Your Final Debate Briefing Book: The Policies We dug into the candidates’ proposals, talked to the experts and ran the numbers. Here’s what you need to know about Trump’s and Clinton’s policy positions, updated and expanded for the final presidential debate.

UPDATED: Oct. 18, 2016

Taxes

Taxes are one of the few policy areas where both candidates have released detailed policy proposals. (Trump, in fact, has had several.) It’s also an area where they have some of their sharpest differences. Clinton wants to raise taxes on the rich to pay for a variety of new spending priorities, such as paid family leave. Trump wants to cut taxes on individuals and businesses, which he says would boost economic growth. — Ben Casselman

When Trump says …

He “understand[s] the tax code better than anybody that’s ever run for president.”

It’s not clear whether this is even true — Trump doesn’t prepare his own tax returns, after all. But even assuming he does know the tax system, he isn’t proposing to change many of the policies that let rich people (including him) avoid taxes. He wants to close the so-called “carried-interest loophole,” which helps certain high earners (mostly managers of private-equity firms) reduce their tax burdens. But that loophole affects only a small subset of wealthy Americans. Other Trump proposals, such as eliminating the estate tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax, would help the rich. And his campaign has refused to clarify whether his proposal to reduce the corporate tax rate to 15 percent would apply to so-called “pass-through businesses” — a potentially enormous loophole that would benefit Trump personally.

When Clinton says …

Her plan would raise taxes on the rich.

According to a new analysis from the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, Clinton’s plan would raise taxes by $1.4 trillion over a decade, with virtually all of that coming from the top 1 percent of earners. Low- and middle-income households would see a very small tax cut. (Her plan would also add various new deductions and credits, making the tax code as a whole more complex.) The TPC’s analysis finds that Trump’s plan, by contrast, would cut taxes by $6.2 trillion over a decade, with the rich benefiting the most. The number of Americans who pay no tax would also rise. (An analysis from the conservative Tax Foundation reaches broadly similar conclusions.) But some middle-class families could pay more in taxes under Trump’s plan, according to one analysis.

When Trump says …

His plan would boost economic growth.

Hard to say! All else equal, lower taxes probably do increase growth, though not by nearly as much as advocates often claim. But Trump’s plan would probably increase the deficit by trillions, which (again, all else equal) would be bad for growth. In general, economists don’t agree about the effect of tax policies. But pretty much no serious economist believes that Trump’s plan would have the effect his campaign says it would.

Further reading

Don’t Believe Trump’s Tax Math — Or Anyone Else’s

No One Can Agree How Much The Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans Will Cost

Donald Trump Wants To Eliminate Taxes For 31 Million Americans

Crime and criminal justice

The murder rate rose last year, particularly in large cities, after decades of declines, and is continuing to rise in 2016. But other types of crime, including violent crime, haven’t seen the same increase and remain near multidecade lows. High-profile incidents such as the June attack on an Orlando nightclub command a large share of media attention, but mass shootings represent a small fraction of murders. (An increasing share of them are terrorist attacks, however.) Meanwhile, police officers continue to kill about 1,000 people each year despite calls from activists to reduce the number, and black Americans are killed at the highest rates. Targeted attacks on the police in Dallas, Baton Rouge and Palm Springs killed tenofficers, though overall the job of policing continues to get safer. And proposed criminal-justice reforms stalled in Congress. — Carl Bialik

When Trump says …

A national right to carry guns will help law-abiding gun owners defend themselves.

There’s no evidence concealed-carry laws increase or decrease crime, according to a study last year from Texas A&M researchers based on county-level permits and arrest data, though other studies — many of them based on broader state-level data — have found mixed results. Instead, the causation may run in the opposite direction: A study this year from Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis found that higher rates of violent crime predict more people getting concealed-carry permits.

When Clinton says …

“Common-sense” gun control could reduce gun deaths.

Evidence from Missouri and Connecticut suggests that universal background checks could help reduce both homicide and suicide using guns. There is less evidence to support other restrictions on gun ownership that Clinton supports, such as bans on the sale of assault weapons.

When Trump says …

Project Exile is a “tremendous” program to reduce gun violence.

Project Exile, which is backed by both Trump and the National Rifle Association, imposed harsh federal sentences on people convicted of crimes involving guns. Clinton’s running mate, Tim Kaine, also supported the program as mayor of Richmond, Virginia, where the strategy was first developed. But despite such bipartisan backing, the program’s effectiveness is unproven.

When Clinton says …

Equipping every police department with body cameras will make policing safer.

Studies show mixed results. Some departments even had more violent interactions with the public after their officers started wearing body cameras. Advocates and departments like the idea of creating a record of all interactions, both for deterrence and for litigating disputes, but in practice the cameras often aren’t recording during the most heated confrontations.

When either candidate says …

Preventing people with mentalillness from owning guns will prevent crime.

It might prevent some, but fewer than 5 percent of gun homicides are committed by people with mental-illness diagnoses. People suffering from mental illness are more likely to be victims of gun violence, including suicide.

Further reading:

From Wallace To Trump, The Evolution of “Law And Order”

Guns Like The AR-15 Were Never Fully Banned

Gun Deaths in America

Health care

When Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law in 2010, it was the biggest overhaul of the health care system since Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. Six years and multiple Supreme Court cases later, the law is as divisive as ever. In recent months, Obamacare has endured a new spate of negative headlines as several big insurers said they were pulling out of the law’s insurance marketplaces in some states. Nonetheless, there has been considerably less talk about health care this election season, though both candidates have included the high cost of premiums and pharmaceuticals, as well as growing deductibles, in their stump speeches. — Anna Maria Barry-Jester

When Trump says …

He will ask Congress to repeal Obamacare on his first day in office.

It’s unclear how realistic it would be for Trump to fully repeal the law (among other things, Congress has the power to repeal laws, not the President). Though the law as a whole is viewed unfavorably by 47 percent of Americans, some of its provisions — such as barring companies from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions — are much more popular. And millions of Americans now receive subsidized insurance through the health insurance marketplaces created under the law. Trump has said he would replace the law with policies that follow free-market principles to bring down costs, but he has provided few details, including about what would happen to people who have health insurance options created by the ACA.

When Clinton says …

20 million Americans have health care because of the ACA.

This claim is true, according to multiplesources. The newly insured include people eligible for Medicaid under the law, people buying marketplace plans with subsidies, people with pre-existing conditions who may have previously been unable to find coverage, and young adults under age 26 who can now stay on their parent’s plans. But 29 million people remain uninsured, and millions more are worried about the cost and quality of their plans.

When Trump says …

Obamacare made premiums go up 35, 45, 55 percent.

True, but only if you cherry-pick the plans with the largest increases. Premiums are going up for everyone all over the country, just as they were before the Affordable Care Act. On average, they are increasing at a slower pace than they were before the law was passed. Some plans sold on the insurance marketplaces created under the law will see premium increases as high as Trump has claimed, but that’s only the worst of the bunch; 7 percent of plans will see increases of more than 30 percent, according to an analysis by Agile Health Insurance. The most common plans are predicted to increase by 10 percent. However, many people won’t see those increases: Around 85 percent of people purchasing on the marketplace receive subsidies that will offset the increase in costs. That’s perhaps of little solace to the millions of people who buy plans off-market and don’t receive subsidies but who are also seeing premium increases.

Further reading:

Obamacare Has Increased Insurance Coverage Everywhere

Insurers Can Make Obamacare Work, But They Need Help From Congress

Rising Obamacare premiums are still lower than employer-sponsored health insurance

Energy

Conservatives routinely criticize Obama for waging a “war on fossil fuels,” but oil and natural gas production have both soared during his eight years in office. (Coal is another story.) Gasoline prices, which rose early in Obama’s term, have since fallen sharply. But use of renewable sources of energy has also risen, largely because of an increase in wind and solar power generation. The rise of renewables and — even more importantly — the displacement of coal by natural gas has helped drive down U.S. carbon emissions. But progress on climate change has been slow — our total energy use isn’t growing, but it’s not falling either, and more than 80 percent is still in the form of fossil fuels. — Maggie Koerth-Baker

When Trump says …

America needs to be energy independent.

We damn near are already. In 2015, the U.S. produced 89 quadrillion BTU worth of energy, equivalent to 91 percent of our total consumption. Meanwhile, net energy imports — imports minus exports — have fallen for 10 years in a row. In 2015, the U.S. imported 24 percent of its oil, the lowest share since 1970. And more than a third of that oil came from Canada, which accounts for more of our imports than all the OPEC countries combined.

When Clinton says …

We’ll generate half our electricity from clean sources by the end of her first term.

A third of our electricity already comes from clean sources. If, that is, you count nuclear energy as clean, which Clinton does. Clinton also promises the U.S. will have half a billion solar panels by the end of her first term. That’s a weird way to measure solar — the Solar Energy Industries Association, like just about everybody else, puts out statistics in terms of electric generation capacity, not number of panels. But the SEIA estimates there were 102 million solar panels in the U.S. midway through 2016. So Clinton’s promise would require massive growth in solar installation.

When Trump says …

There’s a war on coal.

Coal’s woes are real: U.S. coal consumption fell 13 percent from 2014 to 2015 alone. Environmental regulation likely played a part in that decline, and the Energy Information Administration says Obama’s currently stalled Clean Power Plan is likely to lead to further reductions in coal use over time. But coal’s biggest enemy isn’t Obama; it’s natural gas. The EIA also says that the bulk of coal’s decline since Obama took office is due to a “market-driven response” — namely the fracking-led boom in natural-gas production, which has driven down gas prices and led many power companies to switch away from coal.

When Anybody Mentions …

Clean coal

This is a fudge phrase — it’s difficult to know what they’re actually talking about. Some “clean coal” technologies and tools are highly successful and in widespread use, and others, well, aren’t. At one end, you’ve got flue gas desulfurization — removing sulfur dioxide from power plant emissions. That’s the process that solved the acid rain crisis. At the other end, there’s carbon capture and storage, the process that’s supposed to make coal compatible with efforts to halt climate change. In theory, CCS does what it sounds like it does — grabs carbon dioxide before it gets released into the atmosphere and stores it somewhere safe. But CCS is not established technology, at least not as applied to electricity generation. There is one commercial-scale power plant in the world doing this, though there will likely be two by the end of the year. In both cases, the captured carbon dioxide is used to help produce oil, itself a major source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Further reading

We Use a Whole Bunch Of Energy Every Summer (And A Lot Of It Goes To Waste)

The Conventional Wisdom On Oil Is Always Wrong

Saudi Arabia Is Winning Its War Against The U.S. Oil Industry

The Science Of Trump: Energy, Space And Military Tech

How The Oil And Gas Industry Awakened Oklahoma’s Sleeping Fault Lines

Child care and family leave

The United States is the only rich country without guaranteed paid leave to care for a child. That could change soon. Both Clinton and Trump have plans for paid leave, as well as other policies to help family budgets. Trump made history in being the first Republican presidential nominee with a paid maternity leave plan — a reflection of the strong bipartisan support paid leave has among voters. The candidates differ on the generosity of leave and on how to pay for it. Clinton has also vowed to cap child care costs and double the child tax credit; Trump wants to let parents deduct child care expenses from their taxes. Whoever wins in November, the potential for real legislation on these issues is high. — Andrew Flowers

When Donald Trump says …

“My opponent has no child care plan.”

Actually, Clinton does. Her plan would offer up to 12 weeks of paid parental leave and it would cover at least two-thirds of a parent’s income; she says tax increases on the wealthy will pay for it. Trump’s plan, by contrast, would offer up to six weeks of paid maternity leave (sorry, dads) paid at the rate of unemployment insurance, which is typically a fraction of a worker’s paycheck. (The national average is about $300 per week.) Trump doesn’t plan to raise taxes to pay for paid leave. Instead, it will funded by “cutting fraud” in unemployment insurance programs. (Few economists think that would work.)

When Hillary Clinton says …

“We’ve got to put quality child care within the reach of every family.”

Clinton has proposed to cap child care costs at 10 percent of a family’s income, but exactly how she would do that is unclear. Clinton also wants to double the child care tax credit to $2,000. More importantly, she would make the tax credit refundable, meaning that families that earn too little to pay income taxes could get the credit back in cash. Research shows that could be an effective way to combat poverty.

When Donald Trump says …

His plan will “bring relief to working and middle-class families.”

Some families will be left out. Trump’s proposal allows families to deduct child care expenses from their taxes and caps it at the average cost of child care in their state. Here’s the rub: This is a tax deduction, not a tax refund, meaning you have to first owe taxes in order to benefit. Many poor and middle-class Americans don’t have a tax liability to begin with and thus wouldn’t benefit from his plan.

When anybody mentions …

The cost of child care

Remember that the average cost of child care varies a lot, according to data from ChildCare Aware, a nonprofit advocacy group. The average annual cost of full-time infant child care ranges from over $22,000 in Washington D.C., and more than $17,000 in Massachusetts — to $4,800 in Mississippi.

Further reading:

Marco Rubio’s Paid Family Leave Plan May Not Work

Dads Are Big Winners In San Francisco’s Paid Family Leave Law

Kitchen Table Politics: The Cost Of Caring For Kids

Nuclear issues

In a speech in Prague early in his presidency, Obama envisioned a “world without nuclear weapons.” He vowed to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, particularly to terrorists; to reduce the role of nuclear force in U.S. security strategy; and to negotiate a new arms-reduction treaty with Russia. Eight years later, he has accomplished some of those goals, including a deal with Russia and a highly controversial one with Iran, but he has faced criticism for not doing more to prevent proliferation and secure nuclear material. Clinton and Trump broadly agree that using nuclear weapons is not wise, but that “using” them — that is, exploiting the side effects of nuclear power — can be a legitimate means of achieving foreign policy goals. Still, there are significant differences between the candidates. — Walt Hickey

When Trump says …

The Iran deal is one of the worst deals I have ever seen.

The Iran deal is all about costs and benefits. Under the 2015 agreement, Iran gave up a lot: It has to shut down most of its centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium. It can’t use its remaining centrifuges to enrich uranium beyond 3.67 percent — bombs require about 90 percent — and it has to dramatically reduce its uranium stockpiles. All that means it would take Iran a year to get enough fuel for a bomb, according to the White House, rather than two to three months without the deal. In exchange, the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, China and Russia lifted the sanctions related to the nuclear program, unfroze funds and let the country keep its nuclear infrastructure. That’s a lot of concessions to swallow for many in the U.S.

When Clinton says…

She was responsible for securing a massive reduction in nuclear weapons

Not quite. The New START treaty with Russia does lower the number of active nuclear weapons that the U.S. and Russia can hold. However, there haven’t actually been Russian reductions in weapons since the treaty. More broadly, reducing the number of warheads held by two Cold War superpowers matters less than limiting the number of countries with weapons at all. Non-proliferation is better served by, say, ensuring Iran doesn’t obtain 20 nuclear warheads for a minimum deterrence force rather than Russia shedding a few hundred warheads.

When Trump says …

It is only a matter of time before Saudi Arabia, Japan and South Korea get nukes. We’re better off if they protect themselves. Also, we defend them for free, and they need to start paying up.

It is far from a guarantee that those nations will obtain nuclear weapons. And if they do, there will be major consequences for regional stability and security. As for paying up, the U.S. derives significant benefits from its alliances. For one thing, arms deals through the Defense Security Cooperation Agency have helped American arms manufacturers make fortunes selling their wares to foreign powers precisely like the ones Trump mentions. The U.S. also maintains military bases in allied countries, which provides financial and nonfinancial benefits. And the U.S.’s contribution of merely 22 percent of the NATO budget is what Trump might call a great, big, beautiful deal for us.