (direct tax subsidies only)

The discrepancy comes from different definitions of "subsidy." The narrowest definition includes only direct government payments and tax breaks. Broader definitions include externalized costs (environmental and health impacts), military costs to secure oil supplies, and other indirect benefits.

Misleading: The $650 billion figure is significantly higher than conventional estimates of direct U.S. federal subsidies to fossil fuel companies. This figure appears to include global subsidies and/or broad definitions of subsidies that include externalized costs. More accurate estimates of direct U.S. federal subsidies range from $4-20 billion annually.