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 ⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
tron-02108 | Teen Escapes Death After Hospital Video Captures Images of What the Family Believes Was an Angel | truth! | https://www.truthorfiction.com/angel-chelsea/ | null | inspirational | null | null | null | Teen Escapes Death After Hospital Video Captures Images of What the Family Believes Was an Angel | Mar 17, 2015 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-05813 | Says he banned texting while driving in Austin. | half-true | /texas/statements/2012/feb/21/mike-martinez/mike-martinez-says-he-banned-texting-while-driving/ | Mike Martinez, an Austin City Council member seeking re-election in May, recently pointed supporters to his campaign website, which includes an issues page touching on ways he says he’s delivered for the Austin community. On the page, which we viewed Feb. 10, 2012, Martinez says he helped lead efforts to protect an East Austin spring, helped the city establish a "no-kill" policy at municipal animal shelters and helped launch a community gardens program. We’re not checking any of that for this article. But we paused at another Martinez point: "Banned texting while driving to improve safety for drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians." Martinez banned TWD in ATX? Austin’s texting-while-driving ban, which took effect Jan. 1, 2010, has yielded about $31,800 in fine revenue for the city’s general fund, according to Rebecca Stark, the city’s municipal court director. She told us that 93 drivers in 2010 and 158 drivers in 2011 pleaded no contest or guilty or were found guilty of violating the ban. In 2010, 121 cases of ban violations were filed, she said. That figure nearly doubled to 222 in 2011. In a telephone interview, Martinez, a former firefighter who won his first council term in 2006, told us that as a member of the city’s public safety task force, he brought up the idea of banning texting while driving, initially to derision. He said he asked the Austin Police Department to research texting as a local traffic hazard and after years of community conversations, the seven-member City Council approved the ordinance. Martinez told us that he did not ban texting by his lonesome: "Anything we do has to be ratified by the council. I did take a certain ownership and pride in this issue. I was the only council member to originally call for a ban on texting." According to Austin American-Statesman news articles, the ordinance barring texting while driving won unanimous council approval in October 2009. Violations are Class C misdemeanors subject to fines of up to $500. Some Statesman stories describe Martinez as the council’s lead proponent of the ban. In November 2008, the public safety task force voted to urge City Manager Marc Ott to develop a ban proposal. A Nov. 4, 2008, Statesman news article says "Martinez, who is leading the effort, said he has received dozens of calls in recent months from motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists asking for such a law. "It is something that needs to be done," the story quotes Martinez saying. "When you see accidents that have happened or you hear about near-misses, it is just a step we can take to ensure the safety of our citizens."" In August 2009, the council directed city staffers to draft the proposed ban as an ordinance. An Aug. 28, 2009, Statesman news article refers to Martinez as the lead proponent of the ban. According to minutes of the Oct. 22, 2009, council meeting during which members adopted the ban, Martinez made the "main motion" for its approval. The motion was seconded by Mayor Lee Leffingwell. Upshot: Martinez’s claim overshoots because, of course, he could not have imposed the ban by himself. The seven-person council acts on proposed ordinances. Still, Martinez was a leading advocate of the ban. We rate his statement Half True. | null | Mike Martinez | null | null | null | 2012-02-21T06:00:00 | 2012-02-10 | ['Austin,_Texas'] |
tron-03412 | Muslim Group Seeks Pork-Free Options at Food Bank | truth! | https://www.truthorfiction.com/muslim-food-bank/ | null | religious | null | null | null | Muslim Group Seeks Pork-Free Options at Food Bank | Mar 17, 2015 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-11976 | Some states hit hardest by opioid deaths "have more opioid prescriptions than residents." | true | /new-york/statements/2017/oct/02/eric-schneiderman/do-some-states-have-more-opioid-prescriptions-resi/ | New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said prescribers in some states have been so lenient that they have given out more prescriptions than there are residents in those states. With 33,091 opioid-related deaths in 2015 across the country, the ease in getting prescriptions for the painkillers has become an issue attracting attention from state officials. "Some states hardest hit by the crisis have more opioid prescriptions than residents," Schneiderman said at a press conference. Twenty-three states have a higher rate of opioid overdose deaths than New York state. But is Schneiderman right that some of those states have more opioid prescriptions than residents? National numbers Eight states reported more opioid prescriptions than residents in 2015, according to the Centers for Disease Control. The states are Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Kentucky, and Louisiana. Alabama recorded the highest rate, with 125 opioid prescriptions for every 100 people in the state. Even so, Alabama had a lower rate of opioid-related deaths than most other states, according to Centers for Disease Control data analyzed by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a health policy research organization. Two other top prescribing states — West Virginia and Kentucky — had some of the highest rates of opioid related deaths. West Virginia had the highest rate in the country, with 36 opioid deaths for every 100,000 residents. The state reported 111 opioid prescriptions for every 100 residents. Kentucky, ranking sixth with 21 deaths for every 100,000 residents, had 102 prescriptions for every 100 residents in 2015. West Virginia’s rate decreased in 2016 to 96 prescriptions for every 100 people. Kentucky’s went down to 97 opioid prescriptions for every 100 people. Alabama remained highest with 121 prescriptions for every 100 people. New York state numbers New York state had 42 prescriptions for every 100 residents in 2016. There were no counties in New York with more opioid prescriptions than residents, according to the state Department of Health. Montgomery County had the highest rate in the state with 82 opioid prescriptions for every 100 residents in the county. The county had two opioid deaths for one of the lowest opioid-related death rates in the state. Our ruling Schneiderman said some states hit hardest by the opioid crisis "have more opioid prescriptions than residents." West Virginia and Kentucky — two states with the highest rates of opioid deaths in the country — reported more opioid prescriptions than their respective population, according to CDC data. Six other states had more prescriptions than residents, too. We rate his claim True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com | null | Eric Schneiderman | null | null | null | 2017-10-02T04:00:00 | 2017-09-19 | ['None'] |
tron-00714 | Actor Robin Williams paid actor Christopher Reeve’s medicalbills | fiction! | https://www.truthorfiction.com/christopher-reeve/ | null | celebrities | null | null | null | Actor Robin Williams paid actor Christopher Reeve’s medicalbills | Mar 17, 2015 | null | ['Christopher_Reeve', 'Robin_Williams'] |
farg-00246 | Claims he won "the Electoral College in a landslide." | false | https://www.factcheck.org/2016/11/trump-landslide-nope/ | null | the-factcheck-wire | Donald Trump | Robert Farley | ['Presidential Election 2016', 'Electoral College'] | Trump Landslide? Nope | November 29, 2016 | [' In a tweet – Sunday, November 27, 2016 '] | ['None'] |
pomt-01139 | Surveys of teens in high school reveal that knowing a classmate who sells cannabis is 90 times more common than knowing a classmate who sells alcohol. | half-true | /rhode-island/statements/2014/dec/21/james-crowley/doctor-says-teens-much-likelier-know-classmate-sel/ | A retired doctor recently included an eye-catching statistic in a commentary in The Providence Journal urging the legalization of marijuana in Rhode Island. "Surveys of teens in high school reveal that knowing a classmate who sells cannabis is 90 times more common than knowing a classmate who sells alcohol," wrote James P. Crowley, a past president of the Rhode Island Medical Society and professor emeritus of medicine at Brown University, in a piece published Dec. 6, 2014. Crowley cited the statistic to demonstrate that cannabis is the most commonly sold drug in schools. He warned that its prohibition introduces teens to an underground culture of increasingly more dangerous substances. Crowley supports legislation that would regulate, rather than prohibit cannabis. (In 2013, Rhode Island became the 15th state to decriminalize non-medical marijuana possession; anyone caught with up to one ounce is subject to a $150 fine instead of facing a misdemeanor criminal charge.) While we were doubtful about an underground culture of selling alcohol in schools, we wondered whether Crowley was right. We sent him an email asking him for his source. We also reached out to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to see what comparable statistics these federal agencies had. All responded they did not have data to verify the statement. When Crowley got back to us, he attributed the information to Jared Moffat, director of Regulate Rhode Island, a group that supports legalizing marijuana. Moffat, in turn, referred us to a survey of students, ages 12 to 17, published in 2012 by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. The "National Survey of American Attitudes on Substance Abuse XVII: Teens," found that 44 percent of the 1,003 students surveyed reported they knew a student who sold drugs at their school. Among that 44 percent, 91 percent reported that they knew a student who sold marijuana on school grounds while about 1 percent, said they knew a student who sold alcohol. The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University did not pose the same question to students in previous surveys, and did not publish a 2013 survey. We reached out to Rhode Island KidsCount and to the state Department of Education to see what information they might have for Rhode Island students. KidsCount did not track that particular information. Elliot Krieger, spokesman for the state Department of Education, referred us to the "SurveyWorks" student survey of 2013-2014. Among the roughly 32,000 Rhode Island students who offered a response, 10.2 percent said someone had sold or given them an illegal drug on school property in the past year. Similarly, 9.5 percent reported that they had been under the influence of alcohol at school in the same timeframe. We also asked Robert Houghtaling, director of the East Greenwich Drug Program, for his take on Crowley’s claim that high school pot dealers far outnumbered students selling alcohol. "Kids usually don’t have to sell alcohol. It’s so easily accessible," Houghtaling said."They steal it from their parents, secure a fake ID, or arrange for someone to buy it for them. "In terms of using, alcohol is still the predominantly most-used drug," he said. "Alcohol is so prevalent people view it as a rite of passage." Our ruling James P. Crowley wrote that "Surveys of teens in high school reveal that knowing a classmate who sells cannabis is 90 times more common than knowing a classmate who sells alcohol." But he could only cite one survey, and we couldn’t find any others that asked the same question. One data point does not a trend make. In addition, his statement suggests that the findings of this survey reflect the results from all students polled. It doesn’t. It only looked at the subset of students who said they knew of someone who sold drugs in school. Because the statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context, we rate it Half True. (If you have a claim you’d like PolitiFact Rhode Island to check, email us at politifact@providencejournal.com. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.) | null | James Crowley | null | null | null | 2014-12-21T00:01:00 | 2014-12-06 | ['None'] |
pomt-14183 | Over the past two years, Florida has cut more than $1 billion in taxes. | mostly true | /florida/statements/2016/apr/25/rick-scott/gov-rick-scotts-claim-about-1-billion-tax-cuts-nee/ | Despite lawmakers virtually ignoring his budget wish list during the 2016 legislative session, Gov. Rick Scott is boasting about fulfilling a campaign promise to cut taxes by $1 billion in his second term. Scott took credit for the fiscal feat both before and after signing the Legislature’s wide-ranging tax-cut package, HB 7099. "Over the past two years, Florida has cut more than $1 billion in taxes," an April 13, 2016, press release from the governor’s office read. Scott had pledged to hit the billion-dollar mark in tax reductions during his successful 2014 re-election campaign, mostly by giving breaks to businesses and limiting property tax growth. In his March 15 press release announcing his intention to sign the Legislature’s budget, Scott said he’d kept his promise with $1.2 billion in tax cuts over the first two years of his second term. Scott has repeated this claim several times in one form or another. But have taxes really gone down by more than $1 billion in two years, like he says? It depends on how you look at what the Legislature has done, but the changes haven’t happened the way Scott wanted. Tallying the taxes When we asked Scott’s office to break down their budget math for us, they pointed to a chart in their March 15 press release, without further detail: We were able to verify the figures from Scott’s office based on changes passed by the Legislature the last two years. The Florida Office of Economic and Demographic Research compiles an annual list of how much tax revenue will be affected by bills passed during that year’s legislative session (these can change as the fiscal picture becomes clearer). The House also analyzed HB 7099 to estimate how much the bill would change tax receipts. Cell phone & TV tax cut: In 2015, the Legislature passed a 1.73 percentage point reduction in the state’s communications services tax, a charge on consumer cell phone, cable and satellite bills. That amounted to a $21 annual reduction on a $100 monthly cell phone and cable bill. Scott had wanted to cut the tax by $120 million, something we’d rated a Promise Kept on our Scott-O-Meter. Property tax reduction: This one is tricky, because it’s more of a tax shift than a tax cut. Scott also is taking credit for a solution he didn’t want. During the 2016 session, the House and Senate agreed to increase per-pupil education spending for K-12 students, something Scott had wanted. Scott initially wanted the bump in education funding paid almost entirely through higher local property tax collections, not with general revenue. (Scott had previously proposed limiting property tax increases with a constitutional amendment, a campaign promise he has so far ignored.) Higher property values meant that collections would increase whether lawmakers raised the key millage rate for local property tax dollars for schools or kept it the same. Instead, the Legislature cut the local rate and paid for the $428 million difference they needed with general tax revenue. Legislators mostly referred to this as "tax relief," and not a tax cut. We’ve rated a similar statement Mostly True, because the change altered future collections, instead of cutting current collections. Property owners, however, are still shielded from a tax hike. Senate Appropriations Chairman Tom Lee, R-Brandon, told the Tampa Bay Times that if you include this revenue swap, Scott "technically" had reached $1 billion in tax cuts. But that’s dependent on Scott accepting a plan he opposed. The Legislature has to revisit education funding every year, too, so this will no doubt change. Back to school sales tax holiday: Scott counts these breaks from sales tax on school supplies as a cut. These aren’t permanent cuts, because the Legislature has to approve whether there will be sales tax holidays each year. His figures do jibe with state estimates. The totals are different, in part, because the 2015 holiday was 10 days long, while the 2016 holiday will only be three days long. The terms of exempt items also differs between the two years. Manufacturing machinery and equipment: Getting rid of this tax was another Scott promise, going back to his first term. The sales tax originally was cut back with a limited exemption in 2012, but the following year was suspended by legislators for three years. Starting in 2014, the tax would not apply through April 30, 2017. Scott pushed to make the suspension permanent and in 2016, the Legislature agreed. The Scott-O-Meter rated this a Promise Kept. College textbooks: Scott proposed making college textbooks exempt from sales tax, suggesting it would save the average student about $60 per year. The Legislature agreed to the exemption for the 2015-16 fiscal year, but it was not renewed in the 2016 session. Other tax cuts: Scott’s office did not include specific dollar figures for other tax breaks, fee changes and provisions that went down over the last two years. In 2015, the Legislature removed sales taxes on gun club membership fees, put a $60,000 cap on taxes for board repairs, and gave businesses tax credits for pollution cleanup and research, among other measures. For 2016, legislators gave veterans’ organizations an exemption on food and drink sales taxes, phased out an asphalt tax over three years for government projects, and tinkered with taxes on cruise ship alcohol and tobacco sales, pear cider, and aviation fuel, among other changes. That’s just a sample of the tax changes over the last two years that Scott’s office counted. The figures are in the ballpark and add up somewhere north of $1 billion. Whether he can take credit for the total is a tougher question. Experts have told us that counting on things like tax credits and sales tax holidays means consumers have to spend money first before enjoying any benefits. Many of these changes also are temporary or narrowly focused. And remember that local governments may have to raise taxes to account for a change in revenue. Meanwhile, the Legislature has balked at several tax changes Scott has wanted, including eliminating the state’s corporate income tax — a major Scott request in 2016 that would have cost the state $770 million annually — and phasing out the sales tax on commercial leases. Our ruling Scott said, "Over the past two years, Florida has cut more than $1 billion in taxes." The figures are pretty accurate compared to state estimates for tax changes during 2015 and 2016. But there’s some question whether you can really consider all of the measures tax cuts. While some of the alterations are permanent, many of them are temporary exemptions or target very specific beneficiaries. Scott also has to ignore some of his earlier proposals and count a plan for education funding that is the opposite of what he wanted to top the $1 billion mark. The statement is accurate but needs some clarification. We rate it Mostly True. Share The Facts Rick Scott Florida governor "Over the past two years, Florida has cut more than $1 billion in taxes." in a press release – Wednesday, April 13, 2016 Share Read more Embed | null | Rick Scott | null | null | null | 2016-04-25T14:23:02 | 2016-04-13 | ['None'] |
snes-05786 | Michigan government offices provide information in Arabic and allow polygamous Muslim men to apply for public assistance benefits for up to four wives. | mixture | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/muslim-men-can-4-wives-welfare-michigan/ | null | Immigration | null | David Mikkelson | null | Muslim Men Can Have 4 Wives on Welfare in Michigan? | 18 September 2014 | null | ['Michigan', 'Arabic_language', 'Islam'] |
pomt-12472 | Says Tammy Baldwin was told by a whistleblower about "overmedicated veterans," she made "deadly mistakes" and "three veterans died" at the Tomah VA hospital. | false | /wisconsin/statements/2017/may/05/americas-pac/super-pac-attack-blaming-tammy-baldwin-deaths-3-ve/ | When seeking re-election in 2018, U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin could be vulnerable to criticism of how she responded to an opioid painkiller scandal at the Tomah VA Medical Center in western Wisconsin. But an attack ad from Americas PAC that began airing April 27, 2017 claims Baldwin was told by a whistleblower about "overmedicated veterans" at Tomah and made "deadly mistakes" that left three veterans dead. The first-term Wisconsin Democrat has said her office made mistakes in handling a key inspection report about the Tomah VA and emails from a whistleblower. But that’s different than making mistakes that were deadly to three veterans. One death occurred years after the veteran ended his treatment at the Tomah VA and another had nothing to do with overmedication. As for the third veteran, Jason Simcakoski, Baldwin had requested investigations into the Tomah prescription practices before Simcakoski overdosed at the facility. And although Baldwin was slow to respond to emails from a whistleblower, those emails weren’t received until after Simakoski’s death. The ad Americas PAC is an Iowa-based super PAC that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for or against political candidates. It is largely funded by Republican Richard Uihlein, co-founder of Uline, a Wisconsin shipping and packaging supplies distributor. Another Uihlein-supported super PAC, also eyeing 2018, previously attacked Baldwin with a claim we rated Mostly False about funding U.S. military troops. As for the Americas PAC attack, we’re presenting the entire script of its radio ad to show how sound bites, spliced with narration, connect Baldwin to the the deaths. Newscast audio: New developments tonight in a Wisconsin VA hospital investigation. Senator Tammy Baldwin -- Newscast audio: -- and investigating claims of a cover-up involving one Senate Democrat. Narrator: A whistleblower went to Democrat Sen. Tammy Baldwin for help protecting disabled veterans. Newscast audio: Senator Tammy Baldwin learned of the allegations that the patients were being overmedicated. Narrator: And Tammy Baldwin was slow to take action. Talk show audio: -- critical of Senator Baldwin of having a delayed reaction to the March report. Narrator: When disabled veterans were counting on her, Tammy Baldwin blinked. Interviewer audio: Did your office drop the ball? Baldwin audio clip: Mistakes were made. Narrator: Deadly mistakes. Three disabled veterans died. Newscast audio: -- after the deaths of three patients at a VA hospital. Narrator: When facing security challenges from Russia, China and ISIS, will Tammy Baldwin make another mistake? Now let's look at the three deaths. Two of the deaths The Tomah VA and how politicians responded to problems there have been in the news since January 2015, when the California-based Center for Investigative Reporting exposed the overprescription of opioid drugs by the facility. The day after the Baldwin attack ad began airing, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that two Wisconsin radio stations had pulled the ad after lawyers for Baldwin’s campaign complained it was false. Tom Donelson of Americas PAC told the Journal Sentinel and us that the committee stands by the ad. But two of the three deaths clearly don’t support the attack on Baldwin: Jacob Ward had been heavily medicated at the Tomah VA and later became a drug addict. But his parents said his care at Tomah ended in 2007 and they transferred him to the Milwaukee VA in 2008 and that they didn’t blame the Tomah VA for his death. Ward, who was 27, overdosed on heroin and cocaine in a Milwaukee apartment on Sept. 4, 2013. That was six years after he stopped going to Tomah and a year before the whistleblower contacted Baldwin. Thomas Patrick Baer, 74, died Jan. 14, 2015 at a hospital in La Crosse, Wis., two days after he suffered two strokes at the Tomah VA while waiting for treatment there. His death was not connected to overmedication. That leaves Simcakoski, who suffered a fatal drug overdose in the psychiatric ward of the Tomah VA. He had been prescribed 15 drugs, including muscle relaxants, tranquilizers, antipsychotic medicines and an opioid painkiller. Let’s look at a timeline of his case and how it relates to Baldwin, based primarily on Gannett Wisconsin Media news reports. Jason Simcakoski Between April and June of 2014, Baldwin wrote letters to the Tomah VA director, a VA official in Washington and the VA inspector general in Washington. She asked each of them to investigate allegations that "a large percentage of veterans" at the Tomah VA were being treated for abuse of opioids and other drugs that had originally been prescribed by the facility -- and that continued to be prescribed to them. The allegations were made by a constituent who wanted to remain anonymous, according to the letters. That means Baldwin had taken those steps months before the Simcakoski’s death, which occurred on Aug. 30, 2014. Moreover, Ryan Honl, the whistleblower alluded to in the radio ad, didn’t make a complaint to Baldwin’s office until nearly a month later. Baldwin nevertheless has been criticized because she took no action between Aug. 29, 2014 -- the day before Simcakoski’s death, when her office received an inspection report documenting the overprescribing of opioids at Tomah -- and January 2015, when the Center for Investigative Reporting revealed the circumstances of his death and Baldwin called for an investigation. In between, Honl had repeatedly emailed Baldwin’s office asking that Baldwin call for an investigation and make the inspection report public. Baldwin later said she was disciplining her chief of staff and two other aides for failing to take appropriate action on complaints about Tomah. And she said her office made mistakes in handling the inspection report and the whistleblower’s pleas. Still, Baldwin didn’t receive the inspection report until the day before Simcakoski’s death and the whistleblower didn’t begin contacting her until after Simcakoski’s death. Our rating Americas PAC says Baldwin was told by a whistleblower about "overmedicated veterans," she made "deadly mistakes" and "three veterans died" at the Tomah VA hospital. Baldwin has acknowledged mistakes in the handling of an inspection report and a whistle blower’s emails about veterans being over prescribed opioid painkillers at Tomah. But none of those tie Baldwin to the deaths. One death had nothing to do with overmedication. One was an overdose, but it occurred in Milwaukee years after the veteran stopped being treated in Tomah and before the whistleblower contacted Baldwin. And the third death, though an overdose at the Tomah VA, also occurred before the whistleblower contacted Baldwin (and only one day after she received the inspection report). We rate the statement False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com Related fact check: The attack on Baldwin is along the lines of one made against Democrat Russ Feingold, who ran unsuccessfully against Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson in 2016. A super PAC claimed that when Feingold was in the Senate, he received a memo in 2009 that "outlined veteran harm" at the Tomah VA "and nothing was done." Our rating was False, as there was no evidence Feingold received the memo. | null | Americas PAC | null | null | null | 2017-05-05T05:00:00 | 2017-04-27 | ['None'] |
pomt-13044 | Study after study have shown that sanctuary cities do not lead to an increase in crime because of the presence of people that are undocumented. | half-true | /truth-o-meter/statements/2016/nov/28/javier-m-gonzales/santa-fe-mayor-defends-sanctuary-cities-says-studi/ | Mayors across America are doubling down on their cities’ decisions to serve as a "sanctuary" for immigrants living in the country illegally, despite President-elect Donald Trump’s promise to cut federal funding. Javier Gonzales, mayor of Santa Fe, N.M., appeared on Fox News recently defending his city’s stance to not assist federal officials with immigration enforcement. Megyn Kelly, host of Fox News’ The Kelly File, asked Gonzales about criticism directed at cities like Santa Fe, claiming that "sanctuary cities" attract criminals. Gonzales said his city prioritizes going after people who commit violent crimes, regardless of their immigration status. There’s also evidence that sanctuary cities aren’t a magnet for crime, he said. "Study after study have shown that sanctuary cities do not lead to an increase in crime because of the presence of people that are undocumented," Gonzales said Nov. 16. Is that true? 'Sanctuary cities' Despite the name, a sanctuary city is not always a city, it can be a town, county or other jurisdiction. There isn’t a federal law defining sanctuary locations, but the term is generally applied to places that have policies or ordinances limiting their assistance to federal immigration authorities who seek to apprehend and deport immigrants in the country illegally. The modern-day sanctuary concept stems from the 1980s when churches opened their doors to shelter Central Americans who fled violence in their countries and lived illegally in the United States, fearing deportation. The New Sanctuary Movement rolled out in 2007 as places of worship across the country became a refuge for immigrants facing deportation. There are at least 50 congregations across the United States offering sanctuary. Churches, schools, hospitals and public demonstrations such as rallies and parades are considered by immigration officials as sensitive locations, where enforcement actions are generally avoided but can take place with approval from a supervisor or under "exigent circumstances." The exact number of jurisdictions deemed sanctuary cities fluctuates as places adopt or abandon policies. The specifics of the policies also vary from place to place. The mayor of New Orleans, for instance, says the term "sanctuary city" does not apply to his city, but some critics say it has practices that parallel policies in other places that openly embrace the title, the Times-Picayune reported. Lena Graber, a special projects attorney for the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, estimated there are more than 500 counties and 38 cities with policies not to assist U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Federal laws say state and local governments or officers may not prohibit the maintenance or exchange of individuals' immigration records with other local, state or federal entities, according to a 2009 Congressional Research Service report. However, if jurisdictions don't ask individuals about their immigration status, then they don't have the information that could potentially be kept and shared, the report said. Supporters of sanctuary cities say not questioning people about their immigration status builds trust between police and the community, encouraging residents to report crime. If an undocumented immigrant gets arrested for a non-immigration offense, they can still be charged, tried and convicted for that crime, Graber said. Opponents contend that sanctuary cities attract illegal immigration and undermine enforcement of the law. Any crime by someone in the country illegally is a crime that could have been avoided by having removed that person, said Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which seeks to reduce immigration levels. What studies show The Santa Fe mayor’s office sent over multiple studies that found immigrants are less prone to commit crime than people born in the United States. They also highlighted a report by the American Immigration Council, a pro-immigrant group, saying that held true for immigrants here legally and illegally. But there isn’t a lot of research specific to sanctuary cities and their impact on crime, experts said. Sanctuary ordinances have been around for more than 30 years, but only until recently have social scientists been able to study their effect on crime rates, said Elizabeth F. Cohen, an associate professor of political science at Syracuse University. A 2009 study out of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law cites Austin, Texas, as an example where cooperation between immigrant communities and law enforcement led to an increase in crime reporting and lower crime levels. Other examples of decreases in crime due to immigrant-friendly policies are also cited in this 2012 study. Research also suggests that crime reporting -- especially in communities with a high proportion of immigrants -- is very likely negatively impacted when immigration enforcement practices are carried out by local officials, said Charis E. Kubrin, a criminology professor at University of California, Irvine. A 2014 study by collaborators at University of Chicago and New York University on whether the immigration enforcement program known as Secure Communities reduced crime showed there was no significant rise in crime in sanctuary cities during the program’s rollout, Cohen said. Under the program (which has been replaced), when someone was booked into a police station or jail, that person’s information was sent to the FBI and Department of Homeland Security, ultimately to figure out the person’s immigration record. More recently, researchers at the University of California at Riverside and Highline College found sanctuary policies do not affect crime rates either way. The study included analysis of violent crime, property crime and rape. "Sanctuary policies in terms of leading to crime do not appear to be a problem," the October 2016 study said. "In fact ... almost all research that assesses links between immigration and criminality find an inverse relationship." Trump campaigned against sanctuary policies by bringing up incidents of undocumented immigrants in these cities committing violent crimes, such as the alleged shooting by a Mexican national of Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco. But we did not turn up evidence of sanctuary cities leading to an increase in crime. Qualitative information on sanctuary practices suggests they are beneficial to criminal law enforcement practices, said Phil Torrey, a lecturer on law with the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program and supervising attorney for the Harvard Immigration Project. A rise in crime in a sanctuary city could be caused by factors unrelated to that city’s undocumented population, Torrey said. For instance, a city’s rising population can account for increased overall criminal arrests, he said. Our ruling Gonzales said, "Study after study have shown that sanctuary cities do not lead to an increase in crime because of the presence of people that are undocumented." The data behind Gonzales’ point about sanctuary cities is not conclusive or as extensive as he described. However, a recent study by academic researchers found that sanctuary policies have no effect on crime rates. Other studies have found a reduction in crime as a result of cooperation between immigrant communities and law enforcement. Scholars also say immigrants, including those in the country illegally, are less likely to commit crimes than the native-born population. Gonzales' statement overstates the breadth of research on this topic but is on the right track. We rate the claim Half True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/ca7ac643-07ba-4de2-afae-cf0e5e209aef | null | Javier M. Gonzales | null | null | null | 2016-11-28T13:47:49 | 2016-11-16 | ['None'] |
vees-00347 | Aquino DID NOT twit Duterte over killing of terrorists | none | http://verafiles.org/articles/week-fake-news-aquino-did-not-twit-duterte-over-killing-terr | null | null | null | null | Duterte,PNoy,Mamasapano,Marawi city crisis | THIS WEEK IN FAKE NEWS: Aquino DID NOT twit Duterte over killing of terrorists | October 27, 2017 | null | ['None'] |
farg-00452 | British Intelligence Seizes Clinton Foundation Warehouse, $400 Million In Cash. | false | https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/no-seizure-of-clinton-foundation-cash/ | null | fake-news | Various websites | Saranac Hale Spencer | ['Clinton Foundation'] | No Seizure of Clinton Foundation Cash | March 30, 2018 | [' Friday, November 10, 2017 '] | ['None'] |
snes-00877 | Blue Buffalo pet food contains unsafe and higher-than-average levels of lead. | unproven | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/does-blue-buffalo-contain-toxic-levels-lead/ | null | Critter Country | null | Kim LaCapria | null | Does Blue Buffalo Dog Food Contain Toxic Levels of Lead? | 19 March 2018 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-09747 | Other Western countries have ended their "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policies. | true | /truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/12/carl-levin/levin-claims-other-western-countries-have-lifted-t/ | President Barack Obama has repeatedly said that he plans to repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" rule, which prevents openly gay and lesbian people from serving in the military. But so far, no go. Meet the Press host David Gregory asked Michigan Democrat Carl Levin, who chairs the Senate's Armed Services Committee, whether Obama would follow through on his promise. "I think he will and he can," Levin said on the program on Oct. 11, 2009. "I think it has to be done in the right way, which is to get a buy-in from the military, which I think is now possible. Other militaries in the West, the British and other Western armies, have ended this discriminatory policy. We can do it successfully." Before we dig into Levin's claim that other Western countries have already repealed similar policies, some background: On the campaign trail, Obama wrote an open letter to the LGBT — lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender — community, stating that, as president, he would "bring about real change for all LGBT Americans." Chief among his efforts would be a repeal of the military's rule, one that was put into place during the Clinton administration. That's easier said than done, however. Obama cannot simply undo "don't ask, don't tell" — it must be repealed by Congress. So, when Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in March 2009 that the administration was not actively pursuing a rule change, we gave Obama a Stalled on our Obameter for his promise to overturn the policy. The issue was back in the news Oct. 11 when Obama spoke at a gathering of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization. He told the group: "I'm working with the Pentagon, its leadership and the members of the House and Senate on ending this policy." Levin hopes the policy will change. To underscore his optimism, he pointed out that the United States wouldn't be the first country to repeal laws banning gays from the military. Australia ended its ban on homosexuals in the military in 1992, as did Canada. Levin is also right that Britain does not prohibit gays and lesbians from serving. Its ban was lifted in 2000, when the European Court of Human Rights settled a two-year legal battle involving four homosexual service members. All told, at least 25 Western countries have no ban on gays and lesbians in the military, according to the Palm Center, a public policy think tank associated with the University of California at Santa Barbara. As of June 2009, that list includes Germany, Austria, Spain, Finland and France. So, Levin is correct that other Western countries, including Britain, have ended policies that prevent gays and lesbians from serving openly. We give him a True. | null | Carl Levin | null | null | null | 2009-10-12T13:47:45 | 2009-10-11 | ['None'] |
pomt-08891 | When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981, he could not have been traveling as a U.S. citizen. | pants on fire! | /truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/30/chain-email/e-mail-says-obama-had-have-been-traveling-another-/ | In an effort to prove that Barack Obama is not eligible to be president, birthers have come up with some very creative arguments. A curious reader forwarded a chain e-mail that made an interesting claim. "Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's 'no travel' list in 1981," read the e-mail. Therefore, "when Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport." The most effective chain e-mails, like the best lies, are built on an incorrect but seemingly plausible "fact" that they follow to what seems like a sound conclusion. In this case, the "fact" on which the entire argument rests is that Pakistan was on a "no travel" list in 1981. If that were true, Obama would either have had to use a different passport or enter the country illegally and request his passport not be stamped, as some Americans have done over the years to travel to Cuba. Obama has said he traveled to Pakistan in 1981. He was on summer vacation from college, and, after visiting his mother in Indonesia, he traveled to Pakistan with a college friend. However, according to the U.S. Department of State, the department in charge of issuing travel bans, Pakistan had a green light for adventurous U.S. citzens. "According to our Pakistan experts," said Ivna Giauque, a public affairs officer at the State Department, "there was no travel ban to Pakistan in 1981." Without the original premise that Pakistan had a travel ban, the rest of the argument deteriorates. The author of the e-mail may have been confusing a travel warning or travel advisory with a travel ban. The University of Illinois at Chicago Library has an archive of State Department documents, including one from Aug. 17, 1981, issuing a travel advisory for Pakistan. It is the oldest travel advisory document in the archive related to Pakistan. Even if Obama traveled after the advisory was issued instead of earlier in the summer, the State Department confirmed it wasn't illegal. Our good friends at Snopes and Factcheck.org found a travel article about visiting Pakistan published in the New York Times in June 1981, and it mentions nothing about such travel being illegal. An August 1981 letter to the editor in the New York Times by the U.S. Consul General in Lahore, Pakistan, encouraged people to come visit. We also found an ad in the New York Times from March which listed Karachi and Lahore as two destinations in their travel package. In 1981, travel to Pakistan was not illegal or prohibited. Somebody was just looking for an excuse to promote the birther conspiracy, so we rate it Pants On Fire. | null | Chain email | null | null | null | 2010-07-30T14:25:39 | 2010-06-28 | ['United_States', 'Pakistan', 'Barack_Obama'] |
pomt-11930 | A California health care CEO is promising to reduce our prescription drug costs. | mostly false | /ohio/statements/2017/oct/13/ohioans-against-deceptive-rx-ballot-issue/ad-opposing-ohio-issue-2-wrongly-portrays-proponen/ | A TV advertisement opposing Ohio’s Issue 2 ballot initiative to lower drug costs portrayed the initiative as a ploy by the health care industry to hike up costs. "Over the next few months, you’re going to hear a lot about the November ballot issue on prescription drugs," the May 23, 2017, video says. "A California health care CEO is promising to reduce our prescription drug costs. It sounds too good to be true, because it is." They went on to list a number of associations opposing the ballot initiative because they "believe it could increase drug costs for millions of Ohioans." If approved on Nov. 7, Issue 2 would require all drugs bought by the state -- whether for Medicaid or other state programs -- to match Veterans Affairs prices, which receive a 24 percent discount off market price in addition to sometimes undisclosed rebates. The idea is that it would lower the state’s health care costs. Whether or not the ballot initiative can achieve its goal -- or the opposite -- is contested, as we wrote about in another fact-check. For this check, we wanted to know if the person behind the initiative was indeed a health care CEO. His title is complicated, but the ad’s message is misleading. Notably, the video failed to mention that the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a trade association representing drugmakers, was behind the opposition campaign. The ad attacks Michael Weinstein, the president and co-founder of the Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation, the biggest AIDS-fighting organization in the world. And he’s behind both this ballot initiative and a similar one in California. "Both the New York Times and the LA Times have referred to Mr. Weinstein as the CEO of his organization — AHF — which is clearly a health care organization," Dale Butland, a spokesman for the opposition campaign, told us. "Indeed, the New York Times Magazine profile of Mr. Weinstein was titled 'The CEO of HIV.' " Christopher Glazek, the author of the New York Times Magazine story, said the title of the piece was intended as "arch." "It's a nonprofit, and his official title isn't CEO," Glazek said. The organization derives its revenues from a network of pharmacies and clinics that provide care to mostly government-insured patients. The excess income goes to provide free care to more than 773,000 H.I.V. patients worldwide. Weinstein’s annual report showed a salary of $400,000, which Glazek characterized as "low for directors of similarly sized nonprofits." Christine Mai-Duc, who co-wrote the Los Angeles Times article, said, "He is referred to as the ‘chief executive’ in a photo caption in our story, not in the story itself." However, she noted that a follow-up story referred to him as the foundation’s "top executive." The group that favors the initiative said the description of Glazek is just wrong, and it’s politically motivated. "I think calling him a health care CEO would be disingenuous if it were banal, but considering they are in the process of character assassination, then it is wrong that drug company CEOs are spending money from excessive profits to try to label him as one of them," said Dennis Willard, a spokesman for Ohio Taxpayers for Lower Drug Prices. The drug lobby PhRMA has so far outspent the AIDS Foundation roughly 5 to 1, according to the Columbus Dispatch. Our ruling An ad against Ohio’s Issue 2 ballot initiative said, "A California health care CEO is promising to reduce our prescription drug costs." Weinstein is the president and co-founder of AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a nonprofit funding Issue 2, but the articles cited by the campaign referred to Weinstein as a CEO either in jest or in a photo caption. His organization deals with health care and he is indeed its top executive, but the ad makes it seem as though he represents the drug industry, which is actually true of the ad makers. It’s the national association for pharmaceutical companies that opposes the ballot measure. We rate this statement Mostly False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com | null | Ohioans Against Deceptive Rx Ballot Issue | null | null | null | 2017-10-13T06:00:03 | 2017-05-23 | ['California'] |
farg-00247 | Claims that under his plan, "a middle-class family with two children will get about a 35 percent tax reduction." | misleading | https://www.factcheck.org/2016/11/trumps-tax-cut-claims/ | null | the-factcheck-wire | Donald Trump | Lori Robertson | ['2016 TV Ad', 'income tax'] | Trump’s Tax Cut Claims | November 4, 2016 | [' Rally in Florida – Tuesday, October 25, 2016 '] | ['None'] |
pomt-13813 | Says no one from the Bush family attended the 2012 Republican National Convention and "there was no President Bush" at the 2008 convention. | false | /truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/17/reince-priebus/priebus-wrongly-says-no-bush-attended-2012-rnc/ | Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus is confident the Cleveland RNC will be a success, even without a Bush in attendance. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and former presidents George W. and George H.W. Bush all declined to participate or attend the 2016 nominating convention. Meet the Press host Chuck Todd offered the decision of the Bush family to spurn the 2016 convention as evidence that this year’s event will be a little different. "You’re not showcasing the best parts of your party," Todd said to Priebus, adding "it is unusual not to have a Bush at the convention." Priebus responded: "It didn’t happen four years ago" at the 2012 RNC in Tampa. Priebus added after some back-and-forth that that "there was no President Bush" at the RNC in 2008. Claims about the pre-eminence of the Bush family in Republican politics have come up before. We previously rated True a claim that Republicans haven’t won an election without a Bush or Nixon since 1928. In this case we wondered if Priebus was right that the Bush family eschewed the RNC in some form in 2012 and 2008. He wasn’t. The 2012 convention It’s been nearly eight years since a Bush has held national elected office, but the family has maintained a role at the nominating convention. Since 1980, every Republican convention has seen a Bush speak — often as the vice presidential or presidential nominee. That includes the 2012 convention in Tampa, which saw the nomination of Mitt Romney. Jeb Bush addressed delegates at the convention, as this video confirms. He touted his love for his brother, criticized President Barack Obama’s record and discussed children and education. "If we want to continue to be the greatest nation on the planet, we must give our kids what we promised them — an equal opportunity," he said. "That starts in the classroom. It starts in our communities. It starts where you live and it starts with nominating Mitt Romney the next president of the United States." 2000, 2004 and 2008 Priebus also contended in his interview with Todd that there was no "President Bush" at the 2008 RNC in St. Paul, Minn. That’s not entirely correct, either. President George W. Bush addressed convention delegates live from the White House. Bush told convention delegates that he remained in Washington to oversee recovery efforts related to Hurricane Gustav. Bush, however, praised GOP nominee Arizona Sen. John McCain. "He is ready to lead this nation," Bush said. "From the day of his commissioning John McCain was a respected Naval officer who made decisions on which the lives of others depended." First Lady Laura Bush spoke live from the convention, which also included appearances by former President George H.W. Bush and former First Lady Barbara Bush, video from the event shows. George W. Bush, the 2004 GOP nominee, of course spoke at the New York City 2004 convention as well, as did Laura Bush. Same for 2000 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992 and 1996 The list goes on. Former president George H.W. Bush spoke at the 1996 convention in San Diego, Calif., which eventually nominated former Kansas Sen. Bob Dole. George H.W. Bush spoke in Houston, Texas, for the 1992 convention, as part of his failed re-election campaign.The same goes for 1988, when he was named the Republican nominee for the first time. In 1984, George H. W. Bush was selected as the vice-presidential nominee (Ronald Reagan was nominated for president). The same thing happened in 1980, and Bush spoke on both occasions. The earliest convention we could find without a Bush speaking was in 1976, where Gerald Ford was selected as the Republican nominee. To recap, that’s at least 40 years and nine conventions where a Bush had a speaking role. And members of the Bush family definitely spoke at both the 2012 and 2008 conventions. Our ruling Priebus said it’s not a big deal a Bush isn’t attending the 2016 convention, because a Bush didn’t speak in 2012 and "there was no President Bush" at the 2008 convention. He’s wrong. Jeb Bush addressed delegates at the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa. In 2008, George W. Bush addressed delegates via a live video feed, but former President George H.W. Bush and former first ladies Laura and Barbara Bush all attended. A Bush has spoken at every RNC since at least 1980, we found. We rate this claim False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/1cef2f85-9353-4065-99c0-3b9d7c05f74d | null | Reince Priebus | null | null | null | 2016-07-17T16:22:47 | 2016-07-17 | ['George_W._Bush', 'Republican_National_Convention'] |
tron-00040 | Flight Crew Takes Knee, Strands New Orleans Saints on Runway | fiction! | https://www.truthorfiction.com/flight-crew-takes-knee-strands-new-orleans-saints-runway/ | null | 9-11-attack | null | null | ['fake news', 'nfl', 'protests'] | Flight Crew Takes Knee, Strands New Orleans Saints on Runway | Oct 3, 2017 | null | ['None'] |
para-00054 | Forty-seven per cent of people who will vote in September are aged 50 years and over. | true | http://pandora.nla.gov.au//pan/140601/20131209-1141/www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/aug/26/national-seniors-australia/seniors-politicians-ignore-them-their-perile-them/index.html | null | ['Aged', 'Pension'] | National Seniors Australia | Chris Pash, Peter Fray | null | Seniors: Politicians ignore them at their peril | Monday, August 26, 2013 at 3:54 p.m. | null | ['None'] |
pose-00873 | Over the next year will "work with key stakeholders to finally develop a plan to invest $36.6 million in federal transit funds designated for Milwaukee County that have for too long sat idle as a result of partisan bickering." | promise kept | https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/promises/abele-o-meter/promise/905/develop-a-plan-to-spend-federal-transit-funds/ | null | abele-o-meter | Chris Abele | null | null | Develop a plan to spend federal transit funds | 2011-05-11T10:21:33 | null | ['Milwaukee_County,_Wisconsin'] |
snes-02460 | Joakim Noah gave the finger to US soldiers and refused to eat with them while training at West Point. | mixture | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/joakim-noah-west-point/ | null | Sports | null | Dan Evon | null | Joakim Noah Gives U.S. Soldiers the Finger, Refuses to Eat With Them? | 9 May 2017 | null | ['Joakim_Noah'] |
snes-03956 | A woman saved multiple lives by using her concealed carry pistol to take down a department store shooter in Virginia. | false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/concealed-carry-department-store-shooter/ | null | Junk News | null | David Mikkelson | null | Woman with Concealed Carry Permit Saves Multiple Lives After Stopping Department Store Shooter | 25 September 2016 | null | ['Virginia'] |
huca-00006 | "We have approved more than 1,200 projects. I would like to tell the member that more than 60 per cent of those projects are currently underway, creating opportunities for Canadians." | a little baloney | https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/02/09/baloney-meter-have-more-than-60-per-cent-of-infrastructure-projects-begun_n_14656200.html?utm_hp_ref=ca-baloney-meter | null | null | Infrastructure Minister Amarjeet Sohi | Joanna Smith, The Canadian Press | null | Amarjeet Sohi's Claim About Infrastructure Projects Contains 'A Little Baloney' | 02/09/2017 09:46 EST | Feb. 7. | ['None'] |
tron-03534 | Ex-CIA Officer Clare Lopez Calls Obama a Radical Islamic Threat to America | correct attribution! | https://www.truthorfiction.com/ex-cia-officer-clare-lopez-calls-obama-a-radical-islamic-threat-to-america/ | null | terrorism | null | null | null | Ex-CIA Officer Clare Lopez Calls Obama a Radical Islamic Threat to America | Sep 9, 2015 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-00478 | Says "43 of Joe’s legislative proposals have become law, including 21 since President Trump took office." | mostly true | /truth-o-meter/statements/2018/aug/13/joe-donnelly/facts-behind-joe-donnellys-senate-effectiveness/ | Joe Donnelly, incumbent senator running for re-election in Indiana, touted his effective lawmaking during a seven-day campaign trip around the state. "43 of Joe’s legislative proposals have become law, including 21 since President Trump took office," an Aug. 8 press release from the Donnelly campaign read. The campaign has repeated this figure time and again, on the road and in campaign statements. It contradicts, however, what President Donald Trump said about Donnelly, whom he dubbed "Sleepin’ Joe" during a May 11 campaign rally for Republican challenger Mike Braun. "The Center for Effective Lawmaking named Joe Donnelly the least effective Democrat lawmaker in the United States Senate," Trump said. "He's never sponsored a bill that has become a law." So who’s right? In a way, both are correct. The Center for Effective Lawmaking, a nonpartisan research project run by two political science professors, assigns credit based on who is the sponsor of a bill, as recorded by the Library of Congress. Based on that definition, Donnelly has never sponsored a bill that became a law during his first term in the Senate. That doesn’t mean none of his legislative proposals in the Senate have become law. Craig Volden, who co-directs the center, noted that the criteria for advancing a legislative proposal could be broadened. A closer search of the Library of Congress database shows 28 bills that became law on which Donnelly was among the co-sponsors. He was an original co-sponsor, a higher bar, on five of these. Language from Donnelly’s bills, and from amendments he proposed, have also made their way into law, mostly through annual budget acts. In all, these add up to 43 total and 17 under Trump. For example, Donnelly introduced a bill in 2013 to improve suicide prevention efforts in the military. The bill didn’t get far on its own, but Donnelly got the proposal passed in the National Defense Authorization Act in 2014 as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. More recently, Donnelly helped author Right to Try, a bill aimed at getting drugs that had not been FDA-approved to terminally ill patients. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., was the sponsor of the bill, so Donnelly didn’t get that credit on Congress.gov — but Johnson gave it to him at a press conference. "My primary co-sponsor, Sen. Donnelly, was a stalwart," Johnson said. "This would not have happened without Joe Donnelly." Volden said that while valid measures of effectiveness, "there is no similar comprehensive measure of the other senators in this regard that would allow a systematic comparison and ranking of senators on these criteria." Experts told us being in the minority in a divided Congress makes it harder for Donnelly to have gotten much passed anyway. Donnelly took office in 2013, and Democrats held the majority until 2015. "As you can see, passing the version he sponsors would let him claim credit easily — incorporating it elsewhere would not," said Corrine McConnaughy, political science professor at George Washington University. "Partisans busy undermining each other absolutely may seek ways to prevent credit-claiming by the other party's members." That said, Donnelly has demonstrated willingness to cross the aisle. The Lugar Center's Bipartisan Index (named for former Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind.) measures the frequency with which a member gets co-sponsors for their bills from the other party and the frequency with which they co-sponsor bills introduced by the other party. They ranked Donnelly fourth among senators and first among Democratic senators. Our ruling Donnelly’s campaign said, "43 of Joe’s legislative proposals have become law, including 21 since President Trump took office." None of those were the bills he sponsored on his own that became law. But in a gridlocked Congress, that’s not unusual for a senator in the minority. Instead, Donnelly co-sponsored bills, wrote amendments and crafted language that made its way into 43 laws during his single Senate term. We rate this statement Mostly True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com | null | Joe Donnelly | null | null | null | 2018-08-13T09:41:34 | 2018-08-08 | ['None'] |
vogo-00229 | City Workers Vs. the Private Sector: Fact Check TV | none | https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/fact/city-workers-vs-the-private-sector-fact-check-tv/ | null | null | null | null | null | City Workers Vs. the Private Sector: Fact Check TV | June 18, 2012 | null | ['None'] |
snes-04812 | Medal of Honor recipient Kyle Carpenter was stripped of his award for failing to complete a minor driving course while on active duty. | false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kyle-carpenters-medal-of-honor-rescinded/ | null | Junk News | null | Kim LaCapria | null | Kyle Carpenter’s Medal of Honor Rescinded? | 4 May 2016 | null | ['None'] |
tron-03133 | “Operational” Guns Were Banned at NRA Convention | truth! & fiction! | https://www.truthorfiction.com/operational-guns-were-banned-at-nra-convention/ | null | politics | null | null | ['Trending Rumors'] | “Operational” Guns Were Banned at NRA Convention | Apr 8, 2015 | null | ['None'] |
snes-05000 | Actor Gabourey Sidibe has died of an "apparent asthma attack." | false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/gabourey-sidibe-death-hoax/ | null | Uncategorized | null | Kim LaCapria | null | Gabourey Sidibe Death Hoax | 28 March 2016 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-05740 | There are "a larger number of shark attacks in Florida than there are cases of voter fraud." | mostly true | /florida/statements/2012/mar/02/aclu-florida/shark-attacks-are-more-common-voter-fraud-florida/ | On March 1, 2012, Comedy Central’s Stephen Colbert moved in on Florida’s controversial new election law for a recurring segment, "People Who Are Destroying America." The target: a Panhandle teacher named Dawn Quarles, who turned in 76 voter registration forms from her students beyond the state’s new 48-hour deadline. She could face a $1,000 fine. One of the people Colbert interviewed for his sarcastic report is Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida. Florida officials claimed they needed to pass the law to prevent voter fraud, but these cases are actually pretty rare, he said. "There are probably a larger number of shark attacks in Florida than there are cases of voter fraud," he said. We couldn’t resist diving in: Are there more shark attacks than cases of voter fraud in Florida? We compiled this chart using data from the Florida Department of State, which monitors elections, and the Florida Museum of Natural History in Gainesville, which has a renowned ichthyology department. (Ichthyology is the study of fish.) The shark attack figures include documented instances of sharks attacking human victims. The voter fraud cases indicate the number of cases deemed legally sufficient for an investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. FLORIDA 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Sharks attacks 28 19 14* 11 72 Voter fraud cases 16 9 10 14 49 *includes one fatal attack If we were considering 2011 alone, when voter fraud cases exceeded shark attacks, this could have been ruled False. But spreading our data out over four years shows shark attacks happen more frequently than voter fraud cases. Florida regularly leads the country in unprovoked shark attacks. In 2011, Florida’s 11 attacks comprised 38 percent of the nation’s total and 15 percent of the world’s attacks. Volusia County, home to the spring-break mecca of Daytona Beach, had the most attacks (six). While the shark attack figures are cut and dry (sorry!), the voter fraud numbers are not. There could be more cases than we know about, involving more people. The numbers may not represent total voter fraud cases, as those could be handled by local supervisors and state attorneys. Also, one "case" may represent multiple counts of voter fraud, perpetrated by multiple people, said agency spokesman Chris Cate. He points to a November 2011 case that resulted in the arrests of nine people from the North Florida town of Madison, including the supervisor of elections. On the other hand, the fraud list does not count only convictions. So some of these cases could be proven unfounded. The ACLU’s claim is true on its face, but we’re knocking it down a peg with consideration of a few things. One, the state’s count doesn’t represent a complete set of possible fraud being prosecuted in the state. Two, a "case" does not always include just one instance of fraud. Using the Madison case as an example, we know nine people were arrested in just one case. We rate this Mostly True. | null | American Civil Liberties Union of Florida | null | null | null | 2012-03-02T17:51:18 | 2012-03-01 | ['None'] |
tron-03010 | Donald Trump Will Skip Remaining Debates if Hillary Clinton is There | fiction! | https://www.truthorfiction.com/donald-trump-will-skip-remaining-debates-hillary-clinton/ | null | politics | null | null | ['2016 election', 'donald trump', 'hillary clinton', 'media', 'satire'] | Donald Trump Will Skip Remaining Debates if Hillary Clinton is There | Sep 28, 2016 | null | ['Hillary_Rodham_Clinton'] |
hoer-00687 | Lightning Storm Meets Volcanic Eruption Photos | true messages | https://www.hoax-slayer.com/volcano-lightning-photos.shtml | null | null | null | Brett M. Christensen | null | Lightning Storm Meets Volcanic Eruption Photos | 15th June 2011 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-02971 | Wendy Davis opposes any limits on abortion. | false | /texas/statements/2013/oct/22/texas-right-life/davis-says-she-opposes-late-term-abortions-certain/ | The day state Sen. Wendy Davis announced her run for governor, Texas Right to Life announced it would air a radio ad calling her an "abortion zealot." Audio that the anti-abortion group released Oct. 3, 2013, of its ad said, "Wendy Davis opposes any limits on abortion." That’s a clear-cut statement, which the group also had on its website. An Oct. 3, 2013, entry on the site said that Davis’s "views are so fanatical that she opposes any safeguards for the unborn at any stage of pregnancy, up to and including the final weeks before birth… (Davis) thoroughly aired her abortion views during her 11-hour filibuster in June in her failed attempt to block the new Pro-Life law from passing." A spokeswoman for the group, Melissa Conway, told us by phone that her group could not immediately provide backup information. Davis, a Fort Worth Democrat, was indelibly linked to abortion issues by her June 25, 2013, filibuster, which made headlines worldwide and briefly helped derail changes in law intended to restrict abortions. Campaign spokesman Bo Delp told us by email it’s incorrect to say Davis opposes any limits. "Like most Texans, Sen. Davis opposes late-term abortions except when the life or health of the mother is endangered, in cases of rape or incest or in the case of severe and irreversible fetal abnormalities," Delp said. Delp’s response fits with an Oct. 5, 2013, news story in the Austin American-Statesman saying that Davis, while addressing the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2013, was asked, "Could you discuss what legal limits on abortion you do support?" She replied, "You know, the Supreme Court has made that decision. And it’s one of the protected liberties under our Constitution. And I respect the constitutional protections that are in place today." The Supreme Court’s 1973 landmark decision in Roe v Wade struck down a Texas law that banned all abortions except those performed to save the mother’s life. The justices ruled then that states can’t restrict or ban abortions in the first trimester (roughly three months or the first 12 weeks of the pregnancy). Their ruling said, though, that states can make laws governing abortions in the second trimester if the laws are "reasonably related" to the woman’s health. After the point at which fetuses attain "viability," meaning they can survive outside the womb, states can limit or ban abortions unless the woman’s life is in danger, the court held. So in her response in Washington, Davis signaled that she both accepts letting states limit abortions after the first trimester and limit or ban abortions after fetuses are viable, unless the mother’s life is at risk. Elected to the Senate in 2008, Davis voted in 2009 and 2011 against state legislation requiring women to get sonograms before having an abortion. The measure passed into law in 2011 requires doctors performing abortions to provide a sonogram 24 hours before the abortion and describe what the image shows, including the fetus' size, body features and internal organs. Her 2013 filibuster delayed, but didn’t prevent the Republican-majority Legislature from approving restrictions that will soon begin taking effect. Starting Oct. 29, 2013, the law bans abortions after the 20th week post-fertilization, except when the woman’s life is endangered or in cases of severe fetal abnormality; requires abortion doctors to gain admitting privileges in a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic; and beefs up regulations on the dispensing of abortion-inducing drugs. Starting Sept. 1, 2014, the law requires that all abortion clinics meet the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers. In its October news story, the Statesman quoted a Davis adviser as saying that Davis would not have picked a fight over the 20-week provision by itself. However, she indicated in the early part of her filibuster that she was opposed to that provision on medical grounds. "From our medical community, we’ve heard the concern that this interferes with the practice of medicine," Davis said, according to CounterPath Press’ transcript of the filibuster. "As important, we know that concerns have been raised that this ban interferes with a woman’s health care decision before she and her doctor may have important health information about her own health and the health of the pregnancy." Repeatedly during the filibuster, Davis said that a major reason she opposed the legislation was that in her view, its provisions were not intended to make women safer but to make sure fewer abortions were performed. "I think that the state of Texas has already established a fine standard of care," she said. Our ruling Texas Right to Life said, "Wendy Davis opposes any limits on abortion." Although Davis has spoken and voted against certain abortion limits, her campaign statement and her stated support for the Roe v. Wade decision indicate she opposes late-term abortions except in extreme circumstances. The group did not provide, and we did not find, evidence of Davis opposing "any limits on abortion." We rate this claim as False. FALSE – The statement is not accurate. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. | null | Texas Right to Life | null | null | null | 2013-10-22T17:49:07 | 2013-10-03 | ['None'] |
hoer-00509 | Man in India is 179 Years Old | statirical reports | https://www.hoax-slayer.com/genitals-stolen-thailand-hoax.shtml | null | null | null | Brett M. Christensen | null | Fake Report Claims Man in India is 179 Years Old | November 20, 2014 | null | ['India'] |
snes-04379 | Senator Ted Cruz is scheduled to speak at the 2016 Democratic National Convention. | false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ted-cruz-speak-dnc/ | null | Junk News | null | Dan Evon | null | Ted Cruz Will Speak at Democratic National Convention | 25 July 2016 | null | ['Ted_Cruz', 'Democratic_National_Convention'] |
tron-03583 | The Sober Worm Virus | none | https://www.truthorfiction.com/sober-worm-virus/ | null | virus | null | null | null | The Sober Worm Virus | Mar 17, 2015 | null | ['None'] |
snes-02024 | Chester Bennington and Chris Cornell were murdered because they were about to reveal a ring of pedophiles. | false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/chester-bennington-and-chris-cornell-murdered/ | null | Uncategorized | null | Bethania Palma | null | Were Chester Bennington and Chris Cornell Murdered to Cover Up a Pedophile Ring? | 21 July 2017 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-08885 | When Atlanta Police Chief George Turner was interim head of the department, overall crime fell 14 percent and violent crime dropped 22.7 percent. | mostly false | /georgia/statements/2010/aug/01/kasim-reed/atlanta-mayor-said-city-posted-big-crime-drops-whe/ | George Turner won his post as Atlanta police chief after a whirlwind of accomplishment. By the time Mayor Kasim Reed announced Turner's nomination July 9, the veteran city cop had spent seven months as the department's interim leader. Under his command, officers were closing more cases, Reed said. Recruitment was up. Best of all, crime was down. Way down. Overall, it dropped 14 percent from the same period last year, according to a July 9 press release from the mayor's office announcing Turner's selection. Property crime sank 12.3 percent. And the reduction in violent crime was even more dramatic, according to the press release: 22.7 percent. That's why Reed decided he needed to keep Turner as head of the Atlanta Police Department, the release said. "The results we are seeing suggest we are moving in the right direction and I want to build on the progress we have made," the release quoted Reed as saying. The City Council approved Turner unanimously last Tuesday. A nearly 23 percent drop in violent crime? PolitiFact Georgia decided to take a deeper look. Reducing crime was one of Reed's central campaign promises. He tapped Turner to help him fulfill it. Nationally, crime is at historic lows. Violent crime dropped across the country by 5.5 percent in 2009, according to Federal Bureau of Investigation figures. In Atlanta last year, it fell 14 percent. Police don't control broad crime-producing factors such as city demographics or the economy, but researchers have demonstrated that certain law enforcement strategies can cut crime. The mayor's press release gives the impression that the crime calculations are based upon a monthly report compiled by Atlanta police with data that they send to the FBI. The FBI uses the numbers to issue the agency's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), which give yearly and semiannual snapshots of crime nationwide. The press release cited the UCR figures from April, about two months before Reed nominated Turner as the Atlanta's new chief. A PolitiFact Georgia analysis shows the mayor's crime numbers don't add up. The city's own figures don't match the press release. One problem is that the press release understated the actual drop in overall crime and property crime, which were 16 percent and 17 percent, according to the UCR data. The bigger problem is that the city overstated the drop in violent crime -- murders, rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults. It fell only 16 percent. That's about one-third less than the 22.7 percent the mayor took credit for. Violent crimes tend to worry people the most, so PolitiFact Georgia decided to do more checking. Police provided crime numbers to PolitiFact Georgia from their Command Operation Briefings to Revitalize Atlanta program. Commanders regularly use COBRA data to analyze crime trends. These numbers are slightly different from UCR figures because the FBI asks agencies to calculate crime in a very specific way. But if crime drops dramatically by one measure, the second should show a similar decrease. We reviewed the COBRA figures from Jan. 4, when Turner started as interim chief, through July 9, when Reed announced he wanted him to be the permanent head. They show overall and property crime were down by roughly the same amount as the release stated: 13 percent and 14 percent. But the news the COBRA figures held for violent crime was even worse than what the UCR indicated. That category dropped 11 percent. That's less than half what the mayor's office said. So why the major difference? The mayor's press release used a different set of figures: "rolling monthly averages," a spokeswoman said. It's a way of organizing data to smooth out unusual crime spikes or drops that can obscure an overall trend. For instance, to get December 2009's rolling monthly average, you'd average the UCR crime totals from January 2009 through December 2009. The mayor's office determined violent crime dropped 22.7 percent by comparing averages from April 2009 and April 2010. The problem is that April 2010 rolling monthly averages incorporate crime dynamics that were in play as far back as May 2009, well before Turner was interim chief. A spokeswoman for the mayor's office acknowledges they didn't use the proper figures and said they will in the future cite COBRA and UCR data when they discuss crime trends in public. The mayor's office also noted another problem: The 22.7 number was wrong. It should be a 16 percent decrease. After PolitiFact Georgia questioned City Hall about the numbers, they realized they entered the data incorrectly. Still, city spokeswoman Sonji Jacobs Dade said that this is a good-size decline. "We think those numbers really do represent a significant decrease in crime since January 2010," Dade said. Where does this leave us? The nearly 23 percent drop in violent crime was among Reed's key arguments for making Turner the city's new police chief. It appeared repeatedly in news accounts as evidence of his qualifications. If you zero in on the precise dates between Turner's appointment as interim chief and the announcement of his selection, violent crime dropped only 11 percent. Furthermore, the city acknowledged that the "rolling monthly average" method cited was not the most appropriate one to use when officials talk to the public about crime. Despite the city's mathematical errors, the fact remains that crime is down. But this doesn't erase the fact that the city got the violent crime statistic wrong. And it used the wrong type of data to begin with. We rate Reed's statement 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 | Kasim Reed | null | null | null | 2010-08-01T06:00:00 | 2010-07-09 | ['None'] |
tron-02063 | The power of a smile and unconditional acceptance at McDonald’s | unproven! | https://www.truthorfiction.com/smiles/ | null | inspirational | null | null | null | The power of a smile and unconditional acceptance at McDonald’s | Mar 17, 2015 | null | ['None'] |
tron-00899 | Email about a PayPal Class Action Settlement | truth! | https://www.truthorfiction.com/paypalsettle/ | null | computers | null | null | null | Email about a PayPal Class Action Settlement | Mar 17, 2015 | null | ['None'] |
goop-01640 | Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt Did Split Over Kids’ Education, | 0 | https://www.gossipcop.com/angelina-jolie-brad-pitt-split-kids-education/ | null | null | null | Holly Nicol | null | Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt Did NOT Split Over Kids’ Education, Despite Report | 11:30 am, February 6, 2018 | null | ['Angelina_Jolie'] |
tron-02808 | President’s Lack Of Jewelry During Ramadan is a Sign That He Must Be a Muslim | fiction! | https://www.truthorfiction.com/obama-ring-watch-muslim/ | null | obama | null | null | null | President’s Lack Of Jewelry During Ramadan is a Sign That He Must Be a Muslim | Mar 17, 2015 | null | ['None'] |
hoer-00058 | Ice Water Can Cause Dangerous Bloating in Dogs | bogus warning | https://www.hoax-slayer.com/ice-water-harmful-dogs-myth.shtml | null | null | null | Brett M. Christensen | null | Myth Ice Water Can Cause Dangerous Bloating in Dogs | July 11, 2013 | null | ['None'] |
snes-05760 | Various rumors about the Target chain of retail stores (see below). | mostly false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rumors-about-target/ | null | Uncategorized | null | David Mikkelson | null | Rumors About Target | 4 November 2002 | null | ['None'] |
snes-04075 | Hillary Clinton wore a 'secret earpiece' at NBC's Commander-In-Chief forum. | false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-secret-earpiece/ | null | Fauxtography | null | Dan Evon | null | Hillary Clinton Wore ‘Secret Earpiece’ During Commander-in-Chief Forum | 8 September 2016 | null | ['NBC'] |
thet-00072 | Does Scotland attract only four per cent of the UK’s immigrants? | none | https://theferret.scot/scotland-attracts-four-percent-uk-immigrants/ | null | Fact check Politics | null | null | null | Does Scotland attract only four per cent of the UK’s immigrants? | May 26, 2017 | null | ['None'] |
tron-01203 | Muslim Protest Pictures From London | truth! & fiction! | https://www.truthorfiction.com/london-pictures/ | null | crime-police | null | null | null | Muslim Protest Pictures From London | Mar 17, 2015 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-07108 | When the union says I want to eliminate tenure, that’s not true. | half-true | /new-jersey/statements/2011/jun/21/chris-christie/gov-chris-christie-says-he-doesnt-want-eliminate-t/ | In the ongoing war of words between Gov. Chris Christie and the New Jersey Education Association, the governor is accusing the teachers union of distorting his proposals for tenure. "So when the union says I want to eliminate tenure that’s not true," Christie said during a speech to students and professors at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. "Here’s what I want to do with tenure. Based on this evaluation system I want to say after three years where you are judged either effective or highly effective you get tenure and then for every year thereafter where you are rated effective or highly effective you keep tenure and keep all the job protections that go along with tenure. But if you have two years in a row of partially effective or one year of ineffective you lose your tenure rights." Once a teacher loses tenure, Christie said, he or she could earn it again with "three consecutive years of being rated effective or highly effective." For this Truth-O-Meter item, we're assessing Christie's claim that his proposal does not abolish tenure. We found it hinges on how the word is defined. We need to begin by pointing out the governor's contradiction on the issue. In his State of the State address in January, the governor said, "the time to eliminate teacher tenure is now." But now, Christie says he does not want to eliminate tenure -- he wants teachers evaluated annually to keep it. But can that still be called tenure? No, said the NJEA. Spokesman Steve Baker said Christie’s proposal "is not tenure" because that’s not how tenure is defined by state statute. But Frank Belluscio, a spokesman for the New Jersey School Boards Association, which has been more supportive of Christie's proposal, had a more nuanced view. He called it "renewable tenure." A Christie spokesman declined to elaborate, but pointed us to a package of proposals that say they "fundamentally reform the state’s tenure system." The New Jersey statute that governs the requirements for tenure, 18A:28-5, states that after three consecutive years of employment with a school district, teachers "shall be under tenure during good behavior and efficiency and they shall not be dismissed or reduced in compensation except for inefficiency, incapacity, or conduct unbecoming such a teaching staff member or other just cause." So the law specifies that continued good behavior is necessary to keep tenure. Another statute states that when a school board reduces the number of teaching staff members, "dismissals … shall be made on the basis of seniority." We found that tenure means different things to different sources -- even dictionaries: Merriam-Webster: ". . . a status granted after a trial period to a teacher that gives protection from summary dismissal." Cambridge dictionary: " . . . the right to remain permanently in a job." Several other dictionaries say tenure is the holding of an office and a guarantee of permanent employment after a probationary period. The definition gets murkier when politics enter the fray. Christie pointedly defined tenure in his Harvard speech as "a job for life after three years and one day," a sarcastic line that suggests there is no process for dismissing teachers found to be incompetent. But Baker, the union spokesman, said, "Tenure is not a job for life. Never has been. Never intended to be ... Tenure is a fair dismissal process." PolitiFact New Jersey also contacted some professors for an independent take on whether Christie's plan can still be called tenure. The consensus was that Christie's plan dramatically changes the program, but that some aspects of tenure would remain in place. "Tenure is a status that one attains after a period of probation that grants someone the right to remain in that job given good performance and, of course, with due process," said Ada Beth Cutler, dean of the College of Education and Human Services at Montclair State University. "The tenure system as we know it now is going to be eliminated" if Christie’s proposals become law, she said. "But tenure isn’t going to be eliminated." Joseph DePierro, dean of Seton Hall’s College of Education and Human Services, called tenure "due process on steroids." He says the governor is "playing a funny game with tenure. It sort of eliminates it, but doesn’t quite eliminate it." Bruce Baker, an associate professor at the Rutgers Graduate School of Education and no relation to the NJEA’s Steve Baker, said tenure, as it exists, is "the assumption of ‘continuous contract’ given satisfactory performance of job duties." Whether or not Christie’s proposals change the definition of tenure, Bruce Baker wrote in an e-mail, "it certainly alters job security in significant ways, and does so with no counterbalancing proposal for significant increases in wages or other benefits." For Jeffrey Keefe, an associate professor at Rutgers University’s School of Management and Labor Relations and a research associate for the liberal Economic Policy Institute, the definition of tenure hinges on the "last in, first out" system, which would be eliminated under Christie's plan. "Once you take the seniority clause out, it falls out of my definition of tenure. It becomes pretty meaningless then," Keefe said. So to recap: There is no consensus. The dictionaries don’t agree. And Christie and the NJEA certainly aren’t on the same page. The only agreement is that Christie’s proposal eliminates tenure as it is now defined in New Jersey. Some said it's reasonable to call that a form of tenure, while others said the word doesn't apply any more. The governor said his plan doesn't eliminate tenure. But given that experts disagree about how to characterize his plan, we rate the governor’s statement Half True. To comment on this ruling, go to NJ.com. | null | Chris Christie | null | null | null | 2011-06-21T05:15:00 | 2011-04-29 | ['None'] |
pomt-04512 | Says Eric Cantor voted to assure Congress would be paid if the government shut down and against guaranteeing troops would be paid. | pants on fire! | /virginia/statements/2012/oct/04/wayne-powell/wayne-powell-says-eric-cantor-voted-protect-his-pa/ | Wayne Powell, the Democratic challenger for the 7th Congressional District, portrayed incumbent Eric Cantor as serving his own interests during an Oct. 1 debate. Cantor, a Republican, is the majority leader of the House of Representatives. Powell held Cantor responsible for fueling a budget impasse with Democrats in April 2011 that came within a day of shutting down the government. Powell was emotional when his chance came to ask Cantor a prepared question. "This is for my son," he said. Powell’s son is an Army major who has served in Afghanistan. Then he turned to Cantor. "Last year when you and the president were in a budget standoff that threatened to shut down the federal government, you voted to continue paying members of Congress, including yourself, in the event of a shutdown," Powell told the majority leader. "At the same time, you voted against a bill which would have -- it would ensure -- that members of the armed services continue to get paid. "My question is this, Eric: How could you in good conscience vote to continue your own pay but, at the same vote to stop paying our servicemen and women that you voted to send into combat in Afghanistan?" We decided to check Powell’s facts, which Cantor said were wrong. Powell’s campaign backed the claim by pointing us to two procedural votes held during heated debates on spending. We’ll take a look at each. Military pay On April 7, 2011, President Barack Obama and Republican leaders were in tense budget negotiations one day before a government shutdown deadline. The GOP was demanding billions in spending cuts in return for passing an appropriations bill. Obama vowed to veto any legislation that contained what he said were harsh GOP demands for cuts in social programs and an end to federal funding for Planned Parenthood. The Republican-led House sought to ease the pressure that day by proposing a one-week appropriations bill. The legislation would have funded the Department of Defense for a longer time -- through the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30. Republicans called the measure a "troop funding bill." Democrats were not to be outdone. During floor debate, they said there was no guarantee Obama would sign the measure. Rep. Bill Owens, D-N.Y., offered an amendment that would ensure troops would continue to be paid if the government closed. Owens never explained how he expected to protect military pay by offering an amendment to a bill he said was likely to be vetoed. Rep. Harold Rogers, R-Ky., denounced the motion as "purely a political gesture." Rogers said the GOP bill, which he sponsored, already provided "the essential funds for our men and women who are in harm’s way." Cantor voted against Owens’ motion, along with all but one Republican. But he was in the 247-181 majority, including 15 Democrats, who voted for the underlying bill. So did Cantor really vote against a bill that would have ensured troops get paid, as Powell said? No. Congressional pay On April 1, 2011, House Republicans passed a bill directing that its version of budget become law if the Senate did not act on it by April 6. This appeared to violate the U.S. Constitution, which says that both chambers must approve bills before they can become law. The measure included a provision that would deny pay to members of Congress and the president if a shutdown occurred. This was major public relations point because members of Congress get paid during a shutdown, while most other federal employees do not. Some Republicans pointed out that, under the constitution, congressional pay cannot be reduced in the middle of a term. To allay concerns, other Republicans suggested they could be paid retroactively when the shutdown ended, like the rest of the federal workforce. Democrats upped the stakes, seeking an amendment that would bar retro payments to Congress. Then they got a surprise. Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., revealed an email he had received from Obama’s Department of Justice questioning the constitutionality of the Democrats’ motion. The amendment was defeated on a partisan 236-187 vote. Cantor and all but one Republican voted against it. Cantor then voted for the underlying bill, which included the problematic ban on paying Congress during a shutdown. It passed the House but died in the Senate. Both measures -- as dubious as they were -- were attempts to erase the pay protection for congress members in the event of a government shutdown. So to say Cantor was out to protect his paycheck is a big stretch. A final note The Democratic amendments at issue were "motions to recommit," a prerogative of the minority party since the 1st Congress. They are motions, often procedural, to send a bill back to a committee just before a floor vote on passage of the legislation is held. Both parties, when in the minority, have these motions to "make political statements and try to embarrass the majority for partisan advantage," according to David Wolfensberger, an expert on parliamentary rules and former Republican staffer on the House Rules Committee. Our ruling Powell said that Cantor, during the threat of a government shutdown last year, voted to ensure Congress would continue to be paid and against offering the same protection to members of the military. But Powell got it backwards. Cantor, during a period of high political gamesmanship, supported Republican legislation that, in the event of shutdown, would have continued military pay and withheld paychecks for Congress members. He simply opposed two procedural efforts by Democrats that would have given them some bragging rights. Powell’s charge was not off-the-cuff. It came during a portion of a debate when he got to ask Cantor a direct question. Powell, in comments leading up to his query, said he’d given plenty of thought to what he’d ask. That suggests he had time to check all the facts. Powell should take heat for ridiculously distorting Cantor’s votes. So we give his statement our lowest rating -- Pants on Fire. | null | Wayne Powell | null | null | null | 2012-10-04T06:00:00 | 2012-10-01 | ['United_States_Congress', 'Eric_Cantor'] |
pose-00853 | Currently, the U.S. Marshal’s office for the Northern District of Ohio spends millions of dollars a year to house and transport federal prisoners to correctional facilities outside Cuyahoga County. By increasing capacity in local jails through more efficient processing of criminal cases, these prisoners could remain in Cuyahoga County’s detention facilities. This simultaneously saves money in transportation costs for the U.S. Marshal’s office while providing a consistent revenue stream for local law enforcement agencies. | not yet rated | https://www.politifact.com/ohio/promises/fitz-o-meter/promise/885/generate-revenue-by-housing-federal-prisoners/ | null | fitz-o-meter | Ed FitzGerald | null | null | Generate revenue by housing federal prisoners | 2011-01-20T13:56:11 | null | ['Ohio'] |
pomt-14161 | Research even shows that sending more girls to school can boost an entire country’s GDP. | mostly true | /global-news/statements/2016/apr/29/michelle-obama/michelle-obama-research-shows-educating-girls-can-/ | Among the causes First Lady Michelle Obama has championed during her time in the White House is improving the lot of girls and women worldwide. About a year ago, Obama helped kick off Let Girls Learn, an interagency effort focused on educating adolescent girls. "Studies from the World Bank show that one extra year of secondary school can increase a girl's future income by 15 to 25 percent," Obama said in an interview with a U.S. Agency for International Development publication. "And we know that when girls are educated, they are less likely to contract HIV, more likely to delay childbearing and vaccinate their children, and have lower maternal and infant mortality rates. Research even shows that sending more girls to school can boost an entire country’s GDP." We’ve seen that claim about educating girls and a rising GDP before. Is it true? Largely, yes. Research does show that a higher percentage of girls in school correlates with a higher gross domestic product. But those findings are much more limited than many people understand. Behind all the research, there’s uncertainty about whether a stronger economy leads to more girls in school, or if more girls in school leads to a stronger economy. No single rule applies everywhere. A stronger economy, for instance, provides both the resources and incentives to educate more women, who go to school, earn more and boost the economy a little higher. But it doesn’t always work that way. In the Middle East and North Africa, more women might be educated but for social and religious reasons, they can’t work, or must work in jobs that don’t fully reward their level of education. And the biggest sticking point is that what’s been called the "girl effect" seems to be much stronger in middle-income countries. For poorer nations, the effect is more muted. A few key studies and cautions The White House press office backed up the First Lady’s claim by citing policy reports that declared that educating girls and young women would boost a country’s economy. One from the World Bank said "By effectively educating more women -- that is, providing more women with a high-quality education -- more will enter the labor market, and the economy will show the favorable results." Those reports didn’t actually give the underlying research, so we’ll cover the highlights. • A 2009 article in the journal Feminist Economics compared regions of the world and measured gender gaps in both education and employment. That’s worth noting because, while the two generally go hand-in-hand, they are separate. You can educate girls, but if companies won’t hire them, a lot of the economic benefit is lost. This study’s bottom line was that between 1960 and 2000, East Asia’s growth rate was .9 percent higher than the region of the Middle East-North Africa. The difference was due to the higher fraction of girls in school in East Asia. • A 2011 World Bank study took 14 countries and teased out what would happen if every girl finished whatever level of school she was in -- either primary or secondary. Not surprisingly, the economic impact depended hugely on a country’s starting point. India and China, for example, had very low rates of girls not completing school, while on the opposite end, places like Burundi and Senegal had dropout rates over 80 percent. So the study found that getting girls and young women to complete a given level of schooling added a "barely noticeable" amount in India and China, while in the other countries, researchers predicted a hefty rise. One important contribution of this research is it factored in the diminishing returns of educating more women. When more people hit the job market, it tends to drive wages down. There’s still a net gain, but in this study, earnings could be about 20 percent less than you might expect. Tuck that point away and keep it in mind for the next landmark analysis on our list. It provided advocacy groups with a talking point that has gone viral. • In a 1999 World Bank paper Gender inequality, income and growth: Are good times good for women?, economists David Dollar and Roberta Gatti worked with data on 100 nations. The finding that gained the most traction was that "in the countries with higher initial education, an increase of 1 percentage point in the share of adult women with secondary school education implies an increase in per capita income growth of 0.3 percentage points." That might seem like a simple equation, but it actually makes two points that are often overlooked. The economic growth took place only in middle-income countries that already had a higher rate of educating women. "For the poorer half of the observations, there is no relationship between female attainment and income," the authors wrote. The other generally ignored element is that the 1 percent increase in educated women applies to completing secondary education. Simply putting more girls in classrooms at any grade level wouldn’t necessarily deliver the same results. You have to get the girls all the way through high school. Specifics are important when measuring education gains Here’s where many organizations, including USAID, get into trouble. They say -- right now on their website -- that "if 10 percent more girls attend school, a country’s GDP increases by an average of 3 percent." That statement has three flaws. First, it treats all nations the same, whether they are low income or middle income. Second, it treats all education the same, whether it’s primary or secondary. Perhaps most troubling is it scales up the original equation by a factor of 10. Dollar, now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told us that doing that "is a bit risky." "You would expect diminishing returns," he said. Which takes us back to that 2011 World Bank study we tucked away. It predicted wages would be about 20 percent lower than you would expect. Less money in women’s pockets means less economic activity, and less economic growth. Our ruling Michelle Obama said that research shows that sending girls to school can boost a country’s entire economy. That’s a fairly broad statement and broadly speaking, it’s accurate. Research from economists at the World Bank and elsewhere suggest that it’s possible that educating more girls produces a stronger economy. But researchers can’t say whether it’s the education of girls that leads to growth, or the growth that leads to more education of women. Plus, women can hit roadblocks in the job market even if they are educated. The research shows that, too. Obama’s statement is accurate but it needs additional information. We rate this claim Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/54777662-509d-4e5b-8347-fbf9e3d7ebbc | null | Michelle Obama | null | null | null | 2016-04-29T12:13:57 | 2016-03-21 | ['None'] |
hoer-00059 | Warning Claims Deadly Swine Flu Epidemic in South Africa | bogus warning | https://www.hoax-slayer.com/south-african-swine-flu-warning-hoax.shtml | null | null | null | Brett M. Christensen | null | Hoax Warning Claims Deadly Swine Flu Epidemic in South Africa | July 4, 2013 | null | ['None'] |
goop-02097 | Andrew Garfield Gave Claire Foy “Silent Treatment” On Set Of ‘Breathe’? | 0 | https://www.gossipcop.com/andrew-garfield-silent-treatment-claire-foy-on-set-breathe/ | null | null | null | Holly Nicol | null | Andrew Garfield Gave Claire Foy “Silent Treatment” On Set Of ‘Breathe’? | 3:48 am, December 4, 2017 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-09370 | The average student will be spending $1,700 to $1,800 more during the life of their loan because of this surcharge. | false | /truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/30/lindsey-graham/new-bill-doesnt-alter-interest-rate/ | Oddly enough, student loans have become part of the health care debate. Tucked into the package of health care "fixes" passed by Congress is a provision that would eliminate government subsidies to private lenders and expand federal lending to students. Republicans, including South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, aren't keen on the development. He says the government is effectively taking over the student loan process and that students will actually end up paying more for their loans as a result. "The average student will be spending $1,700 to $1,800 more during the life of their loan because of this surcharge," Graham said on the March 24, 2010, episode of On the Record with Greta Van Susteren. "From the students' point of view, it's going to cost you $1,700 to $1,800 more to pay your student loan off, and all the money goes to the federal government." Graham's statement deserves a little background on how students have been getting loans to pay for their education. At some schools, students go directly to the U.S. Department of Education for their loan. But at others, students go through a private lender to get the same assistance. For nearly 45 years, the government has been paying private lending services to administer loans granted through the Federal Family Education Loan program. But the package of fixes, which President Barack Obama has signed, eliminates those payments and expands direct federal lending to students through the Department of Education. According to the House Education and Labor Committee, the effort will save $61 billion over 10 years, with a good chunk of that savings being used to expand current federal student lending programs, including Pell Grants. Approximately $9 billion will be used to offset some of the health care bill's cost. Graham's reasoning has to do with interest rates. In the same interview, he said that the Education Department borrows money for the loans from the Treasury Department at an interest rate of 2.6 percent. But students will then have to pay 6.4 percent in interest on those loans. In fact, Graham is slightly off here; the government borrows money at a rate of 2.8 percent while students pay interest at a rate of 6.8 percent on unsubsidized government loans. (Subsidized loans have a lower interest rate.) Furthermore, the interest rate the Education Department pays on money it borrows from the Treasury varies, and can be larger in the long run. But regardless, Graham's underlying point is this: As a result of the health care bill, the government will be making more of a profit off the interest students pay on student loans than it did before. We called and e-mailed Graham's office repeatedly for sourcing on his claim, but our inquiries were unanswered. Apparently Graham's numbers come from an amendment offered by Tennessee Republican Lamar Alexander during the Senate's debate over a package of fixes. His amendment would have forced the chamber to send the bill back to committee and amend it to reduce interest rates on student loans by 1.5 percent, from 6.8 percent to 5.3 percent. That interest rate reduction would have saved students in Tennessee upwards of $1,700 to $1,800 in interest over 10 years, according to Alexander. But those numbers were specific to Tennessee, and Alexander was making the point that lowering the interest rate on student loans could save students money in the long run. But beyond those two points, we take issue with the fact that Graham leaves out the important detail that the new bill does not change the interest rate students pay on their loans, according to the education policy experts we spoke with. "This bill does not change interest rates in any way shape or form," said Jason Delisle, director of the Federal Education Budget Project for the Education Policy Program for the New America Foundation. "They are already in law and they're going to stay that way." So to say that students are somehow paying $1,700 or $1,800 more is wrong. Before Congress voted to eliminate subsidies for the Federal Family Education Loan, students paid 6.8 percent on their unsubsidized federal loans. Now that the bill is passed, students will still pay 6.8 percent interest on those loans. There is no "surcharge" in the bill, as Graham says. We rate this claim False. | null | Lindsey Graham | null | null | null | 2010-03-30T13:20:20 | 2010-03-24 | ['None'] |
tron-02944 | Kim Clement Prophesied Donald Trump’s Presidency, “Trumpet of God” | unproven! | https://www.truthorfiction.com/kim-clement-prophesied-donald-trumps-presidency/ | null | politics | null | null | ['donald trump', 'presidencies'] | Kim Clement Prophesied Donald Trump’s Presidency, “Trumpet of God” | Feb 7, 2017 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-07934 | Says required state septic inspections would cost septic tank owners $100 to $150 every five years. | half-true | /florida/statements/2011/jan/27/dennis-jones/florida-septic-tank-inspections/ | Members of the state Legislature who resoundingly voted in 2010 to require people to have their septic tanks inspected once every five years now say the new law -- sorry for the pun -- stinks. The idea, to help prevent sewage from leaking out of septic tanks and into the state groundwater system, isn't the problem, they say. It's the cost to septic tank owners that worries legislators. They agreed in November to push back the implementation of the bill from Jan. 1, 2011, until July 1, 2011, to delay any fiscal impact on septic tank owners. And now, the entire proposal appears to be -- okay, last pun -- circling the drain. A Senate committee debated reversing many of the requirements on Jan. 26, 2011, less than a year after the initial legislation passed. State Sen. Charlie Dean, R-Inverness, who voted for the inspection requirement but is now leading a fight to have it removed or replaced, said the law has been met with almost "unanimous disapproval," and that many septic tank owners are not in areas where they would affect water quality, anyway. Sen. Nancy Detert, R-Venice, another 'Yes' vote in 2010, said the requirement is unnecessary. If someone's septic tank breaks, they'll have it fixed, she said. "The previous incarnation of this legislation started out to protect the springs," Detert said. "It became a huge overreach and overrun." But Sen. Dennis Jones, R-Treasure Island, said he saw merits in the law (which he voted for, too, by the way). The inspection will help keep sewage from entering the state water system. It will keep homeowners' septic tanks in better shape. And it can serve a public good. On top of all that, Jones said, the cost is marginal. "I don't think it's that expensive to spend $100 to $150 every five years," he said. Does all this talk and concern really boil down to $30 a year? PolitiFact Florida decided to find out. Septic tanks largely unchecked The septic tank inspection requirement seemed to be controversial from the moment it was approved and signed into law on June 4, 2010, by then-Gov. Charlie Crist. According to the Department of Health, there are more than 2.6 million septic sewage systems in Florida serving about a third of the state's population. But less than 1 percent of the state's systems -- about 17,000 -- are being inspected and serviced by licensed maintenance professionals. In most cases, septic systems are only checked or serviced when they fail. And more than half of the state's septic systems are at least 30 years old. Leaky septic tanks have been identified by health and environmental officials as major sources of water pollution. So a group of legislators worked for several years to try to force inspections. The law that finally passed in 2010 attempted to mute concerns over cost. It requires inspections every five years (the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency suggests an inspection every three to five years), creates a grant program for low-income homeowners and allows certain homeowners to request a one-time, one-year inspection extension. "Pay a little bit now or all of us will pay a whole lot later," said former state Sen. Lee Constantine, R-Altamonte Springs, who was behind the 2010 law. But concerns over the cost to homeowners quickly escalated. The Legislature passed a measure to stall implementation of the law during a November special session, and then waited until Gov. Rick Scott took office to send the bill to the governor's office to prevent a possible veto from Crist. Scott allowed the delay to become law without his signature. "I applaud Governor Scott for allowing Senate Bill 2A to become law," Senate Majority Leader Andy Gardiner, R-Orlando, who voted for the original 2010 law, said in a statement. "This decisive step postpones the implementation of septic tank inspection regulations, enabling lawmakers to analyze whether or not such a mandate is necessary and saving taxpayer dollars in the meantime." Interestingly, a state Senate analysis found that the inspection requirement would create hundreds "if not thousands" of private sector jobs because of a shortage of certified septic tank inspectors. The Department of Health estimated that annual septic tank inspections would grow from 17,000 a year to 500,000. The cost of an inspection All this leads to the main point of this fact check -- just how much would an inspection cost? Jones said the cost of the inspection is between $100 and $150, to be paid once every five years. But we found references to the inspection costing $500. And then other references to $200. In an interview with PolitiFact Florida, Jones said he used information from the Department of Health for his estimate. But he believed the number might even be high. He said he spoke with people who believe that an influx of new private inspectors will naturally drive down costs because of increased competition. Michelle Dahnke, a health department spokeswoman, said private contractors would do the inspections. The department estimated an inspection would cost $150, she said, but that contractors ultimately would set the price and compete for business. We then asked two private-sector experts to talk about the cost of an inspection. Ellen Vause, president of Florida Septic Inc. in Hawthorne, said the cost of the inspection will depend on what the state actually requires and where the septic tank is located. Vause said that a standard inspection, which would include pumping out sewage from a septic tank system, costs $150 to $300 now in North Florida, and $200 to $350 in South Florida. The main difference, Vause said, is the cost to dispose of the sludge. But Vause said she would expect costs to drop if more inspections were required because contractors could do several inspections in the same neighborhood on the same day, saving on transportation and disposal costs. Bob Himschoot, a member of the Florida Onsite Wastewater Association and an owner of a septic tank contracting company in Fort Myers, pegged the cost slightly higher -- between $325 and $500. The cost includes the labor cost of a technician, who must be qualified to drive a commercial vacuum truck, equipment cost and the cost to dispose of the waste. The cost of the inspection is only one part of the problem, though. The worry is that the inspector finds something wrong. It's like going to the car mechanic for an oil change. You find out your brakes need fixing. Your wheels are out of alignment. Your tires are wearing thin. (And dollar signs dance through your head.) That's exactly the point of the 2010 law, of course, to identify problems to keep contaminants from seeping into the ground. The Department of Health, in draft rules, would require septic tank owners to repair tanks that are cracked and replace systems where sewage is flowing directly into the ground. Should your system need to replaced entirely -- systems generally last between 20 and 30 years -- that will cost $5,000 to $7,500 on average. "It's just another thing for the government to get mixed up with when they have no business sticking their nose in there," said Ralph Pohl, 77, who installed a septic tank 18 years ago at his home in Seacrest in the Panhandle and hasn't had it inspected once. Pohl reports no problems with his system. "I have no problem with someone coming and taking a look if there's any seepage or things like that," he said. "To force an inspector to come out and dig out a perfectly operating septic tank -- I don't see the point. If they're working, there's no problem. If they're not working, the homeowner is going to have to do something." There's another obvious, but critical point to consider when talking about the cost of a septic tank inspection. People using septic tanks don't pay for a central sewer system. People without septic tanks do. We did some math for three areas -- St. Petersburg in Pinellas County, Lakeland in Polk County, and the residents of Marion County -- and found that the typical sewer system customer will pay $375-$400 a year for sewer service in those three areas. Septic tank users would pay nothing. Over five years, that's $1,875-$2,000 in sewer charges versus nothing. "It's really a very inexpensive method compared to a central sewer system," Himschoot said. Our ruling In talking about making changes to a law requiring septic tank inspections once every five years, Sens. Dean and Detert didn't question the need to have properly functioning septic tanks but argued that the inspection itself was unnecessary for many people. Jones countered that the cost of the inspection alone isn't that great, especially when spread out over five years. Jones said an inspection would cost $100 to $150, citing a Department of Health estimate. Spread over five years, that's an investment of as little as $30 a year -- much less than homeowners with a central sewer system pay. But that's not telling the entire story. Experts we talked to said the price of an inspection could cost up to $500 and depends on a number of variables. On top of that, the inspection could result in finding problems that could require repairs at additional cost. That's obviously part of the intent of the bill, but it comes at a cost nevertheless. We think that's enough of difference to rate this claim Half True. | null | Dennis Jones | null | null | null | 2011-01-27T17:13:52 | 2011-01-26 | ['None'] |
pomt-05469 | Ron Oakley's "conservative leadership protected local taxpayers over government bureaucrats" as the Water Management District’s budget decreased by "58 percent in the four years he served on the board." | mostly false | /florida/statements/2012/apr/22/ron-oakley/ron-oakley-conservative-leadership-water-managemen/ | Ron Oakley acknowledges that in election years, a lot of candidates talk like conservatives. But if you believe a recent mailer from his campaign, he is a proven conservative with a record of reining in government. Need proof? Oakley, a Republican candidate for Pasco County commission, offers his time on the governing board of the Southwest Florida Water Management District. His mailer makes a pair of specific claims about his experience with the agency’s budget. It helps to quote at length: "Ron Oakley was a consistent voice and vote for lower taxes. Applying the principles he learned while leading his family businesses, Oakley voted to cut the District’s millage rate by 43 percent — from .687 to .392 mils." The mailer continues: "Ron Oakley voted to reduce the Water Management District’s budget by 58 percent in the four years he served on the board. His conservative leadership protected local taxpayers over government bureaucrats." There’s no doubt the agency’s spending has plummeted. Here, we are checking whether Oakley’s leadership resulted in those cuts. Can he take credit for cuts ordered by state officials? Oakley, an east Pasco citrus grower, joined the 13-member water district board in June 2007. The first budget he voted on was for Fiscal Year 2008. As a baseline for his claims, he used the previous budget, FY 2007, that was in place when he took office. Informally known as Swiftmud, the agency covers portions of 16 counties and at the time had eight water basins with different tax rates. For example, folks in Trinity or Pinellas County paid a total tax rate of 0.822 that year, or 82 cents in taxes for every $1,000 of assessed value. The tax rate for owners in Bradenton or Sarasota was only 0.582. Oakley, 66, used his hometown Withlacoochee River basin, covering northeast Pasco and parts of five other counties to the north. (That’s also the district for his opponent, incumbent Commissioner Ted Schrader.) That basin’s total tax rate was 0.687 that year, about average for the eight basins. The first budget Oakley voted on included a 0.617 tax rate for property owners in the Withlacoochee basin. That reduction was ordered by property tax legislation signed by Gov. Charlie Crist in June 2007. The rate was left unchanged for the next two years. In fall 2010, the board adopted a rate of 0.608. Then the world changed. Gov. Rick Scott was elected November 2010. His initial budget proposal — released in February 2011 — called for a 25 percent cut to Swiftmud’s property taxes. Then lawmakers sharpened their knives and ordered a 36 percent cut for Swiftmud, the largest cut of Florida’s five water districts. Scott signed the legislation requiring that cut. To shrink the budget that much, board members eliminated the basin districts, and their tax rates — more on that later. They later set a property tax rate of 0.392. Bottom-line budget figures tell a similar story. When Oakley took office, Swiftmud’s budget was $383 million. Oakley and other board members adopted a slightly larger budget the next year, $395 million. Even with a tax rate cut, the budget grew from higher property values and increased state money. The next three budgets were: $376.5 million (FY 2009); $298.9 million (FY 2010); and $279.8 (FY 2011). Thank plunging property values and reduced state spending for those cuts. Then Scott took office, ordered more cuts, and the budget plummeted to $155 million. That figure is 59.4 percent smaller than Oakley’s baseline budget. Darn close to his 58 percent claim. Oakley’s last meeting was May 24, 2011. He said he should get credit for that year’s budget cuts because he cast votes on preliminary versions of the budget. As with many local governments, key budget decisions are made early in the year. Details get ironed out closer to final passage in the fall. The governing board eliminated the basins during that May meeting. The majority of the budget cut came from wiping out the basins, though there was $41 million in unspent basin money included in the spending plan. The district also lost nearly all of its state funding. Several board members lamented the move, saying the basins were a vital conduit to local citizens on water issues. But it was clear a larger power was at play. "I guess it’s sort of like an edict from Tallahassee," said board member Todd Pressman, the lone dissenting vote on the plan. Added board member Jeff Adams: "It’s not something that was suggested. It’s been mandated, and it’s been forced to us." Oakley said board members had options. They could have removed all the basins. They could have consolidated them into three larger districts. They could have sliced more money from the overall agency budget. "We chose the option we thought was best," he said. However they found the money, board members still had to meet the 36 percent reduction. "We’ve already committed to the tax reductions," Deputy Executive Director Kurt Fritsch said during a budget workshop later in the meeting. "We have met the governor’s promises. The governor promised a tax reduction. He’s getting it." During an interview last week, Oakley said the board was considering cuts before the governor and lawmakers made their proposals. That’s true. The board in January approved a staff report calling for a drop in the district’s base tax rate. The report also suggested looking for "further opportunities" to reduce the basin tax rates. "The Legislature was sending us a message they wanted us to cut more," he said. "I don’t know many people that want to fight the Legislature." Oakley’s claims of eye-popping cuts to Swiftmud’s tax rate and budget are largely correct. And we’ll give him partial credit for "voting on" the budget in 2011, even though he only voted on a preliminary version and not the final product. But the bottom line is most of those eye-popping cuts came as Oakley was leaving office, and they were specifically ordered by Scott and the Legislature. For most of Oakley’s four years at Swiftmud, the agency saw much more modest budget reductions, thanks largely to declining state money and falling property values. Oakley’s statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. In this case, Tallahassee politicians should get the lion’s share of the credit for the 2011 cuts. We rate Oakley’s claim Mostly False. | null | Ron Oakley | null | null | null | 2012-04-22T06:00:00 | 2012-04-16 | ['None'] |
farg-00351 | Claims video corroborates its story that “police officers in Charlottesville believed the driver was not acting maliciously.” | false | https://www.factcheck.org/2017/08/driver-acting-self-defense/ | null | askfactcheck | FactCheck.org | Robert Farley | ['Charlottesville rally'] | Was Driver Acting in Self-Defense? | August 21, 2017 | 2017-08-21 22:26:51 UTC | ['None'] |
pomt-11681 | Trump vows to end winter heating assistance for elderly and disabled. | mostly false | /punditfact/statements/2018/jan/03/democrats-rising/headline-misleads-about-trumps-budget-proposal-and/ | President Donald Trump proposed eliminating a program to help millions of Americans heat or cool their homes, according to a viral story by a liberal website. "Trump vows to end winter heating assistance for elderly and disabled," stated the Nov. 26 headline by Democrats Rising, an anti-Trump website. Facebook users flagged the post as being potentially fabricated, as part of the social network’s efforts to combat fake news. We found that this story failed to tell the entire story: while Trump proposed getting rid of a heating assistance program several months ago, the federal government has continued to fund it. The Democrats Rising article, written as winter weather was setting in, misleads by stating that millions of households will be at risk of losing heat this winter. But that’s not what the facts show. Democrats Rising didn’t name the program, but it appears to be a reference to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), a program started in 1981. The program provides federal dollars to help poor people pay their home energy bill, energy crises, weatherization and energy-related minor home repairs. On average, the annual heating/winter crisis assistance benefit per household was $371 in fiscal year 2015. In March, Trump’s budget blueprint called for cutting money for several programs that help low-income Americans including LIHEAP. The document said that LIHEAP "is a lower-impact program and is unable to demonstrate strong performance outcomes." The budget request for the Administration for Children and Families stated that utility companies and state and local governments provide significant heating and cooling assistance and that the majority of states prohibit utilities from discontinuing heat during the winter. Trump’s proposal faced pushback from senators, including many in cold weather states. A bipartisan group of a few dozen senators wrote a letter in September urging the federal government to release funds for LIHEAP as quickly as possible under the continuing resolution. U.S. Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Jack Reed, D-R.I., led the bipartisan group to push for $3.39 billion, the same amount allocated in the previous fiscal year. On Sept. 8, Trump signed the continuing resolution to continue funding appropriations for a few months. That allowed the Department of Health and Human Services in October to release $3.03 billion for states, tribes and territories for the heating program for fiscal year 2018. That represents 90 percent of the funding available under the continuing appropriations act. We asked a spokeswoman for Health and Human Services when the remaining 10 percent will be provided. Trump’s proposed budget did not include funding for LIHEAP, Monique Richards said. Funding will be determined by the passage of appropriations legislation from Congress. In the past, the federal government has released 90 percent of the funding under a "seasonability exception," said Mark Wolfe, executive director of the National Energy Assistance Directors’ Association. "Because LIHEAP spends so early in the fiscal year, if funding was delayed it would cause a hardship to low-income families," he said. A spokesman for Trump did not respond to our questions. Our ruling Democrats Rising said that "Trump vows to end winter heating assistance for elderly and disabled." There is a kernel of truth in that headline, because Trump’s budget blueprint in March proposed eliminating LIHEAP. But Democrats Rising omits the final outcome: amid pushback from a bipartisan group of senators, the heating assistance program continued. In October, the federal government released $3 billion for the program. We rate this statement Mostly False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com | null | Democrats Rising | null | null | null | 2018-01-03T14:43:35 | 2017-11-26 | ['None'] |
pomt-01288 | As a result of Obamacare, "California seniors face benefit cuts of over $1,700." | false | /truth-o-meter/statements/2014/oct/31/american-crossroads/rove-pac-says-obamacare-cuts-1700-medicare-benefit/ | Even though Rep. Ami Bera, D-Calif., wasn’t in office when Obamacare passed, a pro-Republican ad in California’s seventh congressional district is using the law to attack him. Bera is running against Republican Doug Ose for a second term, and it’s a tight race. Less than six months into his first term, Bera voted against repealing the Affordable Care Act, and American Crossroads, Karl Rove’s conservative political action committee, used this fact to appeal to California seniors in a recent ad. "Bera voted to keep Obamacare, which cut $716 billion from Medicare, slashing Medicare Advantage," the ad’s narrator says. "Now California seniors face benefit cuts of over $1,700." Many times, we’ve rated the claim that there are $716 billion in Medicare cuts as Half True. But we hadn’t heard claims about specific benefit cuts by state before, so we decided to check it out. We found that the claim that California seniors will see $1,700 in benefit cuts as a result of the Affordable Care Act is misleading. The statistic comes from a report that ignores critical context and evidence that the law has expanded Medicare’s benefits packages. Advantages We should first note that the statistic comes from an April 2014 report by the American Action Forum, and they have a stake in the election. The American Action Forum is an arm of the American Action Network, which is a conservative political nonprofit with financial ties to the Koch brothers. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the group shares office space with American Crossroads -- the group that produced the very ad we’re checking. Now to the claim. The ad makes it sound like all California seniors will face cuts to this degree. However, the report only addresses Medicare Advantage. About one-third of seniors use Medicare Advantage, which is a private coverage option. Medicare Advantage plans are required to provide at minimum the same array of benefits as traditional Medicare. Many Advantage plans offer extra benefits -- things like gym memberships, vision exams or generous cost-sharing -- that have contributed to escalating program costs. The creators of Medicare Advantage thought that letting seniors choose plans from private insurance providers would be more cost-effective than traditional Medicare. But Advantage has turned out to be more expensive. Medicare paid insurers about 114 percent more for Advantage plans than for traditional plans, as of 2009 before enactment of the federal health care law. The law attempted to close that gap in part by gradually reducing how much Medicare pays Advantage plan providers. It was estimated that its changes would slow down spending on Medicare by about $716 billion over 10 years, and Medicare Advantage cost-saving measures accounted for about one-third of that. (Though the Obama administration has reversed these cuts for the past two years -- facing pressure from insurance providers, Republicans and some Democrats, including Bera.) Critics argue that the cuts will force insurance providers to reduce the benefits they offer to Medicare Advantage enrollees. However, Medicare Advantage plans are still required to offer, at minimum, the same level of benefits as traditional plans. And Obamacare includes language protecting that set of guaranteed benefits from shrinking. In fact, the law expanded Medicare’s required benefits to include certain preventative services, annual visits, closing a gap in prescription coverage and more. Additionally, the law rewards Medicare Advantage providers with financial bonuses to encourage quality and cost-efficiency. Providers are required to use the bonuses to offer extra benefits, attracting more enrollees. Nearly all Medicare Advantage plan providers received these bonuses in 2012, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. A matter of speculation It’s possible that Medicare Advantage providers could respond to their pay cut by reducing benefits, but the only benefits they could cut would be those extra benefits that go beyond Medicare plan requirements. "It's not automatic and won't affect every (Advantage) enrollee or any of the (traditional Medicare) enrollees," said Dylan Roby, an expert in health economics at the University of California Los Angeles Center for Health Policy Research. Insurance providers could also respond to lower payments by offering the same benefits while operating more efficiently. They could cut administrative costs, adjust cost-sharing plans, take in less profit or drop out of the market altogether. But, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the Department of Health and Human Services and more, insurance providers’ response to the cuts has been less dramatic than was expected when Obama signed the legislation in 2010. In fact, Medicare Advantage enrollment is at an all-time high, and the percentage of plans with four or more stars in the program’s five-star rating system is increasing. "When Congress debated the payment reductions in 2010, forecasters and analysts also projected that reductions would drive insurers to raise premiums, cut extra benefits and even pull out of the Medicare Advantage market," Kaiser experts wrote in May. "Thus far, however, the response by insurers to the (Affordable Care Act) cuts has been more muted." Health and Human Services reported in fall 2013 that "The average number of plan choices will remain about the same in 2014 and access to supplemental benefits remains stable. Since passage of the Affordable Care Act, average MA premiums are down by 9.8 percent." Experts also told us that they haven’t seen evidence of reduced Medicare Advantage cuts. "The evidence is that plan participation has been stable, premiums have been stable or even a little bit lower, and there are no overall changes in the benefits provided," said Jack Hoadley, a research professor at Georgetown University and a member of the nonpartisan Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. "In my view, the claims in this advertisement are misleading," Hoadley added. "Seniors have not faced benefit cuts in Medicare Advantage, even though the plans (and providers) have to manage with somewhat lower payments." So how did the American Action forum report come up with their estimated benefit cut figures? The American Action Forum report breaks down the reduction in Medicare payments to Advantage plan providers by state and county. It says, compared to pre-Obamacare, Medicare Advantage benefits in California are down $1,718 per beneficiary. We asked several experts to take a look at the report, and they told us that it is misleading because it assumes that Obamacare’s spending reductions directly results in reduced benefits. Yes, Obamacare reduces Medicare’s spending per Advantage beneficiary, but this does not necessarily mean fewer benefits for seniors with Advantage plans. Like we said before, there are multiple ways that an insurance provider can deal with the spending cuts other than slimming down its offerings. "To immediately treat it as a cut to benefits is an exaggeration," said Judith Feder, a professor of health policy at Georgetown University. Our ruling American Crossroads said that as a result of Obamacare, "California seniors face benefit cuts of over $1,700." First of all, this claim is misleading because it makes it seem like all seniors will face these cuts, when the statistic actually refers to Medicare Advantage enrollees -- only about one-third of seniors. The statistic comes from a report that assumes all reductions in Medicare Advantage spending results in fewer benefits for enrollees. While insurance providers feel the cuts, there are multiple ways for them to respond other than reducing benefits, such as trimming administrative costs. We heard from multiple experts and researchers who said Medicare Advantage benefits have remained stable. The ad also leaves out the fact that the federal health care law expanded Medicare’s minimum required benefits and established incentives for Advantage plans to provide extra benefits. It’s possible that some Medicare Advantage enrollees could see their benefits shrink, but this ad blows that possibility out of proportion and ignores important context. We rate this claim False. | null | American Crossroads | null | null | null | 2014-10-31T09:30:00 | 2014-10-28 | ['California'] |
hoer-01157 | Delta Air Like-Farming | facebook scams | https://www.hoax-slayer.net/delta-air-like-farming-scam/ | null | null | null | Brett M. Christensen | null | Delta Air Like-Farming Scam | March 17, 2016 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-02880 | They delayed my swearing-in here in Massachusetts for a couple weeks so they could ram (the health care law) through. | false | /punditfact/statements/2013/nov/12/scott-brown/scott-brown-says-opponents-delayed-his-swearing-pa/ | Former Massachusetts Republican U.S. Sen. Scott Brown took a stroll down memory lane Monday while talking about the health care law with Fox News’ Gretchen Carlson. Brown, who is now a Fox News contributor, claimed the architects of Obamacare delayed Brown’s swearing-in in 2010 to help "ram" the law through Congress. "They rammed it through before I got there, knowing I would be there in a week or two," Brown said on The Real Story with Gretchen Carlson. "They delayed my swearing-in here in Massachusetts for a couple weeks so they could ram it through and did not pass one amendment to make it better for the American people, and they should be held accountable." As Brown finished his point about his swearing-in, people watching could hear Carlson say, "I remember." But did she remember right? Brown was elected in a 2010 special election to finish the term of the late-Sen. Edward Kennedy. When Kennedy died on Aug. 25, 2009, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick appointed a Democrat, Paul Kirk, to hold his seat. State law requires a special election for federal seats to be held between 145 and 160 days of when the vacancy occurred -- or in the case of Kennedy’s seat somewhere between Jan. 17, 2010, and Feb. 1, 2010. Massachusetts’ election was Jan. 19, 2010, the first Tuesday in that window. Brown, who had campaigned on being the 41st vote against the health care legislation, defeated Democrat Martha Coakley by a vote of 52 percent to 47 percent. Brown’s victory did not mean he could just move to Capitol Hill and start casting votes the next day. Brown was sworn in Feb. 4, 2010, 16 days after his election. Was his swearing-in ceremony delayed? No. Cities and towns in Massachusetts have 15 days to send final results to the Massachusetts Secretary of State, including a 10-day window for counting absentee and overseas ballots. "It wasn’t delayed," said Brian McNiff, a spokesman for Secretary of State William Galvin. "This process had to be done." In fact, Brown was sworn in a week earlier than he had planned, according to media reports. After receiving criticism of his "three-week victory lap" from a newspaper columnist, he wrote state officials asking for his election results to be certified immediately. The results were certified by the governor’s council and sent to the U.S. Senate "as soon as the ink was dry," McNiff said. Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill So if anything, Brown’s swearing-in actually came a week earlier than originally planned. But what about the Democrats in Washington? Did they scramble to pass health care reform before Brown took his seat? Again, no. Weeks before Brown’s election, the Senate had already passed its version of health care reform, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, on Dec. 24, 2009, on a 60-39 vote. (Kirk voted yes.) But the legislation needed to pass the House, and House Democratic leaders wanted to make changes that echoed their priorities. Problem was, any big changes to the Senate bill would send it back to the upper chamber for final approval, where the 39 Republicans and the newly elected Brown could now filibuster the bill. Top Democrats wondered what to do. One option widely reported before Brown’s election was to pass the health care law before Brown took his seat. But on Jan. 20, 2010, the day after Brown’s election, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nv., took that plan off the table. "We’re going to wait until the new senator arrives until we do anything more on health care," Reid said. In the end, the House passed the Senate bill on March 21, 2010. On that same day, the House passed a slew of their own measures in a separate bill, which the Senate passed March 25, 2010, through a filibuster-proof process known as reconciliation. One last point: Brown’s 16-day wait from election to swearing-in is in line with other recent Senate special elections. New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker was elected after the death of Sen. Frank Lautenberg on Oct. 16, 2013, and sworn in 15 days later on Oct. 31, 2013. And Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey won the special election to replace John Kerry on June 25, 2013, and did not take the oath of office until July 16, 2013 -- 21 days later. Our ruling Brown said, "They delayed my swearing-in here in Massachusetts for a couple weeks so they could ram (the health care law) through." We never heard back from Brown, but the record is pretty clear on this. His swearing-in wasn’t delayed, and the Senate did not "ram" the health care law through in the time between his election and his taking the oath of office. We rate his claim False. | null | Scott Brown | null | null | null | 2013-11-12T15:48:29 | 2013-11-11 | ['Massachusetts'] |
pomt-09753 | Health care premiums for consumers have doubled since 2001. | true | /truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/07/jay-rockefeller/rockefeller-says-health-insurance-premiums-have-do/ | Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., recently wrote an opinion piece for the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call in which he said, "Insurance companies have seen their profits soar by more than 400 percent since 2001, while premiums for consumers have doubled." We address the first part of this statement in another item ; we'll take up the second half here. The 2009 Employer Health Benefits Survey, published by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust, is considered the definitive source for health benefits cost information, and its data stretch from 1999 to 2009. (Even though Rockefeller didn't explicitly say it, we'll assume he was talking about the period since 2001 when he made this assertion.) In 2001, average annual premiums for single people were $2,689, a number that rose to $4,824 by 2008 — a 79 percent increase. The amounts for family coverage rose over the same period from $7,061 to $13,375 — an 89 percent increase. So, in neither case did the cost of benefits actually double, although they are in the ballpark. However, if you read Rockefeller's language closely, he did say, "premiums for consumers have doubled" — and if you use the data for the employee-paid portion of health benefits by itself, he's right. For individuals, the employee cost rose from $355 to $779 and for families it rose from $1,787 to $3,515. The former jump is easily double, while the latter is just shy of double. Using this calculation, Rockefeller is right. We rate his assertion True. | null | Jay Rockefeller | null | null | null | 2009-10-07T16:47:53 | 2009-09-21 | ['None'] |
pomt-14394 | Says President Barack Obama has "been presiding over our jobs going overseas for seven years." | mostly false | /truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/16/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-pins-too-much-blame-outflow-jobs-barack-o/ | One of the biggest topics in the 2016 presidential election has been how to reverse the loss of American jobs to other countries. On NBC’s Meet the Press, Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz blamed President Barack Obama for the outflow of jobs. The topic came up after host Chuck Todd played a clip of Obama saying the Republicans are significantly to blame for the angry tone of politics today. Cruz responded, "You know, Chuck, Barack Obama's a world-class demagogue. That language there is designed to divide us. No, Mr. President, we're not angry at that. We're angry at politicians in Washington, including you, who ignore the men and women who elected you, who have been presiding over our jobs going overseas for seven years." The part of Cruz’s comment that caught our eye was that Obama has "been presiding over our jobs going overseas for seven years." We decided to take a look. (Cruz’s staff did not respond to inquiries.) We found that Cruz has a point that the United States has seen jobs go overseas during the seven years that Obama has been in office. However, this pattern was well under way before Obama became president -- and the trend has little to do with policy choices a president can make. We will start by noting that there are two related but distinct reasons why jobs may move overseas. One is when foreign companies become competitive enough to sell their products in the United States, displacing American producers. The other occurs when American companies move their own production to subcontractors overseas. We will also note that there is no single data source that provides specific numbers of jobs flowing overseas. We did find a couple of studies that touched on this subject; however, each has drawbacks. One source of data is the National Organizations Survey, a pilot study of U.S. businesses and nonprofits described in a paper by Clair Brown of the University of California-Berkeley, Timothy Sturgeon of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Connor Cole of the University of Michigan. The survey was conducted in 2010, meaning that it captured a snapshot in time, rather than a study of changes over time. The survey found that about 23 percent of full-time employees worked at organizations that do international outsourcing, meaning that they either had such duties as sales, research, transportation and customer service handled by a part of the company based in another country, or by contracting with an overseas company to handle those tasks. According to the study, about a third of full-time employees with large organizations worked for one doing international outsourcing; for smaller organizations, the rate was smaller, less than 10 percent. Sectors where international offshoring has been especially noticeable include electronics and motor vehicles. That said, "for the typical U.S. employee’s organization, the majority of costs continue to be in the United States," the authors concluded. The other study does show changes over time, though it’s worth noting that it was published by the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning group that has taken a hard line against the flow of American jobs overseas. The Economic Policy Institute study found that between 2001 and 2013, a growing U.S. trade deficit with China "eliminated or displaced 3.2 million U.S. jobs," of which 2.4 million were in manufacturing. "These lost manufacturing jobs account for about two-thirds of all U.S. manufacturing jobs lost or displaced between December 2001 and December 2013," the paper concluded. Here’s a summary of their findings: Experts we contacted agreed that a significant shift has been going on. "The U.S. economy and many others have been going through wrenching changes for many decades, due to a combination of technological change, globalization, and loss of union power," said Sturgeon, a senior researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Industrial Performance Center. Sturgeon pointed to research by Margaret McMillan at Tufts University that looked at data between 1990 and 2005 and found that a key reason for these trends is "rapid increases in trade" between the United States and China. In a paper, McMillan and three co-authors found that Chinese employment growth has been largest in U.S. industries that have experienced employment declines, suggesting that Chinese workers are being substituted for U.S. workers. She also found that the share of workers performing "routine occupations" in the United States declined as the share increased in China, with these shifts correlated across industries." But while Cruz has a point that jobs have indeed been shifting overseas under Obama, the previous chart shows a distinct problem with Cruz’s contention: The way Cruz phrased it, it sounds like it started under Obama, and that simply isn’t the case. "Most of the advanced economies of the world have long moved into a new, postindustrial phase of development," wrote Dani Rodrik of Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government in a November 2015 paper. "These economies have been deindustrializing for decades, a trend that is particularly noticeable when one looks at the employment share of manufacturing. … In the United States, manufacturing industries’ share of total employment has steadily fallen since the 1950s, coming down from around a quarter of the workforce to less than a tenth today." (We looked at this question previously here.) Indeed, in February 2003, the cover of a special issue of BusinessWeek magazine asked, "Is Your Job Next? A new round of globalization is sending upscale jobs offshore. They include chip design, engineering, basic research -- even financial analysis. Can America lose these jobs and still prosper?" That was about six years before Obama took office. In fact, when PolitiFact asked McMillan whether this pattern predates Obama, she emailed back, "Hell yes," followed by 12 exclamation points. In her paper, McMillan wrote that employment declined modestly in the 1990s in such labor-intensive industries as textiles and became "precipitous" with the advent of the Internet in the late 1990s. She finds that both technological advancements and a growing role for an overseas labor force played a role. The ability to conduct work overseas "has led to fundamental reorganization of the global supply chain, with detrimental effects on domestic manufacturing workers and surging corporate profits," she wrote. The decline in U.S. manufacturing employment between 1987 and 2015 -- starting 22 years before Obama took office -- can be seen in the following graph: So jobs have clearly been moving overseas for many years, even if the trend predated Obama and occurred for reasons other than his policies. Still, it’s worth making a few additional observations: • Manufacturing jobs have been increasing under Obama. While the rise in manufacturing jobs under Obama hasn’t come close to wiping out the declines of previous decades, the number has risen rather than fallen since 2010 -- the first sustained increase since at least the 1990s. There is at least anecdotal evidence of "onshoring" -- the return of jobs to the United States. For instance, 177 "foreign-trade zones" -- special manufacturing and assembly facilities located in the United States -- serve more than 3,000 companies, employ 390,000 workers and handled $835 billion in merchandise, almost two-thirds of it domestically sourced, according to the National Association of Foreign-Trade Zones. • Along with job losses, there have been job gains. Overall, productivity has been improving in the United States. "Specific industries and job categories have been hard hit, sometimes very much so," Sturgeon said. At the same time, many are benefiting, including "in ways they may not even notice, such as new types of work and jobs, greater product variety and lower prices." Sturgeon is among those who argue that Cruz’s answer is too simplistic. "The debate right now is playing to people’s fears and discontent in ways that are nearly devoid of fact or serious consideration of the trade-offs or remedies," he said. Where it comes to Obama’s role, he said, "this is a broad structural issue and not something Obama invented or could do much to change, or even do much to mitigate with an uncooperative Congress." Our ruling Cruz said that Obama has "been presiding over our jobs going overseas for seven years." While the pattern has been occurring under Obama, it is hardly new or unique to Obama. We rate the statement. Mostly False. | null | Ted Cruz | null | null | null | 2016-03-16T17:00:48 | 2016-03-13 | ['None'] |
snes-05292 | Muslims were banned from immigrating to the United States in 1952 under the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. | false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/islam-banned-u-s-1952/ | null | Immigration | null | Kim LaCapria | null | Were Muslims Banned from the U.S. in 1952? | 8 December 2015 | null | ['United_States'] |
pomt-07788 | Our children do not spend any time in school learning about our own U.S. Constitution. | pants on fire! | /texas/statements/2011/feb/21/dan-flynn/state-rep-dan-flynn-says-texas-students-spend-no-t/ | In a recent column criticizing the Mansfield school district’s plans to introduce an Arabic program to its schools, state Rep. Dan Flynn, R-Canton, wondered why Arabic culture is a priority "at a time when our children do not spend any time in school learning our own U.S. Constitution." We wondered whether Texas students spend no time studying the Constitution, as Flynn says in the opinion piece published Feb. 14 on the North Texas Navigator news website. When we contacted the representative’s office, Flynn’s chief of staff, David Erinakes told us "there is no dedicated class on the U.S. Constitution as early as first grade, and (Flynn’s) implication is that he believes all Texas school children should have a class on the U.S. Constitution while they’re in school at least one time." Erinakes said that while the Constitution is written into the state’s curriculum standards for the public schools, "there isn’t very much time spent on it." Erinakes said Flynn based this conclusion on conversations with teachers who have recently visited the representative’s office. We turned next to the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for social studies, curriculum standards outlining what students must be taught in Texas classrooms. In an online post of the standards now in place — an update takes effect in 2011-12 — we spotted about 35 references to teaching students about the constitution. According to the standards, students are introduced to the U.S. Constitution in fifth grade when they must identify "the important ideas in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution" and "examine fundamental rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights." Seventh graders should be able to "explain the influence of the U.S. Constitution on the Texas Constitution." Eighth graders are supposed to study "the creation and ratification of the U.S. Constitution." History and government comes under the heading of social studies until high school, when specific courses in those subjects are offered. In a course in U.S. history since the Reconstruction, students are expected to "identify and analyze methods on expanding the right to participate in the Democratic process, including... amendments to the U.S. Constitution." A "significant focus" of the state’s mandatory high school U.S. government class is on "the U.S. Constitution, its underlying principles and ideas and the form of government it created." Next we looked at online versions of the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills tests annually administered to students from grades 3 to 11. Fifth- and eighth-graders must pass the reading and math tests, and 11th-grade students must pass all portions of test, which include social studies, to graduate. Searching for "constitution" in the social-studies portion of the 2009 test for eighth-graders, we found four references, including one question asking students to identify how the 13th Amendment changed the Constitution (B. Abolished slavery). We found five references to the Constitution in the tenth-grade test, including a question about what principle the Constitution’s establishment of the executive, legislative and judicial branches reflects. And in 11th grade? Two references to the U.S. Constitution. Debbie Ratcliffe, an education agency spokeswoman, told us that local educators determine how much time is spent on the Constitution, but she pointed out that each grade is required to observe Celebrate Freedom Week, which falls on the week of Constitution Day — Sept. 17. The standards going into effect in 2011-12 reflect the observance. According to the pending standards, third through eighth grade classes, for example, must include "appropriate instruction concerning the intent, meaning and importance of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution" during Celebrate Freedom Week, or during another full school week as determined by each school district’s board of trustees. Andy Welch, a spokesman for the Austin school district, told us that Austin teachers teach what the state standards require. Richie Escovedo, a Mansfield district spokesman, told us: "We definitely do teach the Constitution." He pointed us to the district’s curriculum specifying that students study the Constitution in fifth, seventh and 12th grade. Also, Escovedo noted, district third-graders study questions such as, "Why was a new Constitution needed after the American Revolution?" and "How does the Bill of Rights protect you, even as a child?" When we told Flynn that we couldn’t find evidence to support his claim, Erinakes responded: "You are correct that it is in the standards, but as to the time spent it seems to be minimal at best... Relative to the amount of time spent on other subjects, ‘our children do not spend any time at all learning about the U.S. Constitution.’" Flynn’s statement, though, was absolute. Lacking back-up information from his end or any other evidence that either schools are flouting the state’s curriculum standards or students aren’t being held to them, the statement more than fails. We smell smoke. Pants on Fire! | null | Dan Flynn | null | null | null | 2011-02-21T06:00:00 | 2011-02-14 | ['United_States'] |
goop-00750 | Brad Pitt Does Have “Crush” On Margot Robbie, | 0 | https://www.gossipcop.com/brad-pitt-margot-robbie-crush-set/ | null | null | null | Andrew Shuster | null | Brad Pitt Does NOT Have “Crush” On Margot Robbie, Despite Report | 10:15 am, June 26, 2018 | null | ['None'] |
tron-02706 | Picture of Tsunami in South Asia | fiction! | https://www.truthorfiction.com/tsunamipic/ | null | natural-disasters | null | null | null | Picture of Tsunami in South Asia | Mar 19, 2015 | null | ['None'] |
hoer-01203 | 600-Pound Woman Gives Birth to 40-Pound Baby | fake news | https://www.hoax-slayer.net/fake-news-600-pound-woman-gives-birth-to-40-pound-baby/ | null | null | null | Brett M. Christensen | null | FAKE-NEWS: 600-Pound Woman Gives Birth to 40-Pound Baby | October 2, 2018 | null | ['None'] |
tron-01426 | Melamine Scare In Milk Chocolate Coins | truth! | https://www.truthorfiction.com/melamine-scare/ | null | food | null | null | null | Melamine Scare In Milk Chocolate Coins | Mar 17, 2015 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-11833 | CPS students are learning and growing faster than 96 percent of students in the United States. | mostly true | /illinois/statements/2017/nov/10/chicago-public-schools/cps-students-are-learning-and-growing-faster-96-pe/ | A Nov. 2 press release from Chicago Public Schools touted significant test score gains made in the district over recent years that were included in a high-profile analysis. Students in CPS, according to research from an expert on education equality at Stanford University, improved at a faster rate on standardized test scores between third and eighth grade than their counterparts in most other U.S. school districts. The findings were clearly a plus for the often-maligned CPS, and the district wasted little time advertising them in a press release headlined, "CPS students are learning and growing faster than 96 percent of students in the United States." The glow of that phrasing suggests that CPS has not just turned a corner when it comes to educational achievement but is dancing circles around most other school districts in the nation. Reconciling that with the district’s problem-plagued reputation merits a closer look. Measuring up CPS’ fast-paced gains were assessed in a report prepared recently by Sean Reardon, a professor of education inequality at Stanford’s Center for Education Policy Analysis. By comparing Chicago Public Schools students’ scores on standardized tests to those of students nationally, Reardon found that the scores of CPS students in grades three through eight improved more from 2009-14 than did the average scores of all U.S. students during that time. Reardon used scores from a standardized test all Illinois students are required to take to measure that growth. But because other states rely on different tests to gauge the same thing, he averaged actual scores in math and English across the nation to benchmark proficiency. "We define grade level as the average of that grade in the country," Reardon said in a phone interview. "The proficiency levels that states set for their tests are defined by groups of experts that say, 'This is what we think a kid should know in this grade.’ " By Reardon’s metric, CPS third-graders taking the test in 2014 performed significantly better than did third-graders who sat for it in 2009. The same held true for the other grades covered by the analysis as well. This improvement factored out to about two-thirds of a grade level over the five-year period for CPS, compared to an average increase for the rest of the nation of just one-sixth of a grade level in performance within that timeframe. So far, so good. But Reardon’s report posed another key question: Improvement aside, how does CPS’ overall academic performance stack up against the rest of the country? Here, the picture was not as rosy. Third- through eighth-graders in the nation’s third-largest district still perform at roughly one half to one-and-a-half grade levels below the national average, which the report describes as a "significant concern." In short, CPS test scores started low, improved significantly, but remain subpar. There’s no reference to that gut check in the CPS press release highlighting Reardon’s work, though the release does provide a link to the full report for those so inclined to read it. Indeed, results from the state’s most recent round of standardized tests point to significant problems at CPS, where only 22 to 30 percent of third- through eighth-graders reached proficiency in core subjects, according to data from the Illinois State Board of Education. A CPS spokesman declined to address questions about the district’s characterization of Reardon’s report. Our ruling Chicago Public Schools stated that "CPS students are learning and growing faster than 96 percent of students in the United States." The claim appears to accurately represent the main conclusion of the Stanford University report from which it was drawn. At the same time, the CPS press release touting the study’s findings omits mention of other information contained in the report that provides more context. Test scores among CPS’ third- through eighth-graders are indeed growing faster on average than the average growth rate in 96 percent of districts nationwide, according to the Stanford study. But the report also found that students in the district, which remains beset by large achievement gaps between students of different racial and socioeconomic groups, still generally perform between one-half and one-and-a-half grade levels below the national average. CPS’ claim is accurate as far as it goes, but ignores the significant gap in achievement its students still must overcome. We rate it Mostly True. | null | Chicago Public Schools | null | null | null | 2017-11-10T05:00:00 | 2017-11-02 | ['United_States'] |
pomt-13006 | Says U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi said, "Employers cutting hours is a good thing. It then gives that person time to pursue their dreams and passions." | false | /punditfact/statements/2016/dec/12/turning-point-usa/facebook-image-revives-made-claim-nancy-pelosi-pra/ | Just days after winning another term as House Democratic leader, U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California was the target of a viral image that deliberately — and falsely — made it appear she said losing work shifts was a good thing for Americans. Conservative group Turning Point USA attacked Pelosi in a Dec. 8, 2016, Facebook post that showed her face next to a quote that read, "Employers cutting hours is a good thing. It then gives that person time to pursue their dreams and passions." No context is given for when or why Pelosi may have said that, and we can’t find any evidence she ever did. But the post was shared widely on social media nonetheless, including a popular thread on Reddit. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com It appears that the image is a misquote from a Sept. 22, 2013, State of the Union interview Pelosi gave to Candy Crowley on CNN. Not only did Pelosi not use the words being attributed to her, but the entire context of the conversation is lost. Crowley was asking Pelosi whether she had any reservations about the federal insurance exchange that was about to open for customers for the first time. HealthCare.gov was slated to debut Oct. 1, 2013. Some people worried that employers would limit shifts for many hourly workers in order to meet the Affordable Care Act requirement that employees who worked more than 30 hours had to have insurance coverage. (For the record, there’s a bit of evidence that some companies did cut hours after the advent of Obamacare, but it’s difficult to pinpoint why.) Here’s the transcript of that portion of the interview, with video posted here: CROWLEY: "Let me ask you then about Obamacare, itself. Coming up for a big date on Obamacare, October 1, when people can begin to sign up through the marketplaces. Do you have any reservations at all? Are you worried at all? And I ask you this because you know union leaders, I mean, James Hoffa is one of those who wrote a letter to you and said Obamacare as it now stands would, quote, ‘destroy the foundation of the 40-hour work week.’ That's pretty tough from a loyal Democratic constituency." PELOSI: "Well, we're working on the issue that relates to all of these multiemployer plans, which unions are one and some are charities." CROWLEY: "Bargaining rights or otherwise risks. There's more than one employer involved in a contract." PELOSI: "More than one employer involved in a contract. And that has to be certainly clarified. There's just so much the president can do within the law. But there is some leeway to facilitate as we are in the Congress under the exchanges. So, I'm optimistic, because, we will find a path. But overwhelmingly for the American people, this is a liberation. This is life, healthy life, liberty, the freedom to pursue your happiness, which could be, follow your passion for good rather than follow your palate and be constrained by your policy. It's about wellness. It's about prevention, it's about a healthier America." So there was a discussion about employers potentially cutting hours, but at no time did Pelosi call that a good thing. What she did say was that the launch of HealthCare.gov was a good thing for Americans, because they would no longer have to stay in a certain job just to keep their insurance coverage. It’s a talking point Pelosi had used before, and was attacked over before. It also was misrepresented the same way in 2013. Pelosi spokeswoman Caroline Behringer confirmed that the House minority leader did not say the words attributed to her. "It is something we saw spread on the internet, but has no basis in reality," Behringer said. Our ruling A viral image quoted Pelosi as saying, "Employers cutting hours is a good thing. It then gives that person time to pursue their dreams and passions." This attack first came up in 2013, right before the federal insurance exchange opened. It looks to be a misquote based on a CNN interview, in which Pelosi was asked about employers potentially cutting workers’ hours to avoid having to buy them health insurance. Pelosi responded that Obamacare still "liberated" Americans, because workers had an option for affordable insurance beyond having to stay with an employer for the coverage. Those people would then be free to find a job they liked better and still be covered, she said. The image not only puts words in her mouth, it deliberately twists the meaning of what she really said. We rate it False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/cc6536c8-cfef-43fc-ac0b-75710840ed30 | null | Turning Point USA | null | null | null | 2016-12-12T18:05:00 | 2016-12-08 | ['Nancy_Pelosi', 'United_States'] |
hoer-00496 | Facebook Set To Ban Religious Posts | statirical reports | https://www.hoax-slayer.com/fake-news-facebook-ban-religious-posts.shtml | null | null | null | Brett M. Christensen | null | Fake-News Report Claims Facebook Set To Ban Religious Posts | March 13, 2015 | null | ['None'] |
snes-02032 | A photograph shows a scarecrow made from a human corpse. | miscaptioned | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/scarecrow-human-body/ | null | Fauxtography | null | Dan Evon | null | Does This Photograph Show a Scarecrow Made from a Human Corpse? | 20 July 2017 | null | ['None'] |
snes-01897 | In August 2017, the owner of a hotel in Arosa, Switzerland posted signs imposing restrictions on Jewish guests, including asking them to shower before using the hotel swimming pool. | true | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/switzerland-hotel-jewish-guests/ | null | Racial Rumors | null | Dan MacGuill | null | Did a Hotel Owner in Switzerland Ask Jewish Guests to Shower Before Using the Pool? | 15 August 2017 | null | ['Switzerland', 'Jews'] |
tron-01074 | CNN Altered a Photo of Oregon Shooter Chris Harper-Mercer | fiction! | https://www.truthorfiction.com/cnn-altered-a-photo-of-oregon-shooter-chris-harper-mercer-fiction/ | null | crime-police | null | null | null | CNN Altered a Photo of Oregon Shooter Chris Harper-Mercer | Oct 6, 2015 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-05675 | Says "over 1 million signatures" were submitted in attempt to recall Gov. Scott Walker. | false | /wisconsin/statements/2012/mar/15/state-democratic-party-wisconsin/democrats-say-more-1-million-signatures-were-submi/ | The Democratic Party of Wisconsin declared on Jan. 17, 2012 that it had submitted to the state elections board more than 1 million signatures on petitions to recall Republican Gov. Scott Walker. That figure -- far exceeding the 540,208 signatures of "eligible electors" needed to force Walker into a recall election -- was proudly proclaimed by Democratic chairman Mike Tate in an online video. "I can announce that your grassroots movement, right now, is delivering to the Government Accountability Board over 1 million signatures collected to recall Scott Walker," he said. "This represents nearly double, or 185 percent, of the total required. It is simply breathtaking." The party said it had submitted more than 1 million signatures even after removing an undisclosed number that were duplicates, illegible or seemingly fake. It repeatedly cited the figure, including at a news conference, in a blog post and in statements. So did other groups such as United Wisconsin, which participated in the signature gathering, and the web site RecallScottWalker.com. So did commentators and reporters. But until the Government Accountability Board reviewed the petitions, there was no official account of just how many signatures had been submitted. The key question, of course, is whether there are 540,208 valid signatures. The board is continuing its review, although even Republicans expect there will be enough valid signatures for a Walker recall election to be held later in 2012. Nevertheless, many readers have asked us about the eye-popping 1 million claim, noting that it has become an awful catchy shorthand for success. On March 12, 2012, the Government Accountability Board announced that 931,042 signatures had been submitted to recall Walker. That’s a lot of signatures, but not 1 million. On the day the GAB announced its official figure, a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter asked state Democratic Party spokesman Graeme Zielinski in an email why there was a difference of nearly 69,000 between the number of signatures the party announced and the number counted by the elections board. Zielinski replied he didn’t know, then backtracked, calling the "over 1 million" claim an estimate. Said Zielinski: "Nobody knows how many signatures were submitted because of the sheer volume and the way the signatures were counted in the closing days. That's why we estimated our total." But the number was never presented as an estimate. What’s more, the party and United Wisconsin said they created their own database of the signatures before submitting them to the state board. (Tea party groups have released what they say is a searchable databases of recall petitions filed against four Republican state senators, and have said they would release one for the Walker. A Journal Sentinel review of a random sampling of 500 Walker recall signatures found that 15 percent of them could not be verified, indicating there still would be enough valid signatures to force an election.) We emailed Zielinski the day after the state board announced its figure, to see if he had anything more for us to consider. He said the party stands by its more than 1 million claim, but again called it an estimate. He also said the board’s count doesn't include "rehabilitated signature affidavits and may not have included thousands of signatures where Rebecca Kleefisch signatures were mixed with Scott Walker signatures." The board has counted 842,860 submitted signatures on petitions to recall Kleefisch, the GOP lieutenant governor, in what essentially is a joint effort to remove both Walker and Kleefisch from office. We asked Government Accountability Board spokesman Reid Magney about Zielinski’s comments. The board’s count of 931,042 is the "raw number" of signatures submitted by the Walker recall committee, Magney said. So, it would include "rehabilitated" signatures -- those that were put on a petition that contained a minor flaw and which the Democrats attempted to correct with an affidavit. Because no challenges were filed against any signatures, the GAB staff did not review the correcting affidavits. As for mixing petitions, Magney said that approximately 200 signatures on Kleefisch recall petitions were mistakenly included with petitions seeking to recall Walker, and they would have been counted in the raw number of Walker signatures, but those signatures would have been later struck by the staff. About 95 Walker recall signatures were mistakenly included with Kleefisch petitions, he said. Bottom line: Nothing Zielinski cited calls the board’s 931,042 count into question in any serious way. Conversely, he provided no evidence to show that more than 1 million signatures were submitted. Our rating The Democratic Party of Wisconsin claimed it submitted to the state elections board "over 1 million signatures" to recall Walker -- a claim that has been repeated and repeated. The board said just over 931,000 signatures were submitted. We rate the party’s statement False. | null | Democratic Party of Wisconsin | null | null | null | 2012-03-15T11:08:21 | 2012-01-17 | ['None'] |
tron-03651 | Haiti Made a Pact with the Devil | disputed! | https://www.truthorfiction.com/pat-robertson-haiti/ | null | warnings | null | null | null | Haiti Made a Pact with the Devil | Mar 17, 2015 | null | ['None'] |
snes-03777 | Donald Trump, Jr. said that if women can't handle harassment in the workplace, they should teach kindergarten. | true | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-jr-women-workforce/ | null | Politics | null | Bethania Palma | null | Did Donald Trump Jr Say ‘Women Who Can’t Handle Workplace Harassment Shouldn’t Work’? | 17 October 2016 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-14259 | States with "the highest gun ownership rates also have the highest suicide rates." | true | /virginia/statements/2016/apr/11/myra-signer/myra-signer-says-state-highest-gun-ownership-rates/ | Former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords, D-Ariz., who was gravely wounded in a 2011 mass shooting near Tucson, recently visited Virginia’s Capitol to push for tougher gun laws. She and her husband, retired astronaut Mark Kelly, launched a coalition that will seek "common-sense solutions" to gun violence in the state. High on its list is convincing a resistant General Assembly to close loopholes in Virginia’s background check law for prospective gun buyers. About a dozen community leaders and law-enforcement experts met with Giffords and Kelly to help set strategies. Among them was Mira Signer, executive director of the Virginia chapter of the National Alliance on Mental Illness. She said the availability of guns poses special risks to those with mental disorders. States "that have the highest gun ownership also have the highest suicide rates," she said. "The evidence is there. We know that." We wondered whether Signer’s statement is correct. Signer told us her claim is based in part on a report called "The Truth About Guns and Suicide," published in September 2015 by the Brady Center & Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a nonprofit advocating gun control. The report says, "Studies examining firearm ownership and suicide rates at the national, state and regional levels provide further evidence of the firearm-suicide connection. They show that suicide rates, both overall and by firearm, are higher in areas where gun ownership is more widespread." Footnotes in the report say the Brady Center’s statement is based on a series of studies by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center in Massachusetts - the last published in 2008. Researchers compared data that the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention kept from 2000 to 2002 on the number of suicides in each state and the percentage of households in each state where at least one firearm was held. "Among men, among women, and in every age group (including children), states with the higher rates of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm suicides and overall suicides," the researchers wrote in an article published by The New England Journal of Medicine. Back then Why rely today on statistics that are more than decade old? Researchers say they’re still the best numbers available. Every year, the CDC conducts an extensive health-risk poll with more than 250,000 U.S. adults that ‘s called the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. It used to ask participants whether they had guns in their homes. With its huge sample, the results could be broken down to statistically reliable percentages of households with a gun in each state. The CDC, under congressional demands to stop researching gun issues, removed the question from the survey after 2004. Since then, no other poll has offered a reliable, detailed look at gun ownership rates in each state. The CDC surveys showed that the top three states for percentage of household gun ownership - Wyoming, Montana and Alaska - often ranked as the three states with the highest suicide rates. Roughly 60 percent of households held firearms in those states, much higher than the national median of 40 percent. Their suicide rates, according to other CDC data, hovered around 20 people per 100,000 - nearly double the national average of about 11 per 100,000. Conversely, the nine states with the lowest per-household gun ownership from 2001 to 2004 also had the nine lowest suicide rates. They were Hawaii, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, California, Illinois and Maryland. Overall, the statistics show a distinct correlation between gun ownership and suicide rates in states. There are, of course, anomalies. Nevada, for example, ranked 36th in the percentage of households with guns from 2001 to 2004 but had fourth-highest suicide rate. Virginia, if you’re wondering, ranked 32nd in the percentage of household with guns and 34th in suicide rate during that period. Today Signer’s statement was made in present tense, so there’s an issue of whether these old findings remain relevant. The ranking of states based on suicide rates barely has changed over the years, according CDC data for 2013 - the latest final statistics available. Wyoming, Alaska and Montana still had the highest rates. So that leaves the problem on quantifying household gun ownership in each state without updated, exhaustive surveys from the CDC. YouGov, an international market research firm, conducted an Internet poll in 2013 that asked 4,622 U.S. adults to participate in an online survey that asked whether they owned guns. YouGov broke the numbers down by state and got results that broadly resembled the CDC figures. Columbia University researchers used those figures in a 2013 paper on the gun culture in states and regions around the U.S. Bindu Kalesan, the lead researcher, told us in an email that the numbers for many states have a high margin of error. Many analysts, in exploring a variety of gun issues, still cite the CDC state figures. David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, told us the numbers still are relevant. "Gun ownership levels across states hardly change over time," he said. "For example, the best predictors of whether you will own a gun is whether you grew up with guns and whether your neighbors are gun owners or not." These indicators, Hemenway said, "don’t switch back and forth." Hemenway sent us four studies from other researchers that also connected the presence of guns to high suicide rates. "It all makes sense psychologically," he said, "since so many suicides are pretty spontaneous with little planning and people use whatever is handy. The urge passes and people who have survived even serious suicide attempts rarely go on to kill themselves. The case fatality rate for guns is 90 percent, while the case fatality rate for the two most common forms of suicide attempts - pills and cutting - is under 3 percent." Our ruling Signer said states that have "the highest gun ownership rates also have the highest suicide rates." Exhaustive data collected by the CDC at the start of the century supports her statement. The three states with the highest percentage of household gun ownership - Alaska, Wyoming and Montana - also had the three highest suicide rates. The correlation between the availability of guns and suicide rates, while not as exact across the nation, certainly existed in most other states. The nine states with the lowest household gun rates also had the lowest suicide rates. The ranking of states by their suicide rates barely has changed over the years. But the CDC has stopped surveying gun ownership in states, and nothing nearly as reliable has filled the void. A much smaller poll conducted in 2013 suggests the ranking of states by the percentage of homes with guns hasn’t changed much either. And there’s no shortage of researchers, past and present, who have concluded there is a strong link between the presence of guns and suicides. So we rate Signer’s statement True. Editor's Note: An earlier headline on this story misspelled Signer's first name. | null | Mira Signer | null | null | null | 2016-04-11T00:00:00 | 2016-04-28 | ['None'] |
tron-02070 | The football player to performed for his blind father | unproven! | https://www.truthorfiction.com/eyesthatsee/ | null | inspirational | null | null | null | The football player to performed for his blind father | Mar 17, 2015 | null | ['None'] |
hoer-00777 | Mass Migration of Rays | true messages | https://www.hoax-slayer.com/stingray-migration.shtml | null | null | null | Brett M. Christensen | null | Mass Migration of Rays | March 2009 | null | ['None'] |
snes-02044 | DJ Khaled broke a horse's back while riding on it, causing the horse to be put down. | false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dj-khaled-break-horses-back/ | null | Uncategorized | null | Dan MacGuill | null | Did DJ Khaled Break a Horse’s Back By Riding on it? | 18 July 2017 | null | ['None'] |
snes-01133 | A Maryland man has been indicted in connection with the Uranium One investigation. | false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/has-indictment-been-issued-uranium-one/ | null | Politics | null | Bethania Palma | null | Has an Indictment Been Issued in the Uranium One Investigation? | 24 January 2018 | null | ['None'] |
faly-00045 | Claim: Online application made mandatory for all clearances | true | https://factly.in/fact-checking-the-governments-claims-on-auctions-clearances/ | Fact: It is TRUE that all project proponents have to now make online applications for environmental & forest clearance. | null | null | null | null | Fact Checking the Government’s claims on Auctions & Clearances | null | null | ['None'] |
pomt-13588 | Says the director of an anti-abortion group receiving a Texas grant to provide women’s health services "believes HIV can be spread through the sewer system." | mostly true | /texas/statements/2016/aug/17/joaquin-castro/joaquin-castro-says-conservative-activist-believes/ | After word surfaced that a conservative nonprofit won a $1.6 million state grant to deliver women’s health services, U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro questioned the decision while making a "sewer" claim about the group’s director. Castro, D-San Antonio, said in an August 2016 tweet: "The group's director believes HIV can be spread through the sewer system. Is it really most qualified for the grant?" Human Immunodeficiency Virus, which causes AIDS, is mainly spread through sexual contact or from sharing needles, syringes, rinse water or other equipment with someone who has the virus, according to a federal website focused on AIDS. Less commonly, per the site, the virus may be spread from mother to child during pregnancy, by being stuck with an HIV-contaminated needle and, in rare cases, via blood transfusions and eating food pre-chewed by an HIV-infected person. We spotted no mention of the virus getting conveyed from anything in a sewer pipe. "HIV does not survive long outside the human body (such as on surfaces) and it cannot reproduce outside a human host," the site says. The virus also isn’t spread by air or water, the site says. Seeking Castro’s factual backup, we heard from his House spokeswoman, Erin Hatch, who emailed us web links to summer 2016 news stories--including an Austin American-Statesman story posted earlier the day of Castro’s tweet about Carol Everett, chief executive of the Round Rock-based Heidi Group, which once ran no-charge crisis pregnancy centers in Dallas advising women with unplanned pregnancies about giving birth. Everett, the story said, "recently came under scrutiny for suggesting during a fetal tissue disposal hearing that sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, could be transmitted through the sewer system." Everett told the paper, though, that her highlighted comments had been misunderstood. Everett also told reporter Julie Chang that her remarks about HIV amounted to "a stupid mistake." Chang shared with us her notes from her interview with Everett, who said: "I very much regret what I said. I shouldn’t have even tried… because they misunderstood it. I didn’t talk about transmitting STDs that way. I was trying to talk about the fact that babies are ground up and put into these garbage disposals which goes into our sewers. I didn’t make that point very clearly." Existing regulations allow fetal remains, as with other medical tissue, to be ground and discharged into a sewer system, incinerated or disinfected followed by disposal in a landfill, or "an approved alternate treatment process, provided that the process renders the item as unrecognizable, followed by deposition in a sanitary landfill." Two instances For our part, we confirmed from a TV news report noted by Hatch and Chang’s recording of Everett’s comments before a state agency that she indeed made mention of HIV and sewers while advocating for state officials to adopt a rule requiring fetal remains to be buried or cremated rather than disposed other ways. The rule was proposed in June 2016 by the executive commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission on behalf of the Department of State Health Services; it wasn’t finalized as of Aug. 17, 2016. Chang’s recording of Everett’s comments at an Aug. 4, 2016 state hearing on the proposed rule show Everett expressed criticism of current disposal methods, further saying: "What does this really do to the public? There are other people to consider. "What if one of those sewer treatment programs breaks down one day? You know, the abortion industry doesn’t have time; they only see a woman one time; they do not do an AIDS test, they don’t do, they don’t know if she’s HIV-positive. They don’t know if she has a sexually transmitted disease. And what if one day, just one day, something horrible escaped into the sewer system?" (Laughter.) "It may sound funny but it’s something we could think about because I can tell you today, the public is thinking about it. "So I appreciate very much addressing this. I encourage you to uphold it. Let’s take care of those who cannot take care of themselves -- and I am talking about the women." Earlier, as pointed out by Hatch, Everett said in an interview with Austin’s Fox 7 aired July 7, 2016, that existing protocols for disposing fetal remains pose "several health concerns. What if the woman had HIV? What if she had a sexually transmitted disease? What if those germs went through and got into our water supply?" Everett said. When we reached Everett about Castro's claim, she said by phone she hadn’t explicitly said HIV is spread through sewer pipes--and doesn’t believe as much. "People with HIV and AIDS go to the bathroom every day," Everett said. At the state hearing, she said, she was trying to stress that fetal material gets into the sewer system. Everett called her comment to Austin’s Fox 7 about HIV/STD "germs" getting into "our" water supply "really far out. I shouldn’t have said that." Our ruling Castro said Everett "believes HIV can be spread through the sewer system." Everett didn’t explicitly say as much and told us she doesn’t believe it. However, on two occasions, she raised the "what-if" spectre of a woman somehow passing along the virus or an STD through fetal material flushed down a drain. We rate this 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. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/148168e6-0c97-4ec3-a073-4a6344d56ce6 | null | Joaquin Castro | null | null | null | 2016-08-17T15:13:28 | 2016-08-10 | ['Texas'] |
snes-04880 | An 18-year-old waitress in Texas received a $1,000 tip after a man overheard her discussing her college plans with a couple at another table. | true | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/a-tip-for-education/ | null | Luck | null | Stephanie Larsen | null | A Tip for Education | 21 April 2016 | null | ['Texas'] |
snes-06285 | Trumped Up | false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trumped-up/ | null | Politics | null | Snopes Staff | null | Did Donald Trump Pay Off a Good Samaritan’s Mortgage? | 3 March 1998 | null | ['None'] |
snes-04970 | Bernie Sanders said that "the heritage of Castro will be felt for generations to come" during a 1985 radio interview. | false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sanders-america-embrace-socialism/ | null | Uncategorized | null | Dan Evon | null | Bernie Sanders Said United States Would ‘Embrace Socialism’? | 1 April 2016 | null | ['Bernie_Sanders'] |
hoer-01025 | Get 2 Free Cebu Pacific Tickets | facebook scams | https://www.hoax-slayer.net/get-2-free-cebu-pacific-tickets-facebook-scam/ | null | null | null | Brett M. Christensen | null | Get 2 Free Cebu Pacific Tickets Facebook Scam | March 31, 2017 | null | ['None'] |
tron-03353 | Saudi Prince Marries 6-Year-Old Girl | fiction! | https://www.truthorfiction.com/saudi-prince-marries-6-year-old-girl-fiction/ | null | religious | null | null | null | Saudi Prince Marries 6-Year-Old Girl | Dec 17, 2015 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-01784 | The fundraising numbers are in, and our grassroots support is unmatched! | false | /wisconsin/statements/2014/jul/27/glenn-grothman/glenn-grothman-says-he-leads-grassroots-financial-/ | When Republican moderate Tom Petri retires next year, his successor in Congress is likely to be a more conservative member of the party. Four Republicans are battling for the party’s nomination, and fundraising will help determine who emerges from the Aug. 12, 2014 primary in Wisconsin’s 6th Congressional District. The winner will take on Democrat Mark Harris. When state Sen. Glenn Grothman’s mid-year campaign fund balance trailed two of his Republican rivals for the seat, he put a positive spin on his showing. "The fundraising numbers are in, and our grassroots support is unmatched!" he wrote in a Facebook post on July 16, 2014. Grothman, of Campbellsport, says it is smaller donations from Wisconsin that define his stronger "grassroots" support when compared to better-funded rivals Joe Leibham, a state senator from Sheboygan, and Duey Stroebel, a state representative from Saukville. We wondered if Grothman really has an edge among regular Joes and Janes giving $1 to $199 at a time in contrast to the deep-pockets givers. So we did what we do -- crunched the numbers. We trained our calculator mainly on Leibham, who raised $302,940 so far in 2014, and Grothman, who’s taken in $147,638. That’s because Grothman clearly has more financial support from regular folks than Stroebel ($368,206), who’s mainly using his own money, and than Tom Denow of the Oshkosh area, whose scant fundraising did not require reporting. We found a virtual dead heat between Grothman and Leibham on some indicators of small-bore support -- but better news for Leibham on key bottom-line measures. To the numbers: Concentration of Wisconsin support: More than 99 percent of Grothman’s donors are from the Badger State, compared with Leibham at 98.1 percent. A broader way to look at it is donations, not just donors (some donors give multiple times). By that measure, Leibham and Grothman each got between 98 and 99 percent from Badger State residents. Concentration of small givers: Slightly more than 76 percent of Grothman’s individual donations were $100 or less. The comparable figure for Leibham: just over 75 percent. Again, basically even. On donations of under $200 -- the threshold at which the Federal Election Commission allows candidates not to itemize donors by name -- Grothman had a larger advantage: 79 percent to 74 percent. (Leibham discloses names and other information on all donations; Grothman, as is true for many candidates, discloses smaller donations only as a lump-sum number, as the FEC allows. He shared additional detail with us for this story. The candidates’ fundraising reports are on the FEC website.) Money total from small givers: Leibham ran ahead of Grothman on total funds from those giving $100 or less per donation, $46,000 to $41,000. Number of small and in-state donations: Leibham attracted almost 200 more sub-$101 contributions than Grothman, and about 300 more total donations from Wisconsinites. Big money donations: Leibham gets a slightly larger share of his contributions from people giving $1,000 or more. In short, the pair get basically the same, very large share of their support from in-state donors and from small donations, but Leibham does more volume. Grothman campaign spokesman Brandon VerVelde told us Grothman should get credit for winning straw polls at GOP events. Perhaps he should, but the candidate’s statement was about fundraising. Our rating Grothman boasted that, "The fundraising numbers are in, and our grassroots support is unmatched!" But the numbers show that Leibham matched or out-did Grothman on most measures. That reads as pretty matched to us. We rate Grothman’s claim False. | null | Glenn Grothman | null | null | null | 2014-07-27T05:00:00 | 2014-07-15 | ['None'] |
abbc-00364 | Before the 2013 federal election the Coalition promised to "build better roads in Perth". | in-between | http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-27/swan-valley-bypass-promise-check/5505120 | null | ['road-transport', 'industry', 'abbott-tony', 'liberals', 'federal-government', 'business-economics-and-finance', 'perth-6000', 'wa', 'muchea-6501', 'australia', 'ellenbrook-6069', 'bullsbrook-6084'] | null | null | ['road-transport', 'industry', 'abbott-tony', 'liberals', 'federal-government', 'business-economics-and-finance', 'perth-6000', 'wa', 'muchea-6501', 'australia', 'ellenbrook-6069', 'bullsbrook-6084'] | Promise check: $615m to build the Swan Valley Bypass | Sun 8 May 2016, 7:37am | null | ['Perth', 'Coalition_(Australia)'] |
pomt-07097 | Says that Sherrod Brown "voted to cut Medicare by over $500 billion in order to fund government-run health care." | false | /ohio/statements/2011/jun/23/national-republican-senatorial-committee/nrsc-claims-sen-sherrod-brown-voted-cut-500-billio/ | When Sen. Sherrod Brown spoke at a Youngstown senior center against a Republican proposal to convert Medicare to a voucher system, the National Republican Senatorial Committee had a ready response. The NRSC revised and reissued a three-day-old news release that targeted virtually identical statements at Brown, of Ohio, and four other senators who all are Democrats up for re-election next year: Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jon Tester of Montana, Ben Cardin of Maryland and Bill Nelson of Florida. "Despite Sherrod Brown's transparent political strategy to mislead Ohio seniors and demagogue Medicare, this serves as another reminder he is the only candidate in Ohio who has voted to cut Medicare by over $500 billion in order to fund government-run health care," said NRSC spokesman Jahan Wilcox. Wilcox cited the New York Times, Washington Post and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office as supporting sources. PolitiFact has examined at least four previous claims that the health care reform bill -- formally known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and informally tagged as Obamacare -- would cut Medicare by $500 billion. The important point in each examination is that $500 billion -- the figure confirmed by the NRSC's citations -- are not taken out of the current Medicare budget and are not actual cuts. Nowhere in the bill are benefits actually eliminated, experts said. The $500 billion are reductions to future spending. The health care law attempts to slow the projected growth in Medicare spending by that amount over 10 years. Medicare spending will still increase. The Congressional Budget Office estimated it will reach $929 billion in 2020, up from $499 billion in actual spending in 2009. Some of the changes in the health care law increase Medicare spending "to improve benefits and coverage, Tricia Neuman, director of the Medicare Policy Project at the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation told PolitiFact. Other provisions reduce the growth in Medicare spending by helping the program operate more efficiently and fund coverage expansions to the uninsured. Other provisions are designed to improve the delivery of care and quality of care, she said. The projected $500 billion in savings will come from changes that include higher insurance premiums for wealthier seniors, reductions in payments for Medicare Advantage plans, a new panel to oversee reimbursement rates, and a slowing of increases in payment rates to hospitals and other service providers each year. (Neuman explains the changes in a video tutorial on the Kaiser Family Foundation's website.) The NRSC recycled another talking point when it further asserts that the changes in the health care law will "fund government-run health care." PolitiFact has repeatedly issued Truth-O-Meter ratings of False or Pants on Fire for claims that the law represents a government takeover of health care. The claim was selected as PolitiFact National's 2010 Lie of the Year. We found that critics of the law are correct that it significantly increases government regulation of health insurers. But it is, as noted previously, a system that relies on private companies: Employers continue to provide health insurance to the majority of Americans through private insurance companies. More people will get private health coverage. The law sets up "exchanges" where private insurers will compete to provide coverage to people who don't have it. The government will not seize control of hospitals or nationalize doctors. The law does not include a government-run insurance plan that would compete with private insurers. The law gives tax credits to people who have difficulty affording insurance, so they can buy their coverage from private providers on the exchange. The NRSC’s claim cites a real figure -- $500 billion -- that is part of the health reform debate. But it incorrectly describes it as $500 billion in Medicare cuts, rather than as decreases in the rate of growth of future spending. And the NRSC piles on the incorrect talking point about "government-run health care." On the Truth-Meter, the NRSC’s claim rates as False. | null | National Republican Senatorial Committee | null | null | null | 2011-06-23T06:00:00 | 2011-06-09 | ['Medicare_(United_States)'] |
farg-00346 | Trump abruptly shuts down dogs for wounded warriors program, leaving vets high and dry on Veterans Day. | false | https://www.factcheck.org/2017/11/trump-didnt-cut-canine-program/ | null | askfactcheck | Various websites | Saranac Hale Spencer | ['PTSD'] | Trump Didn’t Cut Canine Program | November 16, 2017 | [' Saturday, November 11, 2017 '] | ['None'] |
pomt-13380 | Says to Hillary Clinton, "You heard what I said about (the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal), and all of a sudden you were against it." | false | /truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/27/donald-trump/donald-trump-my-trans-pacific-partnership-oppositi/ | Criticism of U.S. trade deals has been a key theme in Donald Trump's campaign, and during the Sept. 26, 2016, debate against Hillary Clinton, he focused on two. First, he criticized Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton, for signing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Trump also accused Clinton of wanting to approve a newer proposal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the largest regional trade deal in history. NAFTA was bad, Trump said, "And now you want to approve (the) Trans-Pacific Partnership. You were totally in favor of it. Then you heard what I was saying, how bad it is, and you said, 'I can't win that debate.' But you know that if you did win, you would approve that." Clinton said that "is just not accurate" and argued that she decided to oppose it once the terms of the deal were known. Trump said she had praised the deal "and then you heard what I said about it, and all of a sudden you were against it." "Well, Donald," Clinton responded, "I know you live in your own reality, but that is not the facts." We wondered about the timing. Did Clinton change her mind in response to Trump's criticism of the TPP? We found no evidence to support Trump's claim. Even before he was a candidate, Trump was on record as opposing the TPP. As early as April 2015, he predicted it would hurt U.S. businesses and put people out of work. The terms of the deal were finalized on Oct. 5, 2015. Clinton announced her opposition on Oct. 7, two days later. At the time, she was under pressure to oppose the pact, but that pressure wasn't from Trump. On Oct. 7, Trump was only one of 15 Republicans still seeking the GOP nomination. The first presidential primary was five months away, Trump's poll numbers among Republicans were around 23 percent. Many people thought his lead in the polls was largely based on name recognition. Most Republicans supported the deal, CNN reported in a story about Clinton's decision to oppose the TPP. Trump is listed as a notable exception. However, the topic didn't even come up during the first two GOP debates. More urgently, if Clinton was under any immediate pressure to oppose the TPP it was from her two top opponents in the Democratic primary — Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley. Like many Democrats, particularly those with strong union ties, both men opposed the TPP. Sanders called it "disastrous." O'Malley accused Clinton of switching on the eve of the first Democratic debate. At the time, Sanders was starting to gain momentum. His support in the polls had gone from 12 percent at the end of June to 25 percent in a Clinton-Sanders matchup, and support for Clinton had slipped nearly 20 points. There was also pressure from Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. Her biggest concern, as she explained in a July 7, 2016 video, was that the TPP gave multinational companies special power "to challenge a country's laws they just don't like," including laws on pollution, safety, health and food. We emailed a half dozen people in the Trump campaign seeking evidence that Trump's opposition caused Clinton to change her mind. We didn't hear back. Our ruling Trump told Clinton, "You heard what I said about (the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal), and all of a sudden you were against it." There's no evidence for cause and effect here, and the Trump campaign hasn't provided any. Clinton says her opposition is based solely on the terms of the proposed pact and her announcement to oppose it came two days after the TPP was finalized. Even if political considerations drove her decision, most of the pressure on Clinton was within her own party, particularly from Bernie Sanders, as she saw her support among Democrats slipping. Based on the available evidence, we rate Trump's claim as False.https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/eef8af26-f463-4b75-ad92-d01bd602af43 | null | Donald Trump | null | null | null | 2016-09-27T17:14:54 | 2016-09-26 | ['Hillary_Rodham_Clinton'] |
pomt-09155 | Says an estimate that Texas will face an $18 billion budget gap is “a number that somebody just reached up in the air and grabbed." | false | /texas/statements/2010/jun/09/rick-perry/perry-says-18-billion-budget-gap-estimate-plucked-/ | Seven months before the Texas Legislature convenes to begin work on the state's next two-year budget, Gov. Rick Perry was asked his assessment of the state budget gap likely to confront lawmakers. "How big do you estimate that the state's budget shortfall will be?" reporter Martin Bartlett of Austin's KVUE-TV asked in an interview posted online June 4. "... We've heard that estimate, $18 billion. That is a big number." Perry replied: "It is a big number. And I think it's a number that somebody just reached up in the air and grabbed." Perry, noting he's been around state government for a spell, went on: "May of 2011 is when we are really going to get down to the lick log, and to be trying to estimate what the Texas economy is going to be, particularly in this economic climate that we're in, I think is an effort in futility and not very wise by those who are trying to do those estimates." We wondered what the heck a lick log is -- oh, and whether Perry was on the mark when he characterized the $18 billion estimate as free-floating, so to speak. For starters, we're presuming that "budget gap" refers to the expected gulf during 2012-13 between state spending demands and revenue the state can count on to meet them. As for lick log, the Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang says a lick log is a “salt lick for cattle.” The phrase “down to the lick log” means to get “down to business.” So, Perry’s perspective appears to be that the financial picture won't be clear until May 2011, about when negotiators for the House and Senate are likely to draw up the final budget that ends up being sent to the governor. When we contacted Perry's office about his "up in the air" statement, spokeswoman Allison Castle pointed out that state Comptroller Susan Combs has not yet released a 2012-13 revenue estimate and also agencies have not made appropriation requests. Some budgetary background: Every odd-numbered year, lawmakers start drafting the budget with instructions from the state comptroller on how much revenue the state expects to earn during the next two years; that forecast determines how much the state has to spend. Unlike the federal government's, the budget has to balance, with the state spending no more than it takes in. When Perry was asked about the $18 billion figure on KVUE, Bartlett did not mention a source for the number. The Austin American-Statesman's budget reporter, Kate Alexander, nudged us to review the May 11 meeting of the House Appropriations Committee, whose members will get first crack at writing the budget. At the meeting, according to a video recording posted online by the Texas House, committee Chairman Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie, quizzed Wayne Pulver, assistant director of the Legislative Budget Board, about the reasons that the state is facing a budget gap. Pitts introduced Pulver by noting the board does forecasting and is keeping the committee informed about "what we might be looking at as far as the shortfall." Established in 1949, the board is charged with many budgetary responsibilities, including preparation of a draft of the budget bill for legislators each session; its analysts produce the numbers that inform legislative spending decisions. At the hearing, Pulver signed off on Pitts' conclusion that lawmakers will start with a budget gap because of funds that will no longer be available from sizable sources that helped balance the 2010-11 budget: $6.4 billion in federal stimulus money and $5.6 billion in one-time state funds. Those figures jibe with an analysis the budget board produced in March for the committee and was laid out by John O'Brien, the board's executive director. O'Brien pegged the budget gap at $11 billion, but cautioned that his figure assumed no growth in state spending or revenue. At the May hearing, Pulver detailed factors expected to increase the shortfall, including that revenue could fail to meet projections and that spending may increase to accommodate growth in demand for programs like Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. Pitts then asked: "So that could add up to between $15 and $18 billion?" Pulver called that number "reasonable." At a May 25 meeting of the House Ways and Means committee, Chairman Rene Oliveira, D-Brownsville, got into more nitty-gritty. Citing a staff analysis, Oliveira said the expected gap could be reduced thanks to $1.2 billion in cuts to the current budget ordered by state leaders. Also, he said, the state could reap more than $3 billion in additional revenue transferred from the state's public education endowment and in federal Medicaid aid. But Oliveira also said the state could be facing new costs, such as: * $2.5 billion for Medicaid, primarily because of increased enrollment linked both to the economic downturn * $3.4 billion for public and higher education, primarily because of projected enrollment increases * $200 million for prisons, including increased health care costs A final factor in Oliveira’s analysis: revenue collections that he said could leave the state $3 billion to $6 billion short of projections. When all is said and done, Oliveira's budget gap estimate ends up at about $18 billion. J.J. Garza, Oliveira's chief of staff, later told us that he prepared Oliveira's analysis in consultation with the staff of Texas House Speaker Joe Straus, R-San Antonio, the Legislative Budget Board, and government and private-sector economists. Straus has also cited the budget gap, writing in a June 1 opinion piece in the Austin American-Statesman that "recent estimates project the state budget shortfall could be as much as $18 billion." Tracy Young, a spokeswoman for Straus, told us the speaker was referring to the same figures discussed by Pitts and Pulver. She described the source of the numbers as a combination of information from the LBB, state comptroller's office and the speaker's policy staff. As for the legitimacy of the $18 billion figure, we found a common cautionary caveat. There is still a lot of time for the number to change, especially if the economy takes a dramatic turn -- in either direction. In prepared remarks for the May 25 committee meeting, Oliveira said "the numbers can move by hundreds of millions over the next few months." He continued: "If the recovery is stronger, then (tax) collections would improve, our Medicaid burden would probably shrink ... and the revenue estimate for next session would be higher," which would shrink the gap. Sen. Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, told the San Antonio Express-News in April that the budget gap couldn't yet be defined "because you don't know -- when you say shortfall, you imply some sort of mandatory spending level and some sort of predetermined revenue level, neither of which we have. There's no shortfall if you don't spend it. And we don't know yet what our revenue projections are." Despite that, Dale Craymer, president of the Texas Taxpayers and Research Association -- which represents several hundred largely Texas-based businesses and legal and accounting firms -- said that making budget projections is a "healthy part of the process; we do need to constantly be looking forward." Craymer said that without projections, for example, state leaders might not have decided to call for the recent cuts to the state's current budget. So how does Perry's statement shake out? It's downright flighty. Projections may be uncertain, but that doesn't mean they're pulled from the air, as Perry told KVUE. The $18 billion budget gap figure has been cited by state leaders using the best information they now have available. And an official at the budget board, whose staffers are longstanding experts on number-crunching, called that figure "reasonable" before Perry piped up. We rate Perry's statement as False. | null | Rick Perry | null | null | null | 2010-06-09T22:26:38 | 2010-06-04 | ['Texas'] |
pomt-08849 | Says Bill White "profiteered in the aftermath of Hurricane Rita." | false | /texas/statements/2010/aug/09/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-bill-white-profiteered-hurricane-r/ | A headline on one of GOP Gov. Rick Perry’s campaign websites underscores Perry’s criticism of Democratic nominee Bill White’s business dealings. White, the headline on liberalbill.org says, "profiteered in the aftermath of Hurricane Rita." That's a powerful charge -- worthy fodder for the Truth-O-Meter. First, let’s check "profiteer," which means someone "who makes excessive profits, especially by taking advantage of a shortage of supply to charge exorbitant prices," according to Webster’s New World College Dictionary. The verb simply means to be a profiteer. Robert Prentice, a professor at the University of Texas McCombs School of Business, told us the word applies to someone who overcharges in instances of short supply or who simply seeks excess profits. In a nutshell, Perry’s campaign says White profiteered after the hurricane hit the Gulf Coast near the Texas-Louisiana line in September 2005 because, it says, he had financial connections — before and while he was mayor — with a company that got an emergency contract to provide six electrical generators to a Houston-area water authority for three months. In a June 10, 2010, press conference, White, who was mayor of Houston from 2004 through 2009, countered that he had no financial interest in the company -- BTEC Turbines -- at the time of the storm and hadn’t acted improperly when he encouraged the company to pitch in for the Coastal Water Authority, which supplies water to Houston, Baytown and Deer Park and dozens of industrial customers. (Its board of directors has seven members -- four appointed by the mayor of Houston and three by the governor.) The total amount paid by the authority to BTEC: about $1.9 million. The Federal Emergency Management Agency reimbursed the authority for nearly all the money spent on the generator contract, which was needed after the storm knocked out power to a pump station that sends water from the Trinity River to a reservoir near Baytown. White spoke on the issue a day after personal income tax returns he released showed that he later made hundreds of thousands of dollars from investing in the Houston company. Don Moore, a professor at the Haas School of Business at the University of California-Berkeley, said that for White's post-hurricane investment in BTEC to be interpreted as profiteering, White would have had to know two things in fall 2005: that he would join the investment in BTEC "in the near future" and that the firm's contract with the authority would "increase the sweetness" of that deal. Katy Bacon, spokeswoman for White's campaign, said he did not have advance knowledge of the investment opportunity. We scoured documents cited by Perry’s campaign, minutes from Coastal Water Authority board meetings and a packet of documents provided by Vinson & Elkins, the authority’s outside lawyers, for indications that either BTEC or White acted as profiteers from the emergency contract. What we found: Two members of the authority’s board of directors, Darryl King and Rick Cloutier, questioned the contract costs at the board’s October 2005 meeting. According to board minutes, Cloutier said the generators could be purchased for the same cost as renting them. The authority has since made a plan to buy back-up generators. On Aug. 4, 2010, the Associated Press reported that Mayor White later encouraged the authority to settle up with BTEC after the authority disputed some charges that it thought were too high. A final payment was arranged about eight months before White invested in BTEC. The authority ended up paying BTEC about $264,000 of more than $424,000 in disputed charges, according to the AP story. Cloutier, now a senior vice president with engineering and construction firm CDM in Houston, told us that after Rita hit, the board was pleased that the authority could get the equipment because "it was awful hard to come across generators at that time." He said the dispute between the authority and BTEC dealt with another aspect of the contract, the purchase and storage of diesel fuel that the authority didn't use because power was restored a few days after the storm. "It didn’t make sense to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for fuel and maintenance folks that we didn’t need," Cloutier said. So, why didn’t the authority end its BTEC deal as soon as power was restored? Cloutier said the board didn’t think that was an option. "We were being held to the terms of the contract," he said. Clark Lord of Vinson & Elkins, an outside lawyer for the authority, declined to discuss generator costs. But John Agnes, a salesman for Mustang CAT, which sells generators in the Houston area, told us the $252,000 monthly generator rental charge in the authority’s BTEC contract is roughly equivalent to what his company would charge for providing such generators in a period of high demand. The rest of the authority’s costs, about $1.2 million, were associated with installation, supporting equipment, personnel and fuel. (In October 2005, the authority’s board backed a resolution approving the agreement with BTEC and said the costs were not to exceed $2 million.) Next, we explored White’s connections to BTEC both before and after the hurricane came ashore in September 2005. Perry’s campaign notes correctly that before becoming mayor, White served on BTEC’s board by virtue of his job as president and CEO of the Wedge Group, a private Houston investment company with interests in oil service companies, commercial real estate and hotels. The Wedge Group bought a 70 percent stake in BTEC in December 2001, according to a December 2001 Houston Business Journal report. After his election in 2003, White resigned from Wedge and the BTEC board. Wedge later severed its ties to BTEC; Richard Blohm, general counsel for the Wedge Group, told us that "it has been a few years since we had any ownership interest at all." How did White regain an interest in BTEC? In December 2006, White invested in BTEC through the Sterling Group, one of two private equity firms that bought a majority stake in the Houston company that year. Bacon told us that the Sterling Group contacted White to get his opinion about the company and White said he thought so highly of it that he would put his own money into it. The firm later took White up on that and invited him to invest, Bacon said. The AP reported Aug. 4 that White owns about 1 percent of BTEC. Through July 20, 2010, Bacon said, White had put $552,000 in cash and $324,480 in loans into the BTEC investment and received $1.25 million in cash back -- a gain of about $375,000. Perry’s "profiteer" case against White features two other financial connections -- a deferred-compensation account that was set up before White left Wedge in 2003 and payments White received from Wedge in 2005. Let’s look at the deferred-compensation account first. According to White’s personal tax returns from the years he was mayor, White received payments from the account each year from 2005 (about $82,000) through 2009 (about $84,000). Bacon told us the deferred-compensation account, held by a brokerage firm, was funded with income White earned while still at Wedge that was then invested in publicly traded stocks and mutual funds, not in BTEC or Wedge. She said the payments White received were not influenced by Wedge’s performance after 2003. What about the more than $3 million White reported receiving from Wedge in 2005? In a financial summary White released to reporters this year, that money is described as "contractual payments" based on gains from investments that White had managed for the company prior to 2004. Bacon told us none of the investments was related to BTEC. We checked back in with the Perry campaign about the profiteering charge. Spokesman Mark Miner said the history of White’s financial involvement with Wedge, BTEC and the 2005 authority contract proves White profiteered from Hurricane Rita. We disagree. Questions have certainly been raised about whether the authority paid too much for its deal with BTEC, but even if it did, that would serve as evidence that BTEC reaped excessive profits from the hurricane contract, not White. Whether White improperly intervened on behalf of BTEC to settle the contract matter is another issue, which isn't the statement we're reviewing. Upshot: White had a prior relationship with BTEC when he played a role in the company’s getting post-hurricane work and he later made what turned out to be a profitable investment in the company. Those decisions might open White to conflict-of-interest criticisms. However, Perry’s characterization of White as a profiteer doesn't bear out. We rate Perry's claim False. | null | Rick Perry | null | null | null | 2010-08-09T06:00:00 | 2010-07-19 | ['Hurricane_Rita'] |
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.