claimID stringlengths 10 10 | claim stringlengths 4 8.61k ⌀ | label stringclasses 116 values | claimURL stringlengths 10 303 | reason stringlengths 3 31.1k ⌀ | categories stringclasses 611 values | speaker stringlengths 3 168 ⌀ | checker stringclasses 167 values | tags stringlengths 3 315 ⌀ | article title stringlengths 2 226 ⌀ | publish date stringlengths 1 64 ⌀ | climate stringlengths 5 154 ⌀ | entities stringlengths 6 332 ⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
pomt-14185 | In Africa, a child dies every minute because of (malaria). | mostly true | /global-news/statements/2016/apr/25/tim-ziemer/malarias-toll-close-one-african-child-killed-every/ | A grim statistic is circulating this World Malaria Day. USAID’s Tina Dooley-Jones, deputy mission director in Kenya, marked the occasion in Nairobi saying that "globally, malaria kills a child every two minutes." Dooley-Jones is far from the only one with that message. It plays large among malaria advocacy groups like Nothing But Nets. So it was curious to see a post in January on Medium from the head of the President’s Malaria Initiative, rear admiral Tim Ziemer, with the statement that "in Africa, a child dies every minute because of the disease." The initiative is one of the government’s largest global health efforts. It began under President George W. Bush and has been carried forward by President Barack Obama. Malaria’s toll among African children is a touchstone for many health activists, but the numbers can vary. Our colleagues at Africa Check spotted a range of statements. One organization claimed a child died every 30 seconds, another said once every two minutes, and in between was Ziemer’s figure. In this fact-check, we affirm that the correct number is closer to once every two minutes. USAID spokesman Ryan Essman told us that until fairly recently, his agency would talk about a death every one to two minutes, but now uses the two-minute time frame. "Admiral Ziemer has been working with malaria for a decade," Essman said. "He had it when he was child. Usually he uses the right number, but he might have slipped in the previous one." As a humanitarian matter, the exact death toll makes little difference. This table from the Kaiser Family Foundation, using World Health Organization data, clearly shows that Africa bears the greatest burden of malaria. WHO Region Number of countries with ongoing transmission Estimated cases (1,000s) Percentage Estimated deaths (in 1,000s) Percentage Global total 96 214,000 100% 438 100% Africa 44 188,000 88% 395 90% Americas 21 660 <1% 0.5 <1% Eastern Mediterranean 8 3,900 2% 6.8 2% Europe 3 0 0% 0 0% South-East Asia 10 20,000 9% 32 7% Western Pacific 10 1,500 <1% 3.2 <1% Africa wrestles with 90 percent of all deaths by the disease worldwide, and almost as large a percentage of active cases. Malaria is particularly lethal for pregnant women and their babies. The federal government estimates that it kills about 10,000 expectant mothers each year in Sub-Saharan Africa. Another 200,000 children will die prematurely from complications due to their mothers having bouts of malaria during pregnancy. Malaria’s death toll Our colleagues at Africa Check turned to the World Health Organization data for 2015. With huge gaps in the health care systems in many African nations, all experts agree that a precise count of malaria death is impossible. The WHO provides a range of estimates. Number of malaria deaths in children under 5 in Africa Middle estimate 292,000 Lowest estimate 212,000 Highest estimate 384,000 From that, the middle estimate shows one child dies every 1 minute 48 seconds, or close to once every two minutes. Middle estimate 1 min 48 sec Lowest estimate 2 min 28 sec Highest estimate 1 min 22 sec The U.S. government spent about $860 million this fiscal year to fight malaria. The money went for a drug that can help pregnant women and their children, but many dollars also went to insecticide-treated nets and indoor spraying to prevent people from catching the disease in the first place. Obama seeks to raise the total by about another $70 million in the last budget of his administration. There is a strong global push to eradicate malaria, and gains have been made. In the past decade and a half, the rate of new cases has fallen by about a third in Sub-Saharan Africa. Going forward, many hurdles remain. Mosquitoes can become resistant to the most common insecticides, weak health care systems in many countries make it difficult to sustain antimalaria programs, and counterfeit drugs can be as fatal as the disease itself. Our ruling Ziemer wrote that malaria kills a child in Africa each minute. His staff at USAID said that figure is off. A better estimate is that a child dies every 1 minute 48 seconds. But even that figure comes with a measure of uncertainty. The actual death rate could be higher or lower. By any estimate, malaria remains a serious threat to children in Africa. We rate this claim Mostly True. | null | Tim Ziemer | null | null | null | 2016-04-25T12:01:44 | 2016-01-20 | ['Africa'] |
pomt-06901 | Says state Sen. Randy Hopper, R-Fond du Lac, unlike typical taxpayers, "didn’t pay taxes" | mostly false | /wisconsin/statements/2011/jul/26/jessica-king/wisconsin-senate-recall-race-democrat-jessica-king/ | In one of the recall elections that could determine whether Democrats take control of the Wisconsin Senate, the two candidates have accused each of other personally enriching themselves while other taxpayers pay more. State Sen. Randy Hopper, R-Fond du Lac, contends in a TV ad that Democratic challenger Jessica King voted herself a 63 percent pay raise when she served on the Oshkosh Common Council. King voted against the raise, and the percentage was wrong to boot. We rated Hopper’s statement Pants on Fire. King, with a TV ad released July 12, 2011, claims middle-class folks pay their taxes but Hopper didn’t. The ad begins with what the King campaign identifies as a soldier, a nurse and a teacher. They say "politicians like Randy Hopper have been fighting for wealthy people like himself, raising middle-class taxes to give tax breaks to big corporations, but then not paying taxes. Randy Hopper, we work hard, we pay our taxes; we can’t say the same about you." As the accusation is made, the words "Senator Hopper didn’t pay taxes" appear on the screen above a footnote citing a Fond du Lac Reporter newspaper article. (The headline in the newspaper was "Hopper fends off tax questions.") The ad not only accuses Hopper of not paying taxes, while average citizens did, but suggests he did something improper or took advantage of the system. Let’s see what the record shows. When we asked King campaign spokeswoman Gillian Morris for evidence to back up the ad, she provided the October 2008 newspaper article cited in the ad. The article ran less than two weeks before Hopper defeated King, by a recount-confirmed 163 votes, to win what was then an open Senate seat in the Fox Valley area of east-central Wisconsin. Their rematch on Aug. 9, 2011, is one of nine recall elections that could determine whether Democrats take control of the Senate from Republicans, who now hold a five-seat advantage. According the 2008 article, the liberal One Wisconsin Now group obtained state Department of Revenue income tax data for Hopper and his five businesses. Since an open records request could take a week or more, and the elections are upon us, we asked One Wisconsin Now for the data they received, which was contained in a letter from the revenue department. The letter says that from 1998 through 2007, Hopper’s five businesses had no state income tax liability; and that from 1997 through 2007, Hopper personally had a liability in just one year, 2006, of $22,752. (Since then, One Wisconsin Now requested more recent state income tax data for Hopper and received a Department of Revenue letter saying Hopper had no tax liability in 2008 and 2010, and a tax liability of $27,995 in 2009. But those tax years are not part of our evaluation for this article.) Hopper, who didn’t dispute the facts in the 2008 newspaper article, was quoted as saying that in the years when he had no income tax obligation, it was because of business debt and reinvesting in some of the businesses. He also said two of the businesses run by his wife had no revenue. Hopper also said in the article he incurred the one personal income tax obligation, and paid it, because of capital gains he earned from selling one of his radio stations. It’s not unprecedented for a state lawmaker to pay no state income taxes. The same holds for other members of the public, based on what the tax laws are and allow, particularly for business owners. In September 2008, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel found that six lawmakers -- four Republicans and two Democrats -- were among a number of state officials who didn’t have a state income tax liability in either 2006 or 2007; one of the lawmakers, state Rep. Mary Williams, R-Medford, hadn’t had a state tax bill since before 2000. Tax experts interviewed for the article said those public officials were treated the same as everyone else, noting that most small-business owners show their business earnings or losses on their individual income tax returns. We also contacted Hopper’s campaign spokesman, Sean Stephenson, to see if Hopper had any additional response about his taxes. Stephenson said Hopper’s radio stations paid nearly $1 million in workers’ compensation, Social Security, property and other taxes -- but not state income taxes -- from 1998 through 2010. He also pointed out that Hopper’s name does not appear on the state’s list of delinquent taxpayers. (We checked, and his businesses aren’t on the list, either.) Stephenson didn’t provide any official documents to back up his claims about taxes Hopper and his business paid. But since King made the allegation that Hopper didn’t pay taxes, the burden is on her to prove it. So, let’s review the case she made. King claims broadly in a TV ad that Hopper, unlike typical taxpayers, "didn’t pay taxes." The records indicate that over a decade, Hopper’s businesses had no state income tax liability and he owed taxes personally in only one year. But the claim leaves an impression, without providing any evidence, that Hopper did something improper in order not to have a state income tax liability in most of the years in question. After all, this is the language included in the ad: "We work hard, we pay our taxes; we can’t say the same about you." Moreover, there is no indication that Hopper did not pay the one state income tax liability he did have. We rate King’s claim Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False. | null | Jessica King | null | null | null | 2011-07-26T09:00:00 | 2011-07-12 | ['Randy_Hopper'] |
tron-00783 | Derek Jeter Unretired to Sign with Red Sox | fiction! | https://www.truthorfiction.com/derek-jeter-leaves-retirement/ | null | celebrities | null | null | null | Derek Jeter Unretired to Sign with Red Sox – Fiction! | Mar 17, 2015 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-10983 | Giant rats plague New York City as 4 homeless men found eaten alive | pants on fire! | /punditfact/statements/2018/jul/16/blog-posting/good-news-no-man-eating-rats-nyc/ | Fortunately for everyone in New York City, a story about giant rats eating humans is a hoax. A story on sciencearticle.website said four homeless men were eaten alive, a gruesome narrative accompanied by photos of large rats held by sanitation workers and lying on a table. The warnings of 40-pound rats gnawing on unconscious humans isn’t true. This story was flagged as part Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Fake text When we asked the city about it, a health department spokeswoman Carolina Rodriguez said, "The only giant mutant rat in New York City is Master Splinter, and we all know he is partial to pizza just like another famous New York City rat." She explained that most rats in the city are Norway rats, which grow between 12 to 18 inches, with 5- to 6-inch tails. At most, they weigh about a pound. According to Rodriguez, the health department has not received any reports of rat attacks. Fake Pics This article also includes three pictures, all of which are gross. The first picture shows seven huge rats, laying dead on a table. When reverse-image searched, this photograph can be traced back to a National Geographic photo gallery on giant swamp rats. Also known as nutrias, these rodents weigh about 17 pounds and have been introduced to coastal regions in the United States. In Louisiana, they’ve become so prevalent that the government will pay hunters $5 per kill in an attempt to prevent overgrazing. These rodents do not live in New York, and they are unlikely to ever make the move. A 2014 study shows that nutrias prefer warmer climates, where only a few days per year are lower than 24 degrees Fahrenheit. New York’s sewer systems certainly don’t fit the bill. The image is reposted a second time within the article, although this time altered to make it appear that it was broadcast on the news. A breaking news runner gives the image an authentic look, but the fake "5 NEWS" logo and the "smhwtfnews.com" link make it clear that the screenshot was fabricated. The third image, in which a man in a green shirt appears to be holding a giant rat, is an old internet hoax. Reverse-image searches reveal that the man is demonstrating forced perspective: the rat isn’t bigger, it’s just closer to the camera. An accompanying image, which was omitted from the giant rat article, shows the same man and the same rat, but in the proper perspective. Both the giant swamp rat and the forced perspective images have been shared widely across fake news sites to "prove" that giant rats were caught in London, Hong Kong, and other urban areas across the world. Our ruling This article alleges that four men have died after being eaten by giant-sized rats. However, the story is completely fictional. There are no mutant, man-eating rats in New York, and the pictures have been stolen from various other giant rat hoaxes over the years. We rate this claim Pants On Fire! See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com | null | Bloggers | null | null | null | 2018-07-16T16:00:27 | 2018-07-11 | ['New_York_City'] |
snes-03528 | Julian Assange asked President-Elect Donald Trump for a pardon in exchange for his help in defeating Hillary Clinton. | mostly false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/assange-asks-for-pardon/ | null | Uncategorized | null | Kim LaCapria | null | WikiLeaks Asks President-Elect Trump to Pardon Julian Assange as Compensation? | 17 November 2016 | null | ['Julian_Assange', 'Hillary_Rodham_Clinton', 'Donald_Trump'] |
pose-00094 | Create a national commission charged with "examining and proposing solutions to work disincentives in the SSDI, SSI, Medicare, and Medicaid," among other things. | promise broken | https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/97/create-a-national-commission-on-people-with-disabi/ | null | obameter | Barack Obama | null | null | Create a National Commission on People with Disabilities, Employment, and Social Security | 2010-01-07T13:26:48 | null | ['Medicare_(United_States)'] |
pomt-04943 | Says Romney had the uniforms for the 2002 Winter Olympic games made in Burma. | mostly false | /truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/27/priorities-usa-action/ad-says-mitt-romney-had-olympic-uniforms-made-burm/ | With the Olympics about to begin, Priorities USA Action, a super PAC aligned with President Barack Obama, released an ad that used Olympic images to attack Mitt Romney. The ad shows a beaming Romney at the Olympic opening ceremonies. As each national team enters the stadium, an announcer provides a corresponding quip. "China, home to a billion people. Thousands owe their jobs to Mitt Romney’s companies ... And Burma, where Romney had the uniforms made for the 2002 games." Olympic authorities moved swiftly to get Priorities USA Action to withdraw the ad because of unauthorized use of Olympic footage, but the ad got such widespread coverage that we are still fact-checking it. PolitiFact has assessed that claim about jobs in China and and another one about Romney creating jobs in India. Both were rated Half True. In this fact-check, we look at whether Romney had the uniforms for the 2002 winter games made in Burma. The Torch Bearer Uniforms Burma, or Myanmar, is a country that until just recently was shunned for being a repressive regime that observed no fair labor practices. Olympic games use many different uniforms -- for staffers, athletes and so forth and not all were made in Burma. But there is no question about the origins of the uniforms for the torch bearers. These were the 11,500 volunteers who relayed the Olympic torch some 13,000 miles to Salt Lake City. That’s a lot of jackets with the Salt Lake Olympic logo. The Huffington Post reported this a couple of weeks ago, but the story received coverage in 2002. The day before the winter games opened, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions sent a letter of protest to the International Olympic Committee. "No responsible organization or body should make use of products originating in Burma," the letter said. "Doing business with Burma, in effect, supports human rights abuses." The next day, according to an article in the Ottawa Citizen, the company that provided those uniforms, Marker Ltd, confirmed that the uniforms had come from a supplier in Burma. The article quotes Marker’s Olympic program managing director, Ralph Eeson saying the company is "sensitive to to human rights issues and has no reason to believe the uniforms were made under conditions that violate international law." Marker, a Salt Lake City-based sports apparel company, was a co-sponsor of the games. In May of 1999 it had agreed to provide about $20 million worth of clothing. The company was the first new sponsor for the games in about a year because of turmoil over allegations of bribery. The timing of Marker’s sponsorship might be significant. Mitt Romney had just left Bain Capital in February 1999 to takeover the floundering Salt Lake Olympic Committee. Three months after he arrived, Marker signed on. Burma’s Reputation By 2000, Burma was a pariah. In 1997, the United States barred new investments in Burma by American corporations. The military dictatorship had been sanctioned by many international bodies for using forced labor on large irrigation construction projects and violating child labor standards. "It was well-known that it was a hell hole," said Scott Nova with the Worker Rights Consortium, an agency that helps colleges and universities avoid buying from factories that abuse their workers. Nova’s group traces the roots of all those sweatshirts, T-shirts and hats that carry the college name. The Worker Rights Consortium tracks more than 1,000 companies and each of the dozens of separate items they supply. "On that entire list," Nova said, "virtually nothing came from Burma in 2000. Maybe three items out of thousands. Every responsible manufacturer was long gone from the country." That may have been true for the companies Nova’s group watched, but many American firms continued to buy from Burma. A consortium of 15 European labor and human rights groups, the Clean Clothes Campaign, reported in 2000 that U.S. clothing imports from the country nearly tripled between 1995 and 1999. Companies cited in that report included Jordache, Nautica and Adidas. In 2001, a declassified State Department memo later corroborated that report. Marker was not alone in buying from contractors in Burma. The Winter Olympics Budget The ad suggests that Romney played a direct role in ordering the uniforms from Burma, but the only source provided by Priorities USA Action was the Huffington Post article which did not make that direct connection. In assessing his possible role, it's important to note it was a large organization. The SLOC had about 2,000 paid staff. The total budget for the Salt Lake Games was about $1.3 billion. There were about 10 other sponsors like Marker, plus about another 15 firms with marketing contracts. The list included companies such as Coca-Cola, Home Depot, and Gateway Computers. Marker’s sponsorship represented less than 1 percent of the total budget. We have asked the US Olympic Committee if the SLOC used any procurement guidelines and did not hear back. A recent Salt Lake Tribune article about the SLOC archives suggests that detailed information might no longer exist. Many internal memos were destroyed after the games ended. Our Ruling The ad from Priorities USA Action says Romney had the Olympic uniforms made in Burma. The torch bearer uniforms, perhaps more than 11,000 of them, were made in Burma, but that’s not all the uniforms used in the games, particularly for the athletes, as the visuals in the ad suggest. And we've seen insufficient evidence to directly link the torch bearer uniforms to Romney. We rate the statement Mostly False. | null | Priorities USA Action | null | null | null | 2012-07-27T10:43:51 | 2012-07-25 | ['None'] |
snes-04696 | A rare black rose grows naturally in Turkey. | false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/black-rose-village-turkey/ | null | Fauxtography | null | Dan Evon | null | ‘Rare Black Rose’ Only Grows in a Village in Turkey | 27 May 2016 | null | ['None'] |
snes-00132 | About 125 women took Mifepristone to terminate their pregnancies during a protest demanding the legalization of abortion in South Korea. | mixture | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pregnancies-protest-south-korea/ | null | Politics | null | Dan Evon | null | Did 125 Women Terminate Their Pregnancies During a Protest in South Korea? | 5 September 2018 | null | ['South_Korea'] |
pomt-11599 | Since we passed tax cuts, over 3 million workers have gotten tax cut bonuses — many of them thousands and thousands of dollars. | mostly true | /truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jan/30/donald-trump/trump-says-tax-bill-led-bonuses-three-million-work/ | President Donald Trump said the tax bill passed in December has already led to millions of workers getting bonuses. "Since we passed tax cuts, over 3 million workers have gotten tax cut bonuses — many of them thousands and thousands of dollars," Trump said during the State of the Union Jan. 30. In December, Trump signed a bill into law that lowered the corporate tax rate from 35 to 21 percent. Trump’s numbers echo the finding of a conservative group that had compiled company announcements about bonuses, but the majority of companies’ bonuses appeared to be $1,000 or less, not the "thousands and thousands" Trump said. Companies announcing bonuses Trump’s numbers match a compilation by Americans for Tax Reform, a group started by anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist. Americans for Tax Reform advocates against tax increases and supported the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that Trump signed into law in December. Americans for Tax Reform used company press releases and media reports to compile a list of announced bonuses or other financial benefits. The group found that as of the day of Trump’s State of the Union speech, at least 3 million Americans are receiving special tax reform bonuses. American Airlines, FedEx, Home Depot, Nationwide Insurance, Walmart and Walt Disney Company were among the companies that announced bonuses. In total, at least 286 companies have announced wage and salary increases, bonuses, or 401(k) match increases, or in the case of public utility companies, lower rates. Trump said that "many" of the bonuses are "thousands of dollars per worker." But it appears that the majority of the company announcements were for bonuses of $1,000 or less. The list includes about nine companies that announced bonuses of $2,000, including Fiat Chrysler’s 60,000 employees. Some companies were very clear about who deserves credit for the bonus. The Hammock Source in North Carolina was one of many companies to announce employee bonuses following the passage of the tax bill. The company handed out the bonuses in envelopes that said, "Trump Republican tax reform bonus." "We at The Hammock Source want to continue to invest in the people that have made our business successful," CEO Walter Perkins III said in a press release Jan. 25. "President Trump’s tax cuts will provide the funds to make this desire a reality. We hope that other business will follow our lead and give back to their employees as well." The Americans for Tax Reform analysis was only of recent bonus announcements and did not include a historical comparison to determine how many of these companies gave bonuses in recent years. It’s not unusual for many companies to give bonuses. Some caveats Experts say that Trump’s claim is lacking important context. The bonuses only affect a small percentage of American workers. Willis Towers Watson, a global human resources consulting firm, surveyed 333 large and midsize employers in January to ask about their plans related to the tax bill. The survey showed that about 6 percent said they provided profit sharing or a bonus in 2017 and 5 percent planned to do so in 2018, while 10 percent were considering it. A slightly smaller number had given wage increases or planned to do so. A Reuters/Ipsos poll showed 2 percent of U.S. adults said they had gotten a raise, bonus or other additional benefits due to the tax law. The poll was conducted of 5,254 adults Jan. 12-23. Economists say it will take more time to fully assess the economic impact of the tax reform bill. Labor trend experts said that amid a tightening labor market and low unemployment, companies have been trying to use different compensation and rewards to attract and retain top talent. Andrew Chamberlain, chief economist at Glassdoor, told PolitiFact that one-time bonuses are a low-risk way for companies to pass on some expected benefits of the tax bill to workers without being on the hook for sustained higher base wages. "In this hiring environment, plans for pay increases are likely to have already been in the works, and the passage of the recent tax bill may simply have been the occasion for announcement rather than the cause," he said. The news coverage following the new tax policy may have led some employers to announce pay or benefit changes in an effort to stay ahead of competitors. "This is not to say the tax bill hasn’t affected recent decisions to raise wages at all, but the full impact of tax reform on the job market is something that we’ll only know in time – years or even a decade from now," Chamberlain said. Brian Kropp, HR practice leader at Gartner, an information technology research and advisory company, told PolitiFact that companies have been trying to use different compensation and rewards to attract and retain top talent. "While, it is true that some companies have used the tax cut to provide bonuses for employees, the majority of companies had already been increasing, or planning to increase rewards, well before the tax cut," he said. Companies announcing bonuses by the end of 2017 do get a tax advantage of claiming a deduction in that tax year, Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center co-director Eric Toder told PolitiFact. "A payment in 2017 would be deductible at a 35 percent rate; the same payment in 2018 would be deductible only at the new 21 percent rate," Toder said. "My understanding is companies would only have had to announce the bonus by the end of 2017 to claim the deduction in tax year 2017; they would not literally have had to send out the checks." Any surge in bonus payments now probably says little or nothing about how the corporate tax cuts will affect wages in the long-run, Toder said. Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute who favored the corporate tax changes in the bill, said that the response from corporations was a surprise. "Taxes matter to businesses, and they respond," he said. However, bonuses are a short-term response to the tax bill, which is less important than potential long-term changes, such as whether corporations will build new factories or purchase more machinery. Our ruling Trump said, "Since we passed tax cuts, over 3 million workers have gotten tax cut bonuses — many of them thousands and thousands of dollars." Americans for Tax Reform, a group that supported the tax reform bill, found that at least 3 million Americans are receiving bonuses that the companies said were related to passage of the tax bill, based on company press releases and news reports. However, economists and labor experts say it will take years to fully assess the economic impact of the tax bill. In this tight labor market, it’s possible that some businesses were already planning to give out bonuses or other financial incentives to retain workers. We rate this claim Mostly True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com | null | Donald Trump | null | null | null | 2018-01-30T21:44:02 | 2018-01-30 | ['None'] |
pose-00718 | I will also create the authority to integrate all state policies and programs, such as transportation, energy, agriculture, land use planning and others, that have relevance to climate change and energy issues. | in the works | https://www.politifact.com/oregon/promises/kitz-o-meter/promise/748/integrate-state-policies-related-to-climate-change/ | null | kitz-o-meter | John Kitzhaber | null | null | Integrate state policies related to climate change | 2011-01-04T21:58:42 | null | ['None'] |
pose-00623 | Will "set strict budget caps to limit federal spending on an annual basis." | promise kept | https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/gop-pledge-o-meter/promise/649/establish-a-hard-cap-on-new-discretionary-spending/ | null | gop-pledge-o-meter | John Boehner | null | null | Establish a hard cap on new discretionary spending | 2010-12-22T09:57:30 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-09866 | A loophole "still exists which allows members of Congress and high-powered executive branch appointees to exploit 'insider' knowledge of the financial industry in order to turn personal profit." | true | /truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/06/public-citizen/public-citizen-gets-it-right-about-insider-trading/ | Little-known fact: Members of Congress are exempt from rules that prevent insider trading. Or so says the left-leaning advocacy group Public Citizen in a July 10, 2009, e-mail sent to supporters. "The federal government has finally got the message that it’s time for stronger oversight of Wall Street and the financial services sector. It’s also time to put an end to secret spending and insider trading," the e-mail reads. "A dangerous legal loophole still exists which allows members of Congress and high-powered executive branch appointees to exploit 'insider' knowledge of the financial industry in order to turn personal profit." It goes on to describe an army of lobbyists and traders who "haunt the halls of Congress seeking insider tips from staff — known as 'political intelligence consultants'" who may also use the confidential information. The e-mail asks supporters to write their representatives to support the Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, a bill sponsored by Reps. Louise Slaughter of New York and Brian Baird of Washington, that would ban insider trading by lawmakers, members of the executive branch and staff, and require that they publicly disclose stock trades of more than $1,000 within 90 days. It would also require the "political intelligence consultants" to register as lobbyists in both chambers of Congress. We hadn't heard the allegation that members of Congress had a leg up for insider trading and wondered if it's true. Thomas Newkirk, a partner with the law firm Jenner and Block, told us that indeed there's some uncertainty about how insider trading rules impact members of Congress and their staff. For example, in 2001, a financial consultant meeting with the Treasury Department learned that the department planned to kill off the 30-year bond. In turn, the consultant tipped off traders at Goldman Sachs who proceeded to use that information to make the firm lots of money. It was considered insider trading because the consultant knew he was not supposed to release the information, Newkirk said. Federal regulators settled with Goldman Sachs and the consultant for about $10.3 million in September 2003. But with members of Congress, it's different. Unless lawmakers have some express confidentiality agreement — whether it's in writing or in word — they can do whatever they want with the information they obtain on Capitol Hill, Newkirk said. Bruce Carton, a former Senior Counsel with the SEC's enforcement division and current editor of Securities Docket, agreed there is uncertainty about the rules. "Insider trading depends on some kind of duty. You can steal information, but unless you have some sort of duty of confidentiality to it, you're not going to be held liable," Carton said. Right now, there is no duty of confidentiality for Congress, their staff or executive branch employees, he said. "It may be unethical, and it may be unseemly, but it's not illegal," Carton said. So yes, it seems there is a way for members of Congress to engage in insider trading. Whether they are actually doing it is another story. So far, there are no specific examples of lawmakers engaging in "secret spending and insider trading," as the e-mail indicates. But for its factual claim, we give Public Citizen a True. | null | Public Citizen | null | null | null | 2009-08-06T18:38:20 | 2009-07-10 | ['United_States_Congress'] |
vogo-00417 | Statement: “An emergency intercom is located on the lower level of each Coaster car near the restroom,” the website for the North County Transit District said as of Jan. 25. | determination: false | https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/fact-check-the-phantom-help-button/ | Analysis: The Coaster, the commuter train run by the North County Transit District, shuttled 1.2 million passengers between Oceanside and downtown San Diego last year. Because it serves such a large population, the San Diego County Grand Jury checked up on the train’s safety procedures earlier this year. | null | null | null | null | Fact Check: The Phantom Help Button | March 23, 2011 | null | ['None'] |
pose-01019 | He set a goal to lead the world in college graduates by 2020, and cut the growth of college tuition and fees in half over the next 10 years, a goal that will save the typical student thousands of dollars a year, and proposed bringing together community colleges and businesses to train 2 million Americans for good jobs that actually exist now and are waiting to be filled. | promise broken | https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/1099/lead-world-college-graduates-2020/ | null | obameter | Barack Obama | null | null | Lead the world in college graduates by 2020 | 2013-01-20T06:00:00 | null | ['United_States'] |
pomt-01482 | This Congress "adjourned earliest of any time in congressional history before an election." | false | /punditfact/statements/2014/sep/28/laura-ingraham/current-congress-adjourned-earlier-election-year-a/ | A couple of hefty issues await congressional action. There’s the matter of replacing departing Attorney General Eric Holder, and even more pressing, authorizing or rejecting America’s attacks on the Islamic State group in Syria and Iraq where airstrikes are ongoing. But both items are for the moment on hold until lawmakers get back Nov. 12. Their last official day of business was Sept. 19. Conservative radio show host Laura Ingraham was particularly peeved by Congress’ absence as the American military returns to war in the Middle East. Ingraham focused on the constitutional role Congress has in declaring war. "We should have civilian authorization, civilian leadership authorization for this war, otherwise we're going to be in for real trouble down the road," Ingraham said. Moments earlier, she said: "The Congress adjourned earliest of any time in Congressional history before an election." We thought we’d check whether taking a long break in September and October is as record-setting as Ingraham asserted. She’s incorrect, but before we get to the details, we need to clarify a couple of terms. When we talk about a session of Congress, we mean the stretch that starts in January and generally ends in December. According the Congressional Research Service, "A session begins when the chamber convenes and ends when it adjourns. A recess, by contrast, does not terminate a session, but only suspends it temporarily." Lawmakers and pundits often refer to a recess as an adjournment. Right now, technically Congress is in recess. The Congressional Research Service acknowledged that the informal use of the words doesn’t always align with their formal meaning. The House of Representatives has a table with the schedule of every session of Congress going back to 1789. To check Ingraham’s claim, we need only go back as far as 1960. That year, Congress ended its session for the year and adjourned on Sept. 1. That was a full adjournment (not just a recess) and it came 18 days sooner than this year’s extended recess. For the record, 1960 was the year that Republican Richard Nixon faced Democrat John F. Kennedy. Interestingly, Sept. 1 was not particularly early for the times. In 1959, Congress adjourned for the year Sept. 15. In 1958, Congress adjourned Aug. 24. In 1956, it was July 27. We note that the last two in that list were election years. So Ingraham is wrong, but we should note similar-sounding claims Sunday that are accurate. On Fox News Sunday, Wyoming Republican Sen. John Barasso said, "This is the earliest Congress has adjourned in over 50 years." On CBS’ Face the Nation, Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine called it "the second-earliest recess before a midterm since 1960." Both senators are correct (if you excuse Barrasso’s use of adjourn instead of recess). For Barrasso, "over 50 years," takes us back to any year up to 1963, or 51 years ago. The record shows that since 1963, Congress often has taken short breaks in September, given lawmakers several weeks in October to campaign in election years, and even closed the books for the year in October. But an extended break from mid September to mid November has not occurred. Kaine’s claim is spot on. Our ruling Ingraham said Congress had adjourned earlier this year than in any time in "Congressional history before an election." Technically, Congress is in recess and hasn’t adjourned. But setting that aside, the record shows that in 1960, Congress adjourned and ended its session Sept. 1 -- more than two weeks before the current Congress took its recess. We rate the claim False. | null | Laura Ingraham | null | null | null | 2014-09-28T16:59:28 | 2014-09-28 | ['United_States_Congress'] |
snes-00328 | Facebook users can receive a $150 coupon for Dollar General by liking and sharing a post. | false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dollar-general-coupon/ | null | Fraud & Scams | null | David Mikkelson | null | Dollar General $150 Coupon | 18 July 2018 | null | ['None'] |
pose-00012 | Congress has set rules regarding the tax deductibility of the salaries of CEOs, but forms of non-salary compensation have become popular. Obama would look at revamping definitions of compensation. | promise broken | https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/14/close-loopholes-in-the-corporate-tax-deductibility/ | null | obameter | Barack Obama | null | null | Close loopholes in the corporate tax deductibility of CEO pay | 2010-01-07T13:26:45 | null | ['Barack_Obama', 'United_States_Congress', 'Chief_executive_officer'] |
pomt-12037 | We've got about $3 trillion in trapped cash overseas that basically can't come back in this country because of our tax laws. | mostly true | /wisconsin/statements/2017/sep/15/paul-ryan/paul-ryan-35-corporate-tax-rate-keeps-3-trillion-t/ | When U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan met with Milwaukee Journal Sentinel staff on Sept. 1, 2017, an editor mentioned major tax cuts adopted under Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1981. At first, Ryan joked around. "The music was bad in those days, and the tax laws were as well," he replied, chuckling. "So, I think -- I’m not a big ‘80s music guy; I’m more of a ‘70s guy." But the 47-year-old Janesville Republican quickly got serious. Arguing that U.S. taxes are stopping U.S.-based multinational corporations from bringing giant sums of money to America, he stated: We've got about $3 trillion in trapped cash overseas that basically can't come back in this country because of our tax laws. Ryan has made essentially the same claim a number of times, including on Milwaukee television, on CNBC, on Twitter and to the New York Times. So, do U.S. tax laws essentially prevent $3 trillion being held overseas from being brought to this country? Keep the word repatriate in mind. Taxing foreign earnings The object of Ryan’s criticism is the U.S. corporate tax rate. At 35 percent, as we reported in a Donald Trump fact check during the 2016 presidential campaign, it is among the highest in the world -- though it’s worth noting that, after deductions, companies typically pay an "effective" rate that can be much lower. (Trump, by the way, pledged during the presidential campaign to reduce the rate to 15 percent. That promise has been rated as In the Works on PolitiFact National’s Trump-O-Meter.) As for the focus of Ryan’s claim, he’s talking about U.S.-based multinational corporations. More specifically, the foreign-earned profits of those companies. Here’s an example of how the taxation works: If the company earns income in a country with a 20 percent corporate tax rate, it would pay that 20 percent tax immediately to that country. If that money is then repatriated -- that is, brought back to the company’s U.S. headquarters -- the company would pay an additional 15 percent to the U.S. government. (In other words, the U.S. tax rate of 35 percent minus the 20 percent already paid to the foreign country.) So, as long as the profits stay parked overseas, there is no U.S. tax on it. Now to the specifics of Ryan’s claim. The $3 trillion figure To back up Ryan’s statement, his office cited an April 2017 CNBC news article that said American companies are holding about $2.6 trillion in overseas earnings, and the figure has been growing. That’s the latest estimate by Congress’ nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, for 2015, although an estimate done in July 2017 for PolitiFact National put the figure at $2.8 trillion. So, Ryan’s claim of about $3 trillion is reasonable. It’s worth noting that the figure has been rising. In fact, considering only the Russell 1000 index of large companies, the amount of parked cash overseas has more than doubled since 2008, as shown in a July 2017 report by the Massachusetts research firm Audit Analytics: Year Amount of foreign-earned profits by U.S.-based companies kept overseas 2008 $1.09 trillion 2009 $1.19 trillion 2010 $1.36 trillion 2011 $1.63 trillion 2012 $1.89 trillion 2013 $2.12 trillion 2014 $2.3 trillion 2015 $2.43 trillion 2016 $2.62 trillion Now to the rest of Ryan’s claim. ‘Trapped’ and ‘basically can’t come back’ Ryan asserts that the money is "trapped overseas" and "basically can’t come back" because of U.S. tax laws To be sure, a substantial amount of foreign profits are repatriated each year. But Ryan didn’t invent the term "trapped cash." In fact, academics for years have referred to it as a commonly used term to describe the growing amount of cash held by U.S. multinationals overseas to avoid, or at least defer, paying the 35 percent U.S. tax rate. Ryan’s claim is also backed by September 2017 paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a nonpartisan organization in Massachusetts. The paper found a dramatic increase in U.S. corporations holding onto cash; that the cash is concentrated in foreign subsidiaries of multinational corporations; and that it is explained by low foreign tax rates. News articles also have reported on the phenomenon. In August 2016, Apple CEO Tim Cook said of his company’s profits parked offshore: "We’re not going to bring it back until there’s a fair rate. There’s no debate about it." Apple is second to Microsoft in the amount of cash parked overseas, according to Audit Analytics. And as the San Jose Mercury News reported in May 2017, the tax is such a deterrent that even though Apple was sitting on $240 billion in overseas cash, it has continued to borrow money. The reason: The borrowing cost Apple 4 percent or less, far below the 35 percent tax that would be paid for repatriating the overseas cash. One more point before we close: The companies would like to repatriate the money because bringing it back to the parent company enables them to do things such as paying dividends, doing stock buybacks and investing in U.S. operations. Several academic experts told us that some of the overseas money, while not repatriated directly back to the companies’ U.S. headquarters, is invested in U.S. securities. That doesn’t trigger the 35 percent tax. Our rating Ryan says: "We've got about $3 trillion in trapped cash overseas that basically can't come back in this country because of our tax laws." To avoid a 35 percent U.S. tax, U.S.-based multinational companies have opted not to "repatriate" roughly $3 trillion of their foreign profits, a figure that is growing. That is, they don’t bring the money back to their U.S. headquarters, where it can be used for things such as dividend payments or investments in their domestic operations. But the overseas profits aren’t literally trapped and indeed some foreign-earned profits are repatriated, though they are subject to the 35 percent tax. Ryan’s statement is accurate but needs additional information, our definition of Mostly True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com | null | Paul Ryan | null | null | null | 2017-09-15T05:00:00 | 2017-09-01 | ['None'] |
tron-02324 | Good news from a soldier in Iraq | truth! | https://www.truthorfiction.com/rydbom/ | null | military | null | null | null | Good news from a soldier in Iraq | Mar 17, 2015 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-01810 | Under Gov. Tom Corbett, "Pennsylvania ranks 49th in job creation." | mostly true | /truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jul/22/fresh-start-pa/democratic-group-says-pennsylvania-49th-job-creati/ | Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett, a Republican, remains one of the most vulnerable incumbent governors running this year. Elected to his first term in 2010, Corbett now trails Democratic challenger Tom Wolf by more than 20 points in most recent polls. Despite Wolf’s lead, pro-Democratic groups are leaving nothing to chance. One of these is Fresh Start PA, a political action committee running parallel to the state Democratic Party. It’s headed by Katie McGinty, one of the Democratic primary challengers Wolf defeated, and its senior strategist is veteran Pennsylvania Democratic consultant Mike Mikus. Here’s the text of the ad released on July 15: "It's a shame what Tom Corbett has done to Pennsylvania: huge deficits, while he's given tax breaks to big corporations. He's let oil and gas companies off the hook. Under Corbett, we're the only state in the country who doesn't charge an extraction tax. Corbett's cut a billion dollars from our schools, forcing communities to raise property taxes. And Pennsylvania ranks 49th in job creation. Tom Corbett: why would we give him four more years?" There are a lot of claims here, but the one we’re going to check is that under Corbett, "Pennsylvania ranks 49th in job creation." The source of the statistic isn’t cited within the ad, but when we asked Mikus, he said it came from data compiled by the Keystone Research Center, a think tank whose board includes many labor-union officials and is often described as liberal-leaning. Because the data from the group’s report comes from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, we were able to recalculate it ourselves. We looked at the change in total, seasonally adjusted, non-farm employment in the 50 states between January 2011, when Corbett took office, and June 2014, the most recent month for which data is available. We found that Pennsylvania gained a net 124,800 jobs during that period -- an increase of 2.2 percent. Measuring by percentage increase, that ranked Pennsylvania 47th in the nation. The only states with a smaller increase were New Mexico (1 percent), Alaska (1.58 percent) and Arkansas (1.91 percent). The reason for the discrepancy between 49th (as the ad said) and 47th (what we found) is that the Keystone Research Center report used data only through April 2014, while we used it through June 2014. We can see why Fresh Start PA cited a pre-existing report for their data, but we figured it was better to use the most current data available during the ad’s run. Billy Pitman, a spokesman for the Corbett campaign, said the ad’s statistic is "misleading," noting that the unemployment rate has fallen from 8.1 percent in January 2011, when he took office, to 5.6 percent now. But Mikus counters that Corbett was the one who said that making Pennsylvania No. 1 in job creation was one of his goals, on at least two occasions (video here and here). One piece of context worth noting is that states that suffered relatively modest job losses during the downturn would be expected to experience a less robust recovery, said Tara Sinclair, a George Washington University economist. During the recession and immediate post-recession years of 2008 to 2010, Pennsylvania lost less ground in employment than most states. Finally economists have consistently told us that policies of a governor have a limited impact on a state's economy. States are tied to larger economic forces, and governors often claim too much credit when things are going well and no blame when things are going poorly. Corbett's most direct impact on jobs would presumably have come in government employment. Since he took office, state and local government employment fell by 55,000, or 7 percent of the government work force. In fact, if government employment had remained stable over that period, total nonfarm employment would have been 44 percent higher than it turned out to be. Either way, the ad offered a specific statistic, and it’s pretty close. Whether the state ranks 49th or 47th in the nation, the ad raises a fair point that job growth in Pennsylvania has lagged that of most other states since January 2011. Another sign of the weak employment picture: The number of payroll jobs in the state isn’t even back to where it was at the start of the recession. Our ruling Fresh Start PA said that under Corbett, "Pennsylvania ranks 49th in job creation." We looked at the most current numbers and found the state is now 47th rather than 49th -- but even at 47th, Pennsylvania is clearly among the weakest states in job creation since the start of 2011. It’s important to note that Corbett, like all governors, has a limited influence on the economic performance of his state. Still, we rate the claim Mostly True. | null | Fresh Start PA | null | null | null | 2014-07-22T17:51:59 | 2014-07-15 | ['Tom_Corbett', 'Pennsylvania'] |
pomt-02403 | The president won the youth vote 3 to 1, but his numbers have dropped 20, 30 percent among the youth. | mostly true | /truth-o-meter/statements/2014/mar/09/rand-paul/sen-paul-says-obama-lost-youth-support/ | Talk of Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., as a 2016 presidential candidate picked up steam over the weekend after he bested other potential party nominees in a Conservative Political Action Conference straw poll, pulling in support from 31 percent of attendees who voted. On Fox News Sunday, he criticized President Barack Obama’s inability to retain support among young voters, suggesting that Republicans such as himself could pick up more of the demographic’s support. "The president won the youth vote three to one, but his numbers have dropped 20, 30 percent among the youth," Paul said. "Really, the public at large is less trusting of this president, but the youth in particular have lost faith in this president. And so I think there’s a real opportunity for Republicans who do believe in the Fourth Amendment to grow our party by attracting young people and bring that energy into our party." Let’s take a look at how Obama has fared with young voters. According to 2008 exit polls, Obama took home 66 percent of the youth vote, which includes voters aged 18 to 29. In 2012, that number decreased to 60 percent, still a commanding majority of the demographic. That means the 3 to 1 ratio Paul cited is off base. Yes, Obama easily won the youth vote in both races. But he won it by roughly a 2 to 1 ratio in 2008 and a 3 to 2 ratio in 2012. Paul’s office specified that he was referring to a difference in percentage points when we cited a 20 to 30 percent drop in Obama’s youth support, but his statement reads like he was referring to percent change. We’ll crunch the numbers both ways. To gauge Obama’s recent approval ratings among young voters, Paul’s spokesman pointed us to a December 2013 report from the Harvard University Institute of Politics. Every six months, the nonpartisan institute surveys about 2,000 18- to 29-year-olds on political issues. Harvard reported that in surveys conducted in October and November 2013, 41 percent of young voters approved of Obama’s performance as president, while 54 percent disapproved. Participants answered right as the Affordable Care Act online marketplaces went through a rocky rollout. That’s the lowest approval rating the institute charted since the start of his presidency, a 14-percentage-point drop from November 2009. As a percentage of his support, it’s just over a 20 percent drop. We also looked at approval ratings reported by Gallup, a nonpartisan polling group. When Obama first took office in 2009, three-quarters of young voters polled approved of him. Although the percentage ebbs and flows from week to week, the general trend points downward. In 2014, the approval rating for the same demographic has hovered just over 40 percent. It’s a significant drop in Obama support from young voters, as Paul pointed out. Using Gallup’s numbers for the week of Feb. 24, the most recently reported, we get a decrease of 32 percentage points. That means that relative to his starting point, he suffered a 40-percent drop. That said, Democrats still have a stronger grip on young voters than Republicans. According to the Harvard survey, 33 percent of young voters considered themselves Democrats, compared with 24 percent Republicans and 44 percent independents. Our ruling Paul said, "The president won the youth vote three to one, but his numbers have dropped 20, 30 percent among the youth." Obama won the youth vote in both elections, but the ratios were smaller than 2 to 1, so Paul’s math is off. Approval ratings among young voters have indeed dropped since 2009, by as much as Paul said or more when we consider percent change. Overall, it’s clear that Obama is falling in favorability with young voters. We rate his claim Mostly True. | null | Rand Paul | null | null | null | 2014-03-09T16:53:59 | 2014-03-09 | ['None'] |
wast-00036 | Since she joined the Senate, McCaskill's husband received $131 million in federal subsidies \xe2\x80\x94 subsidies that let the McCaskills pocket up to $22 million. \xe2\x80\xa6Claire McCaskill: She gets rich, you pay. | 3 pinnochios | ERROR: type should be string, got " https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/08/27/misleading-attack-senatorial-spouses-investments/" | null | null | National Republican Senatorial Committee | Glenn Kessler | null | A misleading attack on a senatorial spouse's investments | August 27 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-00184 | Says Andrew Gillum "oversaw a 52 percent increase in murder." | mostly false | /florida/statements/2018/oct/19/florida-strong/florida-pac-video-wrongly-blames-andrew-gillum-tal/ | Set to the creepy voice of Gollum from The Lord of the Rings, a Facebook video blames Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum for a murder spike in his city. "Andrew Gillum," says the narrator of the video, produced by the conservative Florida Strong PAC. "He is a failed mayor ..." The ad then levels a series of charges about his record, including that he "oversaw a 52 percent increase in murder." (Yes, the PAC was having some fun with the fact that Gillum’s name is similar to Gollum while bringing up violent crime.) Gillum and Republican Ron DeSantis have been arguing over the city’s record on crime for months. Did Gillum oversee a 52 percent increase in city murders? There's a way to get to that number, but it isn't very honest. The PAC cherry-picked data that made the city sound like a growing hotbed for murder. In reality, the number of murders during Gillum’s tenure as mayor has swung little, ranging from 11 to 17 deaths in four years. Further, the ad goes too far to pin the responsibility on Gillum. Tallahassee has a weak mayor form of government, which means Gillum is just one vote on the commission. Tallahassee’s murder rate Florida Strong PAC chairman Stafford Jones told PolitiFact that he gleaned the information about the city’s murder rate from a Republican Party of Florida Facebook post. The party drew data from Tallahassee Reports, a website critical of city government run by former city commission candidate Steve Stewart. Tallahassee Reports looked at data reported by the city’s police department to the state for the annual FBI reports. The data covers Gillum’s political tenure; he was elected to the city commission in 2003 and became mayor in late 2014. The website found that from 2002 to 2009 the average murder rate per 100,000 citizens in Tallahassee was 4.6. Then, from 2010 to 2017, the average murder rate increased to 7 murders per 100,000 citizens. The increase equals 52 percent. But if we look at the sheer number of murders we see that the number of murders ranges from a low of four deaths in 2003 to a high of 17 in 2017. If we look just at Gillum's mayoral tenure, the range was between 11 and 17 murders. We sent the Tallahassee Reports data to Brian Stults, a criminologist at Florida State University. "There is nothing wrong with the math, nor anything inherently wrong with the approach," he said. "It just cherry-picks a single number that happens to be the most volatile in most places." He said small numbers must be viewed with caution and that it requires taking a broader look at trends. "In both periods, the risk of being murdered is very, very low," Stults said. "Small random fluctuations from year to year can lead to dramatic changes in the murder rate that are not as substantial as they may seem." Stults created his own spreadsheet using FDLE data showing crime and crime rate data in Tallahassee. He, too, found spikes in the murder rate, though he noted that the size of the increase depended upon the methodology used. DeSantis has cited an even higher figure when he tweeted that "the murder rate increased 83 percent." That’s a reference to an increase in murders in Leon County from 12 in 2016 to 22 in 2017. A mayor isn’t to blame Several criminology experts said that the data about the murder rate in isolation doesn’t tell us much about murders, or more broadly, crime about the city. Experts also generally warn against blaming a mayor for the crime rate (or the inverse, giving a mayor credit for a drop in crime). Crime is influenced by local characteristics beyond a mayor’s control, such as poverty rates and the concentration of the youth population. A murder rate alone doesn’t account for shifts in the demographic makeup of the population that may affect the murder rate, said Florida State University criminologist William D. Bales. "Blaming changes in the murder rate, or any other type of crime, over time in a community on one single person is fallacious," he said. The number of murders alone doesn’t tell us anything about how many suspects murdered strangers compared to acquaintances or people they know well, University of Florida professor Jodi Lane said. Generally, people are more likely to be killed by someone they know, which is much more difficult for a politician to affect. Stults said that that while citizens are often quite concerned about the murder rate since it is such a serious form of victimization, the likelihood of being murdered in Tallahassee is extremely low. Our ruling A video by Florida Strong says Gillum "oversaw a 52 percent increase in murder." This attack is hollow. The attack stems from data showing that the murder rate increased from 4.6 per 100,000 residents between 2002-09 — when Gillum was on the city commission — to 7 per 100,000 residents between 2010-17, when Gillum was on the commission and then became mayor. The math works out to 52 percent. Highlighting this number with no context is a scare tactic. The annual numbers of murders are small, where any increase can lead to a large rate spike. By stating that Gillum "oversaw" that murder increase suggests that he is to blame when in fact he is one of a handful of votes on the commission. Crime is influenced by factors beyond a mayor’s control. We rate this statement Mostly False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com | null | Florida Strong | null | null | null | 2018-10-19T16:49:31 | 2018-10-17 | ['None'] |
goop-00679 | Sophia Bush Doing Dating Reality Show To Find Love On TV? | 0 | https://www.gossipcop.com/sophia-bush-dating-reality-show-love-tv-series/ | null | null | null | Shari Weiss | null | Sophia Bush Doing Dating Reality Show To Find Love On TV? | 11:22 am, July 7, 2018 | null | ['None'] |
goop-00777 | Prince Harry, Meghan Markle Marriage On The Rocks One Month After Wedding? | 0 | https://www.gossipcop.com/prince-harry-meghan-markle-marriage-fight/ | null | null | null | Shari Weiss | null | Prince Harry, Meghan Markle Marriage On The Rocks One Month After Wedding? | 3:00 am, June 21, 2018 | null | ['Prince_Harry'] |
snes-02844 | Is President Trump Sending $4,000 to People Over 65? | false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-checks-to-retirees/ | null | Junk News | null | Kim LaCapria | null | Is President Trump Sending $4,106 to Everyone Over Age 65? | 3 March 2017 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-10871 | (McCain) said he was opposed to overturning Roe v. Wade. Now he's for overturning Roe v. Wade. | half-true | /truth-o-meter/statements/2007/aug/23/mitt-romney/mccain-has-been-pretty-consistent-on-roe-v-wade/ | The Roe v. Wade charge against John McCain seems to be the result of a verbal lapse eight years ago by the notably anti-abortion McCain. McCain had answered written questionnaires saying he opposed Roe v. Wade, but when the San Francisco Chronicle and CNN asked him about it in late 1999, McCain said, "I'd love to see a point where it (the court ruling) is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short-term, or even the long-term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to (undergo) illegal and dangerous operations." McCain aides almost immediately started backpedaling from McCain's words, noting that McCain misspoke when he used the phrase "even in the long term." McCain said in an interview a few months later, "I clearly misspoke there. I'm a person who's made mistakes in this campaign, and I'll continue to make mistakes. My voting record is clear, of 17 years of pro-life. I continue to hold that position, and I … continue to believe that Roe vs. Wade was a very flawed decision, as in the opinion of most experts." In South Carolina this year, McCain said, "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned." We find McCain's brief remark of support falls short of a full-fledged change in position, so we rated Romney's claim Half True. | null | Mitt Romney | null | null | null | 2007-08-23T00:00:00 | 2007-04-26 | ['John_McCain'] |
pomt-04254 | Says the state of Texas rates as "unacceptable" almost 500 of the state's 8,000 public schools. | true | /texas/statements/2012/nov/14/dan-patrick/dan-patrick-says-almost-500-8000-texas-public-scho/ | State Sen. Dan Patrick says so many Texas schools lag that lawmakers should widen school choices, feeding speculation that he will champion changes helping students transfer to private schools. The Houston Republican, chairman of the Senate Education Committee, has not spelled out a proposal. But he asked a Democratic colleague, Sen. Kirk Watson of Austin, to join his cause during a Nov. 8, 2012, joint public interview with the Texas Tribune. Patrick said: "I am willing to join you and do whatever it takes to give people an opportunity to succeed. But I need the Democrats also to join me and not draw a line in the sand, that money is the only thing that’s going to turn a school around. "If a student is in a failing school through no fault of their own — we have 8,000 campuses in Texas, almost 500 campuses are rated unacceptable — it should be unacceptable to every Republican, every Democrat in the state, every voter in the state, to say to a child you’re going to succeed even though we’re forcing you to go to a failing school," Patrick said. Watson replied that he would read Patrick’s plan when it is finalized. And are nearly 500 of 8,000 Texas public schools rated unacceptable? Seems so. In 2011, according to information posted online by the Texas Education Agency, 496 of 8,526 Texas campuses (5.8 percent) were rated academically unacceptable by the state education agency. No campus or district accountability ratings were issued in 2012; the agency says a revised system is intended to tie ratings to indicators including results on the student exams being phased in, the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness. So, Patrick nailed the number of campuses rated unacceptable while slightly understating the total number of campuses. According to an agency chart showing the 2011 figures, the nearly 6 percent of campuses marked as unacceptable in 2011 greatly exceeded comparable counts for previous years. From 2004 through 2010, the previous highest number of "unacceptable" campuses was 267 of 7,956 campuses, or 3.4 percent, in 2006, the chart indicates In 2010, it says, 84 of 8,435 campuses (1 percent) drew the dismal rating. According to news accounts including a July 30, 2011, article in the Austin American-Statesman, the five-fold increase in academically unacceptable campuses from 2010 to 2011 swept in several Austin middle schools and LBJ High School. And why the statewide surge? School administrators attributed it to changes in passing standards for the then-prevalent state test, the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, the Statesman reported. The state also required a larger share of students to pass the TAKS than before and took into account more scores from special-education students, the story says. State education officials also had decided to drop a performance measure that kept some schools from being low-rated. A Houston Chronicle news story published the same day quoted an education agency spokeswoman, Debbie Ratcliffe, as saying the plunge in ratings was largely due to the state no longer using a statistical measure that gave credit for failing test scores if the students were on track to pass in coming years. "It's very important for parents to remember that the standards substantially increased this year," Ratcliffe said. In the Houston school district, the Chronicle reported, state-determined "unacceptable" campuses more than tripled to 25 — or 9 percent of its rated schools. The Dallas district experienced more than a doubling in campuses rated as unacceptable, going from 14 to 33, according to a Dallas Morning News article posted online July 29, 2011. By email, Graves told us the Texas Performance Measure not used for the 2011 ratings had given schools and districts credit for making progress, even if insufficient students reached required passing levels on the TAKS. The Morning News story quotes Robert Scott, then the state’s education commissioner, as saying his April 2011 decision to discontinue the performance factor meant there "will no longer be any allegations that we are pumping up the numbers. The numbers are real this year." Next, we wondered how each school drew its low rating. Of the campuses rated academically unacceptable, the agency says in a 2011 highlights summary, 479 experienced poor performance on the TAKS alone with remaining campuses getting the rating mostly due to a combination of factors. Ratcliffe emailed us an agency chart indicating that 159 campuses were rated unacceptable for student performance on the math TAKS alone. The next-most frequent reason, for 81 campuses getting the rating, was too many students failing the state’s math and science tests. The chart lists 29 other reasons for one campus or more being rated unacceptable. By phone, Ratcliffe told us that a large, diverse high school can be rated academically unacceptable if enough students fail to meet state expectations across any of more than 30 sub-categories ranging from different subject-matter tests to completion, graduation or dropout rates across sub-groups of students broken out by race or whether they come from low-income families. For instance: Austin’s LBJ High drew its unacceptable rating because not enough African American students passed the math TAKS, according to a state posting. Some 144 of 260 African American students, or 55 percent, met the math standard, according to the post. By our calculation, if 15 additional African American students had passed that test, the school would have been rated academically acceptable. Finally, there is at least one other way of gauging progress in individual schools. In August 2012, the state announced that about half of all Texas campuses statewide failed to meet federal standards based on the No Child Left Behind Act, as the Statesman said in an Aug. 9, 2012, news article. More Austin-area schools than ever also missed the mark because of tougher passing standards, the Statesman said. Our ruling Patrick’s claim, that almost 500 of the state’s 8,000 campuses are rated unacceptable, reflects the 2011 Texas ratings--and fresh ratings aren’t expected until 2013. We rate the statement as True. | null | Dan Patrick | null | null | null | 2012-11-14T12:22:41 | 2012-11-08 | ['Texas'] |
pomt-07257 | On whether judges should be allowed to place children with gay couples who wish to adopt. | half flip | /virginia/statements/2011/may/27/tim-kaine/tim-kaine-says-unmarried-couples-should-be-allowed/ | Tim Kaine’s position on state adoption laws was well known when he was elected governor in 2005. Kaine, then lieutenant governor, said he favored the laws on the book, which allowed both heterosexual married couples and single people -- regardless of sexual orientation -- to adopt. The Democrat said he didn’t think unmarried couples, gay or straight, should be allowed to adopt. His opponent, Republican Jerry Kilgore, opposed any adoption by homosexual individuals. Kaine said then the best interest of a child should always be the ultimate consideration in adoption cases. He said adoption by unmarried couples was a bad idea because of possible disputes over the child "if the relationship breaks up." His position backed a state policy that eliminates gay couples from adopting because Virginia has never recognized same-sex marriages. Kaine said in 2005 that he did not support civil unions between homosexuals. Let’s flash forward to 2011. In April, Kaine announced his 2012 candidacy for the U.S. Senate and the state’s Board of Social Services rejected a measure that would have banned private adoption groups, such as religious charities, from discriminating against prospective parents on the basis of sexual orientation. In mid-May, Kaine told The Washington Post that he still thinks all adoption decisions should be made in a child’s best interest. But he said if a judge thinks adoption by an unmarried couple -- gay or straight -- meets that standard, then the couple should be allowed to complete the adoption. "I think the best interest of the child is a pretty hard standard to argue with and I think that ought to be the standard,’’ said Kaine, the former governor who is now a candidate in the Democratic Senate primary. Brandi Hoffine, Kaine’s campaign press secretary, told us her boss’s stance really hasn’t changed. "Governor Kaine's position has always been that judges should be empowered to do whatever is in the best interest of the child," she said. Kaine’s overall position may not have changed, but the details have. He now thinks judges should be empowered to allow unmarried couples to adopt children. In 2005, he opposed letting unmarried couples to adopt. Kaine has stopped short of urging the General Assembly to revamp laws so that unmarried couples could adopt. And his campaign for the U.S. Senate next year promises to focus on federal issues -- not state adoption laws, which he would have no control over if he is elected. But Kaine’s position has evolved. We rate this a Half Flip. | null | Tim Kaine | null | null | null | 2011-05-27T11:27:22 | 2011-05-18 | ['None'] |
abbc-00225 | In the midst of a tax cut bidding war ahead of the federal election, debate recently turned to the question of whether the Turnbull Government's tax package is fair — not only to lower and middle-income earners, but also to women. | in-between | http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-01/fact-check-tax-cuts-women/9989858 | Ms O'Dwyer's claim is misleading. While it is accurate to say 86 per cent of female taxpayers have a taxable income of $90,000 or less, the argument that this is where the Government's "tax relief" is "focused" is problematic. Only the first tranche of measures, beginning this financial year, favour people with taxable incomes of $90,000 or less. It is, however, important to point out that very low-income earners do not benefit because they pay little or no tax (moreover, a greater proportion of these very low wage earners are women). Meanwhile, the second and third stages of the tax plan, beginning July 1, 2022 and July 1, 2024, unambiguously favour people on higher incomes. This holds using several measures to gauge the meaning of "focus", including the dollar value of the tax relief provided to different income groups; the share of the cost of the package apportioned to different income groups; the share of the tax burden carried by different income groups before and after the introduction of the tax package; and, the impact of the package on disposable incomes for different income groups. Fact Check does not make a judgment about the fairness or otherwise of the tax package. Nor does it make a judgment about the affordability of the plan; nor the Government's spending priorities. What is clear, however, is that only the first stage of the tax plan is focused on people with annual incomes up to $90,000. It is possible that, in using the word "focused", Ms O'Dwyer meant the group of taxpayers earning up to $90,000 were being prioritised by receiving the first tranche of tax relief. However, she did not make this clear. Taken in its entirety, over seven years, the bulk of the benefits of the plan will flow to people earning more than $90,000 and, at the end of this period, those earning more than $90,000 will carry a smaller share of the overall tax burden. A clear majority of these taxpayers are men. | ['tax', 'feminism', 'liberals', 'australia'] | null | null | ['tax', 'feminism', 'liberals', 'australia'] | Fact check: Is the Government's income tax relief focused on female taxpayers? | Thu 6 Sep 2018, 7:07am | null | ['None'] |
snes-05208 | A Republican lawmaker proposed introducing "hunger tests" before issuing food stamps. | false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/food-stamp-hunger-tests/ | null | Junk News | null | Kim LaCapria | null | Alabama Lawmaker Wants Food Stamp ‘Hunger Tests’? | 16 February 2016 | null | ['Republican_Party_(United_States)'] |
tron-00011 | ‘Mutant’ Tilapia Fish is Unsafe to Eat, Contains Cancer-Causing Dioxin | mostly fiction! | https://www.truthorfiction.com/mutant-tilapia-fish-is-unsafe-to-eat-contains-cancer-causing-dioxin-mostly-fiction/ | null | 9-11-attack | null | null | null | ‘Mutant’ Tilapia Fish is Unsafe to Eat, Contains Cancer-Causing Dioxin | Apr 12, 2018 | null | ['None'] |
snes-04472 | Photograph shows eleven original staff members of Microsoft in 1978. | true | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/would-you-have-invested/ | null | Fauxtography | null | David Mikkelson | null | Would You Have Invested? | 18 June 2006 | null | ['None'] |
hoer-00841 | Liquid Candy Laryngospasm Warning | true messages | https://www.hoax-slayer.com/candy-laryngospasm-warning.html | null | null | null | Brett M. Christensen | null | Liquid Candy Laryngospasm Warning | June 2006 | null | ['None'] |
snes-00228 | Astronaut Mark Kelly said President Trump's proposed 'Space Force' military branch was a dumb idea. | correct attribution | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mark-kelly-space-force/ | null | Politics | null | Dan Evon | null | Did Astronaut Mark Kelly Say the ‘Space Force’ Was a ‘Dumb Idea?’ | 13 August 2018 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-11841 | Teachers spend $1.6 BILLION per year on school supplies. The Republican tax bill ELIMINATES their ability to deduct those expenses. | half-true | /truth-o-meter/statements/2017/nov/07/dianne-feinstein/closer-look-classroom-expenses-deduction-teachers-/ | As congressional Republicans tout the benefits of their party’s tax proposal, Democratic lawmakers are trying to pick the bill apart, provision by provision. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., took aim at one specific element of the bill that is of interest to many K-12 teachers. "Teachers spend $1.6 BILLION per year on school supplies. The Republican tax bill ELIMINATES their ability to deduct those expenses," Feinstein tweeted on Nov. 6. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com She’s referring to a provision in the tax code that allows teachers to deduct eligible, unreimbursed classroom spending up to $250. The provision was expanded and made permanent in December 2015. The tax bill unveiled by House Republicans would have scrapped the deduction. Feinstein’s tweet was retweeted at least 26,000 times, and received at least 34,000 likes. The California Democrat has a point in her tweet, though we found two elements of it that are worthy of some caution. See Figure 3 on PolitiFact.com Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., speaks during a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on Oct. 31, 2017. (AP/Andrew Harnik) The data Feinstein cited is old The $1.6 billion figure stems from a study by the National School Supply and Equipment Association. The study found that "on average, teachers reported spending about $149 of their own money on school supplies, $198 on instructional materials, and $138 on other classroom materials for a total of $485 in the 2012-2013 school year." Note the time frame: The study goes back five years. To be fair, there has been at least one more recent survey along these lines, from 2016 by a group called AdoptAClassroom.org. This study offers a higher figure for out-of-pocket classroom spending by teachers -- $600 a year. But if Feinstein had used the $600 figure, she would worsened the second, and more significant, problem with her tweet. Not all of the money spent by teachers is tax-deductible As we noted above, the limit for deducting unreimbursed classroom expenditures is $250 per teacher. So of that $485 spent out-of-pocket by the average teacher, $235 would not be deductible. (Teachers who itemize also can deduct more than that, but only if the out-of-pocket amounts are especially large, meaning few would qualify to do so.) If you adjust the calculation to take that into account, the approximate value of the lost deduction would be $825 million, not the $1.6 billion Feinstein cited in her tweet. Feinstein’s office said they sent out a subsequent tweet that provided some more specificity. That tweet said, "The average teacher spends $500 per year on school supplies. Republican plan says they can't deduct even $250 from their tax bill. Terrible!" See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com For what it’s worth, that tweet sent about three hours later attracted only a fraction of the attention the earlier tweet received -- 4,600 retweets and 8,600 likes. Is the deduction being taken? Finally, we should note that the $825 million figure is a maximum amount that could theoretically be deducted. In reality, not every teacher who qualifies for this deduction takes advantage of it, for whatever reason. The Treasury Department estimates that in tax year 2016, the classroom expense deduction reduced federal tax revenue by $210 million. That makes Feinstein's $1.6 billion figure even more overstated. Our ruling Feinstein tweeted, "Teachers spend $1.6 BILLION per year on school supplies. The Republican tax bill ELIMINATES their ability to deduct those expenses." She has a point that the GOP plan would get rid of the existing deduction for out-of-pocket classroom expenses for teachers. But the tweet overstates the value of the deduction in two ways -- first, because only a portion of that amount can actually be deducted under the law, and second, because not all teachers use the deduction. We rate the statement Half True. CORRECTION, Nov. 7, 2017, 7:30 p.m.: After this article was published, several readers informed us that teachers do not have to itemize to benefit from this deduction. Any qualified teacher can reduce their taxable income by $250 off the top, whether they itemize or not. Some teachers with very large out-of-pocket expenses may be able to deduct additional amounts if they itemize. We have changed the article to reflect this. The rating remains the same. See Figure 4 on PolitiFact.com | null | Dianne Feinstein | null | null | null | 2017-11-07T15:42:01 | 2017-11-06 | ['Republican_Party_(United_States)'] |
hoer-00036 | Legoland Child Abduction Attempt | bogus warning | https://www.hoax-slayer.com/legoland-abduction-rumour.shtml | null | null | null | Brett M. Christensen | null | Legoland Child Abduction Attempt Hoax | January 13, 2014 | null | ['None'] |
vogo-00410 | Statement: “People need to realize that in this proposal that the president or CEO or somebody designated from the EDC, also I think the Chamber of Commerce, would be just basically put on the (school) board,” City Council President Tony Young said at a March 30 forum in Scripps Ranch on education reform. | determination: false | https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/education/fact-check-business-leaders-on-the-school-board/ | Analysis: A new campaign aims to expand the school board to include four new appointed members, on top of the five who are now elected. | null | null | null | null | Fact Check: Business Leaders on the School Board? | April 4, 2011 | null | ['None'] |
tron-00943 | Warning That a New Virus is Activated by Using F1 Key in Windows | truth! | https://www.truthorfiction.com/ms-f1-attack/ | null | computers | null | null | null | Warning That a New Virus is Activated by Using F1 Key in Windows | Mar 17, 2015 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-07157 | The budget currently being debated "significantly decreases the use of one-time resources." | true | /ohio/statements/2011/jun/14/ron-amstutz/state-rep-ron-amstutz-says-budget-now-being-debate/ | State Rep. Ron Amstutz, a Republican from Wooster, recently defended Gov. John Kasich’s two-year budget blueprint, which the Republican-controlled House and Senate have left largely in tact. In a letter published May 28 in The Columbus Dispatch, Amstutz said that budget "invests in Ohio’s future and a stable fiscal path toward a stronger Ohio." Chairman of the powerful House finance committee, Amstutz was responding to criticism of the $55.6 billion budget that House Minority Leader Armond Budish made in his own letter to The Dispatch. Among Budish’s contentions was that Kasich's budget proposal amounts to Ohio's second largest spending increase, a claim PolitiFact Ohio rated as Mostly True. Amstutz said Budish’s charge that the budget increases state spending "left absent a major component to his commentary: reality." Among the points Amstutz raised to defend the GOP budget: "The current budget (now being debated) significantly decreases the use of one-time resources, using $1.2 billion this year and around $100 million the following year." Amstutz said that Budish and Democrats failed to wean the state from one-time money and that the Republican’s use of one-time money for the Kasich budget "pales in comparison." Given how often politicians use the term "one-time money" as a weapon, PolitiFact Ohio decided to look at Amstutz claims. When politicians refer to one-time money – they are referring to money that won’t be available in the next budget cycle. The sources of the one-time money include federal stimulus money and savings from debt restructuring. Ohio relied on unprecedented levels of one-time money to balance the two-year budget, passed in July 2009, when Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland and Democratic House were in charge. It will expire at the end of June 2011. Specifically, that budget contained around $4.89 billion in one-time money. That figure grew to more than $6 billion as a delay of an income tax cut, higher reimbursement rates for prescription drugs under Medicaid, and other money was added. Republicans have argued the figure is even higher – more than $8 billion. The differences between the figures are the result of disagreements over what qualifies as one-time money. Republicans, especially then-gubernatorial candidate John Kasich, exploited the state’s use of one-time money as reckless and said it leaves them to fill a massive budget hole. Given the Republican’s rhetoric, it might surprise some that they, too, are relying on such found money to balance the next two-year budget. This brings us back to Amstutz, who says the state will use about $1.2 billion this year and use $100 million in the following year. The governor’s budget – tweaked since by the legislature -- includes the following sources of one-time money during the first year of the two-year cycle: $500 million from leasing Ohio liquor sales to Kasich’s JobsOhio program $440 million in savings from restructuring state debt at a lower interest rate $115 million of unclaimed state money $75 million from the sale of state prisons $30 million from a tax amnesty program These total $1.16 billion. The only one-time money being used in the second-year of the budget is a transfer of $100 million in unclaimed state funds. So, where does this leave Amstutz claims? Again, he says the state is relying on $1.2 billion in one-time money in the first year of the proposed budget, which is pretty darn close to $1.16 billion. And, as he says, the budget eliminates in the second year all one-time money except $100 million. Though debate still exists over the exact figure of one-time money used in the last budget cycle, the level of one-time money used was unprecedented and is clearly far greater than what is proposed in the new budget. Amstutz’ statement is accurate and there’s nothing significantly missing for a full understanding. On the Truth-O-Meter, PolitiFact Ohio rates Amstutz’ statement as True. | null | Ron Amstutz | null | null | null | 2011-06-14T06:00:00 | 2011-05-28 | ['None'] |
pomt-05742 | Gingrich supported individual health insurance mandates. | true | /truth-o-meter/statements/2012/mar/02/red-white-and-blue-fund/pro-santorum-super-pac-ad-says-gingrich-supported-/ | The Red, White and Blue Fund, a super PAC supporting Rick Santorum, released a TV ad in Super Tuesday primary states charging that Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are just like President Barack Obama on many core issues. Among them: "Like Obama, Gingrich supported individual insurance mandates." This attack has been leveled at Gingrich before, and we’ve found it is correct. His comments on the subject In 1993, when the Clinton administration was trying to pass health care reform, Gingrich appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press and addressed the individual mandate. "I am for people, individuals -- exactly like automobile insurance -- individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance." He went on to criticize Clinton’s plan as "destructively big-government." But he also said, "I would like to see every American have health insurance. I am willing to require that." More recently, Gingrich joined a health care discussion with none other than Hillary Clinton in 2005 and said people should have to buy insurance or post a bond to pay for future care. Quick comparison: An individual mandate requires people to buy insurance or pay a tax penalty. The bond idea also requires people to buy insurance, and if they don’t, to put up money to be set aside to pay for their future medical care. Gingrich repeated his support for a bond in a 2007 column for his think tank Health Transformation. "In order to make coverage more accessible, Congress must do more, including passing legislation to … require anyone who earns more than $50,000 a year to purchase health insurance or post a bond," he wrote He advocated it again in his 2009 book Real Change: the Fight for America’s Future: "Those who oppose the concept of insurance should be forced to post a bond to cover costs. Allowing individuals to pass their health costs on to others reinforces the attitude that their health is not their problem and adds to the irresponsible, unhealthy behaviors that bankrupt the current system." This story in The Atlantic magazine reveals audio from a conference call Gingrich participated in that was hosted by Siemens Healthcare months after Obama's inauguration. "We believe that there should be ‘must carry’ -- that is, everybody should either have health insurance, or if you’re an absolute libertarian we would allow you to post a bond. But we would not allow people to be free riders failing to insure themselves and then showing up at the emergency room with no means of payment," Gingrich said. Finally, in May of 2011, while a candidate for president, he appeared on Meet the Press and called this concept "a variation" on the individual mandate. "Well, I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay -- help pay for health care. And, I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I've said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond … or in some way you indicate you’ll be held accountable," he said. (That remark kicked up so much controversy in Republican circles that Gingrich released a video statement the next day clarifying that he is "completely opposed to the Obamacare mandate on individuals. ... I'm against any effort to impose a federal mandate on anyone, because it is fundamentally wrong and, I believe, unconstitutional.") The bond option, we learned, has been kicked around for a while. "A bond alternative was part of the Heritage Foundation's plan and was actually originally in (Mitt) Romney's proposal in Massachusetts but was taken out by legislature late in game," said Michael Tanner, a health policy specialist with the libertarian Cato Institute. "It is a modest improvement over a straight mandate since it doesn't require you to buy a specific product, but libertarians like me still found it objectionable." Our ruling Red, White and Blue Fund’s ad says "Gingrich supported individual health insurance mandates." When we rated this before, we gave a Mostly True to Santorum's claim that "Speaker Gingrich for 20 years supported a federal individual mandate" because it was true for 20 years but Gingrich is now opposed. The wording is different for this one. The ad doesn’t put a timeframe on when he supported the policy, nor does it portray that as being his position now. As stated, it’s accurate. We rate it True. | null | Red, White and Blue Fund | null | null | null | 2012-03-02T16:20:37 | 2012-02-24 | ['None'] |
farg-00348 | Seahawks player “was captured on camera burning an American flag.” | false | https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/seahawks-players-didnt-burn-flag/ | null | askfactcheck | FactCheck.org | Saranac Hale Spencer | ['fake news'] | Seahawks Players Didn’t Burn Flag | October 17, 2017 | 2017-10-17 18:32:19 UTC | ['United_States'] |
tron-01629 | A U.S. Federal Appeals Court has ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional | truth! | https://www.truthorfiction.com/pledge/ | null | government | null | null | null | A U.S. Federal Appeals Court has ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional | Mar 17, 2015 | null | ['None'] |
snes-02244 | The word news is an acronym formed from the words north, east, west, and south. | false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/news-etymology/ | null | Language | null | David Mikkelson | null | Etymology of ‘News’ | 26 April 2001 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-00927 | The FCC’s net neutrality policy includes what is "essentially a massive tax increase." | half-true | /truth-o-meter/statements/2015/feb/26/mike-lee/effect-net-neutrality-rules-taxes-uncertain/ | Does net neutrality mean a big tax increase? The Federal Communications Commission just approved a proposal reclassifying Internet service as a telecommunications utility -- claiming that it will preserve the concept of net neutrality. While proponents of the policy shift argue that the changes won’t spur additional fees or taxes, opponents argue the opposite. "This is essentially a massive tax increase on the middle class being passed in the dead of night without the American public really being made aware of what is going on," Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, wrote in an email through the anti-FCC regulation group Protect Internet Freedom. On the other hand, FCC spokesperson Kim Hart told PolitiFact that the policy "does not raise taxes or fees. Period." Who’s right here? Estimates of the impact on consumers -- in terms of Internet service bill fees and taxes -- range from $0 to $11 billion. Politicians can make a case that the policy will bump up service bills for the 85 million households with Internet, but there are too many unknowns to make such a definitive statement as Lee’s. The proposal Net neutrality is complicated. In general, it’s the idea that Internet service providers (like Comcast) should not be able give preferential treatment to one website over another. Accordingly, the solution is also complex. The FCC voted to reclassify Internet service providers as common carriers under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, meaning they will be treated as public utilities, like phone service -- subject to more regulation than they are now. (A previous fact-check covered this in more detail.) The full text of the proposal wasn’t available to the public before the vote, when Lee made his comments, though its general principles were widely understood. But, a fact sheet says it "will not impose, suggest or authorize any new taxes or fees." More importantly, Congress recently reauthorized the 1998 Internet Tax Freedom Act, which bans new taxes on Internet service. There’s legislation in the works to make this law permanent. That means the FCC couldn't levy taxes on its own even if it wanted to. There’s a big caveat, though. The Internet Tax Freedom Act bans taxes, but not fees. Fee revenue is set aside specifically for, in this case, a telecom-related service. Taxes, in contrast, raise general revenue. They’re legally different, but functionally the same from the consumer’s perspective. Many experts say consumers can expect additional fees. Some say the FCC has left the door open for attaching federal-level fees in the future. Regardless, the FCC can’t stop states and municipalities from tacking on their own fees. The estimates The nationwide annual impact on Internet broadband subscriber bills could reach a maximum $11 billion, as a result of new taxes and fees, according to a December report out of the Progressive Policy Institute, a center-left think tank (it identifies with former President Bill Clinton’s New Democrats). They recently lowered their estimate from $15 billion. For the study, the researchers assumed that state and local governments would take every fee currently applied to a telecom service and apply them to internet service -- because household Internet will become a telecom service. For example, the state of California charges telecom companies fees for special telecom-related services for the deaf and disabled, among other programs. Companies then pass these fees along to consumers. It makes sense that a state would want to apply already-established telecom fees to Internet service to increase revenue, said study author Hal Singer, in an interview with PolitiFact. He pointed out that Vermont’s director of telecom services has said the state would strongly consider levying fees on broadband Internet for the purpose of increasing Internet accessibility. Some net neutrality experts take issue with the study because of what the authors chose to include or leave out. "The PPI study has been thoroughly discredited," said Joshua Stager, policy counsel at the Open Technology Institute, noting that it was "disingenuous" of the study to ignore the Internet Tax Freedom Act in the first place. There is no guarantee that every state would choose to levy every fee. In some states, the legislatures would have to take action before it could happen. The report also assumes that federal fees will apply, but that’s still up in the air. Taking a different look at the PPI findings, the Free Press advocacy group argues that the potential fee burden could be around $4 billion, or as little as nothing. (Though Singer fervently rebutts their argument.) Personal finance website Nerd Wallet did their own assessment and settled on a possible $6.25 billion impact. They broke their estimates down by state and found that households would see an annual increase in their Internet service bills anywhere between $8 in Delaware and $131 in Pennsylvania. They estimate that the average American household will see their bill increase $67 annually. "I’d say claiming that this order will be a ‘massive tax on the middle class,’ is an overstatement," said Doug Brake, telecom policy analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. "But it is also true that we will likely see new fees on broadband as a result of reclassification." Our ruling Lee said the FCC’s net neutrality policy "is essentially a massive tax increase." Literally, there won’t be any new taxes as a result of the FCC changes, but there will likely be additional fees. There’s a wide range of estimates -- anywhere from zero to $11 billion a year. Lee’s comment doesn’t account for the fact that the impact on consumers’ service bills is far from certain, and a telecom policy analyst said it's an overstatement to call the potential increases "massive." The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details, so we rate it Half True. | null | Mike Lee | null | null | null | 2015-02-26T14:11:15 | 2015-02-16 | ['None'] |
pomt-10597 | But it was Hillary Clinton, in an interview with Tom Brokaw, who quote 'paid tribute' to Ronald Reagan's economic and foreign policy. | half-true | /truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jan/25/barack-obama/hes-right-but-clinton-quote-isnt-hers-exactly/ | Ronald Reagan is back on the campaign trail. And this time, it's not the Republicans vying to claim his political DNA. It's the leading Democratic candidates, running as far as they can from the former president. The latest claim in this debate comes from Barack Obama, who hits Hillary Clinton's Reagan record as he fights off false attacks from Bill Clinton on the very same thing. Obama tries turning the tables on Clinton in a radio ad that makes passing reference to her views on Reagan. "But it was Hillary Clinton, in an interview with Tom Brokaw, who quote 'paid tribute' to Ronald Reagan's economic and foreign policy," an announcer says in an Obama radio advertisement that aired in South Carolina. The Illinois senator made a similar point during the Jan. 21, 2008, Democratic debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C. On both counts, Obama's assertion about Clinton's praise of Reagan is basically true. But a couple of significant points need to be made. First, Clinton didn't use the words "paid tribute," which the radio announcer says in quotations. That's how Brokaw summarized Clinton's remarks. (It's worth noting that the Obama campaign said it pulled this ad from the air shortly after Clinton's campaign did the same with one bashing Obama's remarks on Reagan.) And second, you have to read what Brokaw actually attributes to Clinton. Clinton's comments in question come from Brokaw's book, Boom: Voices of the Sixties . Brokaw notes Clinton's '60s rhetoric from her college days and writes about the current political climate. Then this passage from page 403 and 404: "She also believes modern conservatives such as Karl Rove are 'obsessed' with defeating her. "She prefers the godfather of the modern conservative movement, Ronald Reagan. He was, she says, 'a child of the Depression, so he understood it [economic pressures on the working and middle class]. When he had those big tax cuts and they went too far, he oversaw the largest tax increase. He could call the Soviet Union the Evil Empire and then negotiate arms-control agreements. He played the balance and the music beautifully.' "In 1969, who would have imagined that the Hillary Rodham on the Wellesley commencement stage would find herself 38 years later paying tribute to Ronald Reagan?" Compare that text with Obama's ad, and you'll see that Clinton didn't offer overall praise for Reagan's economic record. In fact, what she did was single out what she saw as his appreciation for the challenges of the working class and his willingness to reverse course when taxes were cut too much. It's true that Brokaw summarized this as paying tribute, but it still looks to us like the Obama ad somewhat mischaracterizes what Clinton said about Reagan. This leads us to rate it Half True. | null | Barack Obama | null | null | null | 2008-01-25T00:00:00 | 2008-01-23 | ['Tom_Brokaw', 'Ronald_Reagan', 'Hillary_Rodham_Clinton'] |
snes-01746 | Hurricane Irma created a cloud formation that resembled an ominous face. | false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-hurricane-irma-create-a-cloud-face/ | null | Viral Phenomena | null | Arturo Garcia | null | Did Hurricane Irma Create a ‘Cloud Face’? | 11 September 2017 | null | ['None'] |
snes-06410 | During an interview with CORE national spokesman Niger Innis, MSNBC displayed a graphic identifying him as “Nigger Innis.” | true | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/niger-innis/ | null | Humor | null | David Mikkelson | null | Niger Innis MSNBC Gaffe | 8 February 2002 | null | ['MSNBC', 'Niger_Innis'] |
snes-04910 | Former Republican candidate Dr. Ben Carson doesn't remember running for president. | false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ben-carson-remember-president/ | null | Junk News | null | Dan Evon | null | Ben Carson Doesn’t Remember Running for President | 16 April 2016 | null | ['Republican_Party_(United_States)'] |
pomt-09815 | Van Jones signed a petition indicating he "thinks the Bush administration blew up the World Trade Center and covered it up." | half-true | /truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/08/glenn-beck/van-jones-truther-glen-beck-thinks-so/ | Glenn Beck has harshly criticized several appointees in the Obama administration. One of them was Van Jones, known as the "green jobs" czar. (His formal title was special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality.) Jones is an environmental activist and author best known for his work promoting renewable energy as a means of creating jobs for low-income people. Conservative commentators and bloggers criticized Jones because of his past remarks and his involvement with controversial groups. His resignation was announced shortly after midnight on Sept. 6, 2009. Beck attacked Jones for endorsing a group known as the 9/11 "Truthers," conspiracy theorists who believe that the government deliberately allowed the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, in order to promote a militaristic agenda. Specifically, Beck said, Jones signed a 2004 petition promoted by 911truth.org, which demanded a new investigation into Sept. 11 to answer what the group considered to be unanswered questions about the attacks. Beck read the names of several celebrities who signed the petition, including the actor Ed Asner, actress and actor/comedian Janeane Garofalo, and Cynthia McKinney, at the time a Democratic congresswoman from Georgia. He then noted that Jones signed as directer of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, a California-based civil rights group Jones directed at the time. Jones "thinks the Bush administration blew up the World Trade Center and covered it up," Beck said. Later he added, "Did President Obama know about all of this? . . . As the White House has been silent on this, I can't answer it." The Obama administration soon issued a statement from Jones, saying that Jones did not agree with the statements on the petition, especially that government officials may have allowed 9/11 to happen. "I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever," Jones said in the statement. We reviewed the petition, and its most incendiary language is in the form of hanging questions, such as, "How could Flight 77, which reportedly hit the Pentagon, have flown back towards Washington D.C. for 40 minutes without being detected by the FAA's radar or the even superior radar possessed by the US military?" and "What happened to the over 20 documented warnings given our government by 14 foreign intelligence agencies or heads of state?" Jones' name is listed on the petition , and he has not disputed that he signed it. Democrats such as Howard Dean said that Jones made a mistake by signing the petition without knowing its complete contents. Since the petition hit the news last week, some signatories have said they were misled about its contents and at least one asked that her name be removed. ( Politico has reported on these disputes in greater detail.) As fact-checkers, we can't know what Jones thought he was or wasn't signing. We can confirm that Jones is listed as a signatory on the petition. So far, his public statements seem to indicate he signed the petition but was either not in full agreement with some of its implications or didn't know what he was signing. He said, "I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever." On one level, the petition is just asking for more investigations. But given the pointed questions it asks, it pretty clearly implies that the Bush administration allowed the terrorist attacks to be executed due to indifference or incompetence, at a minimum. It also states that "people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war." Still, Beck pushes the envelope when he says Jones "thinks the Bush administration blew up the World Trade Center and covered it up." The petition doesn't state that definitively. It does ask for investigations. We rate Beck's statement Half True. UPDATE: A few days after we published this story, Jones name was removed from the petition on the Web site of 911Truth.org. "Following recent media-generated controversy over Obama appointee Van Jones' signature on this Statement, he and two other signatories have requested their names be removed. That has been done," the site noted. | null | Glenn Beck | null | null | null | 2009-09-08T18:32:56 | 2009-09-03 | ['George_W._Bush'] |
hoer-00807 | Visa & MasterCard Telephone Credit Card | true messages | https://www.hoax-slayer.com/card-security-code-scam.html | null | null | null | Brett M. Christensen | null | Visa & MasterCard Telephone Credit Card Scam | December 2007 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-08869 | Eight of the nine justices in the Supreme Court decision (on campaign finance) said that not only is it constitutional for Congress to require disclosure of the special interest money, but they recommend we do it. | mostly true | /truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/04/charles-schumer/chuck-schumer-says-supreme-court-justices-back-cam/ | While lamenting the fact that the vote to break the filibuster against the DISCLOSE Act would fail, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, made some interesting claims about campaign finance disclosure and the Supreme Court. Schumer's bill, the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act, would, among other things, mandate disclosure of expenditures by corporations and unions that fund ads targeted at political campaigns. That includes ads that explicitly urge a vote for or against a candidate, as well as ads targeted to voters aired shortly before an election that only mention a candidate. The bill also prohibits any spending on elections by large government contractors as well as corporations that received TARP funds. The bill stalled July 27 when no Republican would join the Democrats to break the filibuster. "Eight of the nine justices in the Supreme Court decision said that, not only is it constitutional for Congress to require disclosure of the special interest money, but they recommended we do it," said Schumer in a press conference shortly before the failed cloture vote on Tuesday, July 27. We were curious whether eight out of nine justices had really spoken so highly of disclosure requirements and if they had in fact "recommended" that Congress require disclosure. Schumer's comments referred to the Supreme Court opinions in the landmark case Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down much of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law and went even further by saying that companies and unions could use money from their general treasury funds to finance ads in the run-up to federal elections that might be viewed as electioneering. Companies still cannot donate to candidates running for federal office, but they can create and buy time for ads attacking or supporting candidates. However, in the majority opinion, the Supreme Court upheld the disclosure aspects of McCain-Feingold. The four justices listed in the dissenting opinion disagreed with every aspect of the majority opinion, except on disclosure. When it comes to disclosure, eight justices seem to agree that disclosure is a good thing. Clarence Thomas was the lone justice to argue that even the disclosure aspects of the law are unconstitutional. So eight out of nine justices indicated that certain types of disclosure are constitutional. But did they "recommend" that Congress require disclosure? The Supreme Court typically doesn't recommend that Congress pass a law, and this case is no exception. Nowhere in the majority or the dissenting opinion does any justice advocate that Congress pass a specific law. However, "the Supreme Court clearly looks favorably upon disclosure, although not necessarily the disclosure provisions contained in this bill," said Sean Parnell, president of the Center for Competitive Politics, a group opposed to campaign finance restrictions and deeply critical of the Schumer's bill. "The question surrounding the DISCLOSE Act is just how much disclosure (is acceptable), and in what specific form that disclosure can or cannot take place." In the Citizens United decision, the Supreme Court specifically upheld the disclosure requirements of McCain-Feingold. Until Citizens United, many other types of political financing were illegal, so disclosure requirements were beside the point. One aspect of the DISCLOSE Act is an attempt to require disclosure for these newly legal political finance activities. Rick Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School who writes a prominent blog on election law, said he believes that most, if not all, of the disclosure provisions in Schumer's bill would be welcomed by the Supreme Court. He pointed out some key passages in Justice Kennedy's "Opinion of the Court:" "A campaign finance system that pairs corporate independent expenditures with effective disclosure has not existed before today... With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters." Hasen said that he would view that, and the longer paragraph from which it came, as a recommendation. Hasen is in favor of the disclosure provisions of the DISCLOSE Act. One caveat to Schumer's claim is that just because the Supreme Court justices are in favor of disclosure does not mean that they would favor the DISCLOSE Act. The Supreme Court might decide the disclosure provisions go too far or disagree with other provisions that go beyond disclosure requirements. "Very clearly the Supreme Court approves of and thinks that there is value to disclosure, which is entirely different from whether they would endorse the DISCLOSE act," said Parnell. The bill, for instance, would not allow companies bailed out by the government, such as General Motors, to donate money to political campaigns. "Those provisions are not like the disclosure laws," said Hasen. The Supreme Court doesn't "recommend" that Congress necessarily do anything -- it's just not the court's style. However, certain phrases within a section of the Citizens United ruling do seem to look favorably upon the idea of more disclosure laws. We think Schumer's word choice could have been better, but his general point was correct, so we rate his statement Mostly True. | null | Charles Schumer | null | null | null | 2010-08-04T09:56:22 | 2010-07-27 | ['United_States_Congress'] |
vees-00101 | Nograles, chair of the House appropriations committee, told reporters Aug. 9 the Philippines needs “practice” and a “transition” phase, and is not ready for the proposed budget system: | none | http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-nograles-wrong-cash-based-budget | Contrary to Nograles’ claim, the Philippines has already been implementing a key feature of the cash-based budget system for two years. | null | null | null | house of representatives,DBM,Karlo Nograles | VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Nograles wrong on cash-based budget | August 16, 2018 | null | ['None'] |
hoer-01070 | Get Free Samples From Kmart | facebook scams | https://www.hoax-slayer.net/get-free-samples-from-kmart-facebook-scam/ | null | null | null | Brett M. Christensen | null | Get Free Samples From Kmart Facebook Scam | November 13, 2016 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-01677 | Says Ted Cruz "was just bribed by the Kochs to introduce a bill that would give them and their allies America’s national forests, parks, and other public lands and open them for mining, drilling, fracking and logging." | pants on fire! | /texas/statements/2014/aug/17/occupy-democrats/ted-cruz-bribed-kochs-strike-match/ | Ted Cruz took a bribe? So said a July 11, 2014, Facebook post by Occupy Democrats depicting the second-year Republican senator from Texas as the group’s "Sellout Politician of the Day." Its message, brought to our attention by a reader, said: "This is Sen. Ted Cruz, a Koch puppet. He was just bribed by the Kochs to introduce a bill that would gift or sell them and their allies America’s national forests, parks, and other public lands and open them for mining, drilling, fracking and logging." Democratic Party forces, including the Senate majority leader, Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, often assail the billionaire Koch brothers, Charles and David, pro-Republican Kansas industrialists who have plowed millions of dollars into influencing elections and government. PolitiFact in April 2014 rated Mostly True a statement by Reid that the Koch brothers together are the richest people in the world. The same month, PunditFact rated Half True a claim the brothers spent three times what the top 10 labor unions expended in the 2012 elections. An apples-to-apples comparison was undoable, but an independent analysis of trackable federal data found organizations tied to the Kochs spent three and a half times what unions did that year. Earlier in April, PolitiFact rated False a claim by Charles Koch, CEO of the privately held Koch Industries, Inc., that it was only in the past decade he realized the need to "engage in the political process." Records showed him giving tens of thousands to candidates and political committees prior to 2004 while collectively, his brother and their company’s PAC had donated $7 million to candidates and political committees. In Cruz’s Senate office, spokeswoman Catherine Frazier confirmed Cruz this summer offered a proposal, which wasn’t acted on, for the federal government to shed excess lands, but she said in an email the Occupy Democrats statement "looks like nothing more than politically charged rhetoric with no facts to back it up." Group lacks evidence of bribe Occupy Democrats didn’t offer evidence of Cruz getting money or another benefit to introduce his proposal. But Omar Rivero, the group’s founder and a 2014 Democratic nominee for the Florida House, said by email the Texan elected in 2012 had fielded campaign contributions from groups fueled by the Kochs, including the Club for Growth, which describes itself as the nation’s "leading free-enterprise advocacy group." The group has been Cruz’s top donor, giving more than $705,000 of his $18.1 million in contributions, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Government, which says Koch employees and the company’s PAC have contributed $25,750 to Cruz, placing Koch 26th among the senator’s most-generous givers. Rivero told us Occupy Democrats analyzed Cruz’s amendment via a July 10, 2014, web post on the pro-Democratic ThinkProgress.org website stating Cruz sought to force the government to hand prized lands in the West to home states that would be forced to burden state taxpayers with the costs of managing the lands or, more likely, sell or give away the lands for mining, drilling and logging. "We consider it bribery," Rivero said, "when a shadowy, wide-reaching corporate interest political machine like the Kochs’ bankrolls a U.S. senator’s political operation and then that same senator turns around and supports a major piece of legislation desired by those corporate interests." What Cruz proposed We looked over the amendment, contacted a Koch spokesman and asked advocates familiar with Cruz’s proposal about this claim. In July 2014, Cruz offered his amendment as a change to legislation authored by Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., the Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act of 2014; neither survived. Cruz’s proposal said land under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal Interior and Agriculture departments in any state shouldn’t exceed half the state’s land area. In states where those agencies do control more than half the land, Cruz proposed, the government should sell the "excess" land at auction or transfer it to the state. His amendment called for auctions or transfers to take place by 2020. Frazier of Cruz’s office said he offered the amendment, as he had once before, because "he believes in principles of small government and like many conservatives, feels that federal ownership of land in the states should be limited so that the federal government does not own more than half of the land in any state." Asked the precise origin of the idea, Frazier said: "It came from him. He thinks the federal government should get out of the landlord business." Koch role? Like many companies, Koch Industries lobbies in Washington, according to summaries of federal records by the CRP, and it spent $5.4 million lobbying there from January through June 2014, just before Cruz offered his proposal. Koch lobbyists reported interests in nearly 50 topics including appropriations to the Interior and Agriculture departments, according to the center, though the company did not report any lobbying related to Hagan’s proposal. To our inquiry, Rob Tappan, a Washington, D.C.-based spokesman for Koch Public Sector, part of Koch Industries, said by email the Kochs had no position on Cruz’s amendment nor, he said, did it lobby the issue or contact Cruz’s office to discuss it. Shrinking federal lands not a new idea Experts familiar with Cruz’s idea said they were unaware of information confirming the Occupy Democrats’ claim. Each also said it's not a novel idea to reduce the amount of federally owned land. Broadly, Jessica Goad of the Colorado-based Center for Western Priorities, which says it "promotes responsible policies and practices, and ensures accountability at all levels to protect land, water, and communities in the American West," told us it’s not novel for legislators or members of Congress to advocate the sale or transfer of federal lands. Cruz’s amendment, she said by phone, "is in line with the anti-government, anti-establishment tone of that side of the (Republican) party." Curiously, Goad said, Cruz’s proposal would limit the transfer or sale of "excess" lands to the states of Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Nevada and Utah, the only states where more than half the land is federally controlled. She emailed us a Nov. 14, 2008, Heritage Foundation map of the U.S., drawing on federal data, showing the share of federally owned acreage by state. (Uncle Sam owns 2 percent of the land in Texas, the map indicates.) And how did the federal government end up with so much land in some of the states? Goad pointed out a center illustration showing that as a condition of joining the U.S., western states agreed to give up any stake in otherwise unclaimed lands in their respective boundaries. Goad said the concept of transferring or selling off federal lands has been promoted by right-leaning groups. By email, she pointed out a "model resolution" for state legislatures from the American Legislative Exchange Council, urging Congress to convey title of federal public lands to the states. An ALEC summary says: "Currently, huge swaths (over 50 percent) of the land in our nation’s western states are controlled by the federal government making it impossible for states to tax this land to fund education, grow state economies and generate high-paying jobs. Further, federal control prevents the states from accessing the abundant natural resources contained on these lands." By phone, Alan Rowsome of the Wilderness Society, which describes itself as the "leading American conservation organization working to protect our nation’s shared wildlands," said he had no information on the Kochs touching off Cruz’s proposal, which Rowsome described as a "blunt instrument" to shift lands to states or auctions instead of leaving decisions to designated federal agencies. He said, too, there’s no certainty under Cruz’s amendment that the trims of federal lands would lead to drilling for oil and gas or to forests being cleared. "It is not a mandate of the legislation," he said. Brian Mullis, a Cato Institute spokesman, put us in touch with Shawn Regan of the Montana-based Property & Environmental Research Center, a think tank which says its scholars have "documented how government regulation and bureaucracy often led to environmental degradation." By email, Regan said Cruz’s proposal reflected "a sentiment in many western states that local control of public lands is more desirable than management by distant federal bureaucracies." Of note, Regan said, three states affected by Cruz’s proposal -- Idaho, Nevada and Oregon -- are not oil-and-gas rich. He noted too that under the proposal, the secretaries of Agriculture and Interior would be responsible for identifying acreage to be auctioned off or transferred. Regan speculated: "These almost certainly would not be national parks, wilderness areas, or other ‘pristine’ federal lands, but would likely be lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management or Forest Service—many of which are already managed for logging, grazing, and energy development." Our ruling Occupy Democrats said Cruz "was just bribed by the Kochs to introduce a bill that would give them and their allies America’s national forests, parks, and other public lands and open them for mining, drilling, fracking and logging." If excess federal lands were put up for auction, as possible under Cruz’s amendment, anyone including the Kochs could perhaps purchase the lands and then, as the owners, possibly chop down trees, drill for oil and the like. All this said, this group failed to provide (nor did we find) evidence of a bribe or any Koch-linked inducement causing Cruz to present his proposal nor did we find confirmation his proposal came about so pristine federal lands could be exploited. Campaign contributions aren’t bribes and suspicions aren’t facts. We rate this unsupported and ridiculous claim Pants on Fire! | null | Occupy Democrats | null | null | null | 2014-08-17T06:00:00 | 2014-07-11 | ['Ted_Cruz', 'United_States'] |
pomt-03064 | In 2010, the non-partisan Government Accountability Office found that only 6.5 percent of the U.S.-Mexico border was under full control of the Border Patrol. | mostly true | /texas/statements/2013/oct/01/lamar-smith/government-report-said-65-percent-border-miles-wer/ | Continuing his call for more border security, U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith said in a flier recently mailed to his constituents, "In 2010, the non-partisan Government Accountability Office found that only 6.5 percent of the U.S.-Mexico border was under full control of the Border Patrol." That’s not a lot of border. Is he right? Kim Smith, a spokeswoman for the San Antonio Republican (whose district runs north into Travis County), emailed us a web link to a Feb. 15, 2011, GAO report describing the five levels of border security the Border Patrol used from 2005 through 2010. The agency has not announced a new official measure but has said it plans to do so this year. In fiscal 2010, the report said, about 44 percent of the border was under "operational control," meaning the two highest levels of security: 129 miles at the highest level, "controlled," and 744 miles at the second-highest level, "managed." Dividing 129 by the border’s total 1,993 miles yields 6.5 percent. No miles were classed under the lowest level of security. About 1,120 miles were described as "not acceptable for border security" -- two-thirds of these were "monitored," the third-highest level, and one-third were "low-level monitored," the fourth security level. The levels describe how comprehensively an area is covered and how close to the border the agents and equipment are. A GAO report issued Dec. 10, 2012, explained it this way: "Resources were in place to apprehend illegal activity at the immediate border for 129 southwest border miles, or at some distance from the border for an additional 744 southwest border miles." Feb. 15, 2011, GAO report’s description of levels used in 2010: Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations nonpartisan think tank, told us by phone that "controlled," the highest level, meant agents and surveillance were directly on the border or within a few hundred yards. "The only places where the Border Patrol deems this necessary is in a very small number of what were historically high-traffic corridors, so San Diego, El Paso … mostly urban areas," he said. "The reason you need to be on top of those areas," Alden said, is that "in an urban area, with El Paso and Juárez backed up together, if somebody gets over the wall, you know it’s a minute until they disappear into the streets of El Paso. The San Diego border, it’s a little farther, sort of a suburban area, but it’s pretty easy to disappear," he said. "Managed," the second level of security, "can mean a series of cameras at various points, various distances from the border; it can mean physical patrols by the agents that two or three times a day go past the same area," Alden said. "Most of the border’s unpopulated, and you’re miles and miles from the nearest road. … You’ve got a surveillance camera that spots somebody in Arizona crossing the border, they may have a two-day walk before they get to the road" -- less if they’re in a vehicle, he said, but still not requiring instant response. Do any of the levels equate to "full control"? A former head of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Doris Meissner, now a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, told us in an interview, "It obviously depends on what you define as full control," but after years of "incredible investment" along the border with Mexico, "crossings are dramatically down in almost all of the high-traffic areas ... Overall, the enforcement picture at the border is vastly improved from what it was ten years ago." In light of those facts, Lamar Smith’s statement "sounds misleading to me," she said. PolitiFact has brushed on the border security buildup and drop in apprehensions before. We also found in a Sept. 6, 2013, fact-check that as many as 40 percent of undocumented U.S. residents didn’t get here by crossing a border illegally at all, but by overstaying their visas. The congressman’s flier notes the latter statistic alongside the border security claim in its section on "Supporting immigration enforcement." At the border, complete control -- zero illegal entries -- is improbable, and isn’t the goal. Lamar Smith’s spokeswoman pointed out that the 2011 GAO report said, "Border Patrol stated that operational control does not require its agents to be able to detect and apprehend all illegal entries." In testimony to a House subcommittee Feb. 11, 2013, the GAO's then-director of Homeland Security and Justice, Richard Stana, said that the "resources that would be needed to absolutely prevent every single incursion would be something probably out of reasonable consideration." Lamar Smith told us in an interview, "You make me think now, I wish I’d used the word ‘controlled,’ because ‘full control’ sounds so absolute that ‘controlled’ sounds to me to be less certain." But "the operative word is ‘control,’ I think, where they know they actually have a high probability of apprehending somebody who’s coming across," he said, adding that he also uses the 44 percent "operational control" figure when discussing border security." Alden called Rep. Smith’s statement misleading because "operational control" -- the Border Patrol’s top two security levels, covering 44 percent of the border miles in 2010 -- meant the Border Patrol was detecting and responding to "90, 95 percent" of the illegal entry activity there, he said, pointing us to the appendices of the 2012 GAO report for details. Using numbers in that report, a June 21, 2013, Washington Post news blog entry calculated "effectiveness" ratings for the nine border sectors -- the percentage of total estimated illegal entries in which the Border Patrol apprehended suspects or turned back suspects with a likelihood that they returned to Mexico: In fiscal 2010 and 2011, the nine Border Patrol sectors ranged from 63 percent to 96 percent effectiveness. 2010’s two highest-rated sectors accounted for 21 percent of the border’s nearly 2,000 miles and illustrate some of the physical differences Alden indicated. El Paso’s 286-mile sector averaged 96 percent effectiveness across New Mexico and Texas terrain described in the report as "including mountains and arid desert with canyons," 88 miles of river border "and an urban metropolitan area." Of the sector’s 11 Border Patrol stations, seven were on the border and four in the interior. The 126-mile Yuma, Ariz., sector averaged 95 percent effectiveness in fiscal 2010 over "sandy desert terrain, mountains and river valleys … sand dunes and several mountain ranges … In addition, large portions of the Yuma sector fall within federal land and military reservations." The sector had two border stations and one interior station. Our ruling Lamar Smith wrote, "In 2010, the non-partisan Government Accountability Office found that only 6.5 percent of the U.S.-Mexico border was under full control of the Border Patrol." That report showed 6.5 percent of border miles in fiscal 2010 were under the Border Patrol’s top level of security, meaning agents and equipment were constantly present and monitoring the border -- a level of enforcement usually reserved for high-traffic urban areas. But the rest of the border’s not a sieve. The same report said 44 percent of border miles were under what the agency considered acceptable levels of security. We rate this claim, lacking such clarification, as 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. | null | Lamar Smith | null | null | null | 2013-10-01T17:12:03 | 2013-09-21 | ['United_States_Border_Patrol', 'Mexico–United_States_border'] |
pomt-06585 | Despite opposition from national Club for Growth, Club for Growth Wisconsin "has endorsed" him for U.S. Senate. | pants on fire! | /wisconsin/statements/2011/sep/26/tommy-thompson/republican-tommy-thompson-says-club-growth-wiscons/ | Perhaps the loudest voice in opposition to a Tommy Thompson candidacy for the U.S. Senate has been the conservative Club for Growth. The national anti-tax group has repeatedly accused him of spending too much as Wisconsin’s governor and later supporting President Barack Obama’s health care reform. Thompson, a Republican who has said he will run in 2012 for the seat being vacated by Wisconsin Democrat Herb Kohl, was asked about the criticism on the ABC News "TopLine" program on Sept. 12, 2011. Thompson called the national Club for Growth’s accusations -- made in statements, in an online ad and in a national TV ad -- false. Then he mentioned Club for Growth Wisconsin, saying: "It’s nice to point out that the state Club for Growth, the people in the state of Wisconsin, have endorsed me and support me and say that the national Club for Growth is just plain wrong in their assertions and accusations." We’ve already rated Half True the national Club for Growth’s claim that Thompson, who left the governor’s office in 2001 to serve as President George W. Bush’s health and human services secretary, supported what Republicans dubbed "Obamacare." What struck us about the ABC interview was Thompson’s claim that Club for Growth Wisconsin had endorsed him. That’s because a statement issued two weeks before Thompson’s interview by Club for Growth Wisconsin, which was founded in 2004, said the state group "shares the same economic agenda" as the national group, but is "a completely independent and separate organization." The statement also said that under its charter, Club for Growth Wisconsin "takes no position" on federal candidates: "We do NOT get involved in federal elections." (Conversely, the national Club for Growth says it endorses only federal candidates.) We asked Darrin Schmitz, a spokesman for Thompson’s campaign, about Thompson’s claim of being endorsed by Club for Growth Wisconsin. Schmitz said Thompson was referring to an endorsement from Terry and Mary Kohler, who Schmitz said are founding members of Club for Growth Wisconsin. He argued Thompson clarified his remark when he said "the people" endorsed him because that was a reference to the Kohlers as founding members of the state group. Hmmm. Thompson said "the people of Wisconsin," not people associated with Club for Growth Wisconsin. He didn’t announce the Kohlers’ endorsement until three days after the ABC interview. And an endorsement by individual members of a group -- however influential -- is not the same as an endorsement by the group itself. What’s more, Club for Growth Wisconsin doesn’t even endorse in federal races. Our conclusion In trying to fend off criticism from the national Club for Growth, Thompson told a national TV audience he has been endorsed by Club for Growth Wisconsin in his U.S. Senate bid. He hasn’t been. And, under the group’s charter, couldn’t be. We rate Thompson’s claim Pants on Fire. | null | Tommy Thompson | null | null | null | 2011-09-26T09:00:00 | 2011-09-12 | ['None'] |
snes-04180 | The state of California pays criminals not to kill and sends them on free vacations. | mixture | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/california-government-pays-for-criminals-to-take-vacations/ | null | Crime | null | Bethania Palma | null | California Government Pays for Criminals to Take Vacations? | 24 August 2016 | null | ['California'] |
snes-05026 | A photograph shows President Obama holding a Che Guevara t-shirt. | false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/false-obama-che-guevara-t-shirt/ | null | Uncategorized | null | Dan Evon | null | Photograph Shows President Obama Holding Che Guevara T-Shirt | 23 March 2016 | null | ['Barack_Obama', 'Che_Guevara'] |
farg-00122 | Suggests global warming isn’t necessarily “a bad thing” because “humans have most flourished during times of … warming.” | distorts the facts | https://www.factcheck.org/2018/02/will-global-warming-benefit-civilization/ | null | the-factcheck-wire | FactCheck.org | Vanessa Schipani | ['extreme weather'] | Will Global Warming Benefit Civilization? | February 12, 2018 | 2018-02-12 22:44:53 UTC | ['None'] |
vogo-00223 | Statement: “We’ve already cut over 2,000 staff in the last few years,” San Diego Unified school board President John Lee Evans said during a June 19 interview on KPBS. | determination: mostly true | https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/education/cutting-the-staff-at-city-schools-fact-check/ | Analysis: Evans and teachers union president Bill Freeman appeared on KPBS last month to discuss some big news: school district and union officials had agreed on a revised labor contract. | null | null | null | null | Cutting the Staff at City Schools? Fact Check | July 5, 2012 | null | ['None'] |
vogo-00513 | Fact Check: Union Role in Prop. A | none | https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/fact-check-union-role-in-prop-a/ | null | null | null | null | null | Fact Check: Union Role in Prop. A | October 4, 2010 | null | ['None'] |
snes-03142 | Donald Trump revoked the press credentials of six major news outlets. | false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-revokes-press-credentials-six-news-outlets/ | null | Junk News | null | Dan Evon | null | Did Donald Trump Revoke Press Credentials for Six News Outlets? | 13 January 2017 | null | ['None'] |
snes-02776 | Is Farm-Raised Tilapia from China Dangerous to Eat? | mixture | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tilapia-consumption/ | null | Food | null | David Mikkelson | null | Is Farm-Raised Tilapia from China Dangerous to Eat? | 14 January 2014 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-14066 | We now do have evidence that Donald Trump is being used as a recruiting tool for terrorists. | true | /truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/20/hillary-clinton/donald-trump-now-being-used-terrorist-propaganda-v/ | Hillary Clinton took flak from fact-checkers back in December when she claimed that Donald Trump’s comments were being used as a recruiting tool by ISIS. We rated that statement False, for lack of evidence. The Washington Post Fact Checker said a link did not "appear to exist." Fast-forward five months. Clinton says those links now do exist. "When you say we're going to bar all Muslims, you are sending a message to the Muslim world and you're also sending a message to the terrorists because we now do have evidence," Clinton said May 19 on CNN. "We have seen how Donald Trump is being used to essentially be a recruiter for more people to join the cause of terrorism." So, has something changed? Indeed, yes. Not long after Clinton’s initial comments, Al Shabaab, the East African affiliate of the al-Qaida terrorist group, released a 51-minute video telling "Muslims of the West" that they are not welcome in countries like the United States. Ten minutes into the video, it says the United States has a history of "slavery, segregation, lynching, and Ku Klux Klan, and tomorrow, it will be a land of religious discrimination and concentration camps." It then cuts to Trump calling for a temporary but "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the U.S," according to SITE Intelligence Group, which studies jihadist propaganda, as reported by the Wall Street Journal. It urges American Muslims to leave the United States and join the group. Later, on March 24, Newsweek reported that an ISIS video released in the wake of the Brussels attack featured an audio clip from Trump. "Brussels was one of the great cities, one of the most beautiful cities of the world 20 years ago. It was amazing, actually, and safe. And now it's a horror show. It's an absolute horror show," Trump says in the video, as ISIS lets the phrase "absolute horror show" repeatedly echo and fade. Clinton's initial statement in December "was false at the time," said Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. "It’s true now." Trump's comment in the Brussels video may not seem inflammatory, he said, yet "if you game it out from the perspective of, say, ISIS and they think Donald Trump is a great recruiting tool, then probably they don't want to play him up too much before the election because they'd want him to win." There may be other videos, Gartenstein-Ross said. "Unlike in the past when you had multiple analysts watch every al-Qaida release, ISIS's video production operation is so large, it's really hard for people to watch every single ISIS release because they release so much. They're extraordinarily prolific. I would wager there are other uses of him in their propaganda." Our ruling Clinton said, "We now do have evidence. We have seen how Donald Trump is being used to essentially be a recruiter for more people to join the cause of terrorism." That wasn't the case the first time Clinton claimed this. But now two different terror groups have used Trump's words in propaganda videos. We rate this claim True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/0a716119-4fdd-4c8e-abba-67d977ca9fff | null | Hillary Clinton | null | null | null | 2016-05-20T15:50:46 | 2016-05-19 | ['None'] |
goop-01058 | Angelina Jolie Making Brad Pitt Jealous By Flirting With Co-Star Ed Skrein? | 0 | https://www.gossipcop.com/angelina-jolie-brad-pitt-jealous-ed-skrein-flirting/ | null | null | null | Andrew Shuster | null | Angelina Jolie Making Brad Pitt Jealous By Flirting With Co-Star Ed Skrein? | 12:59 pm, May 4, 2018 | null | ['Angelina_Jolie', 'Brad_Pitt'] |
pose-00123 | Will form an international working group to address the problem of "more than five million Iraqis (who) are refugees or are displaced inside their own country." | promise broken | https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/129/form-international-group-to-help-iraq-refugees/ | null | obameter | Barack Obama | null | null | Form international group to help Iraq refugees | 2010-01-07T13:26:49 | null | ['Iraq'] |
pomt-14494 | When they passed Obamacare, they put a bailout fund in Obamacare. … We led the effort and wiped out that bailout fund. | mostly false | /truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/25/marco-rubio/rubio-we-wiped-out-obamacare-bailout-fund-insuranc/ | Florida Sen. Marco Rubio took an outsize swing at a provision of Obamacare as GOP presidential candidates hammered their favorite target during the CNN debate in Houston. "When they passed Obamacare, they put a bailout fund in Obamacare," Rubio said while addressing frontrunner Donald Trump on Feb. 25, 2016. "All these lobbyists you keep talking about, they put a bailout fund in the law that would allow public money to be used, taxpayer money, to bail out companies when they lost money. We led the effort and wiped out that bailout fund." Did Obamacare contain a bailout for insurance companies, and did Rubio and congressional Republicans get rid of it? In short, they postponed a provision of the law, but it wasn’t a bailout. Risky business What Rubio calls a bailout is actually a part of the Affordable Care Act known as "risk corridors." When the health care law started requiring insurance companies to sell policies to everyone (even sick people with pre-existing conditions), those companies were caught in a tough spot. They didn’t know how much to charge in premiums to cover expenses for all those new policies. So the law set up a three-year period, from 2014 to 2016, during which the government would spread the risk for insurers in the new law’s marketplaces while they adjusted premiums. This program is known as risk corridors. If a company is good at setting its rates and make more than a certain amount, they pay Washington some of their extra money. These are called user fees. If a company is not so good at setting rates and loses money, the government would cover some of their losses. That’s the bailout to which Rubio is referring. He started calling it a "bailout" for unsuccessful insurance companies in 2013, the same year he introduced an ill-fated bill in the Senate to repeal the program. But let’s be clear: Several experts told us risk corridors aren’t a bailout. A bailout is usually a program that saves a company after the fact. Risk corridors are a mechanism that was put in place to deal with a problem that everyone assumes could occur. And they aren’t new, either. The risk corridors program was modeled after a successful plan that was part of George W. Bush’s Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage, albeit slightly different than the Obamacare version. No one referred to that as a bailout. Finding money for payments Now, part of the problem is that the the health care law didn’t say where it would get the money for any risk corridor payments. Remember those user fees from successful insurers? The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, later decided they would use that money to make any payments owed to insurers that weren’t so successful. In 2013, CMS said insurers who said they needed money would get it, "regardless of the balance of payments and receipts" in the program. Rubio took this to mean that if there wasn’t enough money from user fees to cover the payments, the White House would ask Congress for money -- that is, tax revenue. CMS said in April 2014 it wouldn’t ask Congress for an appropriation, but instead would make up the difference in later years if the marketplace didn’t bring in enough user fees. Rubio went to work, urging then-Speaker of the House John Boehner in October 2014 to block potential tax money appropriations for risk corridor payments. That’s what Congress did. When lawmakers passed a spending bill in December 2014, it included special language called a "rider" that said the CMS’ parent agency, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, could not use any extra money in its budget to pay risk corridor expenses. That effectively locked CMS into its stated plan of using user fees. (The same rider was included in the 2015 spending bill.) Some legislators have credited Rubio with inspiring this language, although there have been questions about how much credit he can take. Rubio reintroduced his bill to repeal risk corridors. By October 2015, it became apparent the risk corridors program didn’t work so well in the first year. CMS announced the program took in $362 million in user fees for 2014, while less successful insurers asked for a total of $2.87 billion, leaving a $2.5 billion shortfall CMS can’t pay. CMS said it would pay out 12.6 percent of claims from 2014, then wait to see next year’s results. Some insurers left the marketplaces or even collapsed altogether, leading Rubio to crow his actions have been "a big part of ending Obamacare for good." (We likely won't know what the program took in for 2015 until fall 2016, and 2016’s totals until 2017.) Whether it will really kill Obamacare is up for debate. Some legal scholars have said all the rider did was highlight a problem the law already had and prevent a workaround. Two years ago, the Congressional Budget Office said the risk corridors will likely eventually break even by 2016. If the program doesn’t, CMS will have to find the money somehow or ask Congress to make an appropriation to pay insurers. Otherwise, insurers could sue to get those payments. An Oregon insurance company that is no longer offering marketplace plans did just that on Feb. 24, suing the government for $5 billion over missed risk corridors payments. Our ruling Rubio said, "When they passed Obamacare, they put a bailout fund in Obamacare. … We led the effort and wiped out that bailout fund." The "bailout fund" is actually a provision in the Affordable Care Act called risk corridors, designed to temporarily aid insurers as they adjust premiums. Rubio helped persuade Congress to prevent Health and Human Services from being able to cover expenses its own budget. But experts have said Rubio is wrong to call the program a bailout, and that the program is supposed to pay for itself through fees from insurers. Furthermore, the program hasn’t been "wiped out." At best, Rubio and Congress have temporarily limited one potential way CMS could have covered insurance companies' losses. We’ll have to see what happens when the program expires after 2016 -- then any outstanding bills will be due, one way or another. We rate Rubio’s statement Mostly False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/33a7e991-0d94-4526-a5a9-3a3f7a9a0fec | null | Marco Rubio | null | null | null | 2016-02-25T23:26:57 | 2016-02-25 | ['Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act'] |
snes-00028 | After an off-duty police officer shot Brian Hundley, a jury found the officer had acted negligently and lied about the event, but Judge Brett Kavanaugh overturned the finding. | mixture | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kavanaugh-fatal-shooting-verdict/ | null | Politics | null | Alex Kasprak | null | Did a Jury Find That a Cop Had Lied About a Fatal Shooting, But Brett Kavanaugh Threw Out the Verdict? | 1 October 2018 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-13371 | Says most illegal immigrants draw "welfare benefits, they’re sending their kids to school, they’re using the public services." | half-true | /texas/statements/2016/sep/28/tom-delay/tom-delay-says-most-illegal-immigrants-draw-welfar/ | Former Republican powerbroker Tom DeLay recently raised alarm about Houston "illegal immigrants" taking advantage of tax-funded benefits. DeLay, seated in what looked like a comfortable spot, took split-screen questions from MSNBC’s Kate Snow--both of them not quite getting facts straight. DeLay initially agreed in the Sept. 1, 2016, interview that "deportations are up" under President Barack Obama. Deportations hit a record high under Obama in 2013. However, the counts have since come down. The former U.S. House majority leader once known as the Hammer went on to say the flow of illegal immigrants also has gone way up--a claim that as of that month wasn’t reflective of border-area apprehensions by the Border Patrol. "I mean, right here in Houston, Texas," DeLay said, "you can go three blocks from here and you have apartment complexes after apartment complexes packed full with illegal immigrants." He shortly added: "Most of these illegals are drawing welfare benefits, they’re sending their kids to school, they’re using the public services. Many of them are paying taxes, I grant you that. But the impact," he said, "is monumental." DeLay’s comments fell in stride with a hot topic of the 2016 presidential race--the impact of unauthorized immigrants. Monumental or not, we wondered if he was right about government-funded benefits drawn by such residents. Some relevant recent fact checks: --In August 2016, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s claim there could be up to 30 million unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. came out Pants on Fire; the U.S. government and independent think tanks put the figure between 11 and 12 million. --The same day, Trump said unauthorized immigration costs more than $113 billion annually from federal, state and local coffers. That’s Mostly False, PolitiFact found, in that Trump cited the highest of all estimates from a range that varied widely, and excluded data on unauthorized immigrant tax payments. --The month before, we found Half True a claim by Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton that unauthorized immigrants annually pay $12 billion into Social Security. That amount was paid jointly by unauthorized immigrants and their employers. DeLay offers no backup DeLay, who resigned as majority leader in 2005 after his indictment on Texas campaign finance charges (his subsequent conviction was ultimately overturned), gave us a lot to consider, starting with what he had in mind in mentioning nearby apartment complexes rife with "illegal immigrants." For a moment, we contemplated a field trip to see for ourselves, an option that fizzled after DeLay didn’t provide backup information; when we reached him by phone, the line went dead. Dani DeLay Garcia, his daughter who sometimes serves as his spokeswoman, told us by email that he wouldn’t be elaborating. Public schools and paying taxes For our part, we recognized that DeLay was correct about public schools serving children regardless of immigration status. In 2013, we found True a claim that the U.S Supreme Court had decided in 1982 that non-citizen children must get free public schooling through the 12th grade. Unauthorized immigrants also pay taxes, as DeLay said. Tanya Broder, a staff attorney for the National Immigration Law Center, said by phone that "undocumented immigrants have the same tax obligations as any other resident." Broder emailed a 2015 report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a nonpartisan think tank, which drew on its analysis of state tax laws to estimate that unauthorized immigrants in Texas in 2012 paid about $1.5 billion in state and local sales and property taxes. Earlier, a 2006 report from the Texas state comptroller, applying Pew Research Center population research and comptroller tax models, estimated that unauthorized immigrants in Texas in 2005 paid $1.58 billion in state and local taxes. We focused next on whether unauthorized immigrants draw welfare and tap other public services. Welfare benefits The federal government hasn’t distributed welfare checks to eligible people in poverty for around 20 years; that approach was replaced in the late 1990s by targeted aid programs jointly administered by the federal and state governments that provide assistance with cash, food, housing and health care. That act, the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, also barred unauthorized immigrants from drawing benefits. Title IV of the act, subheaded "restricting welfare and public benefits for aliens," states that "aliens who are not qualified aliens" are ineligible for "federal public benefits" and for "state and local public benefits." The act defines qualified aliens as people with certain legal documented immigration status, meaning unauthorized immigrants are not eligible. We confirmed from eligibility rules posted on government websites that unauthorized immigrants aren’t eligible for major aid programs including Medicaid, the joint federal-state health coverage for people in poverty; Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which provides cash assistance to the impoverished elderly or disabled; Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which used to be food stamps; housing assistance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development; and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), which provides grants for state-administered family assistance programs like child care, cash assistance or counseling. Separately, Broder and Randy Capps of the Migration Policy Institute, a think tank that believes in the benefits of well-managed immigration, each told us federal welfare benefits aren’t available to unauthorized immigrants. By phone, Jack Martin, author of reports on unauthorized immigrants in Texas for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which advocates tighter immigration controls, put it this way: "Illegal aliens are not eligible directly for welfare assistance" though, he said, parents living in the country without permission can sign up qualified children for aid. All U.S.-born children are automatically U.S. citizens, even if born to unauthorized immigrants--and Martin was correct, we found, in that Medicaid eligibility rules specify that unauthorized immigrants "may apply for coverage on behalf of documented individuals." Eligibility rules for SNAP say that a person who is ineligible because of immigration status "may choose to apply only for his or her U.S. citizen children in the household." On the other hand, Broder said, certain federal benefits are available to children regardless of residency status: the Child and Adult Care Food Program, which provides food aid to care centers for low income children, elderly or disabled adults; the National School Lunch and Breakfast Program, which subsidizes in-school meals for children from low income families; and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, which provides nutritional supplements and health education for pregnant women, breastfeeding women and their infants up to five years old who are deemed "at nutrition risk" by a doctor. Capps agreed those programs are open to unauthorized immigrants but said they’re "programs that I wouldn’t consider welfare." Case said the basic nutrition programs qualified as public health spending. Regarding the school lunch program he said: "I wouldn’t consider it welfare the same way I wouldn’t consider public schools welfare." Public services Finally, we found validity to DeLay’s assertion that unauthorized immigrants use "public services." Capps said there were state-administered public health services available to residents regardless of immigration status while Alex Nowrasteh, an analyst for the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, nudged us afresh to the 2006 report from the Texas state comptroller. That report, "Undocumented Immigrants in Texas: a financial analysis of the impact to the state budget and economy," listed nine publicly-funded programs for which unauthorized immigrants in Texas were eligible--public schools plus eight health care programs: emergency medical care for indigent residents; Children with Special Health Care Needs; substance abuse services; mental health services; immunizations; Women’s and Children’s Health Services; public health programs; and emergency medical services such as ambulances. We wondered if the listed programs continue to be open to anyone regardless of immigration status. Seems so; agency-posted eligibility requirements do not say beneficiaries must be legal U.S. residents. SOURCE: Report, "Undocumented immigrants in Texas: a financial analysis of the impact to the state budget and economy," Texas state comptroller Carole Strayhorn, December 2006 In 2005, the report estimated, Texas spent about $58 million caring for unauthorized immigrants through the eight programs--compared to $57.8 billion in total state spending that year. Health Care As the largest health-related service used by unauthorized immigrants, the comptroller identified indigent care at public hospitals. The Texas Indigent Health Care and Treatment Act of 1989 requires Texas counties to fund stabilizing health services for indigent people without insurance. According to the act, county hospitals, public hospitals and hospital districts must admit anyone who earns 21 percent or less of the federal poverty level. That includes unauthorized immigrants, who the comptroller estimated drew $1.3 billion in such services in 2004. The services required under the 1989 act include: "primary and preventative services," inpatient and outpatient hospital services, rural health clinics, laboratory and X-ray services, family planning, physician services, payment for up to three prescription drugs and "skilled nursing facility services." We found specifics in a 2010 report from the Texas Health and Human Services Commission titled "Report on services and benefits provided to undocumented immigrants." The report listed uncompensated costs incurred at each Texas public hospital in 2008, plus the estimated share of that cost "attributable" to unauthorized immigrants. The report estimated that between two and 22 percent of uncompensated costs are attributable to unauthorized immigrants at each of 99 public hospitals statewide, totaling about $717 million in 2008. Our ruling DeLay said most illegal immigrants draw "welfare benefits, they’re sending their kids to school, they’re using the public services." People living in the U.S. without authorization indeed draw on public services including government-supported hospitals. Also, children of all origins attend public schools. But counter to DeLay’s prime point, adults lacking legal residency are barred by law from government programs that fit the "welfare" category. Parents still may seek benefits, though, for their child-citizens. All told, we rate this claim Half True. HALF TRUE – The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/b69dcb57-6c15-48a7-9787-bcf169f7d9ea | null | Tom DeLay | null | null | null | 2016-09-28T18:30:59 | 2016-09-01 | ['None'] |
obry-00002 | The debate about Wisconsin’s infrastructure and road quality remains at the forefront of the 2018 gubernatorial election. In an article published by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Aug. 16, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Tony Evers said fixing Wisconsin’s roads is a top priority, saying the condition of the state’s roads is ranked 49 out of 50 in the country. When asked by The Observatory where Evers got this statistic, his campaign cited two resources. | mostly_true | https://observatory.journalism.wisc.edu/2018/09/28/candidate-evers-calls-wisconsins-roads-2nd-worst-in-the-u-s-are-they/ | null | null | null | Izabela Zaluska | null | Candidate Evers calls Wisconsin’s roads 2nd worst in the U.S. Are they? | October 16, 2018 | null | ['Milwaukee_Journal_Sentinel', 'Wisconsin', 'Democratic_Party_(United_States)'] |
snes-00545 | The U.S. government lost track of some 1,475 immigrant children who were placed in sponsor homes. | true | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1475-immigrant-children-missing/ | null | Politics | null | Bethania Palma | null | Did the U.S. Government Lose Track of 1,475 Migrant Children? | 26 May 2018 | null | ['United_States'] |
pomt-04402 | Says Paul Ryan’s budget plan "ends Medicare." | pants on fire! | /wisconsin/statements/2012/oct/17/rob-zerban/paul-ryans-house-opponent-democrat-rob-zerban-says/ | Understandably, Republican U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan is more focused on running for vice-president than he is on seeking re-election to his southern Wisconsin House seat. But his House opponent, Democrat Rob Zerban, continues to run hard against him. The former Kenosha County supervisor used his first TV ad, released Oct. 4, 2012, to attack Ryan. He repeats one of the most common -- and debunked -- claims of the past year. "Paul Ryan -- his controversial budget for America has been called dangerous, cruel and deeply wrong," a narrator says of the House Budget Committee chairman as the ad begins. "The Ryan plan ends Medicare." No maybes. No qualifiers. Just a straight declaration. Zerban’s evidence As the claim is uttered by the narrator, the words "End Medicare" (in quotation marks) appear on the screen, along with a citation to a June 2011 opinion article in The New York Times. Paul Krugman, who writes The Conscience of a Liberal column, had written that "Republicans are trying to end Medicare. The program we now call Medicare is one in which the government acts as your insurer, paying your major medical bills; coverage is guaranteed to all seniors. The program Republicans want gives you vouchers and tells you to go buy your own insurance, if you can. That’s not at all the same thing." It’s important to underline the fact that Zerban’s ad cites an opinion column. We asked Zerban if he had other evidence. Campaign spokesman Karthik Ganapathy sent us a statement citing news articles that say Ryan’s plan would effectively end Medicare; end Medicare as we know it; or reform Medicare into a voucher system relying on private insurers. The statement also quoted the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning Washington, D.C. think tank, as saying Ryan’s plan would raise Medicare recipients’ premiums and "lead more of Medicare’s healthier enrollees to abandon it for private plans, very possibly setting off a spiral of rising premium costs and falling enrollment for traditional Medicare. Over time, traditional Medicare would become less financially viable and could unravel." So, Zerban cites news accounts and a think tank report on how Ryan would change Medicare -- substantially, to be sure -- but not end it. And then Zerban wavered on his claim. The statement his campaign sent us quotes Zerban as saying: "We don’t say anything we don’t mean -- Paul Ryan’s budget ends Medicare." But then Ganapathy e-mailed us to say he wanted to emphasize the ad’s reference to the Times opinion article: "We are citing other folks who claim the Ryan plan will end Medicare, not coming up with a new accusation ourselves." Zerban is hardly the first to claim Ryan’s plan ends Medicare. But, no bones about it, he clearly made that allegation. So what would Ryan’s plan do? Other evidence In December 2011, more than nine months before Zerban’s TV ad, PolitiFact National rated as its Lie of the Year for 2011 the oft-repeated Democratic line that Republicans voted "to end Medicare" by voting for Ryan’s plan. (FactCheck.org has also knocked down the ends-Medicare claims.) PolitiFact National noted that the allegation ignores the fact that people 55 and older would remain on traditional Medicare and that, even with the privatized system under Ryan's bill, younger people would still receive a guarantee of care. Moreover, around the time the top lie was chosen, Ryan announced he was altering his plan and would retain an option for people to stay in traditional Medicare if they want. In other words, Medicare doesn’t end. Which isn’t to say there wouldn’t be major changes. PolitiFact National rated as Mostly True a charge by President Barack Obama that Mitt Romney and Ryan want to turn Medicare into a voucher program. In that item, our colleagues noted that under Ryan’s original plan, Medicare would have changed from a program that pays doctors and hospitals fees for particular services to one in which beneficiaries would be paid an amount by the government that they could use toward private insurance premiums. This would have affected people who today are under 55 only. But Ryan later proposed allowing beneficiaries under 55 a choice -- they could use their payment to buy private insurance or for a plan that acts like traditional Medicare. So, Medicare would remain the same for people 55 and over and it would remain an option for those who are younger. Our rating Long after the claim had been debunked, Zerban flatly stated that Ryan’s budget plan "ends Medicare." People 55 and older would remain on traditional Medicare, while those who today are under 55 could use a voucher they would receive to buy either a private insurance plan or a plan that acts like traditional Medicare. We rate Zerban’s statement Pants on Fire. | null | Rob Zerban | null | null | null | 2012-10-17T09:00:00 | 2012-10-04 | ['None'] |
pomt-15374 | Says his release of 33 years of tax returns is "more than any presidential candidate in history." | true | /florida/statements/2015/jul/01/jeb-bush/which-presidential-candidate-has-released-most-tax/ | Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush released 33 years of tax returns, casting it as the high water mark of transparency for presidential hopefuls. "Today, I’m releasing 33 years of tax returns – more than any presidential candidate in history," Bush said on his website. He also bragged about it on Twitter. The returns run from 1981 to 2013. We wondered if Bush’s 33 years was indeed the most ever, and that does appear to be the case. We also found it’s highly unusual for a candidate to share so many returns, especially so early in the campaign. The previous record was held by Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kan., who won the Republican nomination to run against President Bill Clinton in 1996. In January of that year, Dole released 29 years of tax returns, stretching from 1966 to 1994. He added 1995 in April, for a grand total of 30 years. Most of Dole’s ire at the time was directed at primary rival, publisher Steve Forbes, who was reticent about revealing his finances. Dole took the opportunity to rebuke his opponent for pushing for a flat tax. The next highest number of releases was Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who released a total of 20 years of returns: five years worth of returns in April 2004, adding to 15 years of returns he had revealed in prior Senate races. Critics of Kerry’s campaign were more concerned that his independently wealthy wife, millionaire Teresa Heinz Kerry, wouldn’t give out her returns. (She eventually provided two pages of her 2003 return.) There is no law requiring candidates to show their tax returns, but it has become common practice since Jimmy Carter became president in 1976. The releases have been far from uniform, however, down to when candidates make their returns public. Bush is an outlier for providing so many returns so early in the campaign, as the lion’s share of candidates usually wait until the year of the election to give out their information. The amount of documentation also has varied widely from person to person. George Romney released 12 years in 1968, as did Bill Clinton in 1992. Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., gave out 10 when he was Kerry’s running mate in 2004. The numbers then dwindle, from George W. Bush (nine in 2000) and Al Gore (eight the same year) to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Hillary Clinton, who both released seven in 2008. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Mitt Romney both released two years during their campaigns. In 1980, Ronald Reagan only provided one. Releasing tax information is often a part of campaign strategy, usually to force other candidates to reveal their finances. But even then, the move can draw criticism. Liberal political action committee American Bridge 21st Century posted a laundry list of questions about the former Florida governor’s business dealings on the same day he released his returns. Bush’s 1,150 pages of financial documents show that the former real estate executive’s net worth dropped from about $2 million to $1.3 million during his two terms as governor. The campaign said he is currently worth between $19 million and $22 million. He has earned at least $29 million since leaving office in 2007. Our ruling Bush said his release of 33 years of tax returns is "more than any presidential candidate in history." That really is the case. The next highest total by a presidential candidate is from Dole, who released 30 years’ worth during his 1996 presidential campaign. We rate Bush’s statement True. | null | Jeb Bush | null | null | null | 2015-07-01T11:46:45 | 2015-06-30 | ['None'] |
tron-01868 | Canadian Research proves that Vicks on the feet cures coughing? | fiction! | https://www.truthorfiction.com/vicks-vaporub/ | null | household | null | null | null | Canadian Research proves that Vicks on the feet cures coughing? | Mar 17, 2015 | null | ['None'] |
afck-00305 | “In 2014, more than 62% of South Africans made their democratic choice to choose a political party of their choice.” | incorrect | https://africacheck.org/reports/has-president-jacob-zumas-government-done-a-good-job/ | null | null | null | null | null | Has President Jacob Zuma’s government done ‘a good job’? | 2015-03-23 07:37 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-14362 | We have ten different tax brackets and if you’re making $9,000, you’re already in the top tax bracket. | false | /missouri/statements/2016/mar/22/eric-greitens/gubernatorial-candidate-exaggerates-missouri-tax-b/ | Republican gubernatorial candidate Eric Greitens said the Missouri tax code is too complicated. In a Thursday GOP primary debate in Columbia, Greitens offered figures to back his claim: "We have 10 different tax brackets, and if you’re making $9,000, you’re already in the top tax bracket." That sounded a little low for the top bracket, so we asked Greitens’ campaign for evidence. His staff referred us to the Missouri Department of Revenue’s 2015 Tax Chart Missouri Department of Revenue's 2015 Tax Chart The chart actually shows 11 different tax brackets, but that aside, at first glance, it seems to back up Greitens’ claim. The top bracket is $9,000 and higher. However, there’s a catch. Greitens said people making $9,000 or more would fall in the top bracket. In fact, this chart applies not to how much a person earns but to that individual’s taxable earnings — after any deductions. Taxable income vs. gross income Taxable income is gross income less all personal exemptions and deductions. The Department of Revenue allows the following standard deductions for Missouri taxpayers. Standard deductions for Missouri taxpayers The chart shows a single filer can claim a standard deduction of $6,300. Therefore, if that person makes $9,000, as Greitens’ said, then he or she would only have a taxable income of $2,700 — even with no other exemptions. When we refer back to the department’s tax bracket chart, we can see such an individual would fit into the state’s fourth tax bracket instead of the highest tax bracket. All things being equal, a single filer would need to make at least $15,300 before he or she would face the highest tax rate. Married people filing jointly, heads of household and surviving spouses could make more than $15,300 and still not be in the top bracket. Our ruling Greitens said, "We have 10 different tax brackets, and if you’re making $9,000, you’re already in the top tax bracket." The plain meaning of "making $9,000" is that’s how much a person earns. However, the Missouri tax brackets aren’t based on gross income but on income after deductions and exemptions. Those reduce a person’s taxable income, which is the basis of the chart Greitens had in mind. A person making $9,000 would fall in the fourth tax bracket, closer to the bottom, and certainly not at the top. Most people would understand Greitens to be talking about gross income, and in this case, his statement falls far short of the mark. We rate this claim False. | null | Eric Greitens | null | null | null | 2016-03-22T00:53:24 | 2016-03-17 | ['None'] |
goop-01639 | Kim Kardashian Furious At Kanye West For Going Back To Work After Birth Of Baby? | 0 | https://www.gossipcop.com/kim-kardashian-kanye-west-baby-birth-work/ | null | null | null | Andrew Shuster | null | Kim Kardashian Furious At Kanye West For Going Back To Work After Birth Of Baby? | 12:55 pm, February 6, 2018 | null | ['None'] |
huca-00013 | "Trudeau and other politicians must realize the real-life consequences of their words when it comes to immigration. It is not compassionate nor prudent to give these individuals false hope when we know that the majority of the asylum claims before the Immigration and Refugee Board will eventually be rejected.'' | a lot of baloney | https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/06/29/theres-a-lot-of-baloney-in-michelle-rempels-asylum-seekers-claim_a_23471406/?utm_hp_ref=ca-baloney-meter | null | null | Conservative MP Michelle Rempel. | Teresa Wright | null | There's 'A Lot Of Baloney' In Michelle Rempel's Asylum Seekers Claim | 06/30/2018 12:21 EDT | null | ['Pierre_Trudeau'] |
pomt-01972 | Thousands of Westerners and Americans are fighting with extremists in eastern Syria and Iraq. | mostly true | /truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jun/18/mike-rogers/are-thousands-westerners-and-americans-fighting-ex/ | As turmoil breaks out in Iraq two and a half years after U.S. troops left the country, are Westerners — including Americans — flocking there to help extremists in the fight? That’s a case made by Rep. Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican who chairs the House Committee on Intelligence, during a June 15, 2014 appearance On Fox News Sunday. Rogers had this exchange with host Chris Wallace. Rogers: "This is as dangerous as it gets. Why? We have thousands of Westerners and Americans in both the eastern Syria and Iraq who have Western passports. This is like —" Wallace: "You're talking about members of ISIS?" Rogers: "Well, they're showing up to fight extremists, and so some are —" Wallace: "With the extremists?" Rogers: "Exactly." Wallace: "Yes." Rogers: "They're fighting with Al-Nusra in Syria or ISIS, and they will go with winners. So, this is what's so dangerous." Rogers went on to note that the first case of an American suicide bomber in Syria occured in May. It sounded to us like Rogers claimed there are thousands of Westerners and Americans in Syria and Iraq fighting with extremists. His office confirmed that’s what he meant. It’s an alarming statistic, and one we decided to verify. The movement of thousands of foreign fighters into Syria to join the fight against President Bashar al-Assad's regime was listed as a "Key Terrorism Trend of 2013" on the State Department’s annual terrorism report. Many of them in recent weeks have since moved into Iraq, where groups like the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, have now taken a large swath of the country. Experts told us that conflicts in Muslim and Arab countries have often drawn fighters from across the world, including the Afghan-Soviet War and the Bosnian War. But the conflict in Syria has seen an infusion of foreign fighters to a much greater degree than past conflicts, said Bruce Riedel, director of the Intelligence Project at the Brookings Institution. "We’ve never seen anything on the scale or magnitude like this," Riedel said. "In the 1980s, a lot of the foreign volunteers went for relatively short period of time and it was more a photo-op than anything else. This time, they’re all fighting." Those not familiar with the ongoing civil war in Syria might wonder why the United States would care that Westerners are joining the fight against Assad. Assad is a brutal dictator, and President Barack Obama has called on him to step down. While there are some moderate forces in Syria fighting to oust Assad, there are also other militant groups like ISIS, which have more extreme jihadist and anti-American views, as well as links to terrorist groups like al-Qaida. Is it possible some of these foreign fighters are there to help more moderate forces defeat Assad? Some are, Riedel said, but "the majority of foreign volunteers are ending up joining or working with extremist groups like ISIS. They’re gravitating to the most extreme groups." Rogers’ office could not elaborate further on the number of Westerners fighting in those conflicts. Similarly, a spokesman for Rogers’ counterpart on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., confirmed that the committee was briefed that there were a large number of Westerners, and some Americans, fighting in Syria, but he could not provide exact figures. Instead, we were directed to the U.S. government’s National Counterterrorism Center. In March, Director Matthew Olsen warned that a growing force of foreign fighters in Syria was becoming a major concern. "European governments estimate that more than 1,000 Westerners have traveled to join the fight against the Assad regime," Olsen said. "Dozens of Americans from a variety of backgrounds and locations in the United States have traveled or attempted to travel to Syria but to date we have not identified an organized recruitment effort targeting Americans." So, 1,000 is not "thousands." But perhaps other estimates are higher. The International Center for the Study of Radicalization at King’s College London has studied this issue extensively, collecting information from 1,500 sources to put together a tally. As of December 2013, the center estimated there were upto 11,000 individuals from 74 countries in Syria — nearly double its April 2013 estimate. Between 600 and 1,900 of those are from Western Europe. Additionally, about 32 to 305 fighters hail from Australia and Canada. Foreign fighters from the United States made up a small piece, between 17 and 60. The number has grown since December, said Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, the Director of the Center for the Study of Terrorist Radicalization at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, so the high-end estimates are well past 2,000 at this point. For example, French officials recently said they believe more than 700 of their residents have joined the conflict. The December estimate from King’s College London said 412 was the high figure. So it is quite possible between 2,000 and 3,000 foreign fighters from Western countries have entered Syria and Iraq, said Riedel, who has also studied these figures. Bruce Hoffman, director of the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown University, took issue with Rogers’ statement because even high end estimates make "thousands" a stretch. It’s also worth noting that the estimates don’t factor in whether foreign fighters left the fight, returned or died, only that they were there at some point in the last three years. That’s not clear from Rogers’ statement. "I would say that most convincing analyses hold that there are indeed thousands of foreign fighters in Syria of whom about 2,000 are thought to be from Western countries," said Hoffman, who was an adviser to the Iraq Study Group. National security officials in the United States and with its allies are especially concerned about this trend. In January, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Congress, "We’re seeing now the appearance of training complexes in Syria to train people to go back to their countries and, of course, conduct more terrorist acts." This scenario has apparently already been realized in Brussels, Belgium, the site of a deadly shooting at a Jewish museum. French authorities have arrested a suspect, a 29-year-old Frenchman who allegedly carried out the shooting after fighting with Islamist rebels in Syria. So the threat is certainly real, particularly in Europe, Gartenstein-Ross said, where travel to and from the Middle East is logistically easier. Our ruling Rogers said there are "thousands of Westerners and Americans in both the eastern Syria and Iraq who have Western passports" fighting with extremists. The highest estimates put the figure between 2,000 and 3,000, which would make it technically accurate, but somewhat exaggerated, to say "thousands." A March estimate from the U.S. government said there were about 1,000 Westerners in Syria. Only a few dozen of them are from the United States, though, and you might not get that impression from Rogers’ comment. So Rogers may have amplified the numbers a bit, but he did not overstate the threat. Experts we spoke with, along with U.S. and Western governments, have expressed legitimate concerns about this issue. Therefore, we rate Rogers’ statement Mostly True. | null | Mike Rogers | null | null | null | 2014-06-18T16:11:47 | 2014-06-15 | ['Syria', 'Iraq', 'United_States'] |
farg-00376 | SHAQUILLE O’NEAL SAYS: 'TRUMP IS POSSIBLY THE BEST PRESIDENT OF THE PRESIDENT OF ALL TIMES EVER, HE IS NOT AFRAID TO… .’ | false | https://www.factcheck.org/2018/09/shaq-didnt-call-trump-the-best-president/ | null | fake-news | FactCheck.org | Catherine Monk | ['false stories'] | Shaq Didn’t Call Trump the ‘Best President’ | September 17, 2018 | 2018-09-17 17:33:09 UTC | ['None'] |
goop-00722 | Ben Affleck Selling Savannah Home To Pay Off Jennifer Garner Divorce, | 1 | https://www.gossipcop.com/ben-affleck-selling-home-pay-jennifer-garner-divorce-fiction/ | null | null | null | Shari Weiss | null | Ben Affleck NOT Selling Savannah Home To Pay Off Jennifer Garner Divorce, Despite Reports | 4:07 pm, June 28, 2018 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-00253 | Says Bruce Poliquin "voted to strip 117,000 Mainers of their insurance." | half-true | /truth-o-meter/statements/2018/oct/05/maine-democratic-party/did-bruce-poliquin-vote-strip-117000-people-health/ | Democrats are latching onto Republicans’ voting records on health care as a springboard to criticize their midterm opponents. The Maine Democratic Party picked up on that argument in a mailer on the U.S. House race in the state’s 2nd Congressional District between Republican incumbent Bruce Poliquin and Democratic challenger Jared Golden. The mailer claims that "Bruce Poliquin’s dangerous votes to cut health care coverage harm Maine families." It goes on to say that Poliquin "voted to strip 117,000 Mainers of their coverage." The attack is based on Poliquin’s votes to repeal President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act and replace it the with the Republican-backed American Health Care Act, which Poliquin voted for in May 2017. Let’s take a look at the estimates for Maine. Where does the 117,000 figure come from? When we checked with the Democrats, party spokesman Chris Glynn pointed to a Portland Press Herald story that references an analysis published in May 2017 by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. The center came up with a state-by-state estimate of coverage losses based on a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The latter report found that the American Health Care Act would increase the number of people who are uninsured by 23 million in 2026, compared to the ACA. The center calculated that approximately 116,700 Mainers would see a net loss in insurance coverage under the plan by 2026. Here’s how that breaks down: 57,300 fewer Medicaid recipients, 11,900 fewer people with employer-based coverage, and 47,500 fewer people with insurance obtained through the individual marketplace. The combined total of 116,700 represents about 9 percent of the state’s population. But the number is a bit inflated The ad is based on findings of a liberal-leaning group, so we contacted other research organizations considered more moderate, such as the Urban Institute’s Health Policy Center. The institute produced its own study of the state-by-state implications of the AHCA. Its prediction of uninsured Mainers was half as much as the Center for American Progress. In the report, the Urban Institute estimated that by 2022, Maine would experience an increase in the uninsured by 56,000 people. Urban Institute fellow Linda Blumberg couldn’t say exactly how the center divided up the CBO data, but explained that her organization got its estimation from a simulation that showed 23 million more people uninsured under the AHCA by 2022. The estimated effects by state varied significantly in terms of numbers and percentages, Blumberg told PolitiFact. This is a function of the distribution of health insurance coverage in each state, distribution of income, and a variety of other factors related to the population and how it varies by geographic location. In general, she said, states that had gained the most coverage under the ACA were estimated to lose the most under the AHCA. Blumberg pointed out that while CAP’s estimation is higher, both organizations find that large percentage increases in the uninsured would have occurred under the AHCA in the state of Maine, had it passed. The Kaiser Family Foundation, also estimated that premiums would have likely gone up in large swaths of Maine (particularly in Poliquin’s district, which encompasses the entire portion of the state north of Portland and Augusta) under the AHCA, thus pricing many Mainers out of insurance. The way the figure is presented The mailer makes a blanket statement saying that Poliquin’s vote was to "strip" 117,000 Mainers of health coverage. It would be more accurate to say that, according to the Center for American Progress, 117,000 people could either lose their coverage, see a rise in premiums and be priced out, or be forced into an exclusion — which would limit coverage for a particular condition, but not coverage for those people entirely. Another critical part of the coverage losses in Maine would likely lie in the Medicaid cutbacks of the AHCA, which was estimated to be cut by $880 million over a 10-year span. According to the Portland Press Herald, about 75 percent of Medicaid recipients under the state’s "MaineCare" program are children, low-income senior citizens who qualify for both Medicaid and Medicare, and the disabled. Our ruling The Maine Democratic Party said Poliquin voted to strip 117,000 Mainers of their insurance. The group refers to his votes to repeal Obamacare and replace it with the Republican-backed American Health Care Act. The 117,000 figure comes from an analysis by the liberal Center for American Progress. It is the highest of estimates we’ve found. The ad’s language would lead the reader to believe that Poliquin literally voted to strip 117,000 Mainers of coverage, and that all would lose their coverage automatically. This is misleading. The statement is partially accurate and needs additional context, so we rate it Half True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com | null | Maine Democratic Party | null | null | null | 2018-10-05T09:53:20 | 2018-10-01 | ['None'] |
snes-04144 | A photograph shows three 'smiling' birds next to a 'smiling' sun. | false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/smile-sun-bird-photo/ | null | Fauxtography | null | Dan Evon | null | ‘Smiling’ Sun with ‘Smiling’ Birds | 30 August 2016 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-08861 | In recent years, Rep. LaTourette has sponsored legislation that would increase spending by 551.6 percent. | pants on fire! | /ohio/statements/2010/aug/05/bill-oneill/bill-oneill-accuses-rep-steve-latourette-trying-ra/ | To err once is human. To err repeatedly is just not good. Thus, the tale of Bill O’Neill, a Democratic congressional candidate who wants to unseat longtime incumbent Steve LaTourette in Ohio’s 14th Congressional District. O’Neill, a former state appeals judge, is unlikely to win a majority of the conservative vote in this race. He acknowledged to the Portage County Tea Party that he shares few of its political positions. But he doesn’t want LaTourette, a Republican, to get the Tea Party’s support either. So O’Neill wrote to the Portage County Tea Party on July 30 (and released the letter to the press), saying that LaTourette misled the organization. LaTourette had told the group July 6 that his legislative agenda paralleled the Tea Party’s, but that’s demonstrably untrue, O’Neill wrote. O’Neill cited some examples in the letter, the most damning being this: "In recent years, Rep. LaTourette has sponsored legislation that would increase spending by 551.6 percent." That’s an enormous increase, especially if you consider that the government spends trillions of dollars a year. But O’Neill’s letter stated it as a fact, without saying where that figure came from. So we asked O’Neill’s communications director, Eric Rosso, about it – and the problems began cascading from there. Rosso pointed us to a New York Times article and chart published Feb. 13, 2005. The article was about the Republican revolution of 1994, when the GOP won control of the House of Representative and promised a smaller government. But the GOP cost-cutters had lost their way, according to the Times, which cited an analysis showing that the Republicans had become big spenders. The analysis was done by the National Taxpayers Union, a nonprofit group that favors smaller government and lower taxes, and according to the Times, it showed congressional proposals for new spending during the 2003-2004 term. According to the chart in the Times, LaTourette had sponsored or co-sponsored bills during that term that would add $551.6 billion in new annual spending. Notice the dollar sign? We did, although you’d have to look at the top of the Times’ chart to be sure. But O’Neill missed it, calling the purported increase a hike of 551.6 percent. This was just the start of his error, although it was a doozy, because the difference between $551.6 billion and 551.6 percent is enormous. "That would be the equivalent of a $10 trillion a year spending increase," explained Pete Sepp, executive vice president of the National Taxpayers Union Foundation. Still, even $551.6 billion in new annual spending sounded like a lot of money. Was LaTourette really proposing hikes of that magnitude? No, it turns out. Which brings us to error No. 2. As we researched this, we asked Rosso if he was sure about the Times chart and whether it was really measuring dollars, not percentages. He looked, saw that error, and soon contacted the Portage County Tea Party, he says, to tell it that O'Neill’s letter should have said that LaTourette added $551.6 billion in new spending, not 551.6 percent. But O’Neill’s letter actually should have said neither. To understand, it helps to know where these figures come from. The National Taxpayers Union estimates how much each piece of legislation will drive up or bring down annual federal spending using data from the Congressional Budget Office, from bill sponsors, from outside studies and other sources it deems credible. The taxpayers group then creates a cost-and-savings list for each member of Congress, based on the member's sponsorship or co-sponsorship of bills. But there were two problems with the $551.6 billion figure that appeared in the Times. First, it was based on an interim study, covering only the first 18 months of the 2003-2004 term. It was the best available data when the Taxpayers Union put it out and the Times used it, says Sepp. But later that year, a more detailed analysis was completed and the figures changed. LaTourette's total for 2003 and 2004 went down to a comparatively small $150.2 billion. We spotted that quickly when looking at the taxpayer group's online database. How could the estimate have gone down so dramatically, from $551 billion to $150 billion? We spent a day going over the numbers and, thanks to the National Taxpayers Union staff, it finally made sense. The group revised its cost estimate downward after being convinced that a single, particularly expensive bill -- one that LaTourette co-sponsored -- would not cost nearly as much as originally thought. The bill, the MediKids Health Insurance Act, would have provided health care coverage for children ineligible for other programs. It was sponsored by California Democrat Pete Stark, but he had 84 co-sponsors. The bill never got far. The National Taxpayers Union initially estimated the bill would cost $477.8 billion a year, based on information from the bill’s sponsor and Census data. But it later revised the cost dramatically, reducing it to $74.7 billion a year, after it was presented with new information and a study from Emory University. This revision, which dropped LaTourette's total considerably, occurred in 2005. That’s a full five years ago, for those of you who are counting. This change in arithmetic would have jumped out at O'Neill or his staff had they looked at the data underlying their claim. So as a percentage, how much higher would LaTourette's proposals have pushed federal spending? Using government spending data for 2004, we calculate 6.5 percent. That’s 6.5 percent, not 551.6 percent. And it could be even smaller because of some projected budget offsets that the taxpayers group does not consider in its calculations, saying they're not reliable. If you go to the taxpayers group’s website, you’ll still find some extremely high figures that make LaTourette look like a profligate spender: $536.8 billion that he purportedly proposed in 2003 alone, and $784.7 billion in new spending during the 2001-2002 congressional session. Yet those figures are incorrect. The National Taxpayers Union agrees with us on that. Both figures included the enormously high -- and ultimately abandoned -- projections for the proposed MediKids program. During that 2001-2002 cycle, in fact, the taxpayers group initially estimated MediKids -- which LaTourette supported -- would add a whopping $700 billion a year in new spending. Although the Taxpayers Union never went back to take out that figure, Sepp acknowledges that it should be scaled way, way back. So O’Neill’s claim of 551.6 percent is way off. He’s guilty of not just sloppy math, but shallow and incomplete research. It’s not 551.6 percent, it’s more like 6.5 percent. That’s so far off that we need to set the meter ablaze. Pants on Fire! Comment on this item. | null | Bill O'Neill | null | null | null | 2010-08-05T12:00:00 | 2010-07-30 | ['None'] |
pomt-08855 | Democrats do not have a plan for extending the Bush tax cuts. | false | /truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/06/sarah-palin/sarah-palin-said-democrats-have-no-plan-extend-som/ | Sarah Palin disagreed with the Pants on Fire rating we gave her for the statement, "Democrats are poised now to cause this largest tax increase in U.S. history." So she let us have it, via a note on her Facebook page. "Yesterday, PolitiFact.com fact-checked my statement about the coming $3.8 trillion Obama tax hike – the largest tax increase in history. They did such a bad job of it, however, that I feel compelled to fact-check the fact-checkers," she began. Palin, the former governor of Alaska, made several points in her rebuttal, the primary one being that the Democrats haven't put forward a plan stating how they intend to address the expiring Bush tax cuts. Palin's comments on Fox News Sunday gave the impression that Democrats want to see them all expire. In fact, Democrats have repeatedly stated they only intend to let lower tax rates expire for individuals making more than $200,000 or couples making more than $250,000. And that's nowhere near the largest tax increase in history, as we noted in our rating. But Palin doesn't see it that way. "Unfortunately for PolitiFact, no such proposal exists. ... Plan? What plan? There is no plan. All we have is smoke and mirrors based on an old Obama campaign pledge that if elected, he would exempt families making less than $250,000 a year from 'any form of tax increases.' ... "To prevent PolitiFact from making similar mistakes in future, it would be helpful if the White House and the Democratic Congressional leadership finally mustered the courage to table their plans to let the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire. Mr. President, publish your proposals, and we'll duke it out. You can argue in favor of a multi-trillion dollar tax hike in an age of economic uncertainty and mass unemployment, and we'll argue for fiscal sanity combined with serious spending cuts. I for one look forward to such a debate." We're not trying to antagonize Gov. Palin, but President Barack Obama has indeed published his proposals in some detail -- at least twice, in the annual budget documents that the White House releases. The president's 2011 budget, for example, says on page 39, "Allow the Bush Tax Cuts for Households Earning More Than $250,000 to Expire." "In the last Administration, those at the very top enjoyed large tax breaks and income gains while almost everyone else struggled and real income for the middle class declined. Our Nation cannot afford to continue these tax cuts, which is why the President supports allowing those tax cuts that affect families earning more than $250,000 a year to expire and committing these resources to reducing the deficit instead. This step will have no effect on the 98 percent of all households who make less than $250,000." Lest you think that's too general and vague, there are detailed estimates in the budget summary tables, starting on page 164, for provisions such as, "Upper-income tax provisions devoted to deficit reduction: Expand the 28-percent rate and reinstate the 36-percent and 39.6-percent rates for those taxpayers with income over $250,000 (married) and $200,000 (single) ... Reinstate the personal exemption phaseout and limitation on itemized deductions for those taxpayers with income over $250,000 (married) and $200,000 (single) ... Impose 20-percent tax rate on capital gains and dividends for those taxpayers with income over $250,000 (married) and $200,000 (single)." In Congress, key Democratic leaders have indicated they are using the plan outlined in the federal budget as the framework for their legislation. The Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on dealing with the expiring tax cuts. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the committee's chair, said in a July 14, 2010, statement, "I support extending the middle-class tax cuts permanently, as soon as possible, so working families can keep more of their hard-earned money." The committee released a budget analysis from the Joint Committee on Taxation, "Estimated Effects on Economic Growth and Distribution." That document showed estimates for the cost to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for those who are now taxed at rates of 10 percent, 25 percent, 28 percent, "and part of the 33%." That 33 percent tax bracket, by the way, includes taxpayers who make slightly below and slightly above the benchmarks Obama described. And then there's also the U.S. Treasury Department's "General Explanations of the Administration's Fiscal Year 2011 Revenue Proposals," known by policy wonks as "the green book." It outlines in even more detail how the Obama administration plans to increase taxes for high-earners and keep the current rates for everyone else. "It is very much an official statement of policy. It's what they propose to do," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow with the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. "Obviously, Congress will do or won't do what it will. But I have heard no one on the Hill saying we should let everything expire." News coverage from other publications from The Wall Street Journal to our fellow fact-checkers at Factcheck.org have also noted the Democratic proposals and ideas on these issues. "The Democrats' plan seems to me to be quite explicit: keep the tax cuts for those under $250,000 and let those for the rich expire," said Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, and a longtime watcher of Congress. "Does that mean never, ever taxing the under-$250 (thousand) populace? No. But it is a straightforward policy plan." Palin does make a good point that there is not pending legislation to make some parts of the Bush tax cuts permanent. Certainly, lots of unexpected and surprising things can happen when Congress actually begins to take up legislation. It's possible that Congress could become entirely gridlocked. If no legislation passes, the Bush tax cuts will indeed expire for all incomes. And, she's also right that on the campaign trail Obama promised not to raise "any" taxes on a family making less than $250,000. We rated that Promise Broken after Obama signed laws increasing taxes on cigarettes and indoor tanning. There is also the controversial tax penalty in the new health care law that will tax those who don't have insurance, starting in 2014. Yet Obama also promised to extend the Bush tax cuts for lower incomes and let the Bush tax cuts expire for higher incomes. Those two promises are both rated In the Works. (See all of Obama's tax promises.) But Palin was distorting the facts when she said, "All we have is smoke and mirrors based on an old Obama campaign pledge." There is much more than that in the public record from both President Obama and Democrats in Congress. Frankly, we anticipated criticism when we published our report on Palin, but we were not anticipating the criticism that the Democrats are hiding their intentions on tax rates for people of lower incomes, or the claim that Obama has not published fairly detailed outlines of what he intends for the tax code. There is a plan, and you can see it on pages 39 and 164-165 of the budget. We rate Palin's statement False. | null | Sarah Palin | null | null | null | 2010-08-06T10:41:39 | 2010-08-05 | ['George_W._Bush', 'Democratic_Party_(United_States)'] |
pomt-11198 | A legal settlement that reined in Chicago police "resulted in approximately 236 additional victims killed and over 1,100 additional shootings in 2016 alone." | mostly false | /illinois/statements/2018/may/15/jeff-sessions/aclu-really-blame-chicagos-murder-spike/ | U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions recently told a conference on policing that a 58 percent spike in Chicago murders in 2016 could be blamed on the settlement of a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. The settlement, Sessions said, led to a sharp reduction in "stop and frisks" by officers. Speaking to the Gatlinburg Law Enforcement Training Conference in Tennessee on May 8, Sessions highlighted the conclusions of a recent research paper on Chicago violence by two University of Utah professors that focused on what it called the "ACLU effect." "They concluded the 58 percent increase was caused by the abrupt decline in ‘stop and frisks’ in 2015," Sessions said. "The settlement of that lawsuit resulted in a decline in stops from 40,000 per month to 10,000 per month. Arrests fell also. In sum, they conclude that these actions in late 2016, conservatively calculated, resulted in approximately 236 additional victims killed and over 1,100 additional shootings in 2016 alone." Sessions cited those statistics in stressing the consequences of restraining police. But was the attorney general’s interpretation of the study accurate? And, more significantly, was the research itself academically sound? We decided to take a look. The study Sessions’s remarks to the police crowd were premised on a significant factual inaccuracy. The ACLU did not sue Chicago over stop-and-frisk, though it had threatened to. The city entered a voluntary agreement to end the policy in August 2015, five months after the Illinois chapter of the civil rights group issued a report indicating Chicagoans were stopped more than four times as much as New Yorkers before that city discontinued stop-and-frisk. In the summer of 2014, Chicago police stopped more than 250,000 people without making an arrest, taking into question the policy’s effectiveness, the ACLU report stated. In the agreement on stop-and-frisk, Chicago police said officers would be trained to stop people for questioning only when there is a "reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct." Also imposed were more thorough requirements for documenting every stop that did occur. The University of Utah research by Paul G. Cassell, a former federal judge and current law professor, and economics professor Richard Fowles found the agreement between Chicago and the ACLU was followed by a steep decline in street stops by police — from 40,000 monthly down to less than 10,000. The study attributed a surge in homicides, from 480 in 2015 to 754 in 2016, to the sharp reduction in police stops. But the work by Cassell and Fowles has fueled sharp criticism from some criminal justice experts. John A. Eterno, a criminal justice professor at Molloy College in Rockville Centre, New York, identified the study’s limited time frame as one flaw. He noted that, while Chicago did indeed jump in 2016 following implementation of the ACLU agreement, they dropped somewhat the following year. "It doesn’t make sense," said Eterno, a retired New York City police captain. "The data is just not there to recommend what (the study) is recommending." Eterno noted that New York City’s murder rate declined or remained steady after it ceased stop-and-frisk — a fact Casell’s study suggested was an "anomaly." But the cities of Newark, New Jersey; Seattle, Washington; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, all experienced similar changes to their murder rates after contemplating stop-and-frisk changes, suggesting a broader trend, according to an earlier Washington Post story examining the issue. Edwin C. Yohnka, director of communications and public policy for ACLU of Illinois, also questioned the study’s dismissal of other factors potentially contributing to the uptick in murders, such as intense local reaction to public release in late 2015 of police dashcam video that showed a Chicago officer shooting black teenager Laquan McDonald 16 times. The video caused an uproar in Chicago and across the nation and led to the filing of first-degree murder charges against the officer, Jason Van Dyke. Mayor Rahm Emanuel, whose administration fought release of the video in the 2014 shooting for more than a year, also fired his police chief, Garry McCarthy, after a court ordered the footage be made public. The Utah researchers dismissed the video as "an unlikely candidate to explain the Chicago homicide spike." They contended that awareness of Van Dyke’s actions and allegations of a cover-up were "widespread" as early as April 2015 when the Chicago City Council agreed to pay McDonald’s family $5 million."They say everyone knew what was on the video before it was released," Yohnkasaid. "I don’t think that’s even close to being true."Cassell defended his work. "It’s always easy to throw out allegations that something else caused something and how do you falsify that particular claim?" said Cassell, a former federal judge appointed by President George W. Bush. "It’s not scientific if you just throw something out and say ‘well there's no way to test it.’" Our ruling Citing a study by University of Utah researchers, Sessions claimed that a legal settlement over police conduct between the ACLU and the city "resulted in approximately 236 additional victims killed and over 1,100 additional shootings in 2016 alone." Sessions misstated the ACLU’s involvement with the Chicago police department — there was no lawsuit. He did, however, correctly recite conclusions of the study. The overriding question, then, is whether the study reaches sound conclusions. On that, there is considerable disagreement. Chicago police stops did indeed dramatically plunge in the wake of a city agreement with the ACLU to overhaul its stop-and-frisk policy. A big jump in the city’s murder rate also coincided with the end of policy’s end. Even so, New York and other big cities did not experience hikes in violence and murders after curtailing stop-and-frisk. Other academics express serious reservations about the research methods used by the Utah study. The skeptics also point to an array of factors that may also have contributed to the murder and violence spike — not the least of which was the wrenching impact of the Laquan McDonald shooting video. There is considerable debate about that. There is some element of truth in the statement made by Sessions, but it also ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. That is the boilerplate Politifact definition of Mostly False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com | null | Jeff Sessions | null | null | null | 2018-05-15T18:25:00 | 2018-05-08 | ['Chicago'] |
pose-01060 | Q: Name three policies pushed by Mayor Bill Foster during his administration that you support and would advocate continuing. Name three others that you would want to change. A: "I will continue to support the efforts at curbside recycling but go beyond the half-measures and make it mandatory." | promise kept | https://www.politifact.com/florida/promises/krise-o-meter/promise/1142/make-curbside-recycling-mandatory/ | null | krise-o-meter | Rick Kriseman | null | null | Make curbside recycling mandatory | 2013-12-31T12:18:55 | null | ['None'] |
snes-04297 | Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump kicked a crying baby out of a political rally. | false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-crying-baby/ | null | Politicians | null | Dan Evon | null | Donald Trump Kicked a Crying Baby Out of a Political Rally | 8 August 2016 | null | ['Republican_Party_(United_States)', 'Donald_Trump'] |
snes-04885 | NASA admitted to dosing Americans with airborne lithium. | false | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nasa-lithium-chemtrails-conspiracy/ | null | Conspiracy Theories | null | Kim LaCapria | null | NASA Lithium Chemtrails Conspiracy | 21 April 2016 | null | ['United_States'] |
goop-01912 | Justin Bieber, Selena Gomez ‘On Break’ Or ‘Fighting,’ | 0 | https://www.gossipcop.com/justin-bieber-selena-gomez-break-fighting-made-up/ | null | null | null | Michael Lewittes | null | Justin Bieber, Selena Gomez NOT ‘On Break’ Or ‘Fighting,’ Despite Made-Up Report | 7:47 pm, January 3, 2018 | null | ['None'] |
snes-04237 | In Case of Intruder, Should You Ask 911 for a Pizza? | legend | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/case-intruder-ask-911-pizza/ | null | Crime | null | Snopes Staff | null | In Case of Intruder, Should You Ask 911 for a Pizza? | 3 February 2015 | null | ['None'] |
tron-01112 | American missionary sentenced to death in Africa after traffic accident | fiction! | https://www.truthorfiction.com/africanmissionary/ | null | crime-police | null | null | null | American missionary sentenced to death in Africa after traffic accident | Mar 17, 2015 | null | ['United_States', 'Africa'] |
pomt-00858 | Says Secretary of State John Kerry, "when he was a senator, flew to Managua and met with a communist dictator there, Daniel Ortega, and accused the Reagan administration of engaging in terrorism." | mostly true | /truth-o-meter/statements/2015/mar/16/mitch-mcconnell/mitch-mcconnell-john-kerry-visited-nicaragua-1980s/ | The controversy over a letter to Iran’s leaders signed by 47 Republican senators prompted a sudden surge of interest in past efforts by lawmakers to meet with foreign leaders. After taking hits from many Democrats and some Republicans who said the letter unwisely undercut President Barack Obama’s negotiations with Iran over its nuclear capabilities, Republicans pushed back with examples of congressional Democrats engaged in overseas freelancing when Republicans held the White House. For instance, conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh charged that the late Democratic senator Ted Kennedy "sent a letter to then Soviet leader Yuri Andropov apologizing for Ronald Reagan and begging the Soviets not to overreact." We rated that claim False. Other claims have involved House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other lawmakers. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., appeared on CNN’s State of the Union on March 15 to answer questions from host Dana Bash about what she called the "rushed way" the letter was circulated as senators were trying to get out of town for a snowstorm. She asked McConnell to explain the process, but McConnell began by sidestepping her question. "Well, Dana, first, let me just say, I think this is a good case of selective outrage," McConnell said. "I remember reading about Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) when he was the majority leader flying to Moscow during the negotiations over the SALT II treaty, explaining to the Russians the Senate's role in treaty ratification. And John Kerry, when he was a senator, flew to Managua and met with a communist dictator there, Daniel Ortega, and accused the Reagan administration of engaging in terrorism. So, look, members of Congress expressing themselves about important matters, not only at home, but around the world, is not unprecedented." Since Kerry, many years later, is a central player in the Iran negotiations, we decided to focus on the claim that referenced him. (Indeed, on Sunday, Kerry said on CBS’s Face the Nation that the letter from the 47 senators "was absolutely calculated directly to interfere with these negotiations. … That is unprecedented.") There are some differences between the recent examples and the Kerry visit -- including the fact that the Nicaragua episode involved two individual lawmakers rather than 87 percent of the Senate GOP caucus, including the majority leader. But we’ll leave it to readers to judge whether McConnell’s comparison is apt. Here, we’ll look instead at the more straightforward factual question of whether Kerry, "when he was a senator, flew to Managua and met with a communist dictator there, Daniel Ortega, and accused the Reagan administration of engaging in terrorism." When we dug into the archives, we found that the episode in question occurred almost exactly 30 years ago, in April 1985. It came at a time when Ortega, Nicaragua’s communist strongman, was being challenged by a U.S.-aligned rebel movement known as the Contras. (Now, after a period out of office in the 1990s, Ortega is once again Nicaragua’s president.) Here’s how the Associated Press covered Kerry’s comments in an April 16, 1985, dispatch: "Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., said Monday he and another Vietnam-era veteran, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, plan to go to Nicaragua this week in part because of worries the United States is repeating the mistakes of Vietnam in Central America. "Kerry said he and Harkin plan to meet with Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and with business, church and opposition leaders. "Their trip comes the week before the Senate is scheduled to vote on President Reagan's request for an additional $14 million in aid to the ‘contra’ rebels seeking to overthrow Ortega's leftist government. "Sen. Harkin and I are going to Nicaragua as Vietnam-era veterans who are alarmed that the Reagan administration is repeating the mistakes we made in Vietnam," Kerry said. "Our foreign policy should represent the democratic values that have made our country great, not subvert those values by funding terrorism to overthrow governments of other countries," Kerry said. … Kerry said he and Harkin plan to leave Thursday for Nicaragua and return on Saturday." This provides support for what McConnell said. We see only two inaccuracies, both around the margins. First, the way McConnell structured his claim suggests that Kerry made these statements after flying to Managua. In reality, the AP article makes it clear that he made the statement in the days before he and Harkin left for Managua. Second, McConnell could have been more precise in how he relayed Kerry’s use of the word "terrorism." McConnell said Kerry "accused the Reagan administration of engaging in terrorism." That’s a slight exaggeration of Kerry’s words. Kerry actually said that the Reagan administration was "funding terrorism to overthrow governments of other countries." A slight rhetorical difference, but a difference nonetheless. Still, McConnell’s claim is pretty close to the mark. Kerry’s staff did not dispute the accuracy of the AP report. They did point PolitiFact to an April 24, 1985, Washington Post story about the votes on the Contra aid bill. The article noted that the late Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz., said it was "wrong, wrong, wrong" for Kerry and Harkin to visit Nicaragua the previous week and return with a negotiating proposal from President Daniel Ortega. According to the Post article, "Kerry responded by reading a letter from Secretary of State George P. Shultz endorsing the idea of congressional visits to all Central American nations, including Nicaragua." Kerry’s comments at the time appear to accurately portray what Schultz wrote. Here’s an excerpt; the full text is available here. "I strongly encourage members of Congress, of both parties and regardless of their views on Central America, to visit not only Nicaragua but all of the countries of the region," Schultz wrote. "I would urge them to spend as much time there as their schedules will permit, to travel outside the capitals, and to talk with citizens in and out of government and of all political persuasions in order to better understand the difficult issues we must all resolve in forgoing a bipartisan policy on Central America. The Department of State will be pleased to assist members of Congress with their travel in any way possible." Our ruling McConnell said Secretary of State John Kerry, "when he was a senator, flew to Managua and met with a communist dictator there, Daniel Ortega, and accused the Reagan administration of engaging in terrorism." We aren’t comparing Kerry’s Nicaraguan visit to the recent Republican senators’ letter to Iran’s leadership. But on the facts, McConnell got it mostly right, with two imperfections on the margins, regarding both the timeline and the exact phrasing of Kerry’s charge against the Reagan administration. The statement is accurate but needs clarification, so we rate it Mostly True. | null | Mitch McConnell | null | null | null | 2015-03-16T17:57:40 | 2015-03-15 | ['Daniel_Ortega', 'Ronald_Reagan', 'Managua', 'John_Kerry'] |
goop-00667 | Angelina Jolie Part Of “Plot Against” Kate Middleton And Meghan Markle? | 0 | https://www.gossipcop.com/angelina-jolie-kate-middleton-meghan-markle-plot-camilla-parker-bowles-made-up/ | null | null | null | Shari Weiss | null | Angelina Jolie Part Of “Plot Against” Kate Middleton And Meghan Markle? | 3:00 am, July 10, 2018 | null | ['None'] |
snes-02371 | Marilyn Monroe's intelligence quotient was measured at 168. | unproven | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/marilyn-monroe-iq/ | null | Entertainment | null | Kim LaCapria | null | Did Marilyn Monroe Have an IQ of 168? | 23 May 2017 | null | ['Marilyn_Monroe'] |
chct-00134 | FACT CHECK: Has Joe Donnelly Never Had A Single Bill Passed Into Law? | verdict: false | http://checkyourfact.com/2018/05/13/fact-check-joe-donnelly-bills/ | null | null | null | Emily Larsen | Fact Check Reporter | null | null | 8:52 PM 05/13/2018 | null | ['None'] |
pomt-06259 | Says Mitt Romney once supported President Obama’s health care plan but now opposes it. | mostly false | /truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/28/democratic-national-committee/did-mitt-romney-flip-flop-health-care-reform-dnc-s/ | A 30-second ad from the Democratic National Committee mocks Republican candidate Mitt Romney for changing position. "Two men trapped in one body. Mitt vs. Mitt," the ad proclaims, adding, "Two Mitts willing to say anything." The ad highlights Romney’s former positions on abortion and health care, and teases to a web site the Democrats have created, MittvMitt.com, which claims to document even more changes on policy. Here, we’re fact-checking the ad’s claims about health care. As governor of Massachusetts in 2006, Romney signed a law that intended for every Massachusetts resident to have health insurance. As we’ve noted in previous fact-checks, the national health care law that President Barack Obama signed in 2010 bears a strong resemblance to the earlier Massachusetts law. Both plans leave in place the major insurance systems: employer-provided insurance, Medicare for seniors and Medicaid for the poor. The plans reduce the number of uninsured by expanding Medicaid and by offering subsidies to help those with modest incomes buy insurance. When the plans are fully in place, everyone must have insurance or pay a penalty, a requirement called the "individual mandate." Employers that don't offer health insurance to their employees will have to pay fines, with exceptions for small businesses and a few other cases. In interviews after the law passed, Romney said that the ideas in the state plan could be used in other states or even nationally. "This is a Democratic ideal, which is getting health care for everybody but achieved in a Republican way, which is reforming the private marketplace and insisting on personal responsibility," Romney said in an interview with the Associated Press in 2006. The DNC video shows two clips of Romney speaking. The first says, "We put together an exchange, and the president’s copying that idea. I’m glad to hear that." Words on the screen say "pro-health reform." In the second clip Romney says, "Obamacare is bad news." Text says "anti-health reform." So was Romney for health care reform before he was against it? We decided to check it out. Romney’s supposedly positive comments on health reform are from an interview with CBS News in June 2009. Romney did say that he was glad the national law included an exchange, but he also had pointed criticism for Obama’s plan. He was particularly critical of creating a government-run health insurance plan, the so-called "public option." "One thing we did not do was put in place a government insurance program. We did not have a government plan where people bought government insurance. That’s a mistake. Going down that road would mean, down the road, hundreds of billions of dollars of additional costs," he said in the CBS interview. Throughout 2009, much of Romney’s criticism of the health care law focused on the public option. In his book No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, which was released in early 2010 before the law’s final passage, he said the public option was "simply a transitional step" toward the creation of a single-payer health care system. (A single-payer system is one in which government pays the bills for health care using tax revenues. Medicare, the government health insurance program for those over 65, is an example.) The public option became moot, though. A government-run health insurance option wasn’t popular enough among Democrats in the U.S. Senate, so it didn’t make it into the final version of the health care law. Still, the demise of the public option did not cause Romney to embrace the law. Instead, he has continued to criticize Obama’s plan as an overreach of federal power. Health care reform should be left to the states, he has said. "Our plan was a state solution to a state problem, and his is a power grab by the federal government to put in place a one-size-fits-all plan across the nation," Romney said in Michigan in May 2011, when he gave an extended presentation on his views on health care. Our ruling It’s true that the law Romney signed in Massachusetts in 2006 looks a great deal like the federal law Obama signed in 2010. But the video implies that Romney supported the federal law. We looked, but we couldn’t find any instances when Romney endorsed the federal law. Instead, we found Romney criticized Obama’s plan repeatedly, usually over the public option. After the public option was left out of the law, Romney still criticized the law as a federal power grab. Democrats could make an argument that Romney has changed position in opposing the type of plan he once supported. But in this ad, they imply he once supported Obama’s proposal. We don’t find that he did, and we rate the Democrats’ statement Mostly False. | null | Democratic National Committee | null | null | null | 2011-11-28T19:12:25 | 2011-11-28 | ['Barack_Obama'] |
goop-02866 | Kim Kardashian, Kanye West “At War Over Baby #3,” | 1 | https://www.gossipcop.com/kim-kardashian-baby-3-kanye-west-surrogate/ | null | null | null | Shari Weiss | null | Kim Kardashian, Kanye West NOT “At War Over Baby #3,” Despite Report | 4:16 pm, April 13, 2017 | null | ['Kim_Kardashian'] |
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.