Rubio was correct that the idea of sequestration started in the White House. | POLITICO Screengrab Fact-checking Rubio's response

Sen. Marco Rubio got a turn on the national stage opposite President Barack Obama Tuesday night, but some of the facts the likely 2016 presidential contender marshaled to make his case played loose with the truth.

Here’s POLITICO’s look at some of the Florida senator’s questionable claims during his prime-time debut.


( PHOTOS: Scenes from Obama State of the Union 2013)

Sequester blame game

Rubio: “And tonight, he even criticized us for refusing to raise taxes to delay military cuts — cuts that were his idea in the first place.”

Actually, Obama didn’t directly criticize Republicans for not agreeing to raise taxes to offset the across-the-board spending cuts. He slammed them for trying to shift the budget hit to domestic programs, something the Pentagon and the defense industry have taken pains to oppose.

Indeed, both Democrats and Republicans signed off on sequestration under the impression neither side would let it happen. With just weeks to go before it hits, both are blaming the other side without offering a substantive way out of the impasse.

(Also on POLITICO: Full text of Rubio’s GOP rebuttal)

The senator did get one thing right: The idea of sequestration started in the White House.

Climate change attacks

Rubio: “When we point out that no matter how many job-killing laws we pass, our government can’t control the weather — he accuses us of wanting dirty water and dirty air.”

It’s hard to say which “job-killing” environmental or energy laws the Florida Republican is talking about.

Though Obama nudged Congress on cap and trade again, the president essentially gave up on this idea back in 2010 when it died in the Senate.

And when the bill died, Obama didn’t exactly go on offense slamming Republicans the way Rubio describes it.

( PHOTOS: Marco Rubio’s career)

Medicare broke?

Rubio: “But anyone who is in favor of leaving Medicare exactly the way it is right now, is in favor of bankrupting it.”

By “anyone” Rubio clearly means Democrats. But through Obamacare, Democrats have already made changes to Medicare that added several years of solvency to the hospital trust fund. The health care law also initiated many changes to how Medicare delivers care, which are designed to slow spending growth. The president has said he’s open to other changes in the health care program for the elderly, as long as it’s part of a balanced approach of increased revenue and spending cuts.

In addition, Medicare isn’t going “bankrupt.” The hospital trust fund — one part of the senior health care program, although a crucial part — would start taking in less money than it pays out in a few years if Congress doesn’t do something about it — but Congress has always done something about it. Nevertheless, Medicare does cost a lot of money, the baby boomers are retiring and their future health bills are widely seen as a huge drag on the economy for years to come.

Obamacare killing jobs?

“Obamacare was supposed to help middle-class Americans afford health insurance. But now, some people are losing the health insurance they were happy with. And because Obamacare created expensive requirements for companies with more than 50 employees, now many of these businesses aren’t hiring. Not only that; they’re being forced to lay people off and switch from full-time employees to part-time workers.”

There’s nothing in the law that is forcing people to lose insurance they’re happy with — in fact, according to census data, both the number of uninsured people and the uninsurance rate declined in 2011 (the most recent census figures available), partly because more people under 26 have gotten covered. Some people lose or change insurance every year — and that was true long before Obamacare became law.

It is true that some employers are at least contemplating cutting their full-time workforce to keep under the 50-worker threshold. How widespread this will be at the end of the day — or whether these people will be able to get subsidized coverage on exchanges or through expanded Medicaid — isn’t yet certain. But Rubio hit on a valid concern.