claimID stringlengths 10 10 | claim stringlengths 4 8.61k ⌀ | label stringclasses 116 values | claimURL stringlengths 10 303 | reason stringlengths 3 31.1k ⌀ | categories stringclasses 611 values | speaker stringlengths 3 168 ⌀ | checker stringclasses 167 values | tags stringlengths 3 315 ⌀ | article title stringlengths 2 226 ⌀ | publish date stringlengths 1 64 ⌀ | climate stringlengths 5 154 ⌀ | entities stringlengths 6 332 ⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
pomt-14027 | It's entirely possible that the Democratic nominee, [Hillary Clinton], earned more money giving a single speech on Wall Street than I made the six years that I was there back in the 1980s… In fact, it’s quite likely. | mostly false | /pennsylvania/statements/2016/may/31/pat-toomey/pat-toomeys-wall-street-earnings-likely-didnt-top-/ | U.S. Senator Pat Toomey, R-Pa., appeared on the Chris Stigall Show two weeks ago, and he wasn’t afraid to poke fun at his Wall Street past. When Stigall mentioned that Hillary Clinton has been paid lucratively for giving speeches to Wall Street banks, Toomey responded by making a comparison between Clinton and himself. "It's entirely possible," said Toomey "that the democratic nominee, [Hillary Clinton], earned more money giving a single speech on Wall Street than I made the six years that I was there back in the 1980s." "In fact," he went on, "it’s quite likely." We reached out to the Toomey campaign multiple times seeking information about how much he earned during his six years on Wall Street, but they never got back at us. The hefty salaries of modern-day Wall Street traders are viewed by many with disgust, but 30 years ago, Wall Street was a very different place. Is it possible Pat Toomey earned less on Wall Street than Clinton did for a single speech there? We decided to find out. How much has Hillary made for her speeches? It’s no secret Clinton has made a lot money from giving speeches, but most of the speeches that she’s given were not to Wall Street banks. According to her 2014 tax return, 14 of the 41 speeches Clinton gave in 2013 were to Wall Street banks, and she was paid the same amount, $225,000, for most of them. But on Oct. 7, 2014, her Public Financial Disclosure Report report states that she gave a speech to Deutsche Bank and earned $260,000 for it. CNN compiled a list of all the amounts that the Clintons have earned for speaking to big banks from February 2001 to May 2015, and it reaffirms that amount for her Deutsche Bank speech. But Toomey’s claim specifically refers to Wall Street. If Clinton made $260,000 in her most profitable speech to a Wall Street firm, then Toomey would have had to have made an average of about $43,000 during his six years on Wall Street for his claim to be true. The Rise of the Stock Market and the Traders in it Toomey worked on Wall Street from 1984 to 1990 for Chemical Bank and Morgan Grenfell. In a 1999 interview with Derivatives Strategy magazine, Toomey discussed the work he did at Morgan Grenfell, where he said he and a few others were recruited to start a "serious derivatives operation." "We were dealing in various currencies," said Toomey, "all kinds of interest rate and currency-related derivatives—options, swaps, forwards and so on." A report by the Los Angeles Times confirmed Toomey traded derivatives around interest rates and currencies. Again, when we asked the Toomey campaign if they could provide us with approximate salary figures for Toomey or Wall Street derivatives traders in the 1980s, we didn’t receive a response. Luckily, there are some figures we can use as approximations. The derivatives market exploded during Toomey’s time on Wall Street. In fact, the size of the global derivatives industry more than quintupled from 1986 to 1991. According to a report by Mother Jones, the notional value of derivatives contracts went from $865 billion to nearly $4.5 trillion. Salaries for Wall Street employees were not nearly as lucrative as they are today, but employees there were still among the highest-paid in the nation. A New York Times article from 1987 put the average salary on Wall Street that year at $65,000, before bonuses (which was more than three times the average New Yorker’s salary of $19,000). That number included all Wall Street employees, from the highest-ranking positions to new analysts. According to the Derivatives magazine article, Toomey’s position at Chemical Bank was "associate," a position generally considered to be above entry level and often given to people with MBAs. Philip Bond, a professor of finance and business economics at the University of Washington, said a salary of $43,000 was within the realm of possibility. "I guess an average of $43,000 a year strikes me as being on the low side," said Bond, "But I don't think it is impossible. After talking to colleagues here, I believe the starting salary for an undergraduate on Wall Street would have been considerably less than $43,000 in 1985." However even in the 1980s, Wall Street traders generally earned significant bonuses along with their annual salaries. Former bonds salesman Michael Lewis wrote about how bonuses were determined in his bestselling book Liar’s Poker. "A salesman's year-end bonus was determined by traders," writes Lewis, " A trader's bonus was determined by the profits on his trading books. A salesman had no purchase on a trader, while a trader had complete control over a salesman." Toomey doesn’t appear to have been a bad trader. Morgan Grenfell hired him and other associates to start its derivatives operation in 1986, according to the Derivatives Strategy magazine article. If Toomey made significant profits as a derivatives trader, then he would likely have made a solid bonus along with his salary. Lewis, as he notes in Liar’s Poker, made a bonus of $45,000 in his first year as a bonds salesman, matching his $45,000 salary that year. Lewis had a M.A. in economics when he entered Wall Street, while Toomey only had a B.A. in government. It is possible Toomey made an annual compensation of less than $43,000 per year, but that seems unlikely when we take a bonus into account. And even if he did make an average of $43,000 a year during his time on Wall Street, inflation would put his total haul at well above $260,000. We asked two professors to help us adjust a 1985 salary of $43,000 for wage inflation. Ehud Ronn, a professor of finance at the University of Texas at Austin, also noted the figure of $43,000 a year seemed somewhat low. Ronn used an index that reported a historical time series of compensation in the financial sector. According to the index, a salary of $43,200 in March 1985 would be equivalent to $124,200 in 2016. If Toomey made an average of $124,200 over six years, he would have made $745,200 in 2016 dollars according to this estimate. Bond, the University of Washington professor of finance, used GDP per capita to adjust for wage inflation. "Nominal GDP per capita is about 4 times as high today is in the mid-1980s" said Bond, "So if financial compensation had grown at the same speed as nominal GDP per capita, $43K in 1985 would equate to roughly $170K today." If Toomey made an average of $170,000 over six years, he would have made $1,020,000 in 2016 dollars according to this estimate. "Based on these back-of-envelope calculations, I suspect Toomey's statement is true, or at least close to true," started Bond, "but if he adjusted for inflation, his claim is most likely not true." Lynn Stout, a professor of corporate law at Cornell University and an internationally recognized expert in the field of financial derivatives, seemed to believe that a yearly figure of $43,000 would have been very low even in the 1980s. "If he did receive only $43,000 a year for six years of trading," said Stout, "he must have been one of the worst performing and worst paid derivatives traders on Wall Street at the time." Our ruling Pat Toomey said that it was possible and even likely that Hillary Clinton earned more money giving a single speech to a Wall Street bank than he did in his six years there. Clinton earned $260,000 in her most profitable speech to a Wall Street bank, so Toomey would have had to have earned an average of about $43,000 per year on Wall Street. It’s possible the entry-level salary for a trader was less than $43,000 in the 1980s, but Toomey was a trader at the forefront of the derivatives operation at Morgan Grenfell. So it’s likely he earned a significant bonus, which would put his earnings over that threshold. It gets less likely if we adjust Toomey’s non-bonus-inflated potential salary for inflation. An annual salary of about $43,000 in 1985 would make significantly more than $260,000 over six years in 2016 dollars. And Toomey didn’t just say it was "possible" he made less in six years on Wall Street than Clinton did in one speech. He said it was "likely." Based on average salaries and bonuses from this era of Wall Street and input from experts, it does not seem likely. It gets less likely if we adjust Toomey’s non-bonus-inflated potential salary for inflation. An annual salary of about $43,000 in 1985 would make significantly more than $260,000 over six years in 2016 dollars. We rate this claim Mostly False. | null | Pat Toomey | null | null | null | 2016-05-31T15:10:27 | 2016-05-19 | ['Democratic_Party_(United_States)', 'Hillary_Rodham_Clinton'] |
pomt-13416 | Says New START, passed while Clinton was secretary of state, is a "treaty cutting Russia’s nuclear arms." | half-true | /truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/21/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-overstates-impact-new-start-russia/ | Democrats and Republicans working together were able to get Russia to cut their nuclear arms, Hillary Clinton said in a recent television ad. In the ad, Clinton criticized her opponent, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, for claiming to be able to fix the country’s problems himself. She then touted her record as first lady, senator and secretary of state. "Donald Trump says he alone can fix the problems we face," Clinton says into the camera. "Well, I don't believe that's how you get things done in our country. It takes Democrats and Republicans working together. That's how we got health care for 8 million kids, rebuilt New York City after 9/11, and got the treaty cutting Russia's nuclear arms. We've got to bring people together. That's how you solve problems, and that's what I'll do as president." The ad, called "Only Way," has aired in seven states, beginning Sept. 9. We wanted to look at "the treaty cutting Russia’s nuclear arms," which led us to Clinton’s foreign policy record while secretary of state from 2009 through early 2013. Clinton is referring to the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or New START, an agreement between Russia and the United States designed to limit both countries’ deployed strategic nuclear weapons. The original START treaty was in force from 1994 until it expired in 2009; New START was signed in April 2010 and went into force in February 2011. Clinton’s claim that New START cut Russia’s nuclear arms is imprecise and overstates the treaty’s impact. "Russia is not expected to rapidly or dramatically reduce its nuclear weapons holdings," said Lisa Koch, a professor and nuclear proliferation expert at Claremont McKenna College. "New START could be characterized as a modest, rather than a sweeping, arms control treaty." What’s in the treaty? New START has three primary limitations on vehicles capable of launching nuclear weapons and the nuclear warheads themselves. By February 2018, Russia and the United States each have to meet these restrictions: 700 deployed ballistic missiles and heavy bombers: intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and heavy bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons; 800 total deployed and non-deployed launchers: intercontinental ballistic missile launchers, submarine-launched ballistic missile launchers, and nuclear-capable heavy bombers; 1,550 total deployed nuclear warheads on these missiles and bombers. It’s accurate that these limits are more restrictive than prior treaties. For example, START I limited deployed nuclear warheads to 6,000, and the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty limited them to 1,700-2,200. But it’s questionable whether it has, in practice, reduced Russia’s nuclear arsenal for two main reasons: First, Russia was actually below New START limits in two out of the three categories right when treaty implementation began in February 2011. The State Department publishes where both countries stand on these requirements twice a year, starting with an initial exchange of data when New START took force in February 2011. At that time, Russia had 865 deployed and non-deployed launchers for strategic missiles and heavy bombers, meaning it would have to reduce that fleet by 65 to meet the limit of 800 by February 2018. However, Russia had 521 deployed missiles and heavy bombers out of 700 allowed, and 1,537 deployed nuclear warheads out of 1,550 allowed. So Russia could actually increase its deployed missiles and heavy bombers, as well as its deployed nuclear warheads, beyond that initial February 2011 count and still be within treaty limits. "It is true that the treaty has lower limits than previous treaties, but since Russia was already below the New START limits for deployed forces when the treaty entered into force in 2011, it is not correct to say that the treaty is ‘cutting Russia's nuclear arms,’ " said Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, which supports arms control. In fact, the latest State Department report shows that as of March 2016, Russia has 1,735 deployed nuclear warheads, about 200 more than the treaty allows. At first glance, this might seem like Russia is building up its deployed nuclear arsenal in spite of the treaty. However, experts told us that this spike is actually a result of Russia modernizing its nuclear program. Essentially, they’re sending out new missile launchers and submarines that can hold more nuclear warheads per vehicle without having yet retired the old ones, so there’s some doubling up for the time being. Because New START doesn’t set limits during this interim implementation period (February 2011-February 2018), Russia still has a couple years to bring its deployed nuclear warheads within the limits set out by the treaty. Experts expect it to do so. "Russia’s compliance is not in doubt at this point," Kristensen said. Before New START passed, it was clear Russia intended to modernize its nuclear arsenal in a big way, said Steven Pifer, director of the Brookings Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative. Now, their modernization efforts have to fit within the New START limits, and it’s unclear if they would have grown beyond those limits absent the treaty. "I would say that New START does reduce and limit Russian strategic arms, but I would not overly hype the depth of the reduction," said Pifer, a Clinton supporter who testified before Congress in favor of New START. Second, New START only limits a portion of the nuclear arsenals. New START mainly counts strategic, deployed weapons. But it doesn’t limit nonstrategic weapons, nor weapons that have been stockpiled or retired. The treaty "does not require either government to destroy non-deployed warheads," Koch said. "Both governments can still stockpile warheads beyond the agreed-upon limit of 1,550 without violating the treaty." Excluding the thousands of warheads that have been retired and are awaiting dismantlement, Russia currently has about 4,500 nuclear warheads, including stockpiles and the 1,735 deployed warheads reported for New START, according to Federation for American Scientists estimates. Russia’s total nuclear warhead arsenal has been on a steady decline since the 1990s. That decline has nearly stagnated during President Barack Obama’s presidency, hovering at around 4,500 since 2012, according to Federation for American Scientists data. Throughout Obama’s tenure — and Clinton’s term as secretary of state — Russia has shrunk its total nuclear arsenal far less than it did under the past three presidents. And it would be difficult to attribute any reduction in Russia’s nuclear stockpiles to New START, given that the treaty only limits deployed weapons. "The end of the Cold War, the financial crisis in the 1990s and the START I treaty had a much greater effect on shaping Russia's current and planned nuclear posture than the New START treaty," Kristensen said. It’s worth noting that some experts no longer consider stockpiles a serious threat to security. Under New START’s deployed weapons restrictions, the effectiveness of a large stockpile is limited, especially because Russia only produces about 10 missiles per year, according to a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. Thus the treaty might make it so that Russia does not feel the need to stockpile as many weapons. Our ruling Clinton said New START, passed while she was secretary of state, was a "treaty cutting Russia’s nuclear arms." The treaty hasn’t cut Russia’s nuclear arms yet. But if it does in the future, after the treaty is fully implemented in 2018, it seems that any reductions would be minimal rather than sweeping. New START has a limited impact in that it focuses on one portion of Russia’s nuclear program: deployed strategic weapons. The treaty does place tighter limits on these weapons than any past treaty. But Russia was actually already meeting the treaty’s limits, for the most part, when treaty implementation began. Also, the treaty does not restrict either country from stockpiling weapons, nor does it require them to destroy any existing weapons. We rate her claim Half True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/c68d039e-1482-46e9-a984-aa750333a876 | null | Hillary Clinton | null | null | null | 2016-09-21T15:35:48 | 2016-09-09 | ['Russia', 'Bill_Clinton'] |
hoer-00529 | 'iPhone 6 Phones Contaminated With Ebola Virus' | statirical reports | https://www.hoax-slayer.com/hoax-iPhone-6-contaminated-ebola.shtml | null | null | null | Brett M. Christensen | null | FAKE -NEWS - 'iPhone 6 Phones Contaminated With Ebola Virus' | September 23, 2014 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-10148 | You had supported John McCain's military strategies pretty adamantly until this race. | mostly false | /truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/03/sarah-palin/mccain-and-biden-agree-on-military-matters-barely-/ | During the vice presidential debate in St. Louis, Gov. Sarah Palin claimed that before the presidential campaign, Sen. Joe Biden agreed more with Sen. John McCain than with Sen. Barack Obama on military matters. Her claim came during a discussion of the Iraq war. "You're one who says, as so many politicians do, I was for it before I was against it or vice-versa," Palin said during the Oct. 2, 2008, debate. "Americans are craving that straight talk and just want to know, hey, if you voted for it, tell us why you voted for it and it was a war resolution. "And you had supported John McCain's military strategies pretty adamantly until this race and you had opposed very adamantly Barack Obama's military strategy, including cutting off funding for the troops — that attempt all through the primary." Palin was correct to say that both Biden and McCain voted to authorize the Iraq war in 2002, and voted for a military-funding bill that Obama opposed in 2007. But was she right to state broadly that Biden "supported McCain's military strategies pretty adamantly"? First let's look closely at just how adamant Biden and McCain were about voting for the Iraq war resolution. McCain was a strong supporter of granting Bush broad authority to invade pre-emptively. "The president has spoken clearly of the threat Saddam Hussein's regime poses to America and the world today," he said in the Senate on Oct. 10, 2002, the day before the vote. "In this new era, preventive action to target rogue regimes is not only imaginable but necessary ... In the new era we entered last September, warning of an attack before it happens is a luxury we cannot expect." By contrast, Biden was a reluctant supporter of the resolution. Before it was approved, he and Sen. Richard Lugar, the Indiana Republican, offered an unsuccessful alternative resolution narrowing the goal of American military action to disarming Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, and emphasizing multinational support for any military action. When Biden did vote for the resolution, he voiced misgivings. "I find myself supporting this resolution but worried that supporting this resolution will get us into real trouble," he said in the Senate on Oct. 10, 2002. "I hope we don't walk out of here with my voting for this final document and somebody six months from now or six years from now will say we have the right now to establish this new doctrine of pre-emption and go wherever we want anytime." So he did not support McCain's position on the war resolution "pretty adamantly." More like pretty reluctantly. The other example to which Palin referred of Biden siding with McCain rather than Obama was their vote in favor of a military funding bill on May 24, 2007. Obama voted against the measure because it did not include a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Here's what Biden said about his vote on CNN on May 27, 2007: "I'm not going to use the troops as a pawn in this game...I've worked very hard...on getting these new mine-resistant vehicles into the field, which will cut casualties by two-thirds...We delay this funding, it kicks down the road another two to three months before these vehicles get on the road." That's pretty adamant. But there's a major area of military strategy on which Biden and McCain have not agreed: the surge. McCain pushed for an influx of troops to Iraq for several years before Bush finally adopted the strategy in early 2007. For that reason, it is the military strategy most closely associated with McCain. But Biden spoke out against it forcefully. On Meet the Press on Jan. 7, 2007, Biden said a surge would be "a tragic mistake." In April 2007, he told the Washington Post the surge would not succeed. He even singled out McCain as misguided. "Assume the surge worked, then what?" he told the Post . "Stay there forever?" So Biden "supported McCain's military strategies pretty adamantly," as Palin claimed, only when it came to military funding. He voted to authorize the war, but his reluctance stood in stark contrast to McCain's zeal. And he and McCain were utterly at odds on the surge. We find Palin's claim to be Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False. | null | Sarah Palin | null | null | null | 2008-10-03T00:00:00 | 2008-10-02 | ['None'] |
pomt-14464 | Says Mahatma Gandhi once said, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." | false | /truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/03/donald-trump/donald-trump-falls-phony-gandhi-quote/ | It's a message designed to inspire perseverance in the face of long odds, and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump invoked it on Instagram, accompanied by a photograph of a Feb. 28 rally in Alabama in advance of Super Tuesday. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win," says the quote, which Trump attributes to Mahatma Gandhi, India's legendary activist who eschewed all violence. The quote is certainly legendary. A quick Google image search of the phrase "then they laugh at you" produced a flood of memes crediting Gandhi. We stopped count at 100. We found it on Bernie Sanders' Twitter feed. Sarah Palin posted it on Facebook Feb. 24 in front of a photo of Trump. Our colleagues at Snopes.com found an instance where Hillary Clinton used it during a 2004 fundraiser. And last year, Billionaire Magazine cited it in a Tweet to celebrate enormous wealth, without a hint of irony. Inspiring? Yes. Accurate? No. We reached out to the Trump campaign in hopes that they had an original source for the quote. They didn't respond. But there's no evidence that Gandhi ever said it. "I know of no source by Gandhi where this quotation occurs," said Dennis Dalton, professor emeritus at Columbia University's Barnard College, who has spent 55 years researching and writing on Gandhi's life. It's been thought to be false for quite some time, prompting the Christian Science Monitor to list it five years ago as one of "The 10 most famous things never actually said," although the Monitor reported no effort to find its origin. Some authors have suspected it's derived from a May 15, 1918, speech during a biennial convention of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America in which Nicholas Klein of Cincinnati, talking about that union, said, "First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And they they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you. And this is what is going to happen to the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America." Barry Popik, a contributor to the Yale Book of Quotations and the Oxford English Dictionary, found a more recent variant in a 1968 article in Women's Wear Daily. Referring to French artist, writer, designer and filmmaker Jean Cocteau, the article says, "Cocteau expressed it best. ‘First, they ignore you. Then, they abuse you. Then, they heap you with honors. Or make you into a statue. Stone. Dead.’ " Popik said the first reference he has found giving Gandhi credit for that type of quote comes from an out-of-print book — the 1982 proceedings of an event held by the Workshop in Nonviolence Institute. Snippets can be seen on Google Books. On page 9 of volume 18 are the words, "Gandhi once observed that every movement goes through four stages: First they ignore you; then they abuse you; then they crack down on you and then you win." Note that the catchphrase itself is not in quotes. It appears the author was paraphrasing. "We have 1918 (in labor unions) and 1982 (in an antiwar group), and just about nothing in between. It's a real puzzle," said Popik. Dalton, the Gandhi historian, said a lot of quotes attributed to the nonviolent activist aren't real. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," is a variant of a phrase written for the 1982 Richard Attenborough movie Gandhi. The catchphrase "You must be the change you want to see in the world," was also never spoken by him, he said. "The point is that a study of his life and work do tell us that he could have spoken or written such words, because they capture the spirit of what he did," said Dalton. "That's perhaps the best answer that I can give." In the end, it's comparable to people thinking that Sarah Palin said, "I can see Russia from my house" (Tina Fey said it while impersonating Palin on Saturday Night Live), that Humphrey Bogart uttered the phrase, "Play it again, Sam," in Casablanca, or that Sherlock Holmes said "Elementary, my dear Watson," during any of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories. A lot of people believe it, even though it's not true. Our ruling Trump quoted Mahatma Gandhi as saying, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." There's no evidence that Gandhi ever said any such thing. Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and many others have made the same mistake. The claim is False. | null | Donald Trump | null | null | null | 2016-03-03T19:00:00 | 2016-02-28 | ['None'] |
vogo-00538 | Statement: “There really aren’t any design impacts that result from the cruise ship terminal being constructed,” said Shaun Sumner, the port of San Diego’s senior real estate asset manager, during an interview for a San Diego Explained segment about the North Embarcadero Visionary Plan. | determination: barely true | https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/fact/fact-check-the-cruise-ship-terminal-and-its-impact-on-a-vision/ | Analysis: Sumner was making a case frequently repeated by representatives of the Unified Port of San Diego: that the Broadway Pier, which extends off Broadway downtown past Harbor Drive, has always been envisioned as a host for cruise ships, their passengers and their needs. Further, they claim, they were unable to make any other conclusion than that the massive terminal now arising on the pier had to be built. | null | null | null | null | Fact Check: The Cruise Ship Terminal and Its Impact on a Vision | August 9, 2010 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-10813 | There are 300,000 babies born deformed every year in this country because of women who are alcoholics while they're carrying those children to term. | false | /truth-o-meter/statements/2007/sep/27/joe-biden/biden-way-off-on-alcohol-related-birth-defects/ | Biden said he wouldn't consider changing the drinking age from 21 to 18 because of the negative effects of alcohol. As evidence, he said 300,000 babies suffer birth defects each year because their mothers are alcoholics. Problem is, that number is way off. The National Organization on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome states that about 40,000 children are born each year suffering from Fetal Alchol Spectrum Disorders, which includes birth defects, but also conditions such as learning disabilities or poor motor skills. The group says that number is more than Spina Bifida, Down Syndrome and Muscular Dystrophy combined, but it's still quite a way from 300,000. As for birth defects alone, the Surgeon General says that alcohol-related birth defects affect between .5 and 2 infants per 1,000 births. That comes to between about 2,100 and 8,300 cases a year, given current birth rates. | null | Joe Biden | null | null | null | 2007-09-27T00:00:00 | 2007-09-26 | ['None'] |
tron-01018 | President Trump Removes Muslim Judge for Allowing Sharia Law in U.S. | fiction! | https://www.truthorfiction.com/trump-removes-muslim-judge-sharia/ | null | crime-police | null | null | ['donald trump', 'islam', 'judge', 'sharia law'] | President Trump Removes Muslim Judge for Allowing Sharia Law | Jul 27, 2017 | null | ['United_States'] |
pomt-04221 | When you look at the number of crashes before the cameras were installed compared to after, they’re virtually the same. | mostly true | /georgia/statements/2012/nov/27/steve-acenbrak/red-light-cameras-dont-impress-roswell/ | Roswell city leaders recently met to discuss a proposal to hit the brakes on red-light cameras. The idea to remove them is not new, but a claim about their effectiveness was interesting enough that we thought it should be put on the Truth-O-Meter. "When you look at the number of crashes before the cameras were installed compared to after, they’re virtually the same," said Steve Acenbrak, the city’s transportation director. Is that true? Roswell, a north Fulton city with a population of 91,168, has two red-light cameras. One sits at the intersection of Ga. 9 and Ga. 92/Holcomb Bridge Road. The other camera is located at Ga. 9 and Ga. 140/Mansell Road. The cameras were installed in February 2007. Red-light cameras became popular in many cities and counties as a way to reduce the number of motorists who run red lights and hit other vehicles or pedestrians who assumed they had the right of way. There is an ongoing argument about whether the cameras are effective when it comes to reducing accidents. The National Motorists Association, a group advocating motorists’ rights, has led the fight against the cameras. "There is no evidence that these ticket camera systems make drivers more safe," the association states on its website. "In fact, the opposite has proven true. Ticket cameras increase accidents!" A study by the Federal Highway Administration found that red-light cameras "provide a modest aggregate crash-cost benefit." The study found the cameras tend to reduce severe side-impact crashes, but increase less-severe rear-end collisions. The city of Alpharetta has red-light cameras at more intersections (seven) than any community in Georgia, according to state records. Atlanta has working cameras at six intersections, the records show. The city of Snellville, though, removed its cameras a few years ago. City officials said the number of violators was so small that it wasn’t cost-effective to keep them. Roswell officials have made a similar case to scrap its cameras, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. Acenbrak said the city researched the number of wrecks at those intersections three years before the cameras were installed and three years afterward. The state Department of Transportation does not do its own research of wrecks at intersections with red-light cameras. It collects the data from the cities and counties with cameras, a spokeswoman said. Here’s what Acenbrak shared with PolitiFact Georgia at both intersections. At the Ga. 9 and Holcomb Bridge Road intersection, there was a slightly higher ratio of collisions there after the camera was installed. Acenbrak said there were three wrecks in the 25 months prior to the cameras. There were three wrecks in the 22 months after the cameras were installed, he said. At Ga. 9 and Mansell Road, there was a higher percentage of wrecks before the cameras were installed as opposed to the total afterward. Acenbrak’s numbers show there were three wrecks in the 13 months before the cameras were installed, a ratio of one collision about every four months. The director said there were two crashes in the 22 months afterward, a ratio of one wreck every 11 months. Acenbrak said those numbers prove his point, along with other data he presented to us, such as less than 3 percent of wrecks throughout the city each year can be attributed to motorists running red lights. "We still have red-light runners, but they’re not causing crashes," he said. To summarize, Acenbrak said the number of wrecks at Roswell’s red-light camera intersections was virtually the same before and after the cameras were installed. At Ga. 9 and Holcomb Bridge Road, it was almost identical. At Ga. 9 and Mansell Road, the ratio of wrecks after the cameras were installed was smaller. With that bit of clarity about the Mansell Road intersection, we rate Acenbrak’s claim Mostly True. | null | Steve Acenbrak | null | null | null | 2012-11-27T06:00:00 | 2012-11-11 | ['None'] |
pomt-03219 | Under a new law regulating abortions, "Even if you're raped, if you don't report it in the first 30 days, the Republicans will force you to have an ultrasound." | half-true | /wisconsin/statements/2013/aug/22/peter-barca/democratic-leader-says-ultrasound-requirement-woul/ | Democrats in the state Legislature protested in June 2013 when majority Republicans introduced and quickly passed a bill requiring women seeking an abortion to get ultrasound scans. Two months later, the gaping divide between the two parties on abortion -- seen in the bitter floor debate over the bill -- remains wide. That was evident when Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca (D-Kenosha) and the Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) were interviewed together on Wisconsin Eye Aug. 7, 2013. Vos said he was proud the new law means that "every single mother has the opportunity to see the child" before making a "final decision to end the life of that baby." Democrats who sued to block the law, he added, are "out there saying it’s more about getting rid of the child than it is about giving information to the mother, and I think that’s sad." In response, Barca called the new law "so irresponsible." "I think it's maybe the first time we've dictated a medical procedure a woman has to go through, whether she can afford it or wants it or believes it’s necessary. In the case of rape … even if you're raped, if you don't report it in the first 30 days, the Republicans will force you to have to have an ultrasound." The bill passed on party-line votes, and Gov. Scott Walker signed it into law July 5, 2013. Besides ultrasounds, Act 37 requires doctors who perform abortions to have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles. The law’s authors say that means better care if abortions result in urgent medical problems. A judge has temporarily blocked the requirement on doctors, but the ultrasound provision remains in effect. Abortion providers argue the admitting requirement would force closure of two clinics because their doctors don't have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. The result, they say, is that abortions in Wisconsin would not be available north of Madison or -- after the 19th week of pregnancy -- anywhere in the state. While the ultrasound provision has drawn much attention, the treatment of sexual assault victims under the bill has drawn relatively little. Is Barca right that women who do not report a rape within 30 days would be required to have an ultrasound? More about the law Under the law, the person performing the ultrasound must describe what is being shown and provide the woman an opportunity to see the ultrasound images. But the woman can't be required to view the images. PolitiFact Wisconsin previously rated False a claim by activist Rachel Campos-Duffy that more than 90 percent of women seeking an abortion decide not to get one after seeing their ultrasound. Research indicates that some women change their mind, but no solid evidence backs her sweeping claim. Barca’s statement was specific to sexual assault victims. The new law explicitly grants an exception -- a "waiver" in the bill’s parlance -- from pre-abortion ultrasounds when a pregnancy is the result of sexual assault or incest, or in cases of medical emergencies. The bill’s definition of "sexual assault" includes rape. It covers assaults of the first, second and third-degree. The reporting requirement drew criticism from some lawmakers and the Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault, which said that for victims who don’t report a rape, an ultrasound "only serves to remind them of the trauma caused by the perpetrator." Several things have to happen before sexual assault victims qualify for the waiver. -- The woman must state that a report alleging the assault has been made to law enforcement. -- A physician or qualified assistant must confirm the report has been made and make a notation in the woman’s medical file. -- Law enforcement officials must confirm -- confidentially -- that they received the report. So it’s correct to say that rape victims who seek abortions would be required to have an ultrasound unless they report to police. But Barca runs into trouble on part of his statement. He frames his claim around a specific time limit, saying that rape victims don’t just have to make a report to avoid an ultrasound, they have to do so within 30 days. To be sure, that reporting timeframe is the norm in Wisconsin. In 2010, 72 percent of the 4,857 reported sexual assaults were reported within 30 days, state figures show. Still, another 12 percent of those reporting did so after a month but before one year, and another 5 percent did so after a year. No data was available on the rest. But our search of Act 37 and related statutes, plus checks with legislative officials and interest groups, found no evidence of any specific timetable in the law enforcement reporting provision. Rather, victims can report the crime and thereby avoid an ultrasound scan without regard to any time limits. Barca aide Erik Greenfield told us the lawmaker misspoke in mentioning a 30-day time limit. It’s unknown exactly how many rape victims seek abortions but do not report being assaulted. But there is evidence that many sexual assault victims do not report file a report with police, for a variety of reasons. Nationally, a large survey by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, an arm of the U.S. Justice Department, showed that 64 percent of rapes or sexual assaults against females were not reported to the police from 2005 to 2010. The leading reasons for not reporting: feared reprisal (20 percent); considered it a personal matter (13 percent); felt police would not help (13 percent); reported to different official (8 percent); not important enough to report (8 percent); did not want to get perpetrator in trouble (7 percent). In Wisconsin, evidence suggested that only 19 percent of sexual assaults are reported to law enforcement, the state Office of Justice Assistance, said in 2011. OJA was an independent state agency eliminated in the 2013-’15 state budget. Critics of the bill say these numbers strongly suggest that some abortion-seeking assault victims will be non-reporters and therefore will be forced to get an ultrasound. State Sen. Mary Lazich, the bill’s sponsor, doesn’t deny the possibility, but said victims could avoid that. "They need to report sexual assaults," Lazich, R-New Berlin, told us. Our rating Barca said that a new law passed by Republicans regulating abortion deals with sexual assault victims this way: "Even if you're raped, if you don't report it in the first 30 days, the Republicans will force you to have to have an ultrasound." The law does require an ultrasound when such victims do not report the assault to law enforcers, but there is no 30-day deadline for doing so. Barca’s claim is partially accurate but misses on an important detail that muddles his message. We rate his claim Half True. | null | Peter Barca | null | null | null | 2013-08-22T05:00:00 | 2013-08-07 | ['Republican_Party_(United_States)'] |
goop-02607 | Selena Gomez Betrayed By The Weeknd? | 1 | https://www.gossipcop.com/selena-gomez-betrayed-the-weeknd-cheated-ava-van-rose/ | null | null | null | Shari Weiss | null | Selena Gomez Betrayed By The Weeknd? | 3:59 pm, August 5, 2017 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-08142 | The Pentagon's survey about the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy found that 92 percent of service members "agree that they could serve ... in a unit in combat" without compromising "mission readiness." | half-true | /truth-o-meter/statements/2010/dec/06/wesley-clark/wesley-clark-says-92-percent-troops-surveyed-would/ | On Dec. 5, 2010, ABC's This Week with Christiane Amanpour devoted much of its program to a discussion of whether, and how, to end the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and open the ranks fully to gay and lesbian service members. A portion of the discussion addressed a detailed Pentagon study of the issue released on Nov. 30. The study, among other things, included a survey of some 115,000 active-duty and reserve members, which the report called "one of the largest surveys in the history of the U.S. military." Those who back the effort to open the military to openly gay and lesbian personnel hailed the survey as concrete evidence that any problems integrating gay men and women into the services will be limited and manageable. Opponents of a change, for their part, found evidence within the survey that showed a greater likelihood of problems, especially in specific groups such as combat units. On This Week, retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, the former top NATO commander in Europe and a former Democratic presidential candidate, cited one finding from the survey that indicated that a transition away from "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" should be achievable with relative ease. Clark said "what the survey showed is that essentially all of the service members, 92 percent, agree that they could serve -- they could serve in a unit in combat, and they could work together effectively, and it wouldn't compromise mission readiness." He continued, "I think a lot of the survey, honestly. It shows the effects of six, eight months' politicization, continuing coverage in the media, and some of it is just people in the military saying, just leave us alone and let us do our job. They come down on one side or the other of this. Let's just get on with it." We wondered whether the study really showed that 92 percent of service members were comfortable serving with gay men and women, as Clark suggested. We found that Clark was off the mark in describing what that poll result meant. Once we looked at the report, we were able to find the 92 percent statistic easily. It appears in the report summary, as one of three findings that "best represented" the survey as a whole. "When asked about the actual experience of serving in a unit with a co-worker who they believed was gay or lesbian, 92 percent stated that the unit’s 'ability to work together' was 'very good,' 'good,' or 'neither good nor poor,'" the report said. Superficially, that sentence seems to back up Clark's comment. However, the report is worded somewhat unclearly, and it took us a couple readings before we fully understood what the 92 percent figure referred to. In a footnote, the report sources the statement to Question 47a. But there's a problem for Clark. That question was asked only of a subset of survey respondents -- those who "said they served with a coworker they believed to be gay or lesbian and where all, most, some or a few other unit members believed the coworker to be gay or lesbian." Of the roughly 115,000 service members interviewed for the survey, only about 78,500 -- or two-thirds -- fell into that category. One can imagine that service members who have been through the experience of serving alongside a gay or lesbian colleague might feel more comfortable about the arrangement than those who have not. So using this subset to extrapolate to all service members is problematic. And when survey questions were asked of all respondents, rather than just the subset of those who think they served with someone gay, the levels of comfort are consistently lower. In Question 68a, for instance, the survey asked, "If 'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell' is repealed and you are working with a service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect how service members in your immediate unit work together to get the job done?" For this question, 26 percent answered "negatively" or "very negatively." That's more than triple the 8.4 percent that answered "poor" or "very poor" when an equivalent question was asked only of those who believed they had served with a gay or lesbian colleague. Answers were similar with other questions asked of the entire set of respondents. When asked how "service members in your immediate unit (would) pull together to perform as a team" after the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," a little more than 29 percent of all respondents answered "negatively" or "very negatively." And when asked "how service members in your immediate unit (would) trust each other" after repeal, about 33 percent of all respondents answered "negatively" or "very negatively." It's worth noting that even at these higher rates, only a minority of survey respondents said that repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would produce exclusively negative consequences. So while the level of comfort Clark cites -- 92 percent -- is too high, the survey nonetheless found a notable degree of comfort with a repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" within the ranks. (Or at least a tolerance for repeal. Only about 18 percent of all respondents went so far as to say repeal would be "very positive" or "positive," while 52 percent -- an absolute majority -- said it would either have no effect on performance or an equal mix of positive and negative effects.) So Clark is generally right that only a small minority of service members think a repeal would have negative or very negative effects on unit performance, but he exaggerates just how small that minority is. For this reason, we rate his statement Half True. | null | Wesley Clark | null | null | null | 2010-12-06T16:27:23 | 2010-12-05 | ['The_Pentagon'] |
snes-01428 | The 2017 GOP tax overhaul plan includes language that attempts to codify “fetal personhood.” | mostly true | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/gop-tax-bill-fetal-personhood-legislation/ | null | Politics | null | Alex Kasprak | null | Does the GOP Tax Bill Introduce Anti-Abortion “Fetal Personhood” Legislation? | 16 November 2017 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-15221 | Says he was "one of the chief architects" of balancing the federal budget. | mostly true | /truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/09/john-kasich/checking-out-john-kasichs-claim-he-was-one-chief-a/ | Days after the first Republican presidential debate, Donald Trump continues to exert a powerful gravitational pull on his GOP rivals. If they aren’t talking about him, they are talking about why they don’t care to talk about him. Ohio Gov. John Kasich aimed to steer clear of Planet Trump on the Sunday news shows. When ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked Kasich if he thought Trump is a problem for his party, Kasich said he doesn’t think of things that way. "What happened on Thursday is I was relaxed and I was able to talk about my record, balancing the federal budget, one of the chief architects, national security experience -- turning Ohio around." Like Kasich, we’ll set Trump aside and dig into the facts behind Kasich and a balanced federal budget. This is one his prime talking points. Kasich often casts himself as one of the chief architects of a balanced budget. Sometimes he carries it a step further and says he’s the chief architect. In fact, he said that later in his talk with Stephanopoulos, and during his interview on CNN’s State of the Union. But in this fact-check, we’ll assess his more humble claim. Kasich the budget cutter Kasich first won a seat in the House of Representatives in 1982. He had a reputation as a young lawmaker with more than abundant energy, a brash style and a willingness to work across the aisle. He backed a balanced budget amendment when Republicans were in the minority, and he was a leading voice for the measure when a GOP wave put his party in charge of the House under Newt Gingrich in 1994. Gingrich promoted Kasich over more senior lawmakers and made him chair of the House Budget Committee. Kasich’s big moment came in 1997. The nation was poised for a balanced budget. Deficits had been shrinking for years, according to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Between 1992 and 1996, they fell at an annual average rate of 24 percent each year. When the Clinton administration submitted a budget that would eliminate the deficit by 2004, Kasich was the first Republican to reject and call for a do-over. In a February op-ed, Kasich wrote that "it is not that difficult to cobble together a budget that could at least appear to be balanced within five years." But he said a balanced budget amendment would force leaders to deal honestly with every budget in the future. "If the politicians know they must not only achieve a balanced budget but also must maintain a balanced budget, they will have no choice but to develop credible solutions and do so sooner rather than later," Kasich wrote. No amendment emerged, but a bipartisan deal was struck by July, and the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, sponsored by Kasich, had a clear path. Kasich was at Clinton’s side when the bill was signed into law. House Speaker Newt Gingrich said of Kasich, "More than any single man, he is responsible for balancing the budget." There is no question that Kasich was a key player in the writing and passage of that law. Ramping up to a surplus The libertarian-leaning CATO Institute assessed the fiscal situation in 1998. Stephen Moore, the institute’s director of fiscal policy studies, gave the Republicans great credit for pushing for a balanced budget. He called the surplus the by-product of the GOP’s "single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink." But Moore argued that spending cuts had little to do with the final result. He noted that spending had risen $150 billion in two years. "We have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues, and 2) a shrinking military budget," Moore wrote then. Other analysts reached much of the same conclusion, although with a few more nuances. John Gilmour is a political scientist at the College of William and Mary. Gilmour notes that there were significant spending reductions in the 1997 bill. It curtailed Medicare spending, but did it so severely that those cuts have been routinely reversed by Congress (the so-called "doc-fix" measures). When Gilmour ran the numbers from 1979 through 2000, he found a pattern that preceded that 1997 budget law. "The budget surpluses resulted from revenues growing more rapidly than normal, and outlays growing somewhat more slowly than before," Gilmour said. That trend can be seen in this graph from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Both Gilmour and another researcher, political scientist B. Dan Wood at Texas A&M University, told PolitiFact that the groundwork for deficit reduction was laid in legislation passed in 1990 and 1993. The 1993 law increased taxes on the well-to-do as well as people of more modest means. Kasich opposed both measures. Wood notes that at least on paper, the 1997 law did trim spending by $127 billion between 1997 and 2002. He also points to the Tax Reduction Act of 1997 that, among other steps, reduced the capital gains tax from 28 to 20 percent, and child tax credits. But Wood says the timing of the surpluses and key elements of those two laws don’t line up. "The budget was in balance before any of the provisions of these laws came into effect," Wood said. "So, Kasich could not have been responsible for balancing the budget." We came across a couple of reminders of how different the times were almost two decades ago. Not only did Kasich agree to do a fundraiser for a Democratic colleague in California (Gary Condit whose affair with Chandra Levy later toppled his career), but we came across this in a Washington Post article: "Arianna Huffington, a conservative activist and columnist who has been encouraging Kasich to seek the nomination, said he is a fresh face in a party saddled with tired, "recycled" politicians. ‘He speaks with a passion,’ she said last week." Huffington went on to become the publisher of the liberal-leaning Huffington Post. Our ruling Kasich said he was one of the chief architects of the balanced federal budget. Kasich has a long track record of pushing for a balanced budget, and contemporary accounts from 1997 place him very much at the center of the action. His description of being "one of" the chief architects, instead of the sole mastermind, also puts him on safer ground. Conservative and independent scholars point out that it is also worth remembering that there was more going on that actually led to not just a balanced budget but budget surpluses. Some of those factors were beyond Kasich’s power to influence, such as the economy. In addition, he opposed earlier fiscal bills that ultimately were followed by falling deficits, and deficits continued to fall before some key elements of the budget plans he crafted ever took effect. His statement is accurate but needs additional information. So we rate it Mostly True. | null | John Kasich | null | null | null | 2015-08-09T19:36:52 | 2015-08-09 | ['None'] |
goop-02789 | Christina Aguilera Joining “American Idol,” | 2 | https://www.gossipcop.com/christina-aguilera-not-joining-american-idol-judge/ | null | null | null | Shari Weiss | null | Christina Aguilera NOT Joining “American Idol,” Despite Report | 12:48 pm, May 18, 2017 | null | ['Christina_Aguilera', 'American_Idol'] |
hoer-00813 | Intercepted Mobile Phone Delivery Warning | true messages | https://www.hoax-slayer.com/mobile-phone-delivery-scam.shtml | null | null | null | Brett M. Christensen | null | Intercepted Mobile Phone Delivery Scam Warning | July 2007 | null | ['None'] |
tron-01434 | Fireball Whiskey Contains Anti-Freeze Ingredient | truth! & misleading! | https://www.truthorfiction.com/fireball-whiskey/ | null | food | null | null | null | Fireball Whiskey Contains Anti-Freeze Ingredient | Mar 17, 2015 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-11719 | Says the Obama administration purged "training courses and information about Islamism, jihad, Sharia, and the Muslim Brotherhood." | half-true | /truth-o-meter/statements/2017/dec/15/scott-perry/gop-lawmaker-claims-fbi-purged-training-documents-/ | Did the Barack Obama administration ditch FBI material used to train counterterrorism agents? At a House committee hearing on worldwide terror threats, Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., claimed the former administration purged information that could "allow us to see in totality the threat that faces America." "Just curious if you can tell me if the FBI has taken any steps to reverse the previous administration's purge of training courses and information about Islamism, jihad, Sharia, and the Muslim Brotherhood," Perry asked FBI director Christopher Wray at the Nov. 30 hearing. Wray said he was not aware of efforts to purge training material. "They were purged in the last administration," Perry told him. Is that true? Perry's office did not respond to our requests for information. We found the FBI did rescind training material during the Obama administration — but it was less than 1 percent of 160,000 pages of training documents that were found to contain information that was factually inaccurate, imprecise or used stereotypes. The review came after media reports show that training material included claims identifying "mainstream" American Muslims as "likely to be terrorist sympathizers." The Arab American Institute said the documents "crudely" depicted Arab Americans and American Muslims "as threatening, irrational, or otherwise abnormal." Here’s what we know about the FBI’s review and rescinded documents. Reports of anti-Muslim training material Wired in July 2011 reported that part of a January 2009 presentation for new FBI recruits said that Islam "transforms (a) country's culture into 7th-century Arabian ways." Additional Wired reporting in September 2011 found that during a training session at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Va., agents were told that "mainstream" American Muslims were "likely to be terrorist sympathizers; that the Prophet Mohammed was a ‘cult leader’; and that the Islamic practice of giving charity is no more than a ‘funding mechanism for combat’." A chart in the presentation contended that the more "devout" Muslims are, the likelier they are to be violent, Wired reported. The FBI distanced itself from the messages in the training. It told Wired that the presentation had a disclaimer saying the views expressed were of the author and "do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. government." An FBI press release issued a day after Wired’s report said the training segment was presented only one time and quickly discontinued. At a November 2011 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., asked then-Attorney General Eric Holder about the training material, presenting among examples a claim that ‘‘the Arabic mind is swayed more by ideas than facts." "It is regrettable that that information was, in fact, a part of a training program," Holder said, adding that there was an ongoing review of training material "to ensure that that kind of misinformation" was not being used, because it could undermine and negatively impact outreach efforts. The FBI reviewed 160,000 pages of material and eventually removed hundreds of pages from its training. Less than 1 percent of the material reviewed had "factually inaccurate or imprecise information or used stereotypes," the FBI told Wired in February 2012. A March 2012 letter from Durbin to then-FBI Director Robert Mueller expressed disappointment that the FBI would not produce a written report on the material deemed inappropriate, and that it would not be publicly shared or given to Congress. Durbin’s letter said FBI briefers shared copies of "a handful" of the material with Senate Judiciary Committee staff, but were not allowed to keep the copies. The FBI did not confirm to PolitiFact if it eliminated such material, but referred us to public source material and 2012 congressional testimony. At a May 2012 House Judiciary Committee hearing on oversight of the FBI, Mueller said 876 inappropriate training documents had been removed after a review of 160,000 documents and over 1,000 videos, but did not specify what the material said. Judicial Watch, a conservative group that litigates on public corruption and other issues, said documents it obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit showed that reasons cited for the removal of material included: "Article is highly inflammatory and inaccurately argues the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization," and "author seems to conflate ‘Islamic Militancy’ with ‘terrorism’ and needs to define the difference and use it in their analysis." "The excised material included references linking the Muslim Brotherhood to terrorism, tying al Qaeda to the 1993 World Trade Center and Khobar Towers bombings, and suggesting that ‘young male immigrants of Middle Eastern appearance … may fit the terrorist profile best’," Judicial Watch said. Our ruling Perry said the Obama administration purged "training courses and information about Islamism, jihad, Sharia, and the Muslim Brotherhood." The FBI removed nearly 900 training documents containing information that was inaccurate, imprecise or depicted stereotypes, after a review of 160,000 pages and more than 1,000 videos. The review came after 2011 media reports about training material portraying Muslims stereotypically and prone to violence. Though the FBI did not publicly disclose the material it rescinded, Judicial Watch said that through a lawsuit for information, it found that removed material included references to the Muslim Brotherhood. Perry’s statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. We rate it Half True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com | null | Scott Perry | null | null | null | 2017-12-15T10:00:00 | 2017-11-30 | ['Muslim_Brotherhood', 'Sharia', 'Barack_Obama', 'Islamism'] |
snes-02287 | Texting "FOOD" to 877-877 will give you a nearby location where free meals are available for children during the summer. | true | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/can-text-food-get-free-meals-children/ | null | Viral Phenomena | null | Dan MacGuill | null | Can You Text ‘FOOD’ and Get Free Meals for Children? | 2 June 2017 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-06284 | 1 percent of Americans are millionaires. 47 percent of House Reps. are millionaires. 56 percent of Senators are millionaires. | half-true | /truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/21/facebook-posts/facebook-post-says-congress-has-disproportionate-s/ | Over the past two months, the Occupy Wall Street movement has spread to cities around the country, and those other movements are busy putting out messages that protest against income inequality. A reader recently sent us an example from Facebook, which was an online message credited to Occupy D.C. The posting says: "1 percent of Americans are millionaires." "47 percent of House Reps. are millionaires." "56 percent of Senators are millionaires." "What would the country be like if our representative government was actually representative?" The reader asked us to check it out, and we were curious ourselves if the division of wealth between the country as a whole and our elected leaders was quite that stark. So we decided to unpack the numbers. We’ll take it in two parts. "1 percent of Americans are millionaires." A millionaire is a person whose net worth is $1 million or more. Net worth is cash, home value, stocks, bonds and other property minus any debts owed. The Federal Reserve Board conducts a Survey of Consumer Finances every three years. Its last survey was in 2007, with an update in 2009. The left-leaning Economic Policy Institute analyzed that data and determined that the average wealth of the top 1 percent was close to $14 million in 2009, down from $19.2 million in 2007 (in part because of a decline in housing values). Still, many in the top 1 percent clearly were multimillionaires. A 2011 study by the Deloitte Center for Financial Services estimated there are around 10.5 million households in the U.S. in 2011 with net worth of more than $1 million. That's around 9 percent of all households, which is far larger than 1 percent. If you measure how many individuals have incomes of $1 million or more, the Occupy D.C. posting was closer to the mark. The Internal Revenue Service recently released income statistics for 2009. It found the top 1 percent of the country included people who made adjusted gross income $343,927 and up. But adjusted gross income can leave out some types of income, particularly types of income not subject to tax. For a fuller pictures, we turned to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. It created an economic analysis of total cash income for 2011, not just taxable or adjusted income. The center found that the top 1 percent in 2011 had an average income of $1.5 million a year. However, some elites made slightly less the a million. The least wealthy of the top 1 percent had cash income of $532,613. Interesting, but income only doesn't define millionaires. "47 percent of House Reps. are millionaires. 56 percent of Senators are millionaires." Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate are paid $174,000 annually, with leadership positions paid slightly more. But many members of Congress were wealthy before they arrived and have substantial net worth. Members of the House and Senate are required to file financial disclosures that include their assets and liabilities, and the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics compiles those disclosures. The representatives and senators are not required to disclose precisely how much they are worth, but they do have to indicate a range of amounts for their assets and liabilities. The center calculates the midpoint between these high and low estimates, then uses that midpoint to rank-order lawmakers from richest to least rich. According to the center’s most recent analysis, 183 members of the House had a midpoint net worth estimate of at least $1 million. Meanwhile, the center calculated that 67 senators had a midpoint net worth estimate of $1 million or higher. These numbers were for the calendar year 2010. The wealthiest member of Congress was Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the head of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. "Issa's minimum estimated net worth in 2010 was $195 million, while his maximum estimated net worth was more than $700 million," the center said in its analysis. The midpoint estimate in that range is $448 million. Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., is the least wealthy member of Congress. Hastings’ liabilities exceed his assets; the center reported that his minimum estimated net worth is negative $7.3 million while his maximum estimated net worth is negative $2.1 million. The median net worth of House members was an estimated $756,765, while the median net worth of a senator was $2.63 million. So, using these estimates -- and remember, these are only estimates -- 42 percent of House members are millionaires, while 67 percent of senators are millionaires. Our ruling The Facebook posting from Occupy D.C. said, "1 percent of Americans are millionaires. 47 percent of House Reps. are millionaires. 56 percent of Senators are millionaires." One recent study found that around 9 percent of all U.S. households have net assets of more than $1 million. So the claim on Facebook significantly understates the wealth of individuals. It's closer if you look only at income. The top 1 percent of Americans has an average income of $1.5 million. But the relevant figure would be net worth. As for members of Congress, the most recent estimate shows that 42 percent of House members and 67 percent of senators are millionaires in net worth. That means the Facebook post is a bit high in its estimate of House millionaires and a bit low in its estimate of Senate millionaires. The numbers support the underlying point of the Facebook post -- that members of Congress are disproportionately wealthy. But not on the scale suggested. We rate the Facebook post Half True. | null | Facebook posts | null | null | null | 2011-11-21T16:07:28 | 2011-11-17 | ['United_States'] |
pomt-06326 | No other public or private business in America except for the U.S. Postal Service must fund 100 percent of employee retirement and retirement health costs in advance. | mostly true | /georgia/statements/2011/nov/11/sanford-bishop/bishop-signs-letter-saying-post-office-faces-big-p/ | U.S. Postal Service leaders warn dire budget problems might force them to close offices and lay off 220,000 workers to keep from shutting down completely. But as ugly as the agency’s $9 billion deficit seems, lawmakers could do one simple thing to help stanch the bleeding, the postmaster general argues. Change laws that make the post office pay for retiree benefits years before the bills come due. Recently, U.S. Rep. Sanford Bishop, an Albany Democrat, signed a letter with 81 other members of Congress that echoed this argument. "The Postal Service would still have positive net revenue today except for the requirement that it prefund 100% of employee retirement and retirement health costs, a requirement that Congress imposed on it in 2006," it said. "No other public or private business in America faces this onerous and unnecessary requirement, and Congress could give the Postal Service breathing room to recalibrate its business model simply by repealing this retirement prefunding requirement," it continued. Our sister site PolitiFact National has already written about whether the post office’s financial losses would be solved by changing pension laws. What drew PolitiFact Georgia’s attention is the letter’s suggestion that the Postal Service is being singled out unfairly. Is it true that no other public or private business in America must prefund 100 percent of the costs of its retiree pension and health care benefits? Before we address this question, we should note that the USPS is a unique government organization. It’s a part of the executive branch, but unlike a typical federal employer, it can go belly up. And unlike with a typical business, Congress can pass laws that directly dictate how the Postal Service spends billions of dollars. One of these is the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006. It requires the Postal Service to do what’s called "prefund" 100 percent of the health benefits for its future retirees. The cost: About $5 billion a year until 2017. This is how it works. Each year, the federal government estimates how much Postal Service employees earned in pension and health retirement benefits and calculates what the USPS needs to save to pay these bills in the future. By law, the USPS has to store that money in a trust fund. The federal Office of Personnel Management, which oversees pensions for federal workers, acknowledged in a Feb. 28 study that among federal employers, the retiree health benefit funding rule is unique to the post office. They also said it’s essential. The USPS could go out of business, sticking the federal government with a bill it cannot pay. This could force the entire federal retiree health program to go broke, the OPM report argued. Now, let’s look at Bishop’s claim. Federal employers: Under the current retirement system, all federal employers, including the Postal Service, must prefund their pension benefits. And as we explained earlier, the USPS does have unique health benefit funding rules. It’s therefore accurate that under the current retirement system, no federal employer aside from the Postal Service must prefund 100 percent of both its retiree health and pension benefits. State and local governments: No federal or state rules require state or local governments to fully fund pension or health benefits, said Keith Brainard, director of research for the National Association of State Retirement Administrators. None of the experts we interviewed had heard of cities, towns or counties with health prefunding requirements. Private industry: By federal law, private companies must fund their pensions fully, and catch up over time if they fall behind. They don’t have to prefund retiree health benefits. This means there’s no reason to go postal over the claim by Bishop and others that "no other public or private business in America" except for the USPS must fund 100 percent of employee pension and retirement health costs in advance. By and large, this statement fits the evidence. We do take some issue with the claim’s broader point, which is that the retirement funding requirement unfairly singles out the post office. As we noted above, the office that manages federal retiree benefits argues the arrangement could keep the entire federal health benefit fund from going broke. With this dispute in mind, we rule Bishop’s statement Mostly True. | null | Sanford Bishop | null | null | null | 2011-11-11T06:00:00 | 2011-09-15 | ['United_States'] |
para-00129 | [From July 1] Labor’s carbon tax goes up by 5 per cent. | mostly true | http://pandora.nla.gov.au//pan/140601/20131209-1141/www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jul/01/joe-hockey/hockey-says-carbon-price-goes-5-cent-today/index.html | null | ['Carbon Tax'] | Joe Hockey | Ellie Harvey, Peter Fray | null | Hockey says the carbon price goes up 5 per cent today | Monday, July 1, 2013 at 1:20 p.m. | null | ['None'] |
snes-03318 | Spraying a mixture of vinegar and water on your car's windshield will effectively help de-ice it. | mixture | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-screen/ | null | Inboxer Rebellion | null | David Mikkelson | null | Will a Vinegar and Water Mixture De-Ice Your Windshield? | 17 November 2013 | null | ['None'] |
goop-02586 | Khloe Kardashian Threatening Tristan Thompson With Marriage Ultimatum? | 2 | https://www.gossipcop.com/khloe-kardashian-marriage-ultimatum-tristan-thompson/ | null | null | null | Shari Weiss | null | Khloe Kardashian Threatening Tristan Thompson With Marriage Ultimatum? | 1:44 pm, August 11, 2017 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-11086 | Says "massive floods" led to Legionnaires’ disease outbreaks at the Quincy Veterans’ Home. | false | /illinois/statements/2018/jun/18/bruce-rauner/rauners-legionnaires-claim-misses-mark-and-point/ | Gov. Bruce Rauner’s administration has faced a barrage of criticism for its response to a series of deadly Legionnaires’ disease outbreaks at the state-run veterans home in downstate Quincy. Speaking last week to a group of state employees and lawmakers about the state budget in downstate Marion, Rauner tied extreme weather conditions in 2015 to the outbreak that killed 12 Quincy Veterans’ Home residents that year and sickened dozens of others. Subsequent Legionnaires’ outbreaks at the home sickened more residents. "In 2015, we had massive floods and tornadoes," the governor said. "The Mississippi River got a bunch of flooded water into it, a lot of dirt, and a whole bunch of Legionella bacteria, which are nasty water bugs … The Mississippi River is where the Quincy Veterans’ Home gets its water. And bacteria got in all the old plumbing and we’ve been treating it and heating it and filtering it and you can’t get rid of all the bacteria, so now we’ve got to rebuild it." Rauner has been on the defensive over the Quincy situation ever since WBEZ, Chicago’s public radio station, disclosed late last year that his administration kept residents of the home as well as the public in the dark for several days after that 2015 outbreak was first detected. The flood theory isn’t the first time Rauner has sought to deflect blame for the deaths on to an Act of God out of his control. And that raises two complementary questions we thought worth checking out: Could he be right? And if he is, so what? Election year blame game The Quincy story continues to unfold against the backdrop of a heated election battle between Republican Rauner and Democrat J.B. Pritzker, so it stands to reason that the incumbent would be sensitive to allegations of fatally dropping the ball. Early this spring, we rated as Mostly False a claim by Pritzker seeking to connect a recent outbreak at Quincy of stomach flu-like norovirus with the earlier Legionnaires’ problems. A few months earlier, we rated as Half True an attempt by Rauner to explain away the Legionnaires’ problems at Quincy by stressing that the bacteria lurks in most Illinois water systems. Experts said such contamination usually presents no threat unless water systems are poorly maintained. Rauner’s argument about floods and tornadoes comes in the same spirit as his water systems comment, but experts say it is even less grounded in fact. WBEZ followed up by reporting that neither Rauner nor his public health administration were able to cite any analyses directly linking flooding to the outbreaks, which returned in 2016, 2017 and again this year. An array of experts, including federal health officials investigating the Quincy situation, also did not back up any flooding connection to the veterans’ home problems. So we asked Rauner’s office for any further evidence. We also sought an explanation for why attempting to pinpoint a cause for the initial outbreak mitigated criticism of how the administration handled the crisis once it was discovered. Spokeswoman Rachel Bold said the administration is exploring various theories for both the cause of, and remedy to, the outbreaks, and pointed to several studies on the correlation between increased rainfall and a heightened risk of Legionnaires’ disease. But she did not address our second question about the relevance of raising the flooding issue. Which underscores a different, and likely more important, point. Former President George W. Bush clearly was powerless to stop Hurricane Katrina from slamming into New Orleans in 2005. The problem for Bush was how slowly his administration reacted to a tragedy with broad and fatal consequences once winds subsided and the devastation became clear. Similarly, not even Rauner’s harshest critics have suggested he could have prevented the initial Legionnaires’ outbreak in 2015. But lawmakers from both parties and political opponents have blasted his administration for delays in responding to the crisis and possibly making it worse. Rauner vehemently disagrees, and it’s not our purpose here to weigh in on who is right or wrong on that score. What is significant, however, is whether the trigger for the outbreak in any way affected the response, and the governor has provided no evidence for that being the case. Our ruling While speaking to state employees and lawmakers about Illinois’ budgetary priorities, Rauner claimed "massive floods" led to a deadly Legionnaires’ disease outbreak that hit the Quincy Veterans’ Home during his first year in office. His administration was unable to cite any analysis specific to Quincy to demonstrate that link, and federal health experts who have investigated the Quincy situation have made no such connection, either. More to the point, criticism of the governor in respect to Quincy centers not on what led to the initial Legionnaires’ outbreak but how slow his administration was to respond while seniors were sickened and many died. The governor’s statement appears to be an effort to deflect blame. Rauner’s Act-of-God claims about the source of Legionnaires’ are unverified and off-point. For that, we rate his statement False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com | null | Bruce Rauner | null | null | null | 2018-06-18T07:00:00 | 2018-06-12 | ['None'] |
pomt-08056 | The tax-cut deal "adds more than $800 billion to the deficit over two years -- more than the cost of TARP and more than the cost of the Recovery Act" and about the same as health care reform. | mostly true | /virginia/statements/2010/dec/27/bobby-scott/rep-bobby-scott-says-tax-deal-costs-same-health-ca/ | Rep. Robert C. "Bobby" Scott was not among the members of Congress cheering the recent tax-cut deal. Scott, D-3rd, vehemently opposed any extension of the Bush-era tax cuts. Congress passed a two-year extension of all of them. In a statement, Scott said the tax deal will keep deficits high. "However popular these tax cuts may be today, that popularity will pale in comparison to the anger at the deep cuts in popular programs we will need to make in order to pay for this bill," he wrote. Scott added: "This bill adds more than $800 billion to the deficit over two years -- more than the cost of TARP and more than the cost of the Recovery Act. It costs about the same over two years as the 10-year cost of the Health Care Reform bill, which we paid for." That’s a lot to tackle, but we’re up to it. First, is the $800 billion for the tax cuts continuation correct? Yup, the Congressional Budget Office score of the tax compromise for just the next two years -- 2011 and 2012 -- is $797 billion. "The 10-year cost is a bit higher due to some residual effects even though the compromise itself only lasts for two years," notes Nick Kasprak, an analyst at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. Next, let’s check TARP, or the Troubled Asset Relief Program. It passed under President George W. Bush in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis. Scott’s OK there, too. TARP authorized $700 billion in spending, much of which has been paid back. The Treasury now estimatesthat the true cost (minus what’s paid back) will be about $30 billion. Next up, The Recovery Act, also known as The Stimulus. Here’s where Scott runs into a bit of trouble. The most recent Congressional Budget Office estimate of the Stimulus bill’s 10-year cost is $814 billion. That’s $17 billion more than the estimated cost of the tax compromise. Given that the new estimate was just released last month, perhaps Scott’s was relying on an older projection. The original Congressional Budget Office estimate was $787 billion, $10 billion less than the two-year tax cuts estimate. Let’s move to health care reform. Turning back to the CBO, the health care bill is projected to cost $788 billion over 10 years. As Kasprak notes, that is, in theory, to be paid for with $931 billion in increased revenue, for a net deficit reduction of $143 billion. "There are lots of assumptions and simplifications that go into a ten year score, and there is by no means universal agreement that the bill would actually reduce the deficit. But that is the official score," Kasprak said. Regardless, Scott’s more than safe on the cost alone. So, let’s review. Scott’s said the tax compromise will cost more than TARP, more than the Stimulus and about the same as close to the 10-year cost of the Health Care Reform bill. He’s right on TARP, right on health care reform, and off by a tad on the Stimulus -- perhaps because the cost estimate of the act recently changed. We rate his claim Mostly True. | null | Bobby Scott | null | null | null | 2010-12-27T10:00:00 | 2010-12-16 | ['Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program'] |
pomt-01361 | Jason Carter’s plan: increase spending by $12.5 billion. | false | /georgia/statements/2014/oct/20/nathan-deal/deal-attack-ad-misfires-claim-carter-will-spend-bi/ | Republican Gov. Nathan Deal has a new television ad out that says his Democratic opponent, state Sen. Jason Carter, plans to go on a spending spree if elected. It’s part of the GOP’s strategy to paint Democrats as the tax-and-spend party. "Jason Carter’s plan: increase spending by $12.5 billion," the ad’s narrator says at one point. That’s a head-turning forecast given that the state’s annual budget is about $21 billion. PolitiFact decided to review this one further. Deal spokeswoman Jen Talaber said the governor’s campaign developed the $12.5 billion projection based on Carter’s pledges to restore full funding to k-12 education and expand Medicaid. School systems have not been fully funded by the state since 2003. That’s become a major issue in this year’s governor’s race. Austerity cuts to education this year are about $747 million, and that’s better than the recent past. Talaber said the $12.5 billion forecast assumes that Carter will spend $1 billion a year in each of the next 10 years, $10 billion total, to fully restore education funding. But that also assumes Carter, if elected governor, would serve more than the two-term maximum (eight years) the law allows. Second, it assumes that the Legislature, now in Republican control, would follow his recommendation and approve the money every year. Lastly, at least for next year, the $1 billion is off the mark. Although adjustments have to be made for factors such as enrollment growth, school systems would need about $747 million to be fully funded, based on the extra money put into education this year on Deal’s recommendation. The campaign does the same thing with its math for Georgia’s cost to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. It’s $2.5 billion projection is for a decade, not a single year. That makes the figure disingenuous on its face. But the number does exist, in a 2012 Kaiser Family Foundation study that focused on the ACA's Medicaid expansion plan. If states sign up, the federal government pays all the costs for newly eligible enrollees in 2015 and 2016 and no less than 90 percent thereafter. A similar state study projected the cost to be about $2.1 billion – still in the same general range. Missing from the spending claim: the $31 billion to $35 billion in federal money that will come back into Georgia under expansion. In other words, Georgia’s spending would create a 17-fold return on investment in actual dollars. The state study projects the spending also would stimulate $65 billion in economic activity over the decade. "To say that the state is going to have to come up with $2.5 billion on its own is incorrect. There will be extra money coming back from the federal government," said William S. Custer, the author of the state report and director of the Center for Health Services Research at Georgia State University. Deal has adamantly opposed expansion and say there’s little reason to believe the debt-ridden federal government will continue to pay 90 percent of the costs far into the future. Further complicating the math, Georgia must spend some of the $2 billion projection, even without expansion, to meet ACA requirements. But without expansion, there is no counterbalance of federal money. And, from a state budget standpoint, there also are areas where expansion could cut spending. The studies don’t count cost reductions in state-funded health care to those who are incarcerated or in some mental health programs, who could be transferred to an expanded Medicaid program. The state has not done the calculations to determine the potential savings, which would likely need to be done on a case-by-case basis to determine Medicaid eligibility, said Timothy Sweeney, director of health policy at the left-leaning Georgia Budget and Policy Institute. Still, Sweeney said "substantial savings" could be achieved. "We are serving these people already, with state funding," Sweeney said. "It’s clear that transferring that service to federal funding would cut state costs." Those figures help prompt many health care leaders in Georgia to push for expansion. State lawmakers, though, backed Deal’s stance that expansion would be a fiscal trap by passing House Bill 990 last spring. The measure requires the GOP-controlled General Assembly to approve any expansion of Medicaid "through an increase in the income threshold." That leaves a loophole for Georgia to expand the program only via a loophole such as Arkansas did, by using the federal subsidy to buy private health care insurance, not Medicaid. That more or less leaves the fate of Medicaid expansion – and the potential costs – in the hands of the Legislature, not the governor. The ad says Carter’s plans will result in taxes on small businesses and the middle class, something Carter flatly denies. It calls Carter "silver tongued" and "untrustworthy." Carter says additional funding for education will come from cuts in government waste, recovery of delinquent taxes and economic growth. That’s typical campaign banter. (We’ve ruled Half True a claim by Carter that education funding can be increased significantly if the state goes after $2.5 billion in delinquent taxes. But what about the ad claim that Carter’s plan will cost $12.5 billion? Those cost projections cannot be taken seriously. They are for a period of 10 years -- longer than Carter could legally be in office. They leave out other critical facts -- like lawmakers would have to sign off on any major spending. We rate the ad claim as False. | null | Nathan Deal | null | null | null | 2014-10-20T00:00:00 | 2014-10-13 | ['None'] |
snes-02481 | President Trump has purchased the Mount Desert Island estate of David Rockefeller. | false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-purchases-rockefeller-estate/ | null | Junk News | null | David Mikkelson | null | Trump Purchases Ex-Rockefeller Estate? | 7 May 2017 | null | ['David_Rockefeller'] |
snes-04586 | A sea monster of giant size was spotted near Antarctica. | false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kraken-google-earth-sail-rock/ | null | Fauxtography | null | Dan Evon | null | Sea Monster Spotted Near Antarctica | 20 June 2016 | null | ['None'] |
snes-05004 | The name of the Christian holy day known as "Good Friday" derives from the term "God's Friday." | false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/good-friday-etymology/ | null | Uncategorized | null | David Mikkelson | null | What’s Good About Good Friday? | 25 March 2016 | null | ['God', 'Christian'] |
snes-01942 | Researchers at the Russian Institute for Medical Science discovered a new vaccine that may "prevent" or "cure" homosexuality in humans. | false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/russian-scientists-discover-cure-homosexuality/ | null | Junk News | null | David Emery | null | Did Russian Scientists Discover a ‘Cure’ for Homosexuality? | 8 August 2017 | null | ['None'] |
snes-02727 | The "Fire Fairy Challenge" has tricked multiple children into harming themselves. | mixture | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fire-fairy-game/ | null | Uncategorized | null | Dan Evon | null | Are Children Harming Themselves Because of a ‘Fire Fairy’ Game? | 20 April 2017 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-01717 | The music industry is the biggest export from Africa after oil and gas. | false | /punditfact/statements/2014/aug/07/dbanj/nigerias-bono-claims-music-one-africas-biggest-exp/ | All eyes are on Africa this week, as the Ebola crisis persists and dozens of its leaders converge in Washington for the first-ever U.S.-Africa business summit. And a recording artist nicknamed "Africa’s Bono" is chiming in. Nigerian popstar D’Banj, an ambassador for the ONE Campaign, discussed the summit on ABC’s This Week on Aug. 3. He promoted investing in African agriculture, through the power of music. According to D’Banj, Africa puts out more beats than anything else, except barrels. "The theme of the summit is … investing in the next generation," he said. "Ten years ago, we did not have any (music) industry, we did not have any support. We did not even have any record label. And because we believed in ourselves and we believed in what we had, we continued. And now the music industry is the biggest export from Africa after oil and gas." A spokesperson for the ONE campaign told us that D’Banj was not referring to music as an economic export, but rather making the point that beyond its oil reserves, Nigeria is best known for its entertainment industry. Nonetheless, we were curious about how the recording industry stacked up economically. Second fiddle? Neither the World Bank nor the International Federation for the Phonographic Industry had data on the African music recording industry. So we had World Bank economist Cesar Calderon walk us through how to estimate Africa’s export revenue in 2012. Using the World Trade Organization data, we calculated that Africa’s total export revenue -- combining merchandise exports and commercial services exports -- is around $720 billion. Fuel exports account for 49 percent of that total, or about $355 billion in 2012. Though the WTO has data from some African countries on exports generated by "audiovisual services," the list is far from comprehensive. The best we can do is look at the "personal, cultural, and recreational services" category, which includes revenue from music, film, TV, museums, libraries, etc. This is a subcategory of commercial services, and brought in $480 million in exports. Altogether, the entire entertainment sector makes up less than 0.1 percent of the total export revenue, a crumb of the export pie. So what are the biggest exports out of Africa? In terms of earnings, after oil, it’s minerals and agricultural products, according to Jennifer Cooke, the Africa director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Specifically, Economy Watch lists palm oil, gold and diamonds, cocoa, timber, and precious metals. Using WTO data, we found the share of total exports generated by agriculture (7.9 percent), mining products (6.9 percent), and manufactures (14.2 percent). These export sectors are at least 100 times larger than the entertainment industry. Can’t Afrobeat that Though the recording industry doesn’t bring as much cash, the books may not reflect the reality of sales. Industry experts and academics alike said it’s hard to gauge just how much the music industry is worth in Africa. For one, there’s no formalized reporting to keep track of content, and the distribution system is a network of street vendors who may reprint content after paying a one-time fee, said Aidbee Adiboye, a spokesperson for Chocolate City Group, one of Africa’s largest entertainment companies. And secondly, piracy is a problem. "The protection of intellectual property throughout the region remains a concerning issue," said Jenny Mbaye, who studies African cultural production at the University of Cape Town. "In this sense, the piracy challenge calls for actively confronting and redressing the persisting lack of information and poor documentation of the processes that animate the chain of production and labour dynamics in these economies." Looking at homespun statistics from Nigerian entertainment executives, album sales clocked $30 million in 2008 (triple that of 2005’s), global live performances brought in an additional $105 million, and ringtones sold $150 million in 2011. Nollywood -- that’s Nigeria’s film industry, the second largest in the world after Bollywood, according to the UN -- cashes in $250 million in annual revenue, according to the Financial Times. Now, these numbers represent total revenue, not export revenue. Nonetheless, they provide a general sense of how the industry is faring. And it’s worth noting that the African music industry is burgeoning, especially in D’Banj’s home Nigeria and especially as it moves to digital platforms. Though the African diaspora is the primary consumer of African entertainment, Africans living abroad can act as "introducers," according Michael Ugwu, the former CEO of iROKING, the largest digital distributor of Nigerian media. Ugwu, who is in the process of setting up Sony Music West Africa, said that as digital distribution becomes more popular, international platforms are increasingly looking at Africa as an untapped market and as a pool for local talent. "Although very little data can assist in providing a systematic knowledge of the music economy on the continent, African music and cultural products in general, certainly present a comparative advantage on the globally competitive market of creativity," said Mbaye. Of course, the continent is home to global popstars Akon and K'naan, as well as the famous choral group Ladysmith Black Mambazo. Just a few years ago, the world was afflicted with Ghanian dance fever with Azonto, in which moves are taken from humdrum activities like driving or washing clothes. And D’Banj himself has international appeal. His 2012 hit, "Oliver Twist," inspired a West End musical and featured a cameo role by Kanye West, who then signed D’Banj to his label G.O.O.D. Music as its first international artist. Our ruling D’Banj said, "The music industry is the biggest export from Africa after oil and gas." Africa has a good story to tell about its music, but that doesn't mean it's a major export. In fact, the entire entertainment sector comprised less than 0.1 percent of Africa’s export revenue, far behind other sectors like agriculture and mineral products. Experts said the reported revenue may be less than the actual numbers though, due to the lack of a reporting and distribution infrastructure in Africa. But it wouldn't be enough to make a significant different. We rate D’Banj's claim False. | null | D’Banj | null | null | null | 2014-08-07T14:44:13 | 2014-08-03 | ['Africa'] |
pomt-04132 | Our pension system is the only one in the country that’s 100 percent funded. | true | /wisconsin/statements/2013/jan/06/scott-walker/walker-says-wisconsins-pension-system-only-one-cou/ | Gov. Scott Walker is used to hearing cheers from conservative audiences when highlighting fiscal constraints he put on Wisconsin’s budget in 2011. He seemed a bit surprised, though, during his November 2012 address at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library when scattered applause broke out after he mentioned the state’s pension fund. Walker was comparing Wisconsin’s fiscal condition to that of California and of his standard punching bag, Illinois, which raised taxes to close a budget gap. "They have a pension system that’s not even halfway funded," Walker said of the Land of Lincoln. "Now, in contrast, in our state, our pension system is the only one in the country (that’s) 100 percent funded." Hearing some applause, Walker added: "You can clap for that, sure." In 2011, much attention centered on the mandate by Walker and the Republican-controlled Legislature that most public employees pay a larger share of their pension costs. It was part of Walker’s controversial drive to sharply curtail collective bargaining by public-sector unions. The health of the state-run Wisconsin Retirement System -- which serves some 166,000 retirees and 260,000 active workers, including teachers, state and municipal employees -- has received less attention. And though Walker made the statement awhile back, it’s worth a look as we enter into the new budget season. Is Wisconsin’s pension system the only one in the nation that’s fully funded? To evaluate the claim, we’ll examine the two most recent years with complete data, 2010 and 2011. The number we’re looking at is the "funded ratio" -- the ratio of a pension plan’s assets to its liabilities. It’s one key measure of whether a fund can meet all its future obligations. It varies with investment gains and losses, changes in benefits and other factors. A ratio of 100 percent means the fund -- at least as of that moment -- is in position to pay future retirees all their expected benefits. At the end of fiscal year 2010, which began before Walker took office, only Wisconsin had a fully funded pension plan (100 percent), the Pew Center on the States concluded in a widely cited June 2012 report. Walker spoke of the report at that time, and while it’s a bit dated, the report is of recent vintage. The Pew study noted that 34 state-run plans were below the 80 percent threshold that experts say is the minimum for a healthy system. There was a tiny bit of rounding in the determination that Wisconsin was 100 percent funded. The actual percentage at the end of 2010, Pew found, was 99.84 percent. The Pew Center considers that so close to 100 percent that it constitutes full funding, said Pew senior researcher David Draine. All told, the Pew report cited a $757 billion pension funding gap among the states on liabilities of $3 trillion, noting "serious concerns" about funding levels in 32 states. Illinois was lowest among the states at 45 percent in 2010. We found other evidence that backed up the ranking of Wisconsin as best-funded among state plans. That included a 2012 report by Morningstar, and a survey by the National Association of State Retirement Administrators using 2011 data that had Wisconsin as the highest-ranking state-run plan for general employees. (Some municipal plans, or state plans for just teachers or law enforcement, were healthier than Wisconsin). For the official 2010 and 2011 Wisconsin figures, we turned to a report by the Wisconsin Retirement System’s actuarial consultant, which annually calculates the funded ratio. The firm, Gabriel Roeder Smith & Company, reported 99.8 percent funding for year-end 2010. And for year-end 2011, the firm put the Wisconsin fund’s funded ratio at 99.9 percent, according to its latest report. The report showed the Wisconsin system at 99 percent or greater since 2003. Rob Marchant, deputy secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Employee Trust Funds, said the Pew report that put Wisconsin at 100 percent is probably the best source for comparing the states. Marchant added that "100 percent funded" is a loaded phrase that pension officials tend to avoid because various assumptions go into the calculation of a funded ratio. So it’s not an exact science. But the governor is on solid ground in saying the Wisconsin system is fully funded -- and the only one in the nation, to boot. One last note: One way the fund stays healthy is adjusting the annual pension payments to retirees. They go up or down depending on the investment performance of the fund. Because of the recession, payments for many state retirees decreased annually from 2009 to 2012 and will drop again in 2013, bringing the five-year total of cuts to $4 billion. Payments are projected to begin rising again in 2014. For a majority of retirees, payments cannot fall below what employees received upon retirement. Our rating Gov. Scott Walker told an audience of California conservatives that "Our pension system is the only one in the country that’s 100% funded." It’s slightly below 100%, but so close that a respected research organization rounds it up. And no other plan covering general state employees can make that claim. We rate Walker’s statement True. | null | Scott Walker | null | null | null | 2013-01-06T09:00:00 | 2012-11-16 | ['None'] |
pomt-06187 | Newt Gingrich "has suggested" building "a mirror system in space" could improve the Earth’s habitability. | true | /truth-o-meter/statements/2011/dec/12/david-brooks/david-brooks-says-newt-gingrich-once-proposed-putt/ | In a Dec. 9, 2011, column titled, "The Gingrich Tragedy," New York Times columnist David Brooks expressed ambivalence about the new front-runner in the Republican presidential race, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga. Brooks said that ideologically, Gingrich "comes closest to my worldview." But Brooks added that he was repelled by Gingrich’s "bombastic" style and "revolutionary temperament — intensity, energy, disorganization and a tendency to see everything as a cataclysmic clash requiring a radical response." In the column, Brooks cites negatively what he considered half-baked ideas by Gingrich. "For example, he has called for ‘a massive new program to build a permanent lunar colony to exploit the moon’s resources.’ He has suggested that ‘a mirror system in space could provide the light equivalent of many full moons so that there would be no need for nighttime lighting of the highways.’" The space-mirror system seemed so outlandish that we felt compelled to check whether Gingrich really suggested it. We e-mailed Brooks to ask where he found this quote, but we didn’t hear back. We did, however, locate a similar quote in an article by Andrew Ferguson published in the New York Times magazine on June 29, 2011. Ferguson read 21 books by Gingrich -- a famously prolific author -- in an attempt to answer his article’s titular question: "What Does Newt Gingrich Know?" Here’s a portion of what Ferguson wrote: "Gingrich’s first book, Window of Opportunity: A Blueprint for the Future, came out in 1984 and contained the seeds of much of what was to follow. Beneath its cover image — a flag-draped eagle inexplicably threatening the space shuttle— the backbencher Gingrich was identified as chairman of the congressional Space Caucus, a position that inspired a series of ‘space cadet’ jokes that took years to die. Window of Opportunity was co-written by Gingrich’s second wife, Marianne, and a science-fiction writer called David Drake. ... "In Window of Opportunity, Gingrich introduced himself as a futurist, a role he has played off and on throughout his career. There are problems inherent in futurism, most of them involving the future, which the futurist is obliged to predict (it’s his job) and which seldom cooperates as he would hope. Gingrich has called some and missed some. In 1984, he saw more clearly than most that computers would touch every aspect of commercial and private life, but nobody any longer wants to build ‘a large array of mirrors [that] could affect the earth’s climate,’ warming it up so farmers could extend the growing season." Because the quotes from Brooks and Ferguson are slightly different, we wanted to look directly at the book ourselves before making our judgment. In the book, Gingrich proposes (among many other ideas) "five simple steps to a bold future" in space, most unusually a lottery in which randomly selected taxpayers would win a spot on a space shuttle flight. But the floating mirror idea isn’t on this list. Instead, it’s included in Gingrich's recap of a June 1979, NASA-sponsored new concepts symposium in Woods Hole, Mass., "where 30 experts brainstormed a range of pioneering options for NASA worthy of Lewis and Clark." Here’s how Gingrich summarized the idea: "The climate group at the Woods Hole conference suggested that a large array of mirrors could affect the earth’s climate by increasing the amount of sunlight received by particular areas, citing recent feasibility studies exploring the possibilities of preventing frosts in Florida or enabling farmers in high altitudes to plant their wheat earlier. "A mirror system in space could provide the light equivalent of many full moons so that there would be no need for nighttime lighting of the highways. Ambient light covering entire areas could reduce the current danger of criminals lurking in the darkness. Mirrors could be arranged to light given metropolitan areas only during particular periods, so there would be darkness late at night for sleeping." Brooks’ portrayal glosses over the fact that Gingrich was primarily reciting proposals made by participants at a NASA-sponsored forum. Still, Gingrich cited them approvingly. Still, we didn’t want to stop with a look at whether Brooks framed the issue fairly. We also wanted to know whether this was ever a mainstream idea -- and whether it’s technologically feasible. One thing that’s clear is that it was not a new idea by the time it was raised at Woods Hole. At least two space pioneers promoted the concept in the 1920s, a full four decades before man landed on the moon. Hermann Oberth (1894-1989), a scientific author based in Germany, published several books in the 1920s that anticipated the "first rockets and satellites, … the landing on the moon, interplanetary probes, international manned space stations, and reusable space ferries," according to the museum that celebrates his life near Nuremberg, Germany. Among the ideas discussed in his books was "extraterrestrial utilization of the sun's energy with huge space mirrors that beam the collected sun energy down to earth." These ideas were popularized in a book by another space pioneer, an Austro-Hungarian named Hermann Noordung (1892-1929) in a 1928 book, The Problem of Space Travel: The Rocket Motor. So the idea is an old one. But despite several decades’ worth of advances in space technology by the time Gingrich published his book, space experts and scientists told us that the idea never got much beyond the science fiction stage. Yuri Pavlovich Semenov -- until 2005 the chief designer for Energia, the developer of Russian manned spacecraft -- "was quite a proponent" of the idea, said Marcia Smith of spacepolicyonline.com. During the Soviet era, Semenov and his allies thought such a technology could light up the northern latitudes of the USSR. However, "it was considered impractical by the mainstream space crowd, not just technically but in terms of the potential environmental effects," Smith said. John Logsdon, the founder and retired director of the Space Policy Institute at the George Washington University Elliott School of International Affairs, said that similar ideas "have been suggested over the years by ‘out of the box’ thinkers, but they never entered the mainstream." Others have suggested using mirrors to reflect the sun’s rays away from the earth, as a way to attack global warming, said Edward Ellegood, a space policy analyst at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. But where Gingrich’s idea is concerned, Ellegood said, "It’s probably not even remotely cost-effective." Here’s another problem: "Micro-meteorite bombardment would destroy these mirrors over a few-year time period," said Gregory Bothun, a University of Oregon physicist. The experts we spoke to for this story agreed that even if the idea proposed by Gingrich in 1984 was economically and technically feasible, it would entail too many downsides to be desirable. "Imagine a world where it never got dark! What would this do to plants, animals, my sleep, and the souls of poets and lovers everywhere?" said Scott Denning, an atmospheric science professor at Colorado State University, in an e-mail. "Imagine having a really annoying neighbor who beams sodium vapor lamps into your bedroom windows. Now imagine everyone in the world having such a neighbor." Raymond S. Bradley, a geoscientist at the University of Massachusetts, put it simply: "This is not a mainstream idea. It is one of the dumbest ideas I have heard of." Our ruling Gingrich co-wrote his book more than a quarter century ago, and since he doesn’t appear to have reiterated the call for floating mirrors in recent years, we can safely assume the idea is no longer at the top of his policy agenda. But did cite the idea approvingly in his book, so we rate Brooks’ statement True. | null | David Brooks | null | null | null | 2011-12-12T11:40:26 | 2011-12-09 | ['None'] |
farg-00398 | “Joining ‘Soros Funded’ Antifa Is Now Illegal, Punishable By 15 Years In Prison” | false | https://www.factcheck.org/2018/07/antifa-crackdown-a-proposal-not-law/ | null | fake-news | FactCheck.org | Angelo Fichera | ['Antifa'] | Antifa Crackdown a Proposal, Not Law | July 18, 2018 | 2018-07-18 20:50:43 UTC | ['None'] |
pomt-02999 | When SACS came back to the DeKalb County School District to give a midterm review, we got straight A’s. | mostly false | /georgia/statements/2013/oct/17/michael-thurmond/dekalb-superintendent-guilty-grade-inflation-descr/ | Things have been tough for the DeKalb County School District. The state’s third-largest school system was in danger of losing its accreditation. It has struggled financially, leaving reserves almost depleted and requiring deep budget cuts, teacher furloughs and larger class sizes. A former superintendent is currently in court on racketeering charges. Gov. Nathan Deal removed two-thirds of the school board for financial mismanagement and micromanaging that put the district at risk. And an interim chief, former state Labor Commissioner Michael Thurmond, was brought in earlier this year to try to right the ship. Thurmond has been optimistic, repeatedly reminding parents and staff that the district will improve, but that it will take work to turn things around. He has continued to spread his message of hope in district updates, particularly about the school system’s accreditation. "When SACS came back at midterm for review we got straight A’s," Thurmond said during a meeting with parents earlier this month. We were intrigued by the superintendent’s statement. Had DeKalb, with its ongoing legal, financial and personnel issues, secured a perfect score with an accrediting agency? We decided to do our homework and find out. Thurmond made his statement at Towers High School in south DeKalb during a parent council meeting. The then-interim superintendent had been traveling across the county, speaking to various parent and school groups. (Just last week the DeKalb school board voted to extend Thurmond’s superintendent contract two more years, through summer 2015.) To check Thurmond’s claim, PolitiFact Georgia had to research DeKalb’s accreditation history. Last year, a team from the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools -- a private agency that accredits public schools in Georgia and elsewhere -- visited DeKalb to investigate numerous allegations of school board mismanagement. Representatives for SACS’ parent company, AdvancED, said the board was accused of undue interference in administrative matters, as well as wasting money. At the time, DeKalb’s accreditation -- which greatly affects students’ college acceptance chances -- was already in a precarious position, at a less than stellar "on advisement" status. Ultimately, the district’s accreditation was placed on probation, with SACS officials warning that a full accreditation loss was imminent without immediate changes. Earlier this year, after the system was placed on probation, the governor removed and replaced six board members. The Georgia Supreme Court is expected to rule by November on a challenge to the law that allows governors to remove school boards in districts on probation. In May, a SACS team returned to DeKalb for a three-day review, as Thurmond noted during the parent meeting. The agency issued a report of its findings in July. The report indicated that all 11 required actions from the agency’s October 2012 visit were "in progress." The monitoring team concluded that the district had made "recognizable progress." The report also noted: "The overall progress of the district in addressing the required actions is still evolving and significant work remains to be accomplished." Another SACS monitoring team is scheduled to return to DeKalb for a two-day visit in December. In the meantime, the district remains on probation. We asked Thurmond’s office about the superintendent’s claim and reading of the SACS report. "In the educational arena, an ‘A’ grade is generally awarded when a student receives a score of 90-100. It is important to note that an ‘A’ does not require perfection, but an ‘A’ does represent significant and noteworthy achievement," a district spokesman said in an email. The spokesman said Thurmond was speaking metaphorically about the importance of the interim report, which noted significant improvements during the past two months and recognizable progress on addressing the 11 required actions. PolitiFact Georgia also questioned SACS about Thurmond’s claim. Agency representatives noted that AdvancED and SACS do not give letter grades to school systems. "(Thurmond) was clearly using an analogy that the monitoring visit was positive," said an email from the company spokeswoman and CEO. "The report clearly indicates that the district is moving in the right direction but that the required actions remain In Progress as there is much work to be done in ensuing months and years." We also checked with the Georgia School Boards Association, which helps boards prepare for SACS visits, for thoughts on Thurmond’s statement. A board development specialist with that agency deferred to SACS for an explanation. So, was DeKalb Schools Superintendent Michael Thurmond correct that the district’s midterm review from an accrediting agency back in May resulted in a straight-A report card? It’s subjective. Thurmond used the letter grade as an interpretation of the positive SACS report. The report does note the district’s improvements on 11 requirements over the past few months. But it also notes the significant work that is left to do, and it questions whether the school board and district leadership can successfully complete it. And most important, the district remains on probation until another monitoring visit at the end of the year. An A means exceeding standards – that’s not what the district is doing. It’s making progress, which isn’t an A in anyone’s book. We rate Thurmond’s claim Mostly False. | null | Michael Thurmond | null | null | null | 2013-10-17T16:25:28 | 2013-10-03 | ['None'] |
tron-02891 | Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee Tweets President Trump Determined to Start War with North Japan | fiction! | https://www.truthorfiction.com/rep-sheila-jackson-lee-tweets-president-trump-determined-start-war-north-japan/ | null | politics | null | null | ['congress', 'donald trump', 'fake news'] | Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee Tweets President Trump Determined to Start War with North Japan | Jan 22, 2018 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-15242 | Since I took office, Wisconsin now has the 2nd highest health care quality ranking in the country. | half-true | /wisconsin/statements/2015/aug/05/scott-walker/scott-walker-says-he-took-office-wisconsin-has-ran/ | Amid the field of GOP presidential contenders, Gov. Scott Walker is projecting himself as the candidate who has gotten things done. On July 26, 2015, he took to Twitter with a series of claims all beginning with "Since I took office." Several were ones we have already put to the Truth-O-Meter. "We made it easier to vote but hard to cheat." We rated a similar claim Mostly True. "Property taxes are lower today than 4 years ago." That also clocked in at Mostly True. Walker tweeted one claim we hadn't checked: "Since I took office, Wisconsin now has the 2nd highest health care quality ranking in the country. - SW #Walker16" Wisconsin is often regarded as having some of the best health care in the nation. But Walker has come under fire for his actions, especially when he did not accept federal dollars available through Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. But he also signed the Quality Improvement Act and a hospital regulatory bill. He established a grant program to encourage primary care physicians and psychiatrists to practice in underserved areas. And Walker also put more money toward mental health care. We wondered if the rating on the state’s health care quality care had changed much under Walker. Report looks at quality When asked for backup, Walker's team pointed us to a ranking released each year by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The federal agency ranked the state second only to New Hampshire in its 2015 report. Wisconsin had been ranked third in 2014, so it moved up one spot. The ranking draws data from three dozen sources and gives each state a score based on some 200 measures of health care access, quality and elements related to a set of national health care priorities. The assessment is considered the most thorough measure of health care quality. The agency, part of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, started releasing overall scores on health care quality for each state in 2007. That year Wisconsin was ranked number one in health care quality. For the next few years, Wisconsin held the first or second spot in the nationwide ranking. In 2011, the year after Walker took office, the state fell to seventh, based on 2010 data. Even then, Wisconsin's health care quality score was not far behind the states in the top five. Since then, the state climbed back up in the rankings until it reached number two again in 2015. Ernest Moy, who works on the team that writes the report, said most states go up and down a few spots each year. One drawback to the ranking is that it can accentuate small differences that may not be meaningful. "States that are stable in rank are not static but rather improving at the same rate as most other states," Moy said. "For a state to improve its rank, it needs to improve at a faster rate than most other states." This isn't the only health care quality ranking. The Commonwealth Fund, a think tank that supports better quality in health care, especially for society's most vulnerable, also ranks all 50 states on health care quality. On its 2014 scorecard, the Commonwealth Fund ranked Wisconsin seventh. That is up from ninth in 2009. The latest scorecard evaluated state health care performance between 2007 and 2012 based on 42 measures of access, quality, costs and outcomes using publically available data, such as government surveys. Wisconsin performed the best in the prevention and treatment category and the worst in avoidable hospital use and cost. Our rating Walker tweeted, "Since I took office, Wisconsin now has the 2nd highest health care quality ranking in the country." He backed this up with a reputable ranking from a federal agency. But the state had always been ranked highly and, aside from a downward blip the year after he took office, had long been No. 1 or No. 2. We rate the claim Half True. | null | Scott Walker | null | null | null | 2015-08-05T05:00:00 | 2015-07-26 | ['Wisconsin'] |
pomt-11412 | Biden preparing 2020 presidential bid -- with Obama as vice president. | pants on fire! | /punditfact/statements/2018/mar/21/yournewswirecom/no-joe-biden-not-running-president-barack-obama-hi/ | Rumors have spread suggesting that Joe Biden is not only running for a 2020 presidential bid, but he is planning to do so alongside former president Barack Obama as vice president. "Biden preparing 2020 presidential bid - with Obama as vice president," read the headline on March 15, 2018, on Your News Wire, a hoax website claiming to "cover the headlines the mainstream outlets shy away from" on its Facebook page. Facebook users flagged the post as being potentially fabricated, as part of the social media network’s efforts to combat online hoaxes. Earlier this month, PolitiFact debunked that Biden has confirmed that he is running for president in 2020. The latest story begins by citing a real Politico story regarding Biden’s proposals on how to defeat President Donald Trump in the 2020 election. Despite the fact that the Politico article stated, "Biden hasn’t been actively exploring the presidential options himself, and is far from making any decision about whether he’ll run," the Your News Wire article writes that it says that Biden is preparing for his campaign announcement. There is no evidence that is happening. The hoax goes on to say that Biden has chosen Obama -- whom he used to serve under as vice president -- to be his running mate. The story claims that it would be legal under constitutional law for the two to run together, but two-term presidents have traditionally taken an unspoken vow to retire from public life. The 22nd Amendment prohibits a president from being elected for more than two terms, but it does not explicitly mention a former president being elected as vice president. However, the 12th Amendment states that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." The unspoken vow two-term presidents take is also exaggerated. There is no obligation for a two-term president to stay out of public life. Since he left office, Obama has given public speeches at universities and is working on new books. The article goes on to quote two different real stories from the Hill newspaper, but it only provides a link to one changing the context of the quotes given in different stories regarding speculation of Biden’s bid. Quotes from Biden’s aides about Biden and Obama reclaiming the White House were also made up. When searching for these quotes, the only results we found came from the Your News Wire story. We rate this headline Pants on Fire. | null | YourNewsWire.com | null | null | null | 2018-03-21T12:40:14 | 2018-03-15 | ['Barack_Obama', 'Joe_Biden'] |
tron-00459 | A snake pulling a kangaroo from a river? | truth! | https://www.truthorfiction.com/python-roo/ | null | animals | null | null | null | A snake pulling a kangaroo from a river? | Mar 17, 2015 | null | ['None'] |
pose-00775 | Transitioning debt service away from the Georgia Department of Transportation and dedicating all of the motor fuel tax revenues to transportation projects. | not yet rated | https://www.politifact.com/georgia/promises/deal-o-meter/promise/805/dedicate-all-of-the-motor-fuel-tax-revenues-to-tra/ | null | deal-o-meter | Nathan Deal | null | null | Dedicate all of the motor fuel tax revenues to transportation projects | 2011-01-06T16:27:46 | null | ['None'] |
snes-06178 | The "2 Millions Bikers to DC" group has been denied a "no-stop" permit for a Washington ride-through on 11 September 2013. | true | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/2-million-bikers-to-dc/ | null | September 11th | null | David Mikkelson | null | 2 Million Bikers to DC | 10 September 2013 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-14215 | 90 percent of fires in Arizona are human-caused. | half-true | /arizona/statements/2016/apr/19/doug-ducey/are-90-percent-fires-arizona-caused-humans/ | As officials gear up for wildfire season in Arizona, Gov. Doug Ducey talked fire safety at a press conference April 13. "I think it’s important to note that 90 percent of fires in Arizona are human-caused," Ducey said. "Unattended campfires, discarded cigarettes, hot exhaust pipes, any source of extreme heat or spark can result in a Wallow or Rodeo-Chediski fire." Given Arizona’s vast land area, 113,594.08 square miles to be exact, we were curious as to whether nine out of every 10 fires in the state really are caused by humans and how that could be documented. Sort of Ducey’s spokesman, Daniel Scarpinato, provided us with Arizona State Forestry data that backs up the governor’s claim on the surface. In 2015, 352 out of 404 fires, more than 87 percent, were human-caused. Of the 304 fires reported this year, 296, more than 97 percent, were human-caused. The State Forestry maintains a database of all fires, even if they don’t respond to a blaze at first. State Forestry spokesman Bill Boyd said most fires historically are human-caused, even something as simple as parking a hot car over grass. "If you look at it over the years, there is a large human component in there," Boyd said. But there’s a caveat here -- the data only includes fires on state and private land, not federal land. Ducey said "in Arizona," which also includes federally-managed land. Almost 40 percent of the Grand Canyon State is federal land. Multiple agencies, including the U.S. Agriculture Department, U.S. Defense Department and U.S. Interior Department, have fire jurisdiction over certain areas of land. For example, the U.S. Forest Service has fire jurisdiction over national forests and the Bureau of Indian Affairs does the same for tribal land. "It is complex and coordinated at all levels, from local to national," said Mary Zabinski, spokeswoman for the Southwest Coordination Center, an interagency group of state and federal agencies. All that coordination means we do have a total for the entire state for human-caused fires. According to the Southwest Coordination Center, for the entire state of Arizona -- state, private and federal land -- 61 percent of fires in 2015 were caused by humans, and 39 percent of fires were caused by lightning. However, U.S. Forest Service spokeswoman Jennifer Jones notes that 90 percent of wildfires on all land nationwide are caused by humans. "Typically, the majority of fires on land under the jurisdiction of state and local government agencies are human caused as those lands are closer to homes and roads," Jones said. Our ruling Ducey said that "90 percent of fires in Arizona are human-caused." Ducey’s claim is correct when referencing only state and private land. But he wasn’t that specific. Fires "in Arizona" includes federally-managed land, in addition to state and private land. And the percentage of human-caused fires on all those lands combined isn’t 90 percent, it’s 61 percent. So Ducey has a point that human activity is contributing to wildfires, but the number he cites is a good bit off. On balance, we rate Ducey’s claim Half True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/525a6335-26e4-476f-8213-ceac74e77b7c | null | Doug Ducey | null | null | null | 2016-04-19T12:00:00 | 2016-04-13 | ['Arizona'] |
pomt-15026 | It's estimated we leave somewhere north of $350 billion a year - that's billion - a year on the table uncollected because IRS doesn't have the resources. | half-true | /virginia/statements/2015/oct/05/gerry-connolly/connolly-says-irs-lacks-resources-collet-350-billi/ | U.S. Rep. Gerry Connolly, who represents legions on federal workers living in Northern Virginia, scoffs at conservative efforts to pare the Internal Revenue Service. Congress has cut about $1.2 billion from the IRS budget during the past five years. The actions impair the nation’s ability to collect revenue needed to reduce deficits, Connolly, D-11th, said during a Sept. 9 interview on Federal News Radio. "It’s estimated we leave somewhere north of $350 billion a year - that’s billion - a year on the table uncollected, because IRS doesn’t have the resources," he said. Connolly added that if the IRS had more resources, it could collect so much in unpaid taxes that the government could get rid of the so-called sequestration budget cuts - projected to slice about $1 trillion during the next decade - and have enough left over to make a sizable down payment on the national debt. We examined Connolly’s claim that the U.S. loses about $350 billion in tax revenue each year because the IRS lacks the means to collect it. George Burke, the congressman’s spokesman, said Connolly’s statement was based on IRS reports on the country’s "tax gap" - the amount of underreported income, unpaid tax bills and taxes that never were collected because returns weren’t filed. "On several occasions, IRS officials have testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the amount of uncollected taxes and the agency's lack of resources," Burke wrote in an email. "The potential return on investment is mind-boggling." The $350 billion The IRS periodically provides an estimate of how much revenue Uncle Sam is owed but doesn’t collect because of tax evasion. Mark Hanson, an IRS spokesman, told us in an email that it takes years for the agency to compile its tax-gap estimate, because it requires complicated research. The latest figures available are for 2006. The IRS says there were nearly $2.7 trillion in total tax liabilities in 2006. Of that amount, about $450 billion wasn’t paid on time. The main cause of missed payments was taxpayers underreporting their income, the IRS said. Some late payments eventually trickled in, and the IRS took enforcement actions against some tax scofflaws. Those actions recovered about $65 billion, according to the agency’s tallies, leaving about $385 billion in liabilities the IRS says it was owed but didn’t collect. So Connolly’s claim that there’s "somewhere north" of $350 billion in taxes left on the table has validity. Is all that tax collectible? To complete our fact check, we also need to look at the second part of Connolly’s statement - that the IRS doesn’t collect the $350 billion-plus each year because it lacks "resources." Two analysts told us that extra resources could help the IRS narrow the gap, but it wouldn’t completely erase tax evasion. "Some of it is uncollectible, people don’t have the money," said Eric Toder, co-director of the non-partisan Tax Policy Center who has written about the tax gap. Moreover, Toder said that certain unpaid tax liabilities are just inherently difficult to discover, such as cash transactions by small businesses that can occur without any record. More auditors would capture some unpaid taxes, Toder said, but they would provide only a few stitches in mending the tax gap. In 2007, Toder authored a paper that said Congress and President George W. Bush’s administration could take added steps to patch the tax gap, such as providing the IRS more resources for enforcement and requiring taxpayers to report more income information. But he said policymakers had to be realistic about the return they would see on such initiatives. "Although estimates of how much additional resources and better enforcement tools would raise are incomplete and highly uncertain, it is extremely unlikely that they could raise more than $20-30 billion per year," Toder wrote. In an interview, Toder told us there is a danger the tax gap could grow if the IRS is cut back too much and there becomes a sense that enforcement is lax due to strained resources. We also spoke to Robert Goulder, tax policy counsel at Tax Analysts, a Falls Church-based non-profit that examines tax regulations. He told us filling the gap would require unrealistic scenarios, such as an IRS agent being assigned to watch the cash register at every "mom and pop" small business. Added enforcement also would run counter to an American culture that chafes at inquiries from the IRS, Goulder said. Even with an unlimited budget, Goulder said, "they still couldn’t get the tax gap down to zero." A 2012 Government Accountability Office report, which looked at various strategies to cut down the tax gap, said "closing the entire gap may not be feasible, since it could entail more intrusive recordkeeping or reporting than the public is willing to accept or more resources than the IRS is able to commit." It cited a 1997 GAO report which said "it would be unrealistic to assume that our tax system, or any tax system, can achieve 100-percent compliance and thus eliminate the tax gap." Our ruling Connolly said Uncle Sam forgoes $350 billion a year because the Internal Revenue Service lacks the resources to find and collect that amount. His figure is solid, based on the latest data available from the IRS -- from 2006. But his contention that the gap is caused by lack of IRS resources is an overstatement. Although analysts say more manpower could help the agency narrow the gap, it wouldn’t come close to filling it. Some unpaid taxes are extremely difficult to sniff out, and some people simply can’t pay, they said. So on the whole, we rate Connolly’s statement Half True. Editor's note: A previous version of this story had the wrong figure for the amount of cuts to the IRS budget in the last five years. | null | Gerry Connolly | null | null | null | 2015-10-05T00:00:00 | 2015-09-08 | ['None'] |
snes-03910 | A photograph shows Barack and Michelle Obama dressed as a pimp and ho at a White House event. | false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/false-white-house-halloween-party/ | null | Politicians | null | David Mikkelson | null | Obamas at a White House Ball | 2 October 2009 | null | ['White_House', 'Barack_Obama', 'Michelle_Obama'] |
pomt-12604 | California’s Central Valley and Inland Empire "are experiencing tremendous job growth." | mostly true | /california/statements/2017/apr/04/jerry-brown/jerry-browns-mostly-true-claim-about-tremendous-jo/ | Gov. Jerry Brown frequently touts California’s overall job growth when telling what he’s called the state’s ‘comeback’ story. He claimed recently on NBC’s Meet the Press that California has added "2.1 million jobs in the last six or seven years." We checked the numbers and rated that claim True. Later in the same interview, the show’s host Chuck Todd asked Brown about inland California’s struggles, leading to another claim that caught our attention: Chuck Todd: "But there are parts of your state that are struggling. You have rural counties, ones that don’t touch the ocean, struggling. Housing prices are up there, while jobs don’t go there." Gov. Brown: "The Inland Empire, the Central Valley, they have a harder time. But they, too, are experiencing tremendous job growth." Brown makes his jobs claim at about the 2:05 minute mark in the video above. California’s job growth is normally associated with coastal hubs like Silicon Valley and San Francisco. So, we wondered whether Brown had his facts right when he said these inland regions had really experienced "tremendous job growth," too. We set out on a fact-check. Inland Empire Home to about 4.5 million people, Riverside and San Bernardino counties make up what’s known as the Inland Empire, a sprawling set of communities east of Los Angeles. The economists we spoke with say Brown’s case for "tremendous job growth" here is a strong one. The region’s 3.2 percent job growth rate was the fastest among the state’s large metro areas from February 2016 through February 2017, said John Husing, chief economist for the Inland Empire Economic Partnership. During that year, it added 47,500 jobs, which was more than the 35,700 created in the Santa Clara metro area, considered the heart of Silicon Valley, Husing said. "This area is a real growth engine," he added, listing construction, logistics and transportation among the growing sectors. Over the past five years, as the region has recovered from the Great Recession, it added jobs at a rate of 22.3 percent. That trailed only the San Francisco-Redwood City-South San Francisco metro area’s 22.7 percent rate among large metros. A spokesman for the Brown Administration cited the same statistics backing up the governor’s claim. Colin Strange of the San Bernardino Area Chamber of Commerce said San Bernardino is seeing job growth, but mainly in "blue-collar jobs" that pay about $15 per hour including fork-lift operators and truck drivers. Husing, who has studied the region’s wages, said the Inland Empire has a lower share of high-paying administrative jobs compared with the state as a whole. He said, however, that the region is outperforming the state in its share of middle-class jobs that pay between $45,000 and $60,000. Central Valley The Central Valley stretches about 450 miles from Bakersfield north to Redding. It includes urban cities like Sacramento, Stockton, Modesto and Fresno, vast farmland and a diverse economy, making job growth trends for the overall region more complex. A report by Stanislaus State University in the Central Valley city of Turlock offers some help. That report shows the 8-county San Joaquin Valley, which makes up the central and southern portions of the Central Valley, experienced a 1.56 percent job growth rate in 2016; a 1.86 percent rate in 2015 and 1.80 percent in 2014. Those averages trailed the state’s overall job growth average, which measured 3 percent in 2015 and about 2 percent last year. But it beat the 8-county region’s 1.23 percent historical average job growth rate. SOURCE: Stanislaus State University, College of Business Administration, 2016 Business Forecast Report, Volume VI, Issue 1 "Within its own limits, the Valley has consistently grown. But it hasn’t been a home run," Gokce Soydemir, an economics professor at Stanislaus State, said of job growth in that portion of the Central Valley. Jeffrey Michael, director of the University of Pacific’s Center for Business and Policy Research in Stockton, added by email: "Central Valley areas have also done very well in recent years with the exception of Bakersfield, where recent economic fluctuations are tightly connected to the oil industry." Bakersfield’s job growth rate was flat, at 0.1 percent, over the past year. Meanwhile, Sacramento, the biggest metro area in northern portion of the Central Valley, saw 1.8 percent growth over the past year, close to the statewide average. Our ruling Gov. Jerry Brown recently claimed California’s Central Valley and Inland Empire "are experiencing tremendous job growth." Economists say Brown is right about the Inland Empire. That region experienced the fastest job growth rate among the state’s large metro areas over the past year, and added more jobs than the Santa Clara metro area, the heart of Silicon Valley, during that period. Job growth in the Central Valley, while it’s outperformed its historical benchmark in much of the diverse region, hasn’t kept up with the overall state average. The governor’s argument here needs this key clarification. In the end, we rate his overall claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE – The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com | null | Jerry Brown | null | null | null | 2017-04-04T06:00:00 | 2017-03-26 | ['Central_Valley_(California)'] |
tron-01828 | Donations for Baby Born With Heart Outside Body | fiction! | https://www.truthorfiction.com/donations-for-baby-born-with-heart-outside-body/ | null | health-medical | null | null | ['Trending Rumors'] | Donations for Baby Born With Heart Outside Body | Apr 23, 2015 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-10065 | Says a Congressional Budget Office report on spending by House Democrats in the economic stimulus concluded it "is just not stimulus. It won't help the economy grow." | false | /truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jan/22/eric-cantor/Cantor-distorts-CBO-data/ | In the debate over how best to provide economic stimulus, put U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor, the Republican whip, in the camp that thinks more tax cuts and less government spending is the way to go. Fair enough. But in a Jan. 21, 2009, interview on Fox News, Cantor cited a recent report from the Congressional Budget Office to back up his argument. "We have a list of ideas very focused on small businesses, the self-employed, entrepreneurs and families, because we believe very much you provide tax relief to those individuals that we will see an economy that bounces back," Cantor said. "Unfortunately, here on the Hill, what we're seeing now is the congressional Democrats proposed massive amounts of spending; that in fact today the Congressional Budget Office came out with a report — said that it's just not stimulus. It won't help the economy grow." That seemed odd, given that the CBO is supposed to be an objective, nonpartisan fiscal research arm for Congress. So we decided to check it out. What Cantor cited is not so much a CBO report as a data run projecting how much of the proposed $355 billion stimulus money proposed by House Democrats for infrastructure projects like bridge, highway or school construction and other "discretionary" spending would be going out the door in any given year. Because while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi talks about "shovel ready" projects, the reality is many of the proposed projects would take time to get off the ground. The CBO analysis found that about $136 billion of the $355 billion total would be spent in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 (remember, we are already 4-1/2 months into the 2009 fiscal year). So that means only about a third would be spent this year and next. By the end of the 2011 fiscal year, about 70 percent of the money would be spent. When we called Cantor's office, they made the point that the CBO data show that the proposed spending by the Democrats wouldn't be spent fast enough to quickly stimulate the faltering economy. They note that a previous CBO report projected a marked contraction in the U.S. economy in 2009 will be followed by a slow recovery in 2010. Therefore, Cantor and other Republicans have argued, the bulk of the infrastructure spending wouldn't kick in until we are already well out of a recession. "If most of the plan won't be spent before 2011, what help is that to the economy now?" said Cantor spokesman Brad Dayspring. Therefore, he said, it's fair to extrapolate from the data that the Democrats' plan won't help the economy. A few caveats to the CBO spending analysis are in order. First, as Cantor acknowledged later in the Fox interview, the CBO analysis referenced by Cantor only looked at so-called discretionary spending, not the entire $825 billion stimulus package proposed by House leaders. Among the spending not analyzed is a proposed $275 billion in tax cuts and nearly $200 billion for jobless benefits — both of which are expected by some to jump-start the economy more quickly than infrastructure projects. Second, the CBO data is based on an already outdated version of the proposed stimulus package. Last, and perhaps most important, the three-page CBO data sheet makes absolutely no qualitative conclusions about whether infrastructure spending will stimulate the economy, or whether it will or won't help the economy to grow. It projects when the money would be spent, period. There is sure to be heated debate between Democrats and Republicans in the coming weeks about spending versus tax cuts in the proposed stimulus package, and which would create more jobs, more quickly. If Cantor's point is that Democrats have been too optimistic in how quickly they can create jobs through infrastructure projects, the CBO data give a bit of ammunition to suggest that such projects will likely take several years to unfold. But the way Cantor said it suggests that the nonpartisan and well-regarded CBO had come out with a report that said the opposition party's proposal wouldn't work. That's a serious distortion of three pages of data that simply laid out a likely timeline of spending. Yes, coupled with other data, it is possible to make an argument that the proposed infrastructure spending won't provide an urgently needed boost to the ecomony, but that's not an argument the CBO weighs in on one way or another. And Cantor's suggestion that it does is False. | null | Eric Cantor | null | null | null | 2009-01-22T20:21:41 | 2009-01-21 | ['Democratic_Party_(United_States)'] |
snes-05853 | Mike Huckabee created a handy guide to identifying a secret homosexual handshake. | false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/huckabee-handshake/ | null | Junk News | null | Dan Evon | null | Did Mike Huckabee Discover a ‘Secret Homosexual Handshake’? | 4 February 2015 | null | ['Mike_Huckabee'] |
bove-00274 | Did Baahubali Actor Prabhas Donate Rs. 121 Crore To CRPF Jawans? | none | https://www.boomlive.in/did-baahubalis-prabhas-meet-pm-to-donate-rs-121-crore-to-crpf-jawans/ | null | null | null | null | null | Did Baahubali Actor Prabhas Donate Rs. 121 Crore To CRPF Jawans? | May 05 2017 12:14 pm, Last Updated: May 05 2017 3:08 pm | null | ['None'] |
pose-00663 | Immediately approve pending free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea. | promise kept | https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/gop-pledge-o-meter/promise/693/approve-pending-free-trade-agreements-with-colombi/ | null | gop-pledge-o-meter | John Boehner | null | null | Approve pending free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea | 2010-12-22T09:57:30 | null | ['Colombia', 'South_Korea', 'Panama'] |
pomt-06717 | Says that in 2009 ExxonMobil "paid no federal income taxes, received a $156 million rebate." | false | /ohio/statements/2011/sep/01/dennis-kucinich/rep-dennis-kucinich-says-exxonmobil-paid-no-taxes-/ | For the past year or so, Exxon Mobil’s tax payments, or lack thereof, have provided political fodder to politicians like Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a Cleveland Democrat who maintain that U.S.corporations don’t pay their fair share of taxes. "Let’s go into some facts here and talk about shared responsibility," Kucinich told FoxNews host Neil Cavuto in an interview on Aug. 6, 2011 that he conducted from Seattle, with the city’s iconic Space Needle in the background. "Listen to this: Exxon Mobil, $19 billion in profits in 2009, paid no federal income taxes, received a $156 million rebate." The statement had a familiar ring to it, so PolitiFact Ohio checked it out. Kucinich’s claim is similar to one made last year by Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, who asserted that Exxon Mobil booked $19 billion in profit for 2009, paid no taxes and got a $156 million refund from the Internal Revenue Service. PolitiFact ruled that claim False because Exxon paid many other types of tax that year, and also because it relied on statistics from the company’s 2009 "10-K" form that may not reflect the company’s actual tax payments. Officials from Exxon Mobil, as well as a University of North Carolina business school tax professor, said the figure on the form doesn’t refer to the actual income taxes that Exxon paid to the government, which is confidential. Exxon Mobil spokesmen told PolitiFact the company’s "U.S. income tax expense" for 2009 was approximately $500 million. The company declined to provide documentation for that number. Exxon Mobil’s updated 2010 "10-K/A" form also lists "- $156 million" as the company’ U.S. income tax figure for 2009, as did the earlier form consulted by Sanders. But Exxon spokesmen Cynthia Bergman White and Ken Cohen reiterated it’s not correct to interpret the negative figure as a $156 million refund. They said it merely reflects a tax credit Exxon obtained because of overpayments in previous years. In a blog statement that Exxon Mobil released after filing its 2010 forms, Cohen said the company paid more than $9.8 billion in total taxes and duties to the U.S. government and its subdivisions that year, including more than $1.6 billion in income tax expenses. He said the 2009 numbers were taken out of context by the media and politicians. The numbers "reflected more than ExxonMobil’s tax expense for 2009 activities," said Cohen. "They included the effect of adjustments to our taxes for earlier years, which exceeded the amounts related to 2009. In fact, ExxonMobil’s income tax expense related to 2009 activities was approximately $500 million." That statement matches ExxonMobil’s response to PolitiFact last December. Kucinich spokesman Nathan White insisted his boss’ claim is "completely true" and wasn’t as sweeping as the previous Sanders claim that PolitiFact examined. Kucinich stipulated that Exxon paid no federal income taxes in 2009, while Sanders had said it paid no taxes at all that year. White pointed to a 2010 report from CNN Money, which also listed Exxon’s 2009 federal tax bill as "-$156 million" even as it pointed out that the company paid heavy taxes in other countries, as well as sales taxes in the United States. "You are comparing apples to oranges," White said in an email. "The Politifact critique of Senator Sanders is irrelevant because the two statements are not the same." Kucinich’s words weren’t identical to Sanders’, but were they different enough to warrant a different rating on the Truth-O-Meter? As University of North Carolina tax professor Douglas A. Shackleford told PolitiFact last year, the "-156 million" figure that Sanders interpreted as a rebate doesn’t actually refer to the cash taxes that Exxon paid to the U.S. government. The $156 million number refers "to the U.S portion of the current and deferred income tax expense." "It is a (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) number, not a figure from their U.S. corporate tax return," Shackleford said. "The actual income taxes paid by Exxon to the U.S. government is confidential information. It is not reported in their financial statements." We contacted Shackleford again, who confirmed that the same rationale would apply to Kucinich’s claim. The amount of income tax that Exxon Mobil paid to the U.S. government in 2009 is confidential information that did not appear on the forms that Kucinich and Sanders relied upon to make their claims that the company paid no income taxes and got a rebate. ExxonMobil says the "- $156 million" figure reflects holdover tax issues from previous years that showed up in paperwork for 2009, and that it’s U.S. income tax expense for 2009 was approximately $500 million. A tax professor confirmed that interpreting that $-156 million as the ExxonMoblil’s tax figure would be a misreading of the 10-K form. Based on that, we rate Kucinich’s statement, as we did Sanders’, as False. | null | Dennis Kucinich | null | null | null | 2011-09-01T06:00:00 | 2011-08-06 | ['ExxonMobil'] |
snes-02368 | A 1922 newspaper article reported that "radical change in climatic conditions" was melting Arctic ice and disrupting wildlife. | true | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/warm-welcome/ | null | Politics | null | David Mikkelson | null | Global Warming: 1922 | 1 July 2013 | null | ['Arctic'] |
hoer-00226 | Mark Zuckerberg is Giving Millions of Dollars to Facebook Users Who Copy and Paste a Message | facebook scams | http://www.hoax-slayer.net/no-mark-zuckerberg-is-not-giving-millions-of-dollars-to-facebook-users-who-copy-and-paste-a-message/ | null | null | null | Brett M. Christensen | null | No, Mark Zuckerberg is NOT Giving Millions of Dollars to Facebook Users Who Copy and Paste a Message | December 7, 2015 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-12772 | For every extra year a girl goes to school, her income goes up 12 percent. | true | /global-news/statements/2017/feb/22/bono/bono-each-year-school-adds-12-womans-income/ | U2 frontman-turned social activist Bono took to the podium at the Munich Security Conference to make the case that the world’s richest economies would benefit from lifting up the poorest. The lack of jobs breeds extremism, he argued. "You may not be interested in the trouble on a far-off street or across the Mediterranean on the other side of the globe, but let me assure you, that trouble is interested in you," Bono said. The singer-activist put education high on the list of where donors should put their money. "We need a plan to make sure all girls can go to school -- 130 million girls around the world don't," Bono said. "For every extra year a girl goes to school, her income goes up 12 percent. Some studies even suggest that more education can reduce a country's risk of conflict by 20 percent." We wondered about the power of education to lift the incomes of women. Does each year of schooling actually lead to a 12 percent rise in earnings? According to the most recent research, it does. A 2014 study from the World Bank took data from 139 countries over a span of four decades and found that both men and women gain from going to school, and women gain more. "When considering only males, the rate of return to another year of schooling is 9.6 percent, and for females the rate of returns is much higher, at 11.7 percent," the authors wrote. Their chart helps show the differences. Bono’s press office at One, the advocacy organization he co-founded, told us this was the study behind his claim. The findings seem pretty clear, but we checked with Christina Kwauk, a post-doctoral fellow at the Center for Universal Education at the Brookings Institution, an academic center in Washington. Kwauk said not only is the average gain correct, but schooling continues to pay as women rise through the education system. "Higher levels of education have even higher rates of return," she said. "For example, an additional year of tertiary education is associated with nearly a 17 percent increase in income." Research also shows that gains are highest in low-income countries. In sub-Saharan Africa, the average increase is over 14 percent for women. That’s due in part to the very low starting point. It’s not totally clear why women gain more than men from education, but one theory is that women get a double advantage from going to school. Not only does it increase their skills -- as it does for a man -- but it also reduces the wage gap between men and women. So long as a society is open to hiring a woman for a higher paid job, her income bump will be larger compared to women with less education. A number of studies provide important caveats. They highlight that the quality of education matters, and simply finishing one year of schooling is not a guarantee that someone has learned as much as one might expect. Social attitudes also have an strong impact. If women are excluded from certain kinds of work, that will place a limit on their income gains. Our ruling Bono said that for every extra year a girl goes to school, her income goes up 12 percent. A recent World Bank study based on numbers from more than a hundred countries found that the average woman gained 11.7 percent more in wages with each year of school. Rounding up to 12 percent seems fair. These gains can vary both up and down, depending on the country, but that’s the nature of an average. We rate this claim True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/eab5147b-2cd4-4b38-9b13-d1101dcb7bdf | null | Bono | null | null | null | 2017-02-22T10:22:45 | 2017-02-17 | ['None'] |
pomt-09397 | Last week the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE), led by Rick Perry's appointee, voted to remove Thomas Jefferson from social studies textbook standards. That's right. Thomas Jefferson... was deleted from a list of historical figures who inspired political change. | half-true | /texas/statements/2010/mar/23/bill-white/white-says-state-board-education-led-perry-appoint/ | The State Board of Education has provoked a national outcry for its effort to revise curriculum standards in Texas. Lately joining the chorus: Bill White, the former Houston mayor and 2010 Democratic nominee for governor. In a March 17 e-mail, White blames GOP Gov. Rick Perry for lackluster leadership at the expense of students' education. "Last week the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE), led by Rick Perry's appointee, voted to remove Thomas Jefferson from social studies textbook standards. That's right. Thomas Jefferson — Founding Father, author of the Declaration of Independence, and a world-renowned scholar who advocated democratic, limited government — was deleted from a list of historical figures who inspired political change," White's e-email states. Did White get that right? In July 2009, the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills review committee, consisting of seven social studies teachers from different school districts across Texas, recommended revising a high school world history studies course description to include various ideas from the Enlightenment era, an 18th-century period of philosophic thought whose tenets included reason, skepticism and revolution, according to scholars. The amendment read: "Government. The student understands how contemporary political systems have developed from earlier systems of government. The student is expected to ... explain the impact of Enlightenment ideas from John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Jefferson on political revolutions from 1750 to the present ..." (The review committee noted in its original draft that its suggested list was not meant to be exhaustive.) Board member Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer and assistant law professor from Richmond, made a motion at the board's March 11 meeting to change the proposed standard, substituting "writings" for "Enlightenment ideas" and removing Jefferson from the suggested list. In Jefferson's place, she added Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and Sir William Blackstone — respectively, a Roman Catholic priest and saint; a Protestant theologian; and an English jurist who wrote that the doctrines of common law are based on God's word. Dunbar, defending the amendment, said: "It does take out (the) reference to Thomas Jefferson. But the reason is not that I don't think his ideas were important. It's just that this is a list of political philosophers from which the Founding Fathers based their ideologies and their principles." Dunbar's amendment won preliminary board approval by 8 to 6. But that doesn't mean Jefferson has been stricken from Texas classrooms. "The only individual mentioned more times in the curriculum standards than Thomas Jefferson is George Washington," board chairwoman Gail Lowe says in a March 19 press release. In fact, members left intact these elements: In a fifth-grade U.S. history course, students are expected to "identify the Founding Fathers and patriot heroes," including Jefferson. In an eighth-grade U.S. history course, students are required to "explain the roles played by significant individuals during the American Revolution," including Jefferson. And in a high school government course, students must "identify the contributions of the political philosophies of the Founding Fathers," and "identify individuals in the field of government and politics," both including Jefferson. So Jefferson stays in U.S. history and government classes unless the board later decides otherwise when it finalizes the standards in May. How does White's statement stand up overall? First, the board was updating the state's curriculum standards, not textbook standards. Then again, the curriculum standards will serve as a framework when the board meets to revise textbooks in 2011. Next, he overstates Perry's role in determining the board of education's membership. Lowe, the chairwoman, is an elected official, not a Perry appointee. But the governor named her chairwoman of the board. Finally, White said the state board voted "to remove Thomas Jefferson from social studies textbook standards," but the vote was on a single amendment to a single high school world history standard. White also implied that those standards were already in effect. They weren't. We can see how White might've been confused. Media coverage of the board's action hasn't always been precise. White's final sentence — that Jefferson was deleted from a list of historical figures who inspired political change — is a more accurate way to put it. We rate White's multi-part statement as Half True. | null | Bill White | null | null | null | 2010-03-23T22:18:32 | 2010-03-17 | ['Thomas_Jefferson', 'Rick_Perry', 'Texas_Education_Agency'] |
snes-00040 | President Donald Trump declared 4 October "Bring Your Bible to School Day." | mixture | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bring-your-bible-to-school-day/ | null | Politics | null | Dan MacGuill | null | Did President Trump Declare 4 October ‘Bring Your Bible to School Day’? | 25 September 2018 | null | ['None'] |
snes-01733 | Reese's Peanut Butter Cups to be Discontinued? | false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/reeses-peanut-butter-cups/ | null | Junk News | null | Dan MacGuill | null | Are Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups Going to Be Discontinued? | 14 September 2017 | null | ['None'] |
snes-02634 | Does the 'Blood of Jesus' Flower Only Bloom During Holy Week? | false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blood-of-jesus-flower/ | null | Fauxtography | null | Dan Evon | null | Does the ‘Blood of Jesus’ Flower Only Bloom During Holy Week? | 12 April 2017 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-05492 | We are at a 40-year low in our crime rate in our state. | true | /florida/statements/2012/apr/17/rick-scott/rick-scott-said-florida-crime-rates-are-40-year-lo/ | Florida crime rates are at 40-year lows. Forty-year lows? That’s the kind of dramatic statement that makes fact-checkers sit up and say, "Really?" Gov. Rick Scott has made that statement several times when asked about the killing of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teenager in Sanford, Fla. His comments seem intended to reassure people that Florida is a safe place to work and live, even while the state investigates the Martin shooting. (See Scott discuss it on MSNBC’s Morning Joe.) "We are at a 40-year low in our crime rate in our state," he said in an April 13, 2012, report from Reuters. "From a public safety standpoint we are absolutely heading in the right direction." Martin died after a resident, George Zimmerman, reported him to 911 as acting suspicious. The operator told Zimmerman not to pursue Martin, but Zimmerman shot Martin a short while later. Police didn’t arrest Zimmerman, and that angered Martin’s family and others. It also got people talking about Florida’s "stand your ground" law, which allows people to use deadly force when they believe their lives are at risk. Scott said an official review of the controversial "stand your ground" law will begin after the investigation into the shooting itself is complete. A reader (and Palm Beach Post reporter) on Twitter reported that Scott again said crime rates were at 40-year lows during a forum in West Palm Beach; she asked us to check it out. So we decided to investigate. Our first stop was with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Crime statistics on the website only go back 11 years, so we contacted the department directly. It provided us with crime statistics from 2010 back to 1971, for a total of 40 years. The department uses the number of crimes and the population of Florida to calculate crime rates, so different years can be compared. The crime rate shows how many crimes occurred per 100,000 people. In 1971, the crime rate was 5,668. The rate crept up through the 1970s, peaking in the late 1980s at 8,908. The rate then slowly dropped through the 1990s. In 2000, it dropped below the 1971 mark and continued downward. In 2010, the crime rate reached a new low of 4,105. (See the data for yourself.) As we dug deeper, we saw that Scott has been touting the statistic since it was first announced by the department almost a year ago. Do the numbers reflect reality, though? From time to time, there have been allegations that local police haven’t always reported numbers as accurately as they should. We addressed this point in detail in another fact-check. Overall, though, we found no evidence that isolated cases of cheating undermine the larger trend of declining crime rates. We should also point out that Florida isn’t the only place experiencing historically low crime rates, even during a severe economic recession. Why are rates declining? Nobody can say for sure. "I wish we had some really good answers, but we don’t," said Ronald L. Akers, a professor of criminology at the University of Florida. "There have been a number of reasonable hypotheses that fit what we know, but nothing we can really pin down with certainty." The theories are highly diverse, and some are fairly controversial, as we noted in previous fact-checks on crime rates. Here are some of the ideas that have been advanced to explain the lower crime rates: Police are getting better at using technology to prevent crime. More people are in jail and therefore can’t commit crimes. Drug addiction is not as widespread as it once was. Online banking and debit cards mean people don’t have cash at home. Abortions have suppressed the number of poor, unsupervised young men. Low inflation makes stealing non-cash items less attractive. President Barack Obama is setting a positive example for African-American youth. New gun laws establishing the right to carry are deterring criminals. Joblessness means people are at home watching the neighborhood. Extended unemployment benefits and food stamps mean people don’t have to turn to crime. Banning lead paint and leaded gasoline has reduced criminal impulses among young men. In the case of Scott’s comments, he didn’t get into the causes of the crime rates or claim unearned credit for the trend. Rather, he was pointing out that while individual crimes might receive a great deal of media attention, statistics show that crime rates in Florida are at 40-year lows. The official numbers confirm Scott’s statement. We rate his statement True. | null | Rick Scott | null | null | null | 2012-04-17T17:25:23 | 2012-04-13 | ['None'] |
pomt-12970 | Pennsylvania Federal Court grants legal authority to remove Trump after Russian Meddling. | pants on fire! | /pennsylvania/statements/2016/dec/23/today-news-24/pennsylvania-judge-didnt-overturn-donald-trumps-pr/ | To hardcore Hillary fans, the headline probably sounds like the only good news they’ve heard since Nov. 8. A website called Today News 24 posted a story earlier this month titled "Pennsylvania Federal Court grants legal authority to remove Trump after Russian Meddling." That’s not a maybe or a possibility in the headline. That’s a definitive statement. But it comes from Today News 24, a site so obscure it doesn’t even show up on the first few pages of a Google search (and should not be mistaken with South African source News 24). On Facebook it has a more significant presence, with over 5,000 likes and about one post every day for the last several weeks. The website for Today News 24 has a dozen or so political-related stories on its homepage and separate sections about trucks and motorbikes that are nearly devoid of content. Most of the headlines have a liberal slant. So is there any evidence to back up this claim about removing Trump? For starters, the Today News 24 article is similar to one published on a website called USA Snich PolitiFact debunked earlier this week. That article claimed "Putin Interference Could Give Courts Legal Right to Make Hillary President" and used information from a Huffington Post column written by contributor Alex Mohajer, who is identified as the political director of "Bros4Hillary" and a lawyer. This article uses the same premises put forward by the Huffington Post column — without linking — but takes the possibility a step further by declaring a Pennsylvania court has granted legal authority for the removal of Donald Trump. Like many fake news stories, there are elements of truth combined to create this overblown statement. An actual case from Pennsylvania in the 1990s, for instance, really did reverse the results of an election. In 1993 in Philadelphia (of course), a winning state Senate candidate was ruled by the courts to have participated in a scheme to drum up hundreds of votes through illegal absentee ballots. This Democratic politician, William Stinson, was removed from office by federal Judge Clarence Newcomer and replaced by the Republican he defeated, Bruce Marks. The CIA and FBI have also both claimed Russia attempted to sway the electorate toward Trump. But that’s not all this article is saying. No federal court in Pennsylvania has granted "legal authority" to remove Trump because of the Russian hacking, as the headline suggests. The article, written by an author identified as "darko," couches the headline somewhat, saying the 1995 ruling "could provide legal grounds to remove Donald Trump from office." But even that action isn’t plausible. PolitiFact interviewed Kermit Roosevelt, a constitutional scholar at the University of Pennsylvania. He said the case involving Stinson and Marks was different than what happened with Russia’s hacking. "I’m pretty confident that there’s zero chance of it happening," Roosevelt said. "I could see a court reversing the result of an election if fraud was proved along the lines of, ‘Candidate A really won 150 to 100, but Candidate B fraudulently altered the records to make it look like he won 150 to 100.’ But that’s not what happened. No one credible is alleging that the election was affected by that kind of fraud. The votes recorded were the votes that were cast. They may have been influenced by fake news and Russian propaganda, but there’s no judicial remedy for that." Our Ruling The website Today News 24 published an article headlined "Pennsylvania Federal Court grants legal authority to remove Trump after Russian Meddling." The article uses information highlighted in a Huffington Post article about a judge overturning the results of a 1993 Philadelphia election to show the possibility of Trump being removed in favor of Hillary Clinton. Scholars say the particulars of the 1993 case and this year’s election are not similar. Plus, the headline doesn’t say it’s a possibility. It says the court has granted authority to remove Trump. No federal court in Pennsylvania has done that. We rule the claim Pants On Fire. | null | Today News 24 | null | null | null | 2016-12-23T12:32:53 | 2016-12-16 | ['None'] |
snes-04755 | A photograph shows two people with the darkest and lightest skin colors in the world. | false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lightest-darkest-skin-colors/ | null | Fauxtography | null | Dan Evon | null | Image of ‘Lightest and Darkest Skin Colors’ | 17 May 2016 | null | ['None'] |
snes-00780 | Is Facebook Removing the Share Button from Pro-Trump Posts? | false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-facebook-removing-share-button-pro-trump-posts/ | null | Inboxer Rebellion | null | Kim LaCapria | null | Is Facebook Removing the Share Button from Pro-Trump Posts? | 11 April 2018 | null | ['None'] |
afck-00021 | “One public doctor treats “over 4,000 patients” in South Africa.” | incorrect | https://africacheck.org/reports/does-one-sa-doctor-treat-over-4000-patients-in-public-care-but-less-than-300-privately/ | null | null | null | null | null | Does one SA doctor treat 4,000 patients in public care, but fewer than 300 privately? | 2018-08-07 11:47 | null | ['South_Africa'] |
snes-03424 | Trump's chosen Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, called anti-war protesters "pussies." | unproven | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/general-james-mattis-insulted-anti-war-protesters/ | null | Politics | null | Bethania Palma | null | General James Mattis Insulted Anti-War Protesters | 2 December 2016 | null | ['None'] |
farg-00460 | Coke, Nestle Near Ownership of World's Second Largest Aquifer. | false | https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/coke-and-nestle-arent-buying-the-guarani-aquifer/ | null | fake-news | FactCheck.org | Saranac Hale Spencer | ['Coca-Cola', 'corporations'] | Coke and Nestlé Aren’t Buying The Guarani Aquifer | March 16, 2018 | 2018-03-16 22:26:59 UTC | ['None'] |
snes-05085 | Ronald Reagan met with the Taliban in 1985 and compared them to the founding fathers of the United States. | false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ronald-reagan-taliban-photo/ | null | Uncategorized | null | Dan Evon | null | Photo Does Not Show Ronald Reagan with Taliban Leaders | 10 March 2016 | null | ['United_States', 'Ronald_Reagan', 'Taliban'] |
snes-00453 | Sen. Bernie Sanders once supported a proposal to "dump nuclear waste" in the "poor Latino community" of Sierra Blanca, Texas. | mostly true | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bernie-sanders-sierra-blanca-nuclear-waste/ | null | Politics | null | Dan MacGuill | null | Did Bernie Sanders Support Dumping Nuclear Waste in a ‘Poor Latino Community’? | 15 June 2018 | null | ['Texas', 'Bernie_Sanders'] |
pomt-06100 | We don't take a dime from D.C. lobbyists or special-interest PACs -- never have and never will. | half-true | /truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/04/barack-obama/barack-obamas-campaign-says-they-dont-accept-lobby/ | In late December, President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign made a fundraising pitch that, among other things, touted the measures his campaign is taking to distance itself from lobbyists: "We don't take a dime from D.C. lobbyists or special-interest PACs -- never have and never will." A reader pointed out this claim and asked us if it’s true. First, we checked with the Obama campaign, and a spokeswoman confirmed that the campaign does not accept money from federally registered lobbyists, either making direct donations themselves or serving as "bundlers" who solicit and package donations from others. To enforce that policy, the campaign continually reviews the federal lobbyist registry. On the surface, the Obama campaign’s claim seems plausible. But we think it’s important to add some context about how this pledge is phrased. A key issue is how you define the word "lobbyist." As we noted in a recent item, to be a registered lobbyist, one has to meet a number of detailed rules laid out in federal law. One of the main rules is that a person has to register if he or she holds two or more meetings with elected officials or staff in any quarter of the year on behalf of a client. Also, lobbying activities must constitute 20 percent or more of the lobbyist’s time during any three-month period. (Want more detail? Read 27 pages of guidance on disclosing lobbying activities via the U.S. Senate website.) Experts we spoke to said that it’s not uncommon for a former lawmaker or other senior political official to offer "strategic advice" without having to register as a lobbyist. Strategic advisers can do quite a bit for clients without acquiring the lobbyist label. They can give advice on individuals to meet with and what arguments to make. They can instruct someone who is a registered lobbyist, again telling the lobbyist with whom to meet and what to address. They may take clients to meetings with non-governmental groups, such as grassroots political groups. They may even have one big meeting with an elected official to make a case for a client. "There’s a lot of activity that ordinary people would think of as lobbying that doesn’t trigger the obligation to register as a lobbyist under federal law. Strategic advice is one of those kinds of things that doesn’t," said Joseph Sandler, an attorney with the Washington law firm Sandler Reiff Young & Lamb. Sandler was one of four co-chairs of an American Bar Association task force that recommended changes to federal lobbying laws to improve disclosure and reduce conflicts of interest. So by the campaign’s standard, a strategic adviser who doesn’t officially register to lobby -- or a former lobbyist who is no longer registered, or someone who supervises lobbyists but isn’t registered -- is free to give money to the campaign or serve as a bundler. According to an Oct. 27, 2011, New York Times report, at least 15 of Obama’s bundlers, who collectively have raised at least $5 million, "are involved in lobbying for Washington consulting shops or private companies," advocating interests from "telecommunications and high-tech software to Wall Street finance, international commerce and pharmaceuticals." None of these 15 bundlers is "currently registered as a federal lobbyist," the Times reported. But "at least four of them have been (officially registered lobbyists) in the past. And a number of the bundlers work for prominent lobbying and law firms, including Greenberg Traurig and Blank Rome." As examples, the Times cited Sally Susman, David L. Cohen and Michael Kempner, all of whom have raised at least $500,000 for the campaign. Susman, an executive with drug-maker Pfizer, "helped organize a $35,800-a-ticket dinner that Mr. Obama attended in Manhattan in June. At the same time, she leads Pfizer’s powerful lobbying shop, and she has visited the White House four times since 2009 — twice on export issues. But under the byzantine rules that govern federal lobbying, Ms. Susman has not registered with the Senate as a lobbyist." Meanwhile, Cohen "oversees lobbying at the Comcast Corporation" and "hosted the president and some 120 guests" at his home in Philadelphia, the Times reported. Guests "paid at least $10,000 each to attend; Mr. Obama called Mr. Cohen and his wife ‘great friends.’" And Kempner "runs a team of Washington lobbyists" at the MWW Group, a New Jersey-based firm where he serves as CEO. The firm employs seven registered lobbyists in Washington, even though Kempner himself is not one. The Obama campaign notes that its policy is still more stringent than federal law requires and adds that many of the Republican presidential campaigns have more permissive rules on lobbyist donations. The Obama campaign, for instance, voluntarily releases its list of bundlers. In addition, the Obama campaign is hardly alone in setting the standards as it has. Experts we spoke to said that it’s not uncommon for campaigns to say they’re banning lobbyist money but to allow the same sorts of activities permitted by the Obama campaign. "A world of strategic consultants and state-level lobbyists can, and do, give," said Meredith McGehee, policy director for the Campaign Legal Center, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that analyzes campaign-finance issues. There are other ways for a campaign to benefit from the support of lobbyists without accepting their money. "Even campaigns that say they will not accept lobbyists’ campaign contributions typically accept other forms of help from lobbyists, such as door knocking, poll watching and the like," said Robert K. Kelner, an attorney with the firm Covington & Burling who specializes in political and election law. Lobbyists can also make sure that their clients "are given good advice on where and when to give, especially with all the entities available -- candidate PACs, leadership PACs, super PACs, 501(c)4s, trade associations, party committees, state party committees and so on," McGehee said. "A big dog lobbyist will help steer their clients, and the executives of that client, to ‘smart’ giving." Our ruling The Obama campaign has a point that it doesn’t "take a dime from D.C. lobbyists or special-interest PACs." But this leaves out important details. The campaign -- like others before it -- uses a narrow definition of "lobbyist" that allows donations and fundraising by people who most likely look, to the average American, like "lobbyists," even if they are not officially. In addition, the Obama campaign’s policy doesn’t bar even federally registered lobbyists from serving as volunteers for the campaign, as long as they don’t give or bundle money. On balance, we rate the statement Half True. | null | Barack Obama | null | null | null | 2012-01-04T14:41:35 | 2011-12-28 | ['Washington,_D.C.'] |
pomt-06016 | More people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history. | half-true | /truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/17/newt-gingrich/newt-gingrich-says-more-people-have-been-put-food-/ | During the Jan. 16, 2012, Republican presidential debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C., former House Speaker Newt Gingrich resurrected one of his favorite attack lines against President Barack Obama -- that food stamp usage has peaked under the current president. Calling Obama the "best food stamp president in American history," Gingrich said that "more people have been put on food stamps under Barack Obama than anyone in American history." We addressed a similar comment by Gingrich in May 2011 and thought it would be worth an update. We’ll start by noting that "food stamps" -- which provide qualifying, low-income Americans with vouchers to buy groceries -- have officially been known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, since October 2008, although many people still use the informal name. It’s possible to interpret Gingrich's statement that "more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history" as suggesting that Obama is forcing people into the program. In fact, it’s a voluntary program. In any case, here are the historical data: For the most recent month with available data -- October 2011 -- roughly 46.2 million people received SNAP benefits. That’s down slightly from September 2011, when 46.3 million people received benefits, but those two months were the highest in history. The trendline shows consistent increases in the numbers of Americans receiving SNAP benefits: 30.8 million in October 2008, 37.7 million in October 2009, and 43.2 million in October 2010. In addition, the average number of people on SNAP every month hit a record high in 2011 -- 44.7 million. It’s risen every year since 2007. We also checked to make sure that this wasn’t influenced by population growth, and it wasn’t. Currently, about 14 percent of the population is on food stamps. In 1994, the highest year for SNAP use prior to the recession that began in December 2007, the rate was 10.5 percent. So Gingrich is correct that food stamp use is at its highest level in both raw numbers and as a percentage of the U.S. population since the program began in 1969. Case closed? Not quite. Gingrich’s talking point implies that this is Obama’s fault. Clearly, the rise in food stamps is a direct consequence of the most recent recession, which began more than a year before Obama took office. It’s impossible to know how high SNAP usage would have gone had the Republicans, rather than Obama, shaped policy in 2009 and 2010. On the one hand, SNAP usage has continued to climb almost every month of the Obama presidency despite some signs of an economic recovery. So Gingrich’s charge cannot simply be dismissed out of hand. On the other hand, there is typically a lag time before an upturn in the broader economy begins to show up in decreased SNAP usage. The previous high from 1994, for instance, came following a recession that officially ended in mid 1991 -- and that recession was much milder than the most recent one. This makes it harder to divvy up the blame. One last point: The number of food stamp beneficiaries had started to head upward under President George W. Bush, partly because of more aggressive efforts to get eligible Americans to apply for benefits, and partly because of changes in the rules that had the effect of broadening eligibility. The experts we spoke to agreed that both policies began under Bush but were retained by Obama. The changes produced consistent increases in the number of average monthly beneficiaries. The number rose in seven out of the eight years of Bush’s presidency -- most of which were years not considered recessionary. All told, the number of recipients rose by a cumulative 63 percent during Bush’s eight-year presidency. Our ruling The number of SNAP beneficiaries is at a record level, and it has risen in most months of the Obama presidency. But Gingrich oversimplifies when he suggests that Obama is the root cause. Much of the reason for the increase was a combination of the economic problems Obama inherited combined with a longstanding upward trend from policy changes. But Obama has supported those policies. On balance, we rate Gingrich’s statement Half True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/040c2b5a-abd6-45ae-9435-c08b06b6a214 | null | Newt Gingrich | null | null | null | 2012-01-17T09:12:38 | 2012-01-16 | ['United_States', 'Barack_Obama'] |
snes-02825 | President Trump tweeted that Native Americans should be deported back to India. | false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/deport-native-americans-india/ | null | Junk News | null | Kim LaCapria | null | Trump Wants to Deport American Indians to India? | 6 March 2017 | null | ['India'] |
snes-03576 | President Obama signed a law permanently protecting the federal funding of Planned Parenthood. | mixture | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-permanently-protected-planned-parenthood-from-defunding/ | null | Politics | null | David Emery | null | Obama Permanently Protected Planned Parenthood from Defunding | 10 November 2016 | null | ['Barack_Obama', 'Planned_Parenthood'] |
snes-02165 | Millions of Muslims protested against the Islamic State in November 2016, but a "media blackout" prevented people from hearing about the event. | mostly false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/millions-of-muslims-marched-against-the-islamic-state/ | null | Politics | null | Dan Evon | null | Millions of Muslims March Against the Islamic State? | 29 November 2016 | null | ['Islamic_state', 'Islam'] |
goop-00132 | Blake Shelton Pushing Gwen Stefani To Make Joint Album, | 0 | https://www.gossipcop.com/blake-shelton-gwen-stefani-joint-album/ | null | null | null | Andrew Shuster | null | Blake Shelton NOT Pushing Gwen Stefani To Make Joint Album, Despite Report | 1:44 pm, October 15, 2018 | null | ['None'] |
pose-00209 | The (Bush) administration has consistently proposed to cut or eliminate funding for the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne/JAG) program, which funds anti-drug and anti-gang task forces across the country. …Since 2000, this program has been cut more than 83 percent. ... As president, Obama will restore funding. | promise kept | https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/224/restore-funding-for-the-byrne-justice-assistance-g/ | null | obameter | Barack Obama | null | null | Restore funding for the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne/JAG) program | 2010-01-07T13:26:52 | null | ['Barack_Obama', 'George_W._Bush'] |
pomt-12793 | The media has "a lower approval rate than Congress." | mostly false | /truth-o-meter/statements/2017/feb/16/donald-trump/news-media-less-trusted-congress/ | In a wide-ranging news conference, President Donald Trump said a few nice things about the media and quite a few not-so-nice things. While he acknowledged that there are good reporters, his opening salvo was strongly critical. "The press has become so dishonest that if we don't talk about (it), we are doing a tremendous disservice to the American people," Trump said. "Tremendous disservice. We have to talk to find out what's going on, because the press honestly is out of control. The level of dishonesty is out of control." Later, Trump compared the media with Congress. "You have a lower approval rate than Congress, I think that's right, I don't know," Trump said. "I think they have lower -- I heard lower than Congress." Trump gave himself some wiggle room on the accuracy of that, but he still made the point. To set the record straight: The press does rank low in the trust department, but Congress ranks even lower. The latest numbers come from Gallup, which has been asking people how much confidence they have in various institutions since 1973. As of June 2016, 40 percent of the public had a negative opinion of television news, but 55 percent weighed in on the negative side for Congress. Newspapers did a hair better in the mistrust department. About a third of the people surveyed said they had very little or no trust in the printed press. Positive Negative Newspapers 20% 36% Television 21% 40% Congress 9% 55% Looking at the numbers in net terms (positive minus negative), newspapers and television have an average net rating of minus 18 percent. But Congress’ net is minus 44 percent. Other surveys might have different numbers, but the thrust remains the same. Hefty fractions of the public might have a bad feeling about the news media, but they feel even worse about Congress. A 2016 Pew Research Center survey asked people if they trusted what they heard from national news organizations and 24 percent said "not too much" or "not at all." A 2015 survey found that 69 percent viewed Congress unfavorably. The Associated Press and the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research polled the public in 2014. They reported that "over half of Americans say they have hardly any confidence at all in Congress." The comparable measure for the press was 44 percent. Again, trust in news media might be low, but Congress comes in lower. It’s worth noting how low both institutions score in this chart about public confidence from Gallup: Our ruling Trump said he thought that the media had lower favorability ratings than Congress. But Congress actually ranks below the news media, according to surveys from three different research groups spanning several years. In two polls, mistrust in the media broke 40 percent, which is hardly anything to brag about. But in those studies, mistrust in Congress was over 50 percent. Trump had a point that the media has a trust issue, but he got the ranking wrong in terms of Congress. We rate this claim Mostly False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/f5ffb7a0-03e5-4e96-961c-886767c0397d | null | Donald Trump | null | null | null | 2017-02-16T16:20:13 | 2017-02-16 | ['United_States_Congress'] |
tron-02325 | Appeal for prayer for the Iraqi elections from an Army chaplain | unproven! | https://www.truthorfiction.com/shackleford/ | null | military | null | null | null | Appeal for prayer for the Iraqi elections from an Army chaplain | Mar 17, 2015 | null | ['Iraq'] |
snes-05040 | Images reproduce contradictory statements from U.S. senators Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid about the President's prerogative in appointing Supreme Court justices. | true | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/supreme-court-flip-flop/ | null | Uncategorized | null | Kim LaCapria | null | Supreme Court Flip-Flops | 18 March 2016 | null | ['United_States', 'Mitch_McConnell', 'Harry_Reid'] |
snes-01810 | Was Barack Obama President During Hurricane Katrina? | false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/barack-obama-katrina/ | null | Uncategorized | null | Arturo Garcia | null | Was Barack Obama President During Hurricane Katrina? | 30 August 2017 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-12377 | Fact: Hillary Clinton received 80% of the vote in Pittsburgh. | mostly true | /pennsylvania/statements/2017/jun/02/bill-peduto/did-80-percent-pittsburgh-really-vote-hillary-clin/ | President Donald Trump invoked the city of Pittsburgh to justify his decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement. "I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris," Trump said Thursday in the White House Rose Garden. The reaction from Pittsburgh’s mayor, Bill Peduto, was swift. He tweeted, "Fact: Hillary Clinton received 80% of the vote in Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh stands with the world & will follow Paris Agreement @HillaryClinton." At a press conference in Pittsburgh with local reporters Thursday, Peduto repeated this claim: "The people of Pittsburgh voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton, 80 percent." Peduto’s spokesperson Timothy McNulty said Friday the mayor got the number "off the top of his head" and noted the numbers weren’t that different. During an appearance on CNN late Thursday, Peduto qualified his earlier statement: "The city of Pittsburgh voted for Hillary Clinton with nearly 80 percent of the vote. [Trump] may be talking about all of western Pennsylvania, but it’s a far cry from being Pittsburgh." And while on "Hardball with Chris Matthews" on MSNBC, Peduto again stuck with the same claim: "Actually in Pittsburgh, Hillary Clinton won with nearly 80 percent of the vote." Did Clinton win the city by that majority? Almost. Allegheny County election records show that Clinton won 75 percent of the vote in the city of Pittsburgh, while she won 56 percent of the vote county-wide. We calculated Clinton’s vote total using precinct-level data published by the county through the Western Pennsylvania Regional Data Center. Our ruling Trump said he was elected to represent people from Pittsburgh, not Paris, when explaining why he decided to withdraw the U.S. from a global climate deal. Pittsburgh’s mayor, Bill Peduto, responded by tweeting that Hillary Clinton received 80 percent of the vote in Pittsburgh. Clinton received 75 percent of the vote. That’s pretty close; Clinton did win the city by an overwhelming number. We rate this statement Mostly True. | null | Bill Peduto | null | null | null | 2017-06-02T14:03:55 | 2017-06-01 | ['Pittsburgh'] |
pomt-08645 | 700 jobs (were) lost because Allen Boyd voted for the health care bill. | mostly false | /florida/statements/2010/sep/16/national-republican-congressional-committee/allen-boyd-cost-sallie-mae-employees-their-jobs-he/ | Republicans hoping to take back the U.S. House of Representatives have their sights set on North Florida Democrat Allen Boyd. A "Blue Dog" Democrat and a seven-term congressman, Boyd faces a serious challenge this November from Republican funeral-home owner Steve Southerland. The St. Petersburg Times labeled Boyd one of the two most vulnerable incumbents in Florida, and the National Republican Congressional Committee has identified the race in Florida's 2nd Congressional District as one its top prospects. The NRCC reserved a big chunk of fall television time in Tallahassee, and already is airing an ad criticizing Boyd for voting for the massive federal health care legislation. The ad is called "Allen Boyd sides with Nancy Pelosi," and says that the passage of the federal health care bill will cost Boyd's district 700 jobs. "Our economy is hurting, but Allen Boyd sides with Nancy Pelosi and he's killing our jobs," the ad begins. "When Allen Boyd voted for Obamacare, he voted to shut down a local facility that employs 700 people. 700 jobs lost because Allen Boyd sided with Nancy Pelosi." It's important to note that while this fact check -- that Boyd's vote on health care cost his district 700 jobs -- is about the federal health care legislation, it's not specifically about health care. The massive legislation tacked-on changes to how students receive loans to pay for college. It's those changes to the student loan programs that cost North Florida 700 jobs, the NRCC is claiming. We'll explain the whys and hows in a moment, but first a primer on the student loan changes adopted in the health care bill. The student loan changes Before the health care bill passed and was signed into law by President Barack Obama in March 2010, there were basically two kinds of college loan programs: the Federal Family Education Loan Program, in which private lenders make and secure loans to students and receive subsidies from the federal government; and the William D. Ford Direct Loan Program, in which the federal government directly loans to students. The federal health care bill eliminated those subsidies to private lenders and shifted student lending to the government's Direct Loan program, which Obama believes is more efficient and cost-effective. The shift is expected to save $68 billion over the next 11 years, $36 billion of which would be used to expand Pell Grants, a federal program that helps low-income students pay for college. Other money, about $9 billion, will help pay for some of the additional health care costs. Boyd voted against the original version of the health care bill to pass the House in November 2009 -- which included the student loan changes -- but voted for the final version that passed the House 220-211 and ultimately became law. He said he decided to support the final version because he believed it met four key principles: It reduced health costs, increased access, ensured patient choice and did not add to the federal deficit. "This bill is not perfect, but I believe it meets these four principles of responsible reform by providing the largest middle class tax credits for healthcare in our nation's history and preserving a patient’s ability to choose their own doctor," Boyd said in a release announcing his support. The question for this fact check to address then comes down to those 700 jobs, how they were impacted by the health care bill, and what Boyd could have done to stop any job losses. Saving Sallie Mae jobs Boyd's 2nd Congressional District includes a student loan processing facility operated by Sallie Mae, the nation's largest private provider of student loans. The facility is located in Lynn Haven, just north of Panama City. It employs about 540 full-time workers, and had in the past hired about 160 temporary workers. The company did not hire those workers in 2010. Sallie Mae officials said repeatedly that if the health care bill passed with changes to the student loan rules, all of the Bay County jobs could be in jeopardy. Boyd initially appeared to side with Sallie Mae and its employees, visiting the Bay County facility in November 2009 after voting against the first version of the health care bill. He also voted against the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (H.R. 3221) in the House, which attempted to accomplish the same changes to the student loan program. "Sallie Mae is one of our most vibrant and reliable employers in North Florida," Boyd said in a Sallie Mae press release. "I will continue working to protect these valuable jobs and preserving the current student lending infrastructure that has served our students and schools well for years." Boyd attempted to remove the student loan language from the health care bill, and offered an amendment to that effect in front of the Budget Committee on March 15, but the amendment failed 4-32, Congressional Quarterly reported. Boyd said switching to federal loans would result in the loss of thousands of jobs for employees in the student loan industry, but acknowledged he had not been able to reach a compromise with other Democrats, CQ reported. But on March 21, Boyd voted for the health care bill, which included the student loan changes. He said he believed he still thought it possible to save the Panama City Sallie Mae jobs. "I am disappointed that the student loan issue is included in the health care bill," Boyd said in March. "I have had many conversations with Sallie Mae, the Department of Education, and the White House, and I believe there are a number of steps we can take to prevent job losses at the Lynn Haven facility. I will continue working with Sallie Mae and Education Secretary (Arne) Duncan to ensure that this new process will not jeopardize the future of the hardworking people in Lynn Haven." A month later Sallie Mae announced it was closing its Bay County location. The company said it was going to cut about a third of its 8,600-employee nationwide workforce and reduce its physical locations from 25 to five to seven. "We've been warning about the impact of this legislation, and this is a direct result of that," Sallie Mae spokesman Conwey Casillas told the Panama City News Herald. Boyd issued a news release that same day saying he was working the Department of Education and the White House to help protect the Sallie Mae jobs, hoping the employees could transition to a different type of loan processing position. He later lobbied BP claims administrator Kenneth Feinberg to place workers from the closing facility in oil spill-related damage claim processing jobs. News reports suggest he is still searching for jobs for the Sallie Mae employees. But not before the first round of layoffs -- affecting about 50 employees -- came in July. The facility is expected to be shut down by the end of the year. "The decision to close our Bay County facility is based on the fact that this is the location where the loan origination function was performed," said spokesman Conwey Casillas. "Effective July 1, 2010, the Federal Family Education Loan Program, first enacted in 1965, was eliminated along with the role Sallie Mae and other private sector companies performed in the origination of federal student loans." Our ruling In the ad, the National Republican Congressional Committee says "700 jobs" were lost because Allen Boyd voted for the federal health care bill. In the strictest analysis, the NRCC is slightly off on both points. The company plans to lay off about 540 full-time employees. It also chose not to rehire about 160 temporary employees. Boyd's vote, meanwhile, wouldn't have changed the outcome of the legislation. Still, the ad has some elements of truth. After voting against the first version of the health care bill, Boyd did vote for a final version that tacked on significant changes to the student loan program. Sallie Mae warned that those very changes could threaten the jobs at its Panama City facility, and one month after the health care bill passed, the company announced it was closing that facility. But it was Sallie Mae's decision to eliminate the Panama City jobs, cutting those specific jobs wasn't mandated by Washington. We are certain this will be an issue Boyd will confront over and over again between now and Nov. 2. And it's certainly complicated -- so much so that he might not be able to explain the nuance of his actions and what happened in 30-second commercials. Luckily, we have no such time or word limit. The fact is, the federal health care bill that passed in March contained massive changes to the health care system, as well as changes to how college students get student loans. Boyd in the end liked the health care provisions and didn't like the changes to the student loan system. He tried to eliminate the student loan provisions through an amendment to the overall legislation, but failed. And there is no "yes, except for that" vote in Congress. It's much more accurate, for instance, to say that the 700 jobs were lost because the health care bill passed. Boyd's vote didn't change the outcome of the legislation, it would have passed either way. And if you believe Sallie Mae, that means he wouldn't have been able to stop what's happening to Sallie Mae's Panama City-area employees. We rate the claim Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False. | null | National Republican Congressional Committee | null | null | null | 2010-09-16T14:19:13 | 2010-09-12 | ['None'] |
pomt-03044 | There is "a constitutional issue" that affects "the paychecks of members of Congress" during a shutdown. | true | /florida/statements/2013/oct/07/mario-diaz-balart/mario-diaz-balart-says-congress-paid-during-shutdo/ | You know those members of Congress who are responsible for the federal government shutdown? While staffers have been furloughed, their bosses continue to collect their paychecks. During an Oct. 2 interview on CNN, Wolf Blitzer asked U.S. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Miami, "Will you accept your paycheck as 800,000 other federal workers are being denied theirs?" Diaz-Balart replied that he hopes staffers get repaid when the shutdown is over. As for his own paycheck, Diaz-Balart didn’t say he would or wouldn’t accept his paycheck. Instead, he said this: "There is a bit of a constitutional issue by the way, as you know, when you are dealing with the paychecks of members of Congress." A few days later, Diaz-Balart voted to give back pay to furloughed federal workers. The measure passed unanimously in the House, 407 to 0. Still, we were intrigued by his comments that pay for legislators raises constitutional issues. What does the Constitution tell us about congressional paychecks amid a shutdown? What the Constitution says About 800,000 federal workers have been furloughed during the shutdown that started Oct. 1. During past shutdowns, furloughed workers received back pay once the shutdown was over. Other workers have been deemed essential (or in government-speak "excepted") and must work for now while getting paid when the shutdown ends. Finally, President Barack Obama signed a law to allow active military and the civilians and contractors who support them to get paid during the shutdown. But the rules that apply to federal workers don’t apply to members of Congress. Most members earn $174,000 a year, with leadership getting a little more. "Due to their constitutional responsibilities and a permanent appropriation for congressional pay, members of Congress are not subject to furlough," states a September report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. Article I, Section 6, of the Constitution authorizes pay for members of Congress. "The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States," it states. Most of the experts we interviewed and news articles we read agreed that according to the Constitution, Congress continues to get paid, even during a shutdown. The purpose of the language about congressional pay "was to resolve the once-hot dispute over whether the elected representatives to the new federal government would be paid by the states or out of the federal treasury," said Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute. "So yes, Congress can’t reduce/eliminate its own pay during a shutdown. I guess that makes congressmen and senators the primo ‘essential’ federal workers." But we’ll offer one counterargument by University of Miami constitutional law professor Stephen Schnably. If people are saying the Constitution "is a barrier to their pay being withheld during the shutdown, I’d have to say the text doesn’t necessarily support that. It doesn’t say, ‘regardless of any appropriation requirement.’ " However, "what really counts in this area is Congress’s practice over the years," Schnably said. "Mostly these provisions have been left to Congress to interpret." Right now, Congress is scheduled to be paid. "Constitutionally, we have to disperse their pay, but we are honoring member requests to hold on to their pay until after the shutdown," said Dan Weiser, communications director for the House’s Office of the Chief Administrative Officer. At least 125 members have said that they will refuse their paycheck or donate it, according to the Washington Post, though some observers say that’s just a publicity stunt. And it might be a moot point because members get paid at the end of the month and it’s possible the shutdown will be over before then. (Diaz-Balart’s chief of staff declined to discuss with PolitiFact if Diaz-Balart wants to forgo his pay but when questioned about it on CNN he said that lawmakers need to avoid "gimmicks.") One final wrinkle about their paychecks: Congress can’t change its own pay until after an election happens. The 27th Amendment, adopted in 1992, states, "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened." That amendment means Congress can’t vote to stop it's pay right now, said Kermit Roosevelt, an expert on constitutional law at the University of Pennsylvania’s law school. However, Congress could pass a law for future shutdowns, saying they won’t be paid, he said. Past efforts to do that have failed, though. In January, U.S. Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Bob Casey, D-Pa., introduced a bill that would would prevent Congress and the president from being paid during a shutdown or default. The Senate passed such a bill in 2011, but the House didn’t act. Similar efforts this fall leading up to the shutdown also failed. Our ruling When asked about whether he would forgo his own paycheck during the shutdown, Diaz-Balart said, "There is a bit of a constitutional issue ... when you are dealing with the paychecks of members of Congress." He is correct: Article I, Section 6, of the U.S. Constitution authorizes pay for members of Congress "ascertained by law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States." Members can ask the House to withhold their pay, but that’s just a temporary symbolic move -- particularly since they aren’t scheduled to get a paycheck until the end of the month. We rate this claim True. | null | Mario Diaz-Balart | null | null | null | 2013-10-07T15:09:56 | 2013-10-02 | ['United_States_Congress'] |
pomt-14272 | Attorney General Roy Cooper refuses to do his job by not defending House Bill 2 in a lawsuit. | half-true | /north-carolina/statements/2016/apr/07/phil-berger/nc-sen-phil-berger-says-g-roy-cooper-failing-his-d/ | N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper took flak from many conservatives when he announced that he would not defend a controversial new state law, commonly called HB2, in court. The law says only biological gender, and not gender identity, can determine which bathroom someone may use. It also created a statewide anti-discrimination law that doesn’t include protections for gay or transgender people. The ACLU, Equality NC and several transgender or gay people who say it discriminates against them have filed a lawsuit. Cooper is named as a defendant, as are Gov. Pat McCrory, the UNC System, its board of governors and the board of governors chairman, W. Louis Bissette Jr. Republicans, including Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger, have accused Cooper of playing politics by telling the legislature to repeal the law or hire outside counsel to defend it. Cooper is the Democratic candidate for governor in this fall’s election. "Attorney General Roy Cooper refuses to do his job and defend us," Berger wrote in a Facebook post. "This isn't the first time Cooper has pandered to far-left special interests instead of fulfilling his oath to defend the people of North Carolina. Please join me and call on Roy Cooper to resign immediately, for refusing to do his job and protect our children." We already looked at claims in the HB2 debate about safety and protecting people from sex crimes. Chris Sgro of Equality NC said sexual predators have not used transgender anti-discrimination laws as cover to sneak into women’s bathrooms and commit crimes. We rated that claim Mostly True. But what about the crux of Berger’s call for Cooper to resign? Is the attorney general refusing to do his job here? "It’s clear I’m doing my job in this case," Cooper told a reporter at the news conference when he announced his decision in late March. Clearly Cooper and Berger disagree on the responsibilities of the attorney general. But that’s understandable – it’s a question that has kept legal scholars busy for years. First, let’s look at what state law says. Duties of the job The N.C. Attorney General has no constitutional duties. The office’s duties have instead been pieced together over the years by common law, court rulings and state statutes. The main source is General Statute chapter 114, which lays out eight duties of the office. One is to represent the state "in any cause or matter, civil or criminal, in which the state may be a party or interested." The N.C. Supreme Court reaffirmed that duty in a 1987 case. And just a few years ago, Cooper cited this duty in explaining why he would defend the state’s voter ID law despite his own opinion about it. "It is the duty under the law for this office to defend the state when it gets sued — even if I personally disagree with the public policy," Cooper said in a 2013 Los Angeles Times interview. "This office is going to follow the law." That appears at first to contradict what Cooper is saying now. The HB2 case, however, is different in two key ways. Cooper simply said he disagreed with the voter ID law. But he is calling HB2 unconstitutional. Furthermore, two state agencies – including his own – are challenging the law. Cooper has said he will represent them instead. That brings into consideration another duty of the job, to represent state "departments, agencies, institutions, commissions, bureaus or other organized activities" in legal issues. Legal precedent So what happens when a legal battle involves state government on both sides, as with HB2? This isn’t the first time it has happened under Cooper. In 2014, McCrory sued the General Assembly, saying it acted unconstitutionally in appointing members of an environmental committee. Cooper defended the legislature. McCrory hired private lawyers and recently won at the N.C. Supreme Court. This time, however, Cooper says he won’t defend the state, since his own office and the N.C. Treasurer’s office are calling the law unconstitutional. "This case presents the attorney general with a direct conflict – whether to argue the constitutionality of these executive branch policies and the rights of these employees or the constitutionality of HB2," said Cooper’s deputy campaign manager, Megan Jacobs. Scholarly opinions Berger’s office strongly disagrees with the argument that HB2 is unconstitutional, however. "Lawyers will always claim gray areas and make legalistic excuses," said Amy Auth, Berger’s deputy chief of staff. She said defending the state is foremost among Cooper’s duties and called his argument "a make-believe legal conflict to prop up his refusal to defend state law." However, constitutional law professor Gregory Wallace of Campbell University School of Law said the issue is more nuanced. State law doesn’t give any exceptions to the office’s duties, Wallace said, "but many scholars and attorneys have recognized certain implicit exceptions to the duty to defend at both the federal and state level." Wallace said Cooper could be impeached for acting outside the scope of his duties, but also that his oath to uphold the constitution would arguably give him a valid excuse not to defend a law that he believes is unconstitutional. These types of questions are fairly new, and ambiguous. Last year the Yale Law Journal published a study whose title shows the complexity of the issue: "Fifty States, Fifty Attorneys General, and Fifty Approaches to the Duty To Defend." It found that these types of squabbles were almost unheard of before 2008 but have increased significantly since then. It argued that attorneys general can choose not to defend some laws. "With Democrats and Republicans squarely divided on issues like same-sex marriage, gun control, and campaign finance, we predict that attorneys general will increasingly seek political advantage by refusing to defend (or insisting on the defense of) laws that divide the parties," the law professors behind the article wrote. In 2009 the National Association of Attorneys General asked Jim Tierney – a law professor, former Maine attorney general and expert on the office – to lead a discussion about whether attorneys general should defend the constitutionality of laws and actions they believe to be unconstitutional. "Basically, when is it okay for an attorney general to lie to the public?" Tierney asked the crowd at the meeting. He later answered his own question: "The courts generally support broad discretion for attorneys general … stating that the real client of the attorney general is the people of the state." Nearly 30 years ago, former N.C. Attorney General Lacy Thornburg made a similar argument in a law review article, writing that the office's chief duty is to the people, not the government. Wallace, the constitutional law professor, said he thinks an attorney general must believe in good faith that a law is unconstitutional in order not to defend it. "By a ‘good faith’ belief in the law’s unconstitutionality, I do not mean mere disagreement with the law because it’s bad policy in the AG’s view or because recusing would give the AG a political advantage in an upcoming political campaign," Wallace said. Our ruling Berger said that by not defending HB2 in court, Cooper "refuses to do his job" as attorney general. State law does say Cooper's job includes the duty to to defend the state in court. However, that’s not the end of the debate. Cooper has other possibly conflicting duties. And legal scholars tend to side with Cooper's argument that attorneys general don’t always have to defend laws – especially ones they believe to be unconstitutional. However, the issue is a new one in North Carolina, and the law is still relatively unsettled. We rate this claim Half True. | null | Phil Berger | null | null | null | 2016-04-07T18:53:17 | 2016-03-31 | ['None'] |
pomt-13337 | Says Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine "want to expand (Obamacare) into a single-payer program." | mostly false | /truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/05/mike-pence/mike-pence-says-hillary-clinton-want-turn-obamacar/ | Republican Mike Pence warned during the Oct. 4 vice presidential debate that the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, is only going to get bigger if Democrat Hillary Clinton and her running mate, Tim Kaine, are elected Nov. 8. "Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine want to build on Obamacare," Pence said. "They want to expand it into a single-payer program. And for all the world, Hillary Clinton just thinks Obamacare is a good start." Converting Obamacare to a single-payer program would make it, like Medicare, a federal health insurance program run by the federal government. Currently, Obamacare promotes policies supplied by private insurance companies. Some Democrats — including, at one time, Barack Obama — pushed for a single-payer system comparable with what other developed countries have. But that turned out to be politically untenable. The result was the Obamacare patchwork of different commercial insurance plans offered in "marketplaces" by individual states and the federal government. We contacted the Donald Trump campaign seeking evidence that Clinton and Kaine, in fact, wanted to convert Obamacare into a national health insurance system. Spokesman Dan Kowalski pointed us to the health care page on Clinton's website. It indicates "that she supports a 'public option' for Obamacare," Kowalski said. "A 'public option' is a single-payer-like option for health care delivery." Clinton's website does, indeed, say that she wants a public option. But that would be just one option. Under a single-payer system, the government provides health care for everyone. Clinton's web page makes it clear that there would be other payers as well. Clinton has consistently said she wants to protect Obamacare from being repealed by the Republicans — and Trump — and expand it by protecting consumers from rising health care costs. Her expansion would include tax credits, eliminating the out-of-network hospital charges many plans levy, and reducing prescription drug costs by removing the ban that prevents the federal government from negotiating drug prices and allowing Americans to important their drugs from countries where the prices are dramatically lower. Other parts of her proposal were outlined in a 1,500-word commentary in the Sept. 28 New England Journal of Medicine. Trump declined to submit details on his plans. We asked the Trump campaign if they had seen any statements from Clinton or Kaine indicating that converting Obamacare into a single-payer system was their eventual goal. Kowalski responded that "Hillary has committed fully to the public option," and as evidence he directed us to comments Clinton made in 1994 when she was first lady. At the time, she predicted that if Congress didn't pass health care reform soon, "I believe, and I may be totally off base on this, but I believe that by the year 2000 we will have a single-payer system. I don’t think it’s — I don’t even think it’s a close call politically." She earns no Nostradamus points for that one. More to the point, later in her answer Clinton says there are three ways to get universal health coverage, only one of which is a single-payer system. The other two: an employer mandate or an individual mandate, which is how Obamacare works. Our ruling Pence said Clinton and Kaine "want to expand (Obamacare) into a single-payer program," suggesting that they have proposed such a change. They have not. They have promoted a public option, which would be a government-sponsored insurance plan. A lot of Democrats, such as Bernie Sanders, would like to go in that direction. But throughout the current campaign, Clinton has consistently resisted that suggestion, saying she would work to prevent the repeal of Obamacare and try to improve on it. No one would be surprised if Clinton pushed for single payer if it became politically practical, but none of her campaign statements are calling for that. We rate Pence's statement Mostly False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/9c96e957-1429-4062-b0a0-e96538007969 | null | Mike Pence | null | null | null | 2016-10-05T00:47:36 | 2016-10-04 | ['None'] |
pomt-01417 | Leticia Van de Putte "opposed putting National Guard troops on the border, would send millions to Central American governments instead and wrote the law giving in-state tuition to illegal immigrants." | half-true | /texas/statements/2014/oct/08/dan-patrick/dan-patrick-errs-leticia-van-de-putte-positions-/ | Republican Dan Patrick, vowing to make border security his priority, says his Democratic opponent for lieutenant governor has been hiding her "failed record on illegal immigration." In a TV ad shared by the Houston state senator on Facebook Oct. 8, 2014, the narrator says: "Leticia Van de Putte," a San Antonio state senator, "opposed putting National Guard troops on the border, would send millions to Central American governments instead and wrote the law giving in-state tuition to illegal immigrants." A note: Patrick’s ad opened with his declaration that Islamic State group "terrorists threaten to cross our border and kill Americans." In September 2014, PolitiFact looked into a similar claim, concluding it’s highly unlikely that ISIS would operate in Mexico and stage an attack that involves crossing the border. But for this article, we focused on Patrick’s three charges about his opponent, finding two of them solid and the third a bit of a twist. Let’s take them one by one. Troops on the border As the ad says in type displayed on screen, Van de Putte said in a July 21, 2014, campaign press release that Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s decision to dispatch up to 1,000 National Guard troops to the border was the "wrong way to go." In her release, she said a better approach would be to provide local and state law enforcement agencies with resources they request and need. Van de Putte, referring to the uptick in unaccompanied children crossing the Rio Grande, conceded National Guard members are prepared for many missions. "But to strictly militarize the border won’t help us meet this unique humanitarian challenge," she said. So, the Democrat opposed the troop deployment. In-state tuition for undocumented immigrants Van de Putte also played a major role in presenting the 2001 legislation affording in-state college tuition rates to some immigrants unauthorized to live in the U.S., though contrary to Patrick’s ad, Van de Putte wasn’t the proposal’s author -- as in original sponsor. The lead author was then-Rep. Ric Noriega, D-Houston. She was darned close, however, by serving as the Senate sponsor of the House-approved proposal that came to the Senate before later making it to Perry to be signed into law, legislative records show; indeed, no other senators co-sponsored the act. Under the law, which Perry has long defended, children of Texas residents who entered the country without legal permission may qualify for in-state tuition at public colleges and universities. In the 2001 legislative session, Perry has accurately said, very few legislators opposed the action. Millions to Central America And what of Patrick’s third dart -- that Van de Putte favors sending government aid to countries in Central America instead of putting Texas troops on the border? Patrick’s ad lists a June 14, 2014, news report by KGBT-TV, Channel 4 in Harlingen, as his basis for the government-aid claim. We watched the report and read a story posted with the station’s news video and didn’t notice Van de Putte directly saying she would prefer to send millions of dollars to such countries. According to the news report, Van de Putte told a station reporter after visiting a U.S. Border Patrol facility in Brownsville holding thousands of mothers and children that it’s time for Congress to embark on immigration reform. According to the station’s online write-up, Van de Putte also asked Congress to strongly consider accepting President Barack Obama’s $3.7 billion request to deal with the border crisis (though this described message for Congress wasn’t part of KGBT-TV’s video report). With a nudge from Alejandro Garcia, Patrick’s campaign spokesman, we spotted references to Obama’s proposal touching on money for border security and other needs in countries in Central America. When Obama unsuccessfully sought the $3.7 billion in July 2014, he said the government needed the spending to pay for new detention facilities to house the additional border-crossers coming from Central America and to conduct more aerial surveillance and hire immigration judges and Border Patrol agents. The Central America angle: Garcia pointed out a July 2014 breakdown of Obama’s $3.7 billion request by USA Today stating $295 million of his requested aid would go to the State Department and other international programs to "support efforts to repatriate and reintegrate migrants to Central America, to help regional governments better control their borders and to address the underlying root causes driving migration, i.e. creating the economic, social, governance and citizen security conditions. Beyond initial assistance, continued funding for repatriation and reintegration activities will be contingent on sustained progress and cooperation by the Central American countries," the paper said. We saw the same dollar figure and explanation in a July 8, 2014, White House "fact sheet." Then again, Patrick’s camp didn’t provide nor did we spot evidence Van de Putte said that instead of Texas paying to station troops near the Texas-Mexico border, state dollars should go to countries in Central America. It’s worth noting, too, that she talked up Obama’s $3.7 billion request about five weeks before Perry revealed he was considering dispatching troops to the border. Perry issued the deployment order July 21, 2014. Our ruling Patrick said Van de Putte "opposed putting National Guard troops on the border, would send millions to Central American governments instead and wrote the law giving in-state tuition to illegal immigrants." Van de Putte was the Senate sponsor of the House-originated 2001 proposal authorizing in-state tuition for immigrants not living here with legal permission. She also opposed this summer's National Guard deployment. However, she didn’t say that instead of placing troops near the border, the state should aid countries in Central America. Rather, Van de Putte earlier and separately urged congressional approval of an Obama request that included federal aid to such countries. Suggesting she conflated spending on the Texas troops with the sought federal funding amounts to a misleading stretch. On balance, we rate Patrick's statement Half True. HALF TRUE – The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. | null | Dan Patrick | null | null | null | 2014-10-08T18:30:04 | 2014-10-08 | ['National_Guard_of_the_United_States', 'Central_America'] |
pomt-10892 | Tommy Thompson is the father of welfare reform, creating the groundbreaking Wisconsin Works program in Wisconsin that became the model for national and international reforms. | true | /truth-o-meter/statements/2007/jun/01/tommy-thompson/thompson-was-a-leader-in-welfare-reform/ | While it is certainly risky to claim fatherhood of a major policy initiative, there is agreement across a spectrum of political thought that indeed, Thompson was there for the birth, and even for the 2 a.m. feedings. Former U.S. Rep. E. Clay Shaw, R-Fort Lauderdale, said, "Among the governors, he certainly can take that position. He was more or less the quarterback." Ron Haskins, Senior Fellow, Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution, agrees the claim is fair. "In terms of ideas for welfare reform and demonstrating it could work – as political claims go -- it makes sense for Tommy Thompson to make this claim. The role Thompson played at every stage was substantial." Lawrence Mead, professor of Politics at New York University, and the author of a book on the first "welfare to work" program in the U.S., "Government Matters: Welfare Reform in Wisconsin," agrees "those are fair statements. He didn't do it single-handedly, but he was the crucial, most important single leader." In 2004, Mead told a conference on welfare reform at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research "Wisconsin took the idea (of welfare to work) to extremes not seen anywhere else in the country. Wisconsin Works, the eventual system that it implemented, is the most radical reform in the country…and is a triumph of government." | null | Tommy Thompson | null | null | null | 2007-06-01T00:00:00 | 2007-05-01 | ['Tommy_Thompson', 'Wisconsin', 'Workfare'] |
pomt-07722 | Says many local governments in Wisconsin already require employees to pay 20 percent, 30 percent or even 40 percent of their health insurance premiums. | false | /wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/03/jennifer-shilling/wisconsin-rep-jennifer-shilling-says-many-local-go/ | It’s hard to imagine any group of public employees in Wisconsin having a sweeter deal on health insurance costs than city employees in Madison. Most make no payment toward their insurance premiums and are in plans that require no co-pays and have no deductibles. So Madison wasn’t cited by state Rep. Jennifer Shilling (D-La Crosse) when she blistered Gov. Scott Walker’s controversial budget-repair bill. The measure would require workers to pay more of the costs of pensions and health care, effectively forcing them to take a pay cut. One of Walker’s justifications for trying to sharply curtail public sector collective bargaining rights in the process is to give local units of government the same opportunity to impose similar costs on their employees. In turn, that money could be used to offset reductions in state aid in the two-year budget starting July 1, 2011. Walker has said state employees should pay 12.6 percent of their health insurance premiums. Shilling called Walker’s argument false and "ridiculous" because, she said, many local government already get more than that from employees. "The truth is, local school districts and municipalities that have been requiring employees to pay for health and pension benefit costs are going to be hit hard by Walker’s cuts," Shilling, a member of the Legislature’s budget-reviewing Joint Finance Committee, said in a Feb. 27, 2011 news release. She added: "Walker claims municipalities will be able to force employees to pay 12 percent of their health insurance premiums, but many cities already require employees to pay 20, 30, or even 40 percent of their health insurance premiums." Now, that’s a big number and, potentially, a big development. We’re going to tackle Schilling’s statement with this caveat: We’re not looking in this item at the assumptions Walker and his budget crunchers used to calculate the prospective savings for local government. We’re looking at whether many school districts and cities already make employees pay between 20 percent and 40 percent of health care costs. We asked Shilling for backup on her claim. Her legislative aide, Anthony Palese, pointed us to a survey of school district cost-sharing on health insurance, conducted annually by the Wisconsin Association of School Boards. That annual survey showed that only 6 of the 130 school districts that responded are asking for more than 12 percent in premiums on family coverage. The average: 4 percent. Only one district, Abbotsford, fell into the 20 percent to 40 percent range that Shilling claims is common -- the district asks 46 percent of employees on family plans. The district pays more in salaries than nearby districts, said district administrator Reed Welsh. But the current year data is not complete, in part because many contracts are still unsettled. So let’s take a look back to the previous year’s survey. In the 2009-10 survey, the schools association found that out of 388 districts, the average ask from employees was 5 percent. Only 14 districts were getting more than the 12 percent benchmark set by the governor. Only five of the 388 fell into the wider range -- 20 percent to 40 percent -- that Shilling outlined. We noticed a possible explanation for Shilling’s belief that "many" local units were already getting more than that 12 percent: there were two school districts in western Wisconsin -- Onalaska and Holmen -- that got 20 percent from employees in 2009-’10. The city of Onalaska also receives 20 percent from its employees. Both communities are near La Crosse and Shilling’s district. So her perspective on it may be skewed. In her statement, Shilling also referred to "municipalities" already charging employees similar amounts. There is no equivalent annual survey of cities, and Shilling’s staff could point to none asking 20 to 40 percent, as contended. We sampled a few big cities. Madison: The city’s no-cost insurance option, selected by most full-time union workers there, is one end of the scale -- and nowhere near 20 percent to 40 percent. La Crosse: City workers in the family plan pay 3.1 percent if they undergo a health assessment, which almost all do. Single people pay about 12 percent. Milwaukee: City workers -- union or nonunion -- pay 3 percent to 8 percent in the family plan if they do the wellness tests. Wausau: Workers pay 10 percent with a co-pay only for emergency room visits. That 10 percent in Wausau is pretty typical, according to the labor union that represents municipal employees in nearly 600 bargaining units across Wisconsin. Most full-time employees in those locales now pay about 10 percent of their premiums, up significantly in the last decade, said Jack Bernfeld, associate director, AFSCME Wisconsin Council 40. So, what’s the bottom line? Shilling contended that Walker was misguided in claiming that communities had a lot of room for savings by getting employees to kick in more of health insurance costs because "many" already get double or even triple what Walker is asking. But the school data she points to shows that’s true in only a tiny scattering of districts. In cities, 10 percent is typical, and Shilling could name only one city in the 20 to 40 percent range. We rate Shilling’s statement False. | null | Jennifer Shilling | null | null | null | 2011-03-03T12:04:11 | 2011-02-27 | ['Wisconsin'] |
goop-00775 | Nick Jonas, Priyanka Chopra Moving In Together, | 2 | https://www.gossipcop.com/nick-jonas-priyanka-chopra-moving-in-together-not-true/ | null | null | null | Shari Weiss | null | Nick Jonas, Priyanka Chopra NOT Moving In Together, Despite Reports | 12:08 pm, June 21, 2018 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-05676 | The Wisconsin state Assembly chambers extend to the bathroom and the parlor, and rules allow members to vote for each other if the member is in the chambers. | mostly true | /wisconsin/statements/2012/mar/15/joel-kleefisch/wisconsin-rep-joel-kleefisch-says-he-didnt-break-a/ | The unidentified person with the camera phone recording the state Assembly proceedings Feb. 21, 2012, thought he scored a coup -- a chance to show the public images of lawmakers breaking chamber rules and engaging in outright hypocrisy. The shooter saw a vote being taken and state Rep. Joel Kleefisch, R-Oconomowoc, stand up, reach over and press a button on his neighbor’s desk to vote on his behalf. Kleefisch then moved to the next desk and hit that missing member’s button as well. Counting his own vote, Kleefisch voted three times. When the video hit the Internet, it promptly drew squeals of hypocrisy. After all, Kleefisch -- who is married to Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch -- joined Republicans to pass a new photo ID law for voting while arguing the change was needed to prevent election fraud. The day after the video was made, WTMJ-TV aired an "I-Team" report that included the cell phone multiple-vote footage. Asked if he had broken chamber rules, Kleefisch defended his actions. "It depends on how you interpret the rule," he said. "The rule says you have to be present in the chamber. The bathroom counts as the chamber. And the parlor counts as the chamber if you are grabbing something to eat." Ultimately cable TV talk show host Keith Olbermann branded Kleefisch his "Worst Person in the World" for Feb. 23, 2012. That has to sting. But is Kleefisch actually right? Are Assembly members really considered in the chambers when they are, um, on the chamber pot? And can members vote for colleagues who are in the chamber and not at their desk? We emailed and left voicemail for Kleefisch to ask him to elaborate on his claim. He did not respond before this item was completed. So we went to the rule book, and consulted with a couple of experts, including those in charge of running the Assembly. Turns out, the chamber is more than the room itself. The written rules define the chamber as: "The entire area west of the easternmost doors of the Assembly, including the visitor's galleries, lobbies, offices of the speaker, majority leader, and minority leader, and hallways." The rules also say: "Only the members present in the Assembly chamber may vote." So what about the practice of voting for your neighbor? Turns out, it’s done all of the time. That’s not in the formal rules, as Kleefisch indicated. But, like many legislative bodies, there are informal yet powerful rules of courtesy and tradition. And that’s where the claim by Kleefisch needs some additional explanation. "Traditionally, we’ve done it as a courtesy," said state Rep. Bill Kramer, R-Waukesha, the Assembly Speaker pro tem, whose job it is to maintain order, handling votes cast by 99 people and generally keeping business moving along during floor sessions. "Otherwise, we’d be breaking down every time we had a vote." Indeed, he said it’s very rare that everybody present is in their seats to vote. "It’s less than 10 to 20 percent of the time that everybody votes for themselves," said Kramer. Only in rare instances is there a vote where each member’s name is called. More commonly, a vote is "open" for a short window, during which times members press their buttons. and their votes are tallied on a large scoreboard. On a day when the Assembly has a lot of business to conduct, votes can begin and end in a minute or less. Strict enforcement of the "present in chambers" rule could dramatically slow down the voting process or result in many members not voting. Sometimes the proxy voting can backfire. That happened to state Rep. Peter Barca, D-Kenosha, on the same day Kleefisch was caught voting three times. State Rep. Sandy Pasch, D-Whitefish Bay, voted on behalf of Barca against a measure regarding penalties for aiding a felon. But Barca wanted to be a "yes" vote, so when he returned to the floor he asked for -- and was granted permission -- to have his vote recorded as a "yes." Where was Barca when Pasch stepped in? "He was in here," in his office, said aide Rich Judge. And "here" means in the chambers, because Barca is the minority leader and his office is among those included in the formal definition. A total of seven requests for corrected votes were made by Assembly members on the day in question, Feb. 21, 2012. Business began about 11 a.m., and then there was a recess from 12:30 p.m. to 4:45 p.m. Dozens of matters were then taken up in a session that lasted until 10:58 p.m., and there were more than three dozen votes taken. From the video, it appears that Kleefisch voted for his neighbors, Rep. Paul Farrow, R-Pewaukee, and Rep. Dean Knudson, R-Hudson, who, according to the Assembly seating chart, are assigned to the desks next to Kleefisch. Neither Farrow nor Knudson returned a telephone message to discuss their whereabouts during the vote. There’s no indication of what matter was being voted upon. So voting on behalf of another member is a routine practice by members of both parties. In fact, members sometimes press the button for a colleague not even in the building. This is done as the chamber is called to order and attendance taken -- which is, strictly speaking, not a vote but attendance. "It was not uncommon to see one or two people punch 30 buttons," said Stephen Freese, a Republican who served 12 years as speaker pro tem until 2006. Why? The Assembly’s business day often begins with routine, procedural matters and special recognitions. Then there is a recess so the two parties can caucus and get their issues and votes lined up for the day. It may be hours before the body reconvenes for the real action. In some cases, Freese said, an Assembly member might be coming from a great distance. So rather than leaving in the middle of the night to make the opening gavel, the member skips the procedural stuff but is there for the caucus and voting. Colleagues cover for him by registering him present. Such votes usually are cast by another member of the tardy member’s party. But not always. Said Freese: "I’ve seen that, in the case of close friendships that have developed, a Republican will vote for a Democrat and a Democrat vote as a Republican," Our conclusion Caught on video voting for his neighbors, Kleefisch claimed he didn’t break Assembly rules. The chambers, he said, extend beyond the floor, and include hallways, a parlor and the bathroom. He’s correct, but that’s only part of the story. As Kleefisch said, "It depends on how you interpret the rule." The rules are clear on what is the chamber, but don’t specifically allow the vote-for-your neighbor approach. However, that is the longstanding, informal tradition of the body. We rate Kleefisch’s claim Mostly True. | null | Joel Kleefisch | null | null | null | 2012-03-15T09:00:00 | 2012-02-22 | ['None'] |
pomt-07363 | We have the highest corporate income tax in the world right now. | mostly true | /truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/06/gary-johnson/gary-johnson-says-us-has-highest-corporate-income-/ | If there’s one issue that binds Republicans, it’s a preference for low taxes. So it’s no surprise that in the first debate of the 2012 presidential campaign -- held May 5, 2011, in Greenville, S.C. -- the topic came up. At one point, Fox News commentator Juan Williams asked Gary Johnson -- the former Republican governor of New Mexico and a strong libertarian -- about corporate taxation. "Gov. Johnson," Williams said, "the nation's unemployment rate is 8.8 percent and this week, jobless claims rose to their highest level in eight months. Among your proposals for getting the private sector to start hiring are eliminating corporate income tax, doing away with the federal minimum wage law and to stop extending unemployment benefits. Isn't that just a windfall for big business?" Johnson responded, "Well, absolutely not. I think that repealing, or doing away with the corporate income tax is simply getting us back to where we were. And we need to understand that the corporate income tax is a double tax -- that we all own the corporations, and when income gets distributed to us, we pay the tax on that. So, we have the highest corporate income tax in the world right now. Let's abolish it." We have looked at the question of whether the United States has "the highest corporate income tax in the world" in previous items, so we thought we’d revisit it now. There are two primary ways to compare corporate tax burdens. One is to compare statutory corporate tax rate -- the rate that’s actually on the books. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of more than two-dozen large, industrialized democracies, publishes the rates of its member countries. The most recent data shows Japan on top at 39.54 percent, vs. 39.21 percent for the United States. Japan had been scheduled to cut its corporate tax rate to a level below the United States, but the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster that crippled portions of the country earlier this year has left that in doubt. The other way to look at it is to gauge what firms actually pay, once exclusions and other adjustments are taken into account. This is called the "effective" tax rate. The World Bank has assembled data from 183 nations and made a series of statistical adjustments to produce a full international comparison of effective tax rates. By this measurement, the U.S. rate is considerably lower than the published rate -- 27.6 percent. But in a comparative sense, that's still pretty high: Among larger international economies, only Japan, New Zealand and Thailand imposed a higher effective rate, according to the World Bank study. The World Bank also produces another -- and broader -- statistic. It factors in not only the corporate profit tax but also a range of other taxes paid by businesses, including the cost of employee taxes borne by the employer. When the World Bank ranked countries from the lowest level of taxes to the highest, the U.S. ranked 124th out of 183 -- meaning corporate taxes were relatively high. A number of other large and/or democratic countries were higher, including Austria, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Hungary, India, Italy, Spain and Sweden. This last measure provides a wider snapshot of U.S. tax policy toward businesses, but it also introduces some complications. Factoring in the employer-paid portion of labor taxes makes the corporate tax rate seem higher in countries that provide higher benefits such as pensions or health care through business taxes, while making the rate seem lower for countries that provide less generous benefits through the tax code. So making apples-to-apples comparisons can be tricky. There's also broader context that Johnson doesn't get into. In a previous item, we noted that when all taxes, including those such as personal income taxes and property taxes -- not just corporate taxes -- are taken into account and compared to gross domestic product, the U.S. doesn't rank near the top of the OECD table in total tax burden. Still, Johnson’s claim was more limited, addressing only corporate taxation. To be more accurate, Johnson should have said the United States has the highest "corporate tax rate" rather than the highest "corporate taxes." By using the term "corporate taxes," Johnson opens the door to the broader World Bank figure, which would put a number of other major countries above the U.S. in the rankings. That way of looking at it would undercut Johnson’s argument. On the other hand, he is close to correct when using the two more common benchmarks -- statutory tax rates (in which the U.S. trails only Japan, for now) and effective rates (where the U.S. trails only Japan, New Zealand and Thailand). On balance, we rate Johnson’s statement Mostly True. | null | Gary Johnson | null | null | null | 2011-05-06T12:20:51 | 2011-05-05 | ['None'] |
pomt-03894 | New Hampshire is currently the only state in the nation that does not have a full-service veterans hospital or equivalent access. | half-true | /new-hampshire/statements/2013/mar/04/carol-shea-porter/us-rep-carol-shea-porter-claims-nh-only-state-with/ | U.S. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, D-N.H. has reinvigorated efforts to increase veterans’ access to health care in the Granite State -- and has repeated a familiar claim in the process. In a press release issued in January, she reintroduced the Veterans Health Equity Act, which requires the Department of Veterans Affairs to ensure every state has a full-service veterans hospital, or similar services through contracts with state hospitals. "New Hampshire is currently the only state in the nation that does not have a full-service veterans hospital or equivalent access," Shea-Porter said in a press release Jan. 16. New Hampshire residents, and veterans, have heard this several times in recent years. U.S. Rep. Annie Kuster, D-NH mouthed the same claim in January as a cosponsor to Shea-Porter’s bill. And U.S. Sens. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H. and Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H. have each shared the same point before in support of similar legislation. But to determine what is a "full-service" veterans hospital and whether New Hampshire really is the only state without one, we decided to consult our Truth-o-Meter. First, we contacted Shea-Porter’s staff for some answers. They said three states in the country do not have a full-service VA hospital: Hawaii, Alaska and New Hampshire. "Alaska and Hawaii both have Tricare military hospitals," which veterans can access, said Shea-Porter’s chief of staff, Naomi Andrews, in an email. "New Hampshire alone has no VA or Tricare full service hospital." Bringing more veteran’s health care to the Granite State has been a bipartisan issue for about a decade. Andrews also pointed to statements by Shaheen and former U.S. Rep Charlie Bass, R-N.H., saying the same thing to validate the claim. Ever since New Hampshire’s VA Medical Center in Manchester was downsized more than 10 years ago due to financial reasons, several members of New Hampshire’s congressional delegation have offered bills similar to Shea-Porter’s. In 2009, Shaheen filed similar legislation with her own Veterans Health Equity Act in the Senate as Shea-Porter authored the companion bill in the House. Neither bill went anywhere during the 111th Congress and each drew just one co-sponsor (Sen. Judd Gregg in the Senate; Rep. Paul Hodes in the House), never emerging from their respective committees. In 2011, Shaheen and Ayotte introduced the Veterans Health Equity Act of 2011, which then-U.S. Reps. Bass and Frank Guinta, R-NH, co-sponsored, and now it has been reintroduced in 2013. Manchester VAMC lost its "full-service" designation after an assessment by the U.S. Office of the Inspector General in 2000. At the time, it was a 28-bed primary and secondary care facility that employed roughly 500 people, operated on a $41.8 million budget and was providing care to more than 15,000 veterans. Today, the Manchester’s VA Medical Center provides urgent care, primary care, ambulatory surgery, specialty clinics, mental health, hospital based home care, community acute care and long term care services to veterans, according to its website. Since then, New Hampshire veterans had to travel to Boston or White River Junction, Vt., for emergency care they used to be able to get closer to home. In 2009, VA officials opted to outsource some medical services by contracting with Concord Hospital and other care providers, rather than open a VA hospital in Manchester, calling Concord Hospital a "centrally located regional medical center that offers traditional acute care services in 42 medical specialties."It also upgraded mental health facilities at the VAMC Manchester. A press release on the partnership said it allowed the VA to provide coordinated care and services "equivalent to a general medical and surgical hospital locally within New Hampshire." So does this constitute a full-service equivalent contrary to Shea-Porter’s assertion? The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs says there is no industry-wide definition of a "full-service" hospital; even "highly tertiary" private sector hospitals don’t provide all health services. In the veterans health administration, a medical center, by policy definition, is a site that offers acute inpatient services and at least one additional service such as outpatient care, long-term care or mental health care, said Sue Hopkins, a public affairs officer with the VA’s regional office. By that measure, New Hampshire and Alaska are the only states that don’t have a true VA medical center, even though the New Hampshire facility uses "medical center" in its name, Hopkins said. Hawaii, which provides inpatient acute and inpatient psychiatric care for veterans, would be considered a VA medical center, Hopkins said. But veterans’ medical and surgical care is obtained through agreements with Tripler Army Medical Center whose staff are "closely integrated with VA clinicians." Alaska does not have a VA medical center, but has agreements for acute medical and surgical care at neighboring facilities, most of which is provided at the Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson Hospital, adjacent to a VA outpatient clinic, Hopkins said. In New Hampshire, veterans can get non-emergency care at the Manchester VA Medical Center’s urgent care facility, Hopkins said. Those who need an acute inpatient care stay for conditions like pneumonia, unstable angia, or appendicitis are typically sent to Concord Hospital or in more ‘emergent situations," Elliott Hospital or Catholic Medical Center, Hopkins said. In a medical emergency, veterans can go to the nearest healthcare facility that will provide the care needed, she added. The VA will pay for emergency care in non-VA facilities for certain service-disabled veterans or as payer of last resort under other conditions. The VA measures access by distance, not state boundaries, Hopkins said. New Hampshire veterans can access VA acute inpatient care outside the state, via: White River Junction, Vt. (0.3 miles from the state border) Bedford, Mass. (15 miles from the state border) Boston, Mass. (33 miles from the state border to West Roxbury Campus of the VA Boston Healthcare System) Togus, Maine (78 miles from the state border) In other larger states that have full service hospitals, veterans have to travel farther than veterans in New Hampshire for similar care. In South Texas, for example, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn is pushing a bill to add inpatient health care and an emergency room to a new veterans medical facility in Harlingen to serve the thousands of rural Texas veterans who have to travel more than six hours to get the care they need in San Antonio. Even in New Jersey, some veterans who need specific procedures have to spend more than four hours in a car or bus to visit VA facilities in East Orange, Philadelphia or Wilmington, Del., according to published reports. In New Hampshire, veterans in need of complex, specialized services for conditions like hip replacements, neurosurgery, or a bypass are typically sent to the VA Boston Healthcare System. According to statistics cited by The Boston Globe in 2011, one quarter of New Hampshire veterans -- 2,741 cases -- in need of acute care for issues such as heart failure, pneumonia and others were sent out of state. "While VA is working to keep more New Hampshire veterans in the state for their medical care whenever possible, admission to inpatient care is based on medical need and the clinical judgment of the VA provider," Hopkins said. Our ruling Shea-Porter wasn’t completely right to say New Hampshire is the only state without a "full-service" veterans hospital.The VA doesn’t use the definition "full service." Instead it uses the definition of a medical center, and Alaska doesn’t have one either, even though it does offer many needed medical services to veterans on base. As for "equivalent access," most New Hampshire veterans can access medical centers that will provide the services they need through contracts with non-VA, in-state hospitals, but in some cases, veterans in need of specialized services are sent to Boston. Even when New Hampshire veterans are sent out of state, they don’t have to travel as far as some veterans in larger states, like Texas. Shea Porter’s statement leaves out some important details. We give her a Half True. | null | Carol Shea-Porter | null | null | null | 2013-03-04T07:46:01 | 2013-01-16 | ['None'] |
pomt-01823 | DeKalb County has been recognized in recent years as having one the best sheriff’s departments in the nation. | half-true | /georgia/statements/2014/jul/19/jeff-mann/dekalb-one-nations-best-sheriffs-offices/ | The DeKalb County battle to replace Sheriff Tom Brown is a rare local political fight this year. And it cries out for fact checks. Brown stepped down in March to focus on his unsuccessful race to unseat U.S. Rep. Hank Johnson. Former DeKalb County CEO Vernon Jones and Jeff Mann, Brown’s former chief deputy who became interim sheriff last spring, beat back six other candidates in May’s nonpartisan special election. Whoever wins Tuesday will fill out Brown’s unexpired term. Jones and Mann have appeared together recently only once, in a debate taped to air at 10:30 a.m. Sunday on Georgia Public Broadcasting. Each candidate made claims about the other at the session. But Mann focused more on his tenure with Brown and their work to professionalize the department. At the GPB debate, Mann implied that DeKalb has been recognized in recent years for having one of the best sheriff’s departments in the nation. "We have received the National Sheriff’s Association Triple Crown distinction," Mann said. "We are in the top 1 percent of sheriff’s offices in this nation." Those are bold claims anywhere. But they especially set the AJC Truth-O-Meter in action given corruption investigations, indictments and convictions that ended the careers of three DeKalb sheriffs between 1972 and 2000. All that happened before Sidney Dorsey, the defeated incumbent sheriff, ordered the assassination of winning candidate Derwin Brown just days before he was to take office in 2000. The department has had no major scandals in recent years. Some observers of DeKalb’s history find that fact remarkable in itself. The National Sheriffs’ Association confirms that DeKalb did receive its Triple Crown honor in 2008 under Brown. The award recognizes those departments that have earned simultaneous accreditation from three agencies: The Commission on the Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies, which sets standards on the law enforcement function of the department whose main roles are to protect the courthouse and run the jail. The American Correctional Association's Commission on Accreditation for Corrections, which lays out policies and rules governing hiring practices and staffing in the department. The National Commission on Correctional Healthcare, which focuses on the health care aspect of running the jail. Each agency has its own standards and requires a sheriff’s office to submit files and submit to site visits to confirm compliance. Meeting the standards generally requires thousands of dollars and a significant time investment. The ACA accreditation, for instance, takes at least 18 months to complete. "To get all three is a significant accomplishment," said Fred Wilson, the NSA’s director of operations. "It shows a commitment to and an intent to achieve high standards." The NSA counts about 39,000 sheriff’s offices nationwide and lists 51 agencies that have achieved the Triple Crown. That would make DeKalb among the 1 percent to earn that honor. Wilson said DeKalb and other award winners would benefit from lower insurance costs connected to the distinction. So a focus on professionalization can minimize liability for taxpayers. But does it mean those sheriff’s offices are the best? Consider that also on the Triple Crown list is the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office, which earned the achievement in 2003 under then-Sheriff Jacqueline Barrett. But faulty jail locks, understaffing and other problems have prolonged a nearly decade-old lawsuit over jail conditions in Fulton. The litigation has cost taxpayers more than $200 million, including bills for renovations and outsourcing inmates. Being plagued with those kinds of problems can sometimes be a function of size, said Frank V. Rotondo, the executive director of the Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police, which does not handle sheriffs’ standards. But for any department, earning accreditation is not a silver bullet, he added. "It certainly doesn’t mean you’ll never have problems," Rotondo said. "It really says you’ve established you will meet a very high set of standards, to try to preclude problems." That means the distinction works both ways. So Mann was accurate to claim DeKalb had achieved a rare accomplishment. That honor can have financial benefits for taxpayers but not protect them entirely from big expenses associated with improving operations. Mann’s statement certainly contains an element of truth but overstates the significance of the award. We rate Mann’s claim as Half True. | null | Jeff Mann | null | null | null | 2014-07-19T00:00:00 | 2014-07-10 | ['None'] |
pomt-13246 | Many of (Hillary Clinton's) friends took bigger deductions (than me). Warren Buffett took a massive deduction. (George) Soros, who is a friend of hers, took a massive deduction. | mostly false | /truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/18/donald-trump/trump-base-buffett-soros-deductions/ | Facing scrutiny over possibly not paying federal income tax for almost two decades, Donald Trump turned the tables on Hillary Clinton during the heated second presidential debate. The New York Times obtained a few pages of Trump’s 1995 personal tax returns, revealing a $916 million loss that would have allowed him to legally avoid paying taxes for 18 years. Trump didn’t deny this and instead claimed Clinton backers Warren Buffett and George Soros did the same to a larger extent. "Many of her friends took bigger deductions. Warren Buffett took a massive deduction. Soros, who is a friend of hers, took a massive deduction," he said. We wondered if this was accurate. The Trump campaign did not respond to our requests for comment, but we found an instance where Trump gave exact numbers. "Soros declared $1.5 (billion) losses, $1.5 billion in just six months, and Warren Buffett declared $873 million. Ask them, did they write off those losses? Oh, I doubt it," Trump told Fox Business News on Oct. 4, 2016. While both Soros and Buffett had losses, Trump is not exactly making an apples-to-apples comparison. Buffett’s loss was claimed on his business’s tax returns, not his own. Soros’ losses are from his hedge funds, so any deductions would not be on Soros’s private tax returns. Trump, meanwhile, claimed a personal deduction. It’s unclear exactly what loss of Soros’ Trump is referring to. The Soros Fund Management lost $1.3 billion between May and August 2011. Soros’ Quantum Fund lost $2 billion in 1998. But again, deductions caused by these losses wouldn’t appear on Soros’s personal tax returns, according to Lawrence Zelenak, a Duke University law professor. Buffett’s business Berkshire Hathaway Inc. is a publicly traded company, and acts as a holding company for other businesses. In 2013, the company suffered a $873 million loss after a failed investment. The company had profits that year as well, but received a $514 million deduction in 2013, according to its annual report. In other words, the deduction was applied to the company’s taxes, not Buffett’s own taxes. Trump’s companies are his own private ventures, meaning he can claim their losses in his personal income taxes by declaring them "pass-through" income. In 1995, Trump lost $916 million, according to a report by the New York Times. The article says Trump’s loss is from three Atlantic City casinos, a failure in the airline business, and a purchase of the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan. The almost $1 billion loss could have allowed Trump to legally avoid paying taxes for the next 18 years through an IRS provision called a "carry-forward." A carry-forward is an income tax rule that allows a taxpayer to save an unused deduction, credit or loss, and use it in the future. Trump’s loss could have allowed him to have a $50 million per year carry-forward over 18 years. However, Eric Toder, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, said it’s hard to tell exactly how Trump handled his taxes the following years without the tax returns. "We don’t know exactly what he did," Toder said. "We know he took a large loss -- unusually large." So we can’t know just how much Trump deducted without his personal tax returns (which he promised to release but has not). The same goes for Buffett’s and Soros’ personal taxes. Neither of their spokespeople got back to us, but Buffett released a statement detailing his personal taxes. In that statement, Buffett said his income was $11.6 million in 2015, and his deductions equaled $5.5 million. Buffett also said that $3.5 million of this was allowable charitable contributions, and the rest -- except for $36,037 -- was for state income taxes. Soros’s personal income taxes may have benefited from a tax rule that allows hedge fund managers and private equity executives to pay a lower income tax rate. Buffett does not run a hedge fund, and so would not have benefited from that same rule. Buffett’s low tax rate of 16 percent is because he earns the majority of his money from investments. In his statement, Buffett said he paid income tax every year since 1944, and none use a carry-forward. Our ruling Trump said, "Many of (Hillary Clinton’s) friends took bigger deductions (than me). Warren Buffett took a massive deduction. Soros, who is a friend of hers, took a massive deduction." Trump’s $916 million loss could have allowed him to have a $50 million deduction each year for 18 years. As for Buffet and Soros, Trump is likely referring to a $514 million deduction Buffett’s company, not Buffett himself, took in 2013. (We’ll note that this amount is actually smaller than what Trump would have been permitted to take.) Buffett says he personally took a $5.5 million deduction. Soros manages a hedge fund. Experts told us any deductions from this hedge fund would not appear on Soros’ personal tax returns. Without copies of actual tax return forms, it’s impossible to tell for sure what each man did with their taxes, but with the information available, it seems that the situations of Buffett and Soros are not that similar to Trump’s. We rate Trump’s claim Mostly False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/42bff497-56df-4b1b-9583-68514be19954 | null | Donald Trump | null | null | null | 2016-10-18T16:56:24 | 2016-10-09 | ['Warren_Buffett', 'George_Soros', 'Hillary_Rodham_Clinton'] |
pomt-12570 | The Obama administration’s 2013 Syria proposal "had no clear objective," while Trump’s Syria strike "had a clear strategic objective." | false | /truth-o-meter/statements/2017/apr/12/marco-rubio/trumps-strikes-syria-look-lot-obamas-2013-proposal/ | It was "the right move" for President Donald Trump to launch airstrikes in Syria in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack, said Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., on CNN April 7. But almost four years ago, Rubio opposed President Barack Obama’s plan to order airstrikes in Syria, also after dictator Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against his people. Rubio explained why 2017 is different than 2013 on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos. "Here's the first thing that's changed from 2013 to now: The Russians are now there," Rubio said in an April 9 interview. "Assad was losing back in 2013. If we had armed non-jihadist elements on the ground, they could have overthrown him. That's what I thought was the better approach at the time. "The second is that the administration, what they were proposing, had no clear objective. They wanted to blow up some things to send a message. I don't think you use the U.S. military simply to send a message. This strike was limited, but it had a clear strategic objective, which was the destruction or degrading of a key airbase installation that is used in these chemical attacks." Rubio is one of several Republicans — including Trump — who have flipped from opposing post-chemical weapons airstrikes in 2013 to supporting them in 2017. Rubio has a point that the geopolitical situation in Syria has changed; Russia, Iran and the Islamic State are all bigger players in the Syrian civil war than they were three and a half years ago. But we were also interested in Rubio’s assertion that the Obama administration’s proposal, compared to Trump’s actions, didn’t have a clear objective. The argument rings hollow. Obama and his team spent several days making the case to Congress and the public that they should support military action in Syria, and the goals and plans they laid out were quite similar to the actions Trump took in 2017. We reached out to Rubio's staff for comment but didn't hear back. Making the case In August 2013, Assad’s regime killed more than 1,400 people in a chemical weapons attack on the city of Damascus. Obama wanted to strike Syria in retaliation, but he chose to ask Congress to authorize his use of military force. Obama couldn’t get enough votes to pass his proposal, so he did not order strikes fired in direct retaliation for the chemical attacks. The 2017 chemical weapons attack was much smaller, killing about 80 people. Two days later, without advance notice or requesting congressional approval, Trump launched nearly 60 cruise missiles at a Syrian airfield used to carry out the chemical weapons attacks. Because the Obama administration spent several days lobbying Congress and the public to support his proposed military action, there are numerous speeches, media interviews, documents and congressional hearings during which his team laid out the strategy. For Trump, in contrast, we have to look at what members of his administration have said to justify the airstrikes after the fact. Here are three examples each of the Obama and Trump administrations laying out their goals. Both describe sending a message to Assad that chemical weapons use is unacceptable. Both involve a targeted attack plan designed to degrade Assad’s chemical weapon capabilities by taking out related facilities and resources. If anything, the Obama White House’s objectives, as well as the scope of the operation, were more clear than Trump’s because the Obama administration had to lobby the public instead of acting unilaterally. Obama: In this 2013 photo, members of former President Barack Obama’s administration — Martin Dempsey, John Kerry and Chuck Hagel — appear before the Senate to make the case for military action in Syria. (Jacquelyn Martin/Associated Press) • Obama’s proposal to Congress: "The objective of the United States' use of military force in connection with this authorization should be to deter, disrupt, prevent, and degrade the potential for, future uses of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction." • Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey in a House hearing: "(Obama) has directed me to plan for a militarily significant strike that would do the following: deter the Assad regime's further use of chemical weapons and degrade the regime's military capability to employ chemical weapons in the future. We've assembled target packages in line with those objectives. We have both an initial target set and subsequent target sets should they become necessary. The planned strikes will disrupt those parts of Assad's forces directly related to the chemical attack of 21 August; degrade his means of chemical weapons delivery; and finally, degrade the assets that Assad uses to threaten his neighbors and to defend his regime. Collectively, such strikes will send Assad a deterrent message, demonstrating our ability to hold at risk the capabilities he values most and to strike again if necessary." • Secretary of State John Kerry in a Huffington Post article: "It would be a tailored action to make clear that the world will not stand by and allow the international norm against the use of chemical weapons to be violated with impunity by a brutal dictator willing to gas hundreds of children to death while they sleep. Our action would be a limited and targeted military action, against military targets in Syria, designed to deter Syria's use of chemical weapons and degrade the Assad regime's capabilities to use or transfer such weapons in the future." Trump: In this image provided by the U.S. Navy, a guided-missile destroyer launches a missile in the Mediterranean Sea, April 7, 2017. (via Associated Press) • Trump in a statement to Congress two days after the strikes: "United States intelligence indicates that Syrian military forces operating from this airfield were responsible for the chemical weapons attack on Syrian civilians in southern Idlib Province, Syria, that occurred on April 4. I directed this action in order to degrade the Syrian military's ability to conduct further chemical weapons attacks and to dissuade the Syrian regime from using or proliferating chemical weapons, thereby promoting the stability of the region and averting a worsening of the region's current humanitarian catastrophe." • National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster in a press briefing: "Obviously, the regime will maintain the certain capacity to commit mass murder with chemical weapons, we think, beyond this particular airfield. But it was aimed at this particular airfield for a reason because we could trace this murderous attack back to that facility. And this was not a small strike." • Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on This Week: "The president was very clear in his message to the American people that this strike was related solely to the most recent horrific use of chemical weapons against women, children and, as the president said, even small babies. And so the strike was a message to Bashar al-Assad that your multiple violations of your agreements at the U.N., your agreements under the Chemical Weapons Charter back in 2013, that those would not go without a response in the future." Rubio himself had the opportunity to question Obama administration officials about Syria in a September 2013 Senate hearing. There, he said he was concerned that Obama’s proposed operation was too narrow to degrade Assad’s chemical weapons abilities and deter future attacks — a position that conflicts with his current stance that Obama administration’s plans weren’t focused enough. "Quite frankly, I'm a bit skeptical that the act, that what the president is asking for will provide the support needed to achieve these objectives and that these objectives are even realistic at this point," Rubio said. "It leads me to my second question: How confident are you, and how confident can you express to this committee, you are that we can, in fact, put in place a military plan that's limited in scope and duration, that can effectively degrade Assad's capability to carry out future chemical attacks?" Dempsey replied, "I'm confident in the capabilities we can bring to bear to deter and degrade. And it won't surprise you to know that we will have not only an initial target set, but subsequent target sets should they become necessary." Philip Gordon, who was the White House coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa and the Gulf Region from 2013 to 2015, told PolitiFact that he doesn’t see any material difference between the Trump administration’s actions in 2017 and Obama’s proposed actions in 2013 that could lead a politician to change their position, other than political calculation. Yes, the dynamics of the Syrian civil war have changed, in that Russia, Iran and ISIS now play larger roles, Gordon said, "But none of those are relevant to the core question at hand: Is this strike capable of deterring chemical weapons? That’s the stated goal of both presidents." Our ruling Rubio said the Obama administration’s 2013 Syria airstrike proposal "had no clear objective," while Trump’s Syria strike "had a clear strategic objective." In 2013 Obama’s team made their goals clear through a days-long lobbying effort: to degrade Assad’s chemical weapons abilities and deter future attacks through targeted military strikes on facilities and resources related to the attack. Trump in 2017, conversely, didn’t lobby Congress and the public because he launched his strike unilaterally. After the strike, his team said the action was designed to degrade a facility related to the chemical weapons attack and send a message that the United States doesn’t tolerate chemical weapons use. There is little material difference between what Obama planned to do and what Trump actually did, in terms of goals and scope. We rate Rubio’s claim False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com | null | Marco Rubio | null | null | null | 2017-04-12T11:22:05 | 2017-04-09 | ['Syria', 'Barack_Obama'] |
vogo-00335 | Statement: “The average subsidy in the NFL is about 65 percent of the costs of a stadium is paid for by the public,” Chargers spokesman Mark Fabiani said Aug. 17 during a radio interview with KPBS. | determination: true | https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/fact-check-who-pays-for-nfl-stadiums/ | Analysis: As the Chargers begin another season, one major question continues to hang over the team’s nearly decade-long search for a new stadium: Who will pay for a new facility? | null | null | null | null | Fact Check: Who Pays for NFL Stadiums | September 12, 2011 | null | ['National_Football_League', 'San_Diego_Chargers', 'KPBS-FM'] |
pomt-14804 | Illegal immigrants mow the grass around the (Texas) Capitol. | false | /texas/statements/2015/nov/27/facebook-posts/facebook-comment-says-illegal-immigrants-mow-texas/ | Commenting on Gov. Greg Abbott pressing sheriffs to detain individuals living in the country without legal authorization, a reader brought up workers who groom the grounds of the Texas Capitol. "Illegal immigrants mow the grass around the Capitol," said a Facebook comment posted Nov. 10, 2015, in reaction to the Austin American-Statesman’s summary of the paper’s Nov. 5, 2015, news story about Abbott telling Texas sheriffs he might withhold criminal justice grant aid if they don’t fully comply with federal requests for detaining "criminal immigrants" held in their jails. The newspaper published that comment, among others, prompting us to wonder: Do undocumented workers really mow the Capitol lawn? We attempted to reach the commenter to see how he reached his conclusion and didn’t hear back. Nationally, according to a July 2015 web post by the Pew Research Center, undocumented immigrants make up 5.1 percent of the nation’s labor force. "In the U.S. labor force," the post says, "there were 8.1 million unauthorized immigrants either working or looking for work in 2012. Among the states, Nevada (10%), California (9%), Texas (9%) and New Jersey (8%) had the highest shares of unauthorized immigrants in their labor forces. Closer to home, we reached the State Preservation Board, which manages the Capitol and nearby state facilities. By email, spokesman Chris Currens said the board contracts with a private company to care for the grounds and that company is required to use the online federal E-Verify system, authorized by Congress in 1996, which enables users to determine whether employees are citizens or have a required visa to work legally here. "In short," the government says, "employers submit information taken from a new hire's Form I-9 (Employment Eligibility Verification Form) through E-Verify to the Social Security Administration and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to determine whether the information matches government records and whether the new hire is authorized to work in the United States." U.S. employers submit the Form I-9 for each employee; on the form, an employee must attest to his or her employment authorization. In addition, a government summary says, the employee must present his or her employer with "acceptable documents" showing who they are and that they’re eligible to work in the country. Documents that fit the description, according to the form, include passports and permanent resident or alien registration cards. A note: E-Verify may be a flawed method of weeding out ineligible workers. In a July 2015 report, the Cato Institute pointed out that a government-commissioned analysis estimated that 54 percent of "unauthorized workers submitted to E-Verify were incorrectly found to be work authorized because of rampant document fraud." The cited Westat report, published in 2009, elaborated: "This finding is not surprising, given that since the inception of E-Verify it has been clear that many unauthorized workers obtain employment by committing identity fraud that cannot be detected by E-Verify." An upshot, Alex Nowrasteh of Cato told us by phone, is that "even if" workers "cleared E-Verify, that doesn’t mean they’re legal." Back to Texas: In December 2014, then-Gov. Rick Perry ordered agencies to use E-Verify. Perry told reporters then that 17 agencies already employed the system. Currens told us the State Preservation Board initially placed a clause requiring contractors to use E-Verify in April 2009 and grounds contracts have included the clause ever since. Also, Currens noted, each contract requires the contractor to certify that each employee is in compliance with federal immigration laws. The current Capitol groundskeeping contract, which is with Clean Scapes, an Austin company, requires the contractor to subject employees to pre-employment and annual criminal background checks. The company also must obtain photocopies of the worker’s driver’s license or state-issued photo identification and Social Security card or Resident Alien work visa/identification card. And the company "must provide documentation showing that this request has been met for all employees working" on preservation-board-overseen properties. We asked the agency for the latest documentation. By email, Currens sent an undated notice to the board from Marilu Sanchez, a Clean Scapes human resources specialist, stating the company had run E-Verify for six employees, each one listed by name. Currens said the notice was submitted to cover the workers at the Capitol in the fiscal year that ended Aug. 31, 2015. By phone, Carmen Zayas, a Clean Scapes vice president, said the landscaping company has long checked all its workers through the E-Verify system. "People are always going to make assumptions about the landscaping industry" employing immigrants without legal permission to live here, Zayas said. "We take that process as seriously as anyone can." By email, Currens told us the board "is confident that the groundskeeping workers have proper legal status." Our ruling A Facebook comment published in the American-Statesman said: "Illegal immigrants mow the grass around the (Texas) Capitol." If so, such immigrants have fooled the federal E-Verify system and the agency that oversees the Capitol grounds. We rate the claim False. FALSE – The statement is not accurate. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. | null | Facebook posts | null | null | null | 2015-11-27T10:00:00 | 2015-11-10 | ['Texas'] |
pomt-02799 | We’re the Sunshine State, and we’re hardly doing any solar energy production. | mostly true | /florida/statements/2013/dec/03/charlie-crist/charlie-crist-says-florida-sunshine-state-were-har/ | As he gears up to run against Republican Gov. Rick Scott, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Charlie Crist is making an issue of renewable energy. On the Nov. 18, 2013, edition of MSNBC’s The Ed Show, Crist touted alternative energy as a way to attract new industries and new jobs to Florida. "We’re the Sunshine State, and we’re hardly doing any solar energy production," Crist told host Ed Schultz. "We should be the global leader in solar energy." Crist later told PolitiFact that Florida Power & Light has a "pretty significant solar field," but added that "we can be doing so much more, in my humble opinion. ... My understanding is that many other states encourage the use of solar energy much more than Florida" does. After looking at Crist’s claim, we concluded that he has a valid point. One key way to look at the question is to measure installed solar capacity -- that is, the electricity-generating potential of installed solar equipment, including everything from a few solar panels on top of a home to an array of thousands of solar panels in the desert. As of June 2013, California leads the nation with 3,761 megawatts of installed solar capacity. Arizona comes in second with 1,250 megawatts. New Jersey, which isn’t exactly known for its sunny skies but where roof-mounted units have proven popular, ranks third with 1,119 megawatts. Florida, by contrast, has 202 megawatts, making it No. 10 in the nation. This might sound pretty good, but it’s well below the state’s potential. Florida actually ranks third in the country for solar potential. Yet its installed capacity trails such smaller and less-sunny states as North Carolina, Massachusetts, Hawaii and Pennsylvania. "Relatively speaking, Florida is doing little to no solar," said Jim Fenton, director of the Florida Solar Energy Center at the University of Central Florida. Another measurement is what goals a state is setting. Twenty-nine states, plus Washington, D.C., and two territories, have a renewable portfolio standard policy -- utilities risk being fined if they don’t fulfill a certain percentage of a state’s energy needs through renewables such as solar or wind. Another eight states and two territories have less formal renewable energy goals. Another 13 states have neither -- and Florida is one of them. As it happens, when Crist was governor, he directed the Florida Public Service Commission to develop a state renewable portfolio standard policy, with a goal of 20 percent renewable energy production by 2020. The PSC did approve a draft of the plan in 2009, and it was submitted to the Florida Legislature for consideration. But the Legislature didn’t approve it, so it never went into effect. There's another hurdle. Under Florida law, only a few utilities -- Florida Power & Light, Duke Energy and Tampa Electric -- can sell power directly to consumers. If a solar power generator wants to get into the state market, it must first sell to one of those utilities at cheaper wholesale rate. This undercuts the economic incentives to invest in solar, especially given the prevailing price of power in the state. "Electricity rates have been relatively low in Florida so that’s the main reason why we haven’t done much here," Fenton said, adding that the cost of solar energy systems has dropped by 40-50 percent since 2009. "Alternative energy will always be an alternative until it’s cheaper. It’s cheaper in New Jersey. It’s not cheaper in Florida -- yet." In fact, to the extent that Florida has put solar capacity into use, most of it occurred when Crist was governor. In 2008, during Crist’s tenure, the state Legislature passed a renewable energy law that allowed utilities to build solar or wind projects generating up to 110 megawatts of energy without going through the normal regulatory review process. Florida Power & Light secured the entire amount, used in three installations. The FPL plants now account for more than half the state’s solar output. FPL spokesman Erik Hofmeyer said solar power is part of the utility’s overall energy mix and the utility "is looking at more solar opportunities." Still, considering the amount and intensity of sunlight hitting the ground in Florida, the amount of energy being produced is relatively small. "Florida is in the dark ages, and we lag behind many, many other states that have goals and incentives and other policy mechanisms to promote and advance clean, renewable solar energy," said Wayne Wallace, president of the Florida Solar Energy Industries Association. Our ruling Crist said that Florida is the "Sunshine State, and we’re hardly doing any solar energy production." On the one hand, Florida ranks in the top 10 states nationally for installed solar energy capacity. On the other hand, given how much sun Florida gets, it is something of an underperformer nationally, and its policies -- a lack of a renewable portfolio standard and the existence of strict laws governing electricity sales -- pose challenges to future development of the state’s solar resources. We rate Crist’s claim Mostly True. | null | Charlie Crist | null | null | null | 2013-12-03T12:20:20 | 2013-11-18 | ['None'] |
pomt-14148 | China is "going to have twice the number of submarines we have in just over a decade." | half-true | /virginia/statements/2016/may/02/randy-forbes/forbes-says-chinas-submarine-fleet-will-double-uni/ | U.S. Rep. Randy Forbes says the Navy’s periscope is focusing far across the Pacific Ocean. "They’re seeing the Chinese, that they’re going to have twice the number of submarines we have in just over a decade," Forbes, R-4th, said during a recent interview on "The John Fredericks Show," a Portsmouth-based radio program broadcast across Virginia. Forbes long has called for strengthening the military. He’s chairman of the 21-member House Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces, which oversees the Navy and Marine Corps. The Fourth Congressional District, which he has represented since 2001, has its population center in Chesapeake and Suffolk and relies on defense spending that supports the world’s largest naval base in Norfolk and nearby shipbuilding. This year, Forbes is seeking election in the Second Congressional District, which is centered in Virginia Beach and also is home to naval installations. Forbes made the switch after court-ordered changes to his old district made it friendly to Democrats. He faces a June 14 Republican primary challenge from Del. Scott Taylor, a former Navy seal, and Pat Cardwell, a Virginia Beach attorney. We wondered if Forbes is correct in saying that China’s submarine fleet will double that of the U.S. in slightly more than a decade. Hailey Sadler, the congressman’s communications director, pointed us to a series of reports about the U.S. and Chinese submarine fleets. The U.S. submarine fleet Sadler cited a March 17 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. It contains a table showing that in 2026, the U.S. submarine fleet is projected to have 47 general purpose boats - 45 attack subs and another two cruise missile subs. That chart is the latest update of the Navy’s projected 30-year shipbuilding plan. But the 47-sub estimate is a low figure, because it doesn’t count 14 ballistic missile submarines that can launch nuclear warheads. With those boats counted, the U.S. Navy projects it will have 61 subs in 10 years. After that, the total number of subs is expected to drop to 58 in 2027; 55 in 2028; and 53 in 2029 and in 2030. Then, the size of the submarine fleet is expected rise again through most of the 2030s and beyond. China’s submarine fleet China is guarded about its military numbers, making it hard for analysts to quantify its submarine fleet. While Congress publicly debates the U.S. military budget every year, China decides its defense spending behind closed doors, said Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Still, there are some estimates about the size of China’s submarine fleet now and into the near future. Sadler said Forbes was referring to 2015 comments by James Fanell, a retired U.S. Navy captain. An article in Defense News quoted Fanell as saying that during the next 15 years, China’s submarine fleet would expand to 99 vessels. It should be noted that Fannell, a year earlier, was fired from his post as the Pacific Fleet’s director of intelligence and information for making unauthorized statements accusing China of preparing for a possible attack on Japan. Forbes’ office also pointed to estimates of China’s submarine fleet that appeared in a second Congressional Research Service report released in March. The research service noted that an analysis by the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence shows that China’s total submarine fleet -- mostly attack boats and a handful of ballistic missile subs - was 66 to 75 in 2015. In 2020, it’s expected to be 69 to 78 submarines. If that growth rate of three more subs over a five-year period was to continue till 2026, then China would have about 72 to 81 submarines that year, Sadler said. The Department of Defense, meanwhile, has said that by 2020, China’s submarine force would grow to 69 to 78 submarines. Forbes’ office focuses on the high-side estimate of 81 extrapolated from Congressional Research Service figures and the 99-sub estimate that Fanell cited. "The U.S. Navy projects it will have 47 submarines. Twice that is 94 - which is the middle ground between the figures projected by the Congressional Research Service and the Pacific Fleet’s former chief intelligence officer, rendering Congressman Forbes’ assessment an accurate projection," Sadler said. As we noted previously, the 47-submarine figure for the U.S. doesn’t take into account ballistic missile subs - which are included in the projections of China’s strength that Forbes cited. By the late 2020s, the number of all U.S. submarines would drop to 53, and if you double that figure it would outpace slightly the high-side estimate of 99 submarines Fanell cited. But other projections in the Congressional Research Service report show China’s submarine force could be lower than that about 10 years from now. We ran Forbes’ statement by Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington-based think tank that examines national security and defense spending issues. Clark estimated that between 2025 and 2030, China will have 80 to 100 submarines. With the U.S. having more than 50 submarines at that time, Forbes’ numbers have validity, Clark said. Beyond the numbers But we need to consider more than numbers when comparing the two nations’ submarine fleets, Clark added. He noted all U.S. subs are nuclear-powered, while China’s fleet, in a decade, still will contain many diesel-powered vessels. "It is notable, however, that all of the U.S. submarines are highly capable of long endurance, whereas about half of China’s submarine fleet will be non-nuclear submarines best suited for regional operations close to home," Clark wrote in an email. Harrison, the analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told us that nuclear subs can stay submerged for months, while diesel subs have to surface periodically to recharge their batteries. One of the Congressional Research Service reports that Forbes cites cautions against using ship numbers to compare the naval strength of nations. "The potential for obscuring differences in the capabilities of ships of a given type is particularly significant in assessing relative U.S. and Chinese capabilities, in part because China’s navy includes significant numbers of older, obsolescent ships," the Congressional Research Service wrote. "Figures on total numbers of Chinese submarines, destroyers, frigates, and coastal patrol craft lump older, obsolescent ships together with more modern and more capable designs." On the other hand, the report notes that the U.S. Navy has global responsibilities and that many ships are based in on the Atlantic coast, meaning the American fleet would be strained to respond to a conflict near China. Our ruling Forbes said that in just over a decade, China will have twice the number of submarines as the U.S. The congressman has a point in that, in sheer numbers of subs, China’s fleet is expected to increase during the next 14 years as the U.S. submarine force is scheduled to decline. China is close-mouthed about its military plans, and the U.S. doesn’t know exactly how many subs that nation will have in 10 years or more. Defense analysts have made projections that vary between 80 and 100 Chinese subs. Forbes relies on the very highest of these wide-ranging projections to state as fact that China will double the U.S. fleet. We should point out that even if China built up to 100 subs by 2030, it still would not quite double the 53-submarine fleet the U.S. Navy has planned for that year. Forbes’ statement also glosses over major differences between the nations’ subs. The U.S. fleet is entirely nuclear-powered and capable of long underwater deployments far from home. Most of the Chinese fleet, in a decade, still will be diesel-powered and designed for relatively shorter assignments in regional waters. So Forbes’ statement contains has some accuracy but leaves out important details. We rate it Half True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/a45a422d-2e68-4ec1-9d71-a808a785e0ca | null | Randy Forbes | null | null | null | 2016-05-02T12:00:00 | 2016-04-21 | ['China'] |
pomt-14454 | Statistics show 2 to 3 Texas women per week have major complications and 10 women per week seek help at an ER after an abortion. | false | /texas/statements/2016/mar/04/ken-paxton/ken-paxton-micharacterizes-abortion-risk-texas/ | This week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a landmark abortion case that will decide the fate of Texas’ 2013 abortion law, known as House Bill 2. The law, among other things, requires abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and requires abortion clinics to comply with the state-set standards for ambulatory surgical centers. Before the case went in front of the Supreme Court, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton prepared to defend the law. In a Feb. 5, 2016, press release, his office highlighted that the court received "more than 30" amicus briefs in support of the law. "Statistics show 2 to 3 Texas women per week have major complications and 10 women per week seek help at an ER after an abortion," the release said. "Texas believes abortion facilities have no special privilege to operate outside the parameters of the medical profession and it is the right and responsibility of the state to ensure the safety of patients." We wanted to check: Is it true that two to three Texas women have major complications from abortion per week, and that 10 women in that time seek help at an emergency room after an abortion? Attorney General’s numbers First, we asked the attorney general’s office where it got its statistics. Deputy Press Secretary Cynthia Meyer told us via email that those statistics came from an expert for the petitioners in this case. The expert, Elizabeth Gray Raymond, is an obstetrician-gynecologist and medical researcher who currently is a senior medical associate at Gynuity Health Projects, a women’s health research organization, and an adjunct professor at the New York University School of Medicine, an appendix for the case says. Gray Raymond cited a University of California at San Francisco study, Meyer said, that found that "the incidence of major complications following an abortion (hospital admission, abdominal surgery, hysterectomy, or blood transfusion) was 0.23 percent, and that 0.87 percent of all abortions resulted in a visit to an emergency department in which treatment was provided for an abortion-related condition." The events that qualified as "major complications" were hospital admission, abdominal surgery, hysterectomy, or blood transfusion, according to Gray Raymond’s testimony. The attorney general’s office then multiplied those statistics by an estimated 60,000 abortions per year in Texas, a number taken from Department of State Health Services data. (The exact total for 2013, the most recent data available, is 63,849.) That came out to a projection of 138 major complications a year, which, divided by 52 weeks in a year, works out to 2.6 complications per week, and 522 ER visits per year, which comes out to 10 visits per week. Using the more exact 63,849 abortions per year in Texas, we get 2.8 complications and 10.7 emergency room visits per week. Numbers in context In the study that was the basis for these calculations, researchers characterized the complication rates they found as "low." The complication rates, a press release about the study on the university’s website said, are about the same as rates for complications following colonoscopies. That exact comparison came up during oral arguments before the Supreme court, when Justice Stephen Breyer said abortions had "28 times less than a risk of a colonoscopy," and that the risks were "roughly the same as the risks that you have in a dentist office when you have some surgery." The rate of major complications also was similar for vasectomies, according to Gray Raymond’s testimony. Gray Raymond concluded: "The clear message of these data is that complications of induced abortion, and particularly complications that cannot be managed at the original abortion facility, are rare." The University of California at San Francisco study, published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, began with the goal to determine rates of complications after abortions, in part because those rates previously may have been underreported; researchers thought that complications diagnosed at a separate facility, rather than immediately following an abortion procedure, previously had been missed. Their results showed that wasn’t the case. The study concluded: "These findings show abortion complication rates to be low and comparable to previously published rates even when there is no loss to follow-up and ED visits are included." The study that was the basis for the Texas attorney general’s weekly and annual calculations was based in San Francisco, and all study participants had abortions paid for by California’s Medicaid program. While the study is reliable, it may not be a one-to-one comparison between low-income women in northern California and all abortions in Texas. Ushma Upadhyay, one of the study’s authors, said by phone that the rates from her study could be comparable to rates in other states. However, the abortions in the UCSF study included, at 16 percent, a higher proportion than usual of second-trimester and late-term abortions, which have a higher risk of complication. That is twice the percentage of abortions performed in the second or third trimester in Texas in 2013, the last year for which data are available from the state. According to the Texas Department of State Health Services, of the 63,849 abortions recorded in the Lone Star State in 2013, 92 percent were performed in the first trimester, when the risk of complication is lower compared with the second and third trimesters. The best way to apply the study’s complication rates to Texas, Upadhyay said, would be to separate abortions by types of procedure, rather than multiply the rate by the total 60,000 abortions in Texas. Our ruling Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office said in a press release that "statistics show 2 to 3 Texas women per week have major complications and 10 women per week seek help at an ER after an abortion." These statistics were based on a study of abortions in California, not Texas. That study included a higher percentage of abortions performed in the second and third trimesters than occurred in Texas, making a direct extrapolation to attribute those numbers to women in the Lone Star State problematic. Moreover, the researchers who calculated the number of abortion-related complications in the study characterized those rates as "low." The numbers do not lead to the conclusion that abortion providers are operating "outside the parameters of the medical profession," as the attorney general’s office says. To recap, Paxton characterized Texas abortion practices and outcomes based on a California study that included twice the number of women at risk for complications as exists in the Lone Star State. He also presented the figures in a misleading way to suggest that abortion providers were operating outside of medical norms. We rate this claim False. FALSE – The statement is not accurate. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. | null | Ken Paxton | null | null | null | 2016-03-04T17:38:38 | 2016-02-05 | ['Texas'] |
Subsets and Splits
SQL Console for pszemraj/multi_fc
Filters dataset entries containing 'law' in categories, tags, or reason fields, providing basic topic classification but offering limited analytical insight beyond simple keyword matching.
Healthcare Related Entries
Retrieves sample records containing healthcare-related keywords but doesn't provide meaningful analysis or patterns beyond basic filtering.