The Russian ruble is currently depreciating.
American and European leaders find themselves scrambling to respond to Russias deployment of troops in the Crimean Peninsula of Ukraine. With military action on no ones wish-list, diplomacy and economic sanctions are the only moves effectively in play. Secretary of State John Kerry said on CBSFace the Nationthat he had been on the phone with his counterparts among the G-8 nations. Every single one of them are prepared to go to the hilt in order to isolate Russia with respect to this invasion, Kerry said. Theyre prepared to put sanctions in place, theyre prepared to isolate Russia economically, the ruble is already going down. Russia has major economic challenges. This fact-check zeros in on the value of the Russian ruble. It has declined but partly because thats what the Russians wanted. A big drop In the early part of 2013, the ruble was worth 3.3 U.S. cents. Today, its value has tumbled by 15 percent, to 2.8 cents. A little less than half of that fall came in January as the situation in Ukraine deteriorated. Heres the picture over the past year, taken from the currency exchange serviceXE.com:   There is no question that the violence and political turmoil in Ukraine took a toll on the ruble. Russian banks have about $28 billion in loans in the country. Before the Russian troops moved in, investors were already worried. Last week,two of the largest banks in Russiasaid they would suspend any new lending in Ukraine. But the rubles decline has deeper roots. In 2010, the Russian Central Bank announced it wanted to get out of the business of setting the rubles value on the international market. It had in mind a gradual glide path for the currencys fall, andin October, it gave the ruble even more leewayto drop further. The countrys economy grew less than 2 percent last year, and it has struggled to keep inflation in check. The ruble got pretty over-valued in the big energy boom from 2001-08, said Mark Adomanis, a management consultant and contributor to Forbes. That hurt Russian manufacturing and letting the ruble fall potentially could help. With a weaker ruble Russian goods become more competitive on international markets, Adomanis said. That said, a free fall is not what the Russian Central Bank has in mind. In January,the bank signaled that it would stepin to prop up the ruble. But the overall policy remains the same. Our ruling Kerry said the ruble is going down, and it is. The Russian currency has lost about 15 percent of its value against the dollar since early 2013. It is not all because of the situation in Ukraine, however, a fact that viewers may not have picked up on by hearing Kerry's statement. The currencys decline is also part of Russian policy to reduce inflation and make domestic manufacturers more competitive. Theres a little more going on here than Kerrys statement would suggest. We rate his claim Mostly True.
Claim:  The actor who portrayed the "Marlboro Man" in print and television cigarette advertisements died of lung cancer.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, 1999] I heard that the actor who was the Marlboro Man in TV commercials died of lung cancer from smoking.  Is that true?   Origins:  When a prominent study was released in the 1950s linking smoking to lung cancer, it presented Philip Morris, the manufacturer of the Marlboro brand of cigarettes, with a dilemma: many consumers were concerned enough about the health issues associated with smoking to want to switch to filtered cigarettes (which were perceived as safer), but many men viewed filtered cigarettes  and the Marlboro brand in particular, which had originally been marketed as a woman's product, advertised as being mild and ladylike and featuring a red band around one end to disguise lipstick stains  as too feminine.  Philip Morris' response to this issue was to reposition Marlboro as a men's cigarette promoted via advertisements featuring strong masculine figures; the rugged 'Marlboro Man' cowboy became one of the most prominent advertising icons of the mid-twentieth century, propelling Marlboro from a niche brand to the world's best-selling cigarette. The visibility of the Marlboro Man as an icon has diminished greatly in the U.S. since its peak in the 1960s and 1970s, however, as increasing evidence linking cigarette smoking to a variety of medical ailments has caused the prevalence of smoking to decline and prompted the passage of restrictions limiting the media in which cigarettes could be advertised. Many anti-smoking advocates  have since cited claims that "the Marlboro Man died of lung cancer" as an apt irony highlighting the dangers of smoking, a literal death foreshadowing the eventual demise of the product the Marlboro Man helped prompted to many millions of consumers. Any claim about "the" Marlboro Man is somewhat indefinite, though, as many different men have portrayed the rugged-looking cowboys featured in Marlboro cigarette advertisements since 1954. An Oklahoma native named Darrell Winfield (who passed away in January 2015) was the main Marlboro Man from the mid-1970s onwards; but dozens of other men (many of them "real" cowboys) have also modeled for television commercials, magazine and newspaper advertisements, billboards, and other advertising materials promoting Marlboro brand of cigarettes over the last sixty years. A few of those men, all long-time smokers, have died of diseases of the lungs (although most of them lived at least as long as the average life expectancy of their time):  Model David Millar, one of the original Marlboro Men who appeared in television commercials for the cigarette brand in the 1950s, died of emphysema at the age of 81 in 1987:   [Neighbor Stephen] Taylor said Millar smoked, but had quit about 20 years ago. He also quit horses after his early stints with Marlboro. "They used to boost him up by a rope and put him down on the horse because he didn't like horses," said Charles Dudley, a longtime friend. Dudley added that Millar often said he was "the only Marlboro Man who doesn't smoke, drink or like horses." Although Millar had quit [smoking] about 1965, he had smoked for "probably 40 to 45 years" before that, Dudley said. After Millar, Marlboro gravitated toward more authentic cowboys. Born in St. Louis, Millar worked as an advertising executive in magazine publishing and modeled for fashion magazines, his wife, Maria, said. In New Hampshire, where he had lived since retiring in 1961, he was an avid outdoorsman and active in civic and community affairs.  Wayne McLaren, who posed for some promotional photographs on behalf of Marlboro in 1976, succumbed to lung cancer at age 51 on 22 July 1992. McLaren was a former professional rodeo rider who appeared in small parts in various television series and movies (primarily Westerns) throughout the 1960s and 1970s, and he modeled for print advertising between acting jobs in the mid-1970s, including a Marlboro campaign in 1976. McLaren, who had a pack-and-a-half a day smoking habit, was diagnosed with lung cancer at age 49. Despite chemotherapy, the removal of one lung, and radiation treatments, the cancer eventually spread to his brain and killed him. After learning he had cancer, McLaren embarked on an anti-smoking campaign that included the production of a commercial described as follows: Wayne McLaren In the powerful TV spot, images of the handsome young Wayne McLaren in a Stetson hat are juxtaposed with shots of his withered form in a hospital bed just prior to his death. His brother, Charles, provides the voiceover and chides tobacco companies for promoting an 'independent' lifestyle and asks, 'Lying there with all those tubes in you, how independent can you really be?' In the last months of his life McLaren appeared before the Massachusetts legislature when it was considering a bill to add taxes to cigarettes to pay for health education and also spoke at the annual Philip Morris stockholders' meeting to support a resolution that the company limit its advertising. Philip Morris initially denied that McLaren had ever appeared in Marlboro advertising, but a company spokesperson later conceded that McLaren's image had been used in a retail display for Marlboro Texan Poker Cards. (The woman McLaren lived with for the last eight years of his life also produced a Marlboro magazine advertisement which she claimed pictured McLaren.) David McLean, who appeared in many Marlboro television and print advertisements starting in the early 1960s, also died of cancer at age 73 on 12 October 1995. McLean starred in the short-lived 1960 television Western Tate, and he played roles in numerous television series and feature films during the 1960s and 1970s. McLean took up smoking at age 12, began to suffer from emphysema in 1985, and had a cancerous tumor removed from his right lung in 1993. David McLean Despite the surgery, the cancer remained and spread to his brain and spine, and McLean succumbed to it in 1995. In August 1996 McLean's widow and son filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Philip Morris, Inc., claiming that McLean was unable to stop smoking because of his nicotine addiction, and that his smoking habit was the cause of his lung cancer. (The lawsuit contended, among other issues, that McLean had been obligated to smoke up to five packs per take in order to get the right look while posing for advertisements, and that he received cartons of Marlboro cigarettes as gifts from Philip Morris.) At last report (in 1999) the lawsuit was still pending, having outlasted all attempts by defendant Philip Morris to have it dismissed.  In 2014, Eric Lawson, another television actor who appeared in Marlboro advertisements between 1978 to 1981, died of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at the age of 72. Like Wayne McLaren, Lawson was also a habitual smoker from an early age who in later life publicized the dangers of smoking and contributed to the production of an anti-smoking commercial: Eric Lawson A smoker since age 14, Lawson later appeared in an anti-smoking commercial that parodied the Marlboro man and an "Entertainment Tonight" segment to discuss the negative effects of smoking. Susan [Lawson] said her husband was proud of the interview, even though he was smoking at the time and continued the habit until he was diagnosed with COPD. "He knew the cigarettes had a hold on him," she said. "He knew, yet he still couldn't stop." Although diseases such as lung cancer and COPD are strongly linked to cigarette smoking, it is not possible to definitively determine that any particular instance of such a disease was caused by smoking.   Last updated:  15 January 2015 Claim:  Photograph shows a "Bowl-O-Bama" bowling alley in Clearwater, Florida.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, January 2012] A bowling alley in Clearwater, Florida, Bowl-O-Bama, is doing record business despite a bad economy. The alley also reports a record number of 300 games. Since opening in November 2010, 963 patrons have bowled a perfect game, including strikes in the warm-up frames. This alley also has the highest bowling league average in the country, with a 237. And that's the senior league.     Origins:  There's no "Bowl-O-Bama" bowling alley like the one pictured above, in Clearwater, Florida, or anywhere else.  This mid-2011 digital creation was inspired by, and is a modified version of, a promotion for a German insurance company advertising sales of dental implant coverage:    Last updated:  9 January 2012 In early February 2021, social media users shared a copypasta meme spreading the baseless rumor that U.S. President Joe Biden had revoked millions of dollars in funding from the United Negro College Fund (UNCF), a charitable organization that provides scholarships for Black higher education students and institutions, which former President Donald Trump had pledged to give to historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) over the next 10 years. Here is an example of the meme circulating on social media:   We found no evidence of any truth to this claim. It appears to be a case of a rumor spread by way of copypasta  text forwarded via social media platforms by people copying and pasting it from profile to profile. copypasta We reached out to UNCF to ask about the meme. Lodriguez Murray, senior vice president of public policy and government affairs told us that there is no truth to it. Murray pointed out that UNCF is a private, nonprofit organization and as such, receives money from private donors, not the federal government. Instead, UNCF advocates the federal government. He also pointed out that federal funding is the purview of Congress, not the executive branch. purview The copypasta, Murray said, "sounds like a lie and no one should ever use UNCF's good name or HBCUs or populations traditionally held down by systemic racism to make their erroneous case." Murray also pointed out that as part of his campaign, Biden had promised more funding for higher education, which included $70 billion for HBCUs and other institutions that serve minority students. more funding Virus:  FDIC notice of bank failure. REAL VIRUS Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2009] FDIC has officially named your bank a failed bank You have received this message because you are a holder of a FDIC-insuredbank account. Recently FDIC has officially named the bank you have opened your accountwith as a failed bank, thus, taking control of its assets. You need to visit the official FDIC website and perform the followingsteps to check your Deposit Insurance Coverage:  Visit FDIC website: https://www.fdic.gov/  https://www.fdic.gov/  Download and open your personal FDIC Insurance File to check your Deposit Insurance Coverage Origins:  In October 2009, Internet users began receiving e-mails purporting to have come from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the agency that insures deposits in U.S. bank accounts.  These messages claimed that the recipients were holders of FDIC-insured bank accounts in failed banks and instructed them to click on a link to the FDIC web site in order download a file which would allow them to check their "Deposit Insurance Coverage."   However, the link embedded in the e-mail led not to the real FDIC web site, but to a spoof web site.  Attempting to download the proffered file from that site could initiate the installation of malware on the user's computer (presumably to collect sensitive personal information):  The real FDIC  put up an alert to warn consumers about this fraudulent mailing: alert The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has received numerous reports of a fraudulent e-mail that has the appearance of being sent from the FDIC. The subject line of the e-mail states: "check your Bank Deposit Insurance Coverage." The e-mail tells recipients that, "You have received this message because you are a holder of a FDIC-insured bank account. Recently FDIC has officially named the bank you have opened your account with as a failed bank, thus, taking  control of its assets." The e-mail then asks recipients to "visit the official FDIC website and perform the following steps to check your Deposit Insurance Coverage" (a fraudulent link is provided). It then instructs recipients to "download and open your personal FDIC Insurance File to check your Deposit Insurance Coverage." This e-mail and associated Web site are fraudulent. Recipients should consider the intent of this e-mail as an attempt to collect personal or confidential information, some of which may be used to gain unauthorized access to on-line banking services or to conduct identity theft. The FDIC does not issue unsolicited e-mails to consumers. Financial institutions and consumers should NOT follow the link in the fraudulent e-mail. Last updated:  28 October 2009 In late 2019, social media users began seeing posts touting that "LOWES has announced that everyone who shares this link will be sent a $150 coupon for its anniversary TODAY ONLY":  This coupon offer was fake, just another iteration of similar scams that have made the online rounds several times before. In May 2015, a fraudulent offer for $100 Lowe's coupons started circulating on Facebook. The message linked Facebook users to a fraudulent web site adorned with the Lowe's logo, and instructed them to follow a simple set of instructions:  Scams like these require users to pass the fake coupon on to their Facebook friends, which widens the pool of potential victims. Next, they direct people to fill out a simple survey, which seems like a harmless task but is used to coax sensitive information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth and credit card numbers out of victims. Finally, users who complete the survey will never receive a free Lowe's gift card but instead will likely sign up for difficult-to-cancel "Reward Offers" or have their personal information used for nefarious purposes. The Better Business Bureau provides these three tips to identify scams on Facebook: Facebook Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender.Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. Lowe's also posted a warning about this scam on their Facebook page: Facebook  In April 2017, two years after we first debunked the initial coupon scam, a new version of it appeared, taking in unsuspecting Facebookers yet again:  Those who clicked on this image on Facebook were taken to a page with a dubious URL& (in this case, https://www.lowes.com-holdit.us/?sfpzbJt) and asked to take a simple survey and then to "like" and "share" the page:  Needless to say, anyone who attempted to redeem these coupons at Lowe's will be unsuccessful (and probably a little embarrassed), and if they have followed the online instructions, they have set themselves and their friends on social media up for, at best, a like-farming scam. A simple racket, certainly, but an effective one. scam On March 23, 2021, The Associated Press reported on an Oakland, California, initiative named Oakland Resilient Families "that will give low-income families of color $500 per month with no rules on how they can spend it." This "demonstration project," as Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf described it, is a test of what is known as a "guaranteed income." reported Projects like this one are part of a larger effort by a coalition of mayors to convince Congress to pass a national guaranteed income program. The Oakland program is not tax-payer funded, however. All of the funding comes from charitable donations, most of it from a philanthropic non-profit group named Blue Meridian Partners," according to San Francisco-based NPR station KQED. coalition funding according Half of the program's 600 participants will be families earning below 50% of the city's median income, and the other half will come from families earning below 138% of the federal poverty level. These cut-offs were selected based on data provided by Oakland's Equality Index, which is an effort "to develop a baseline quantitative framework that can be used by City staff and community members alike to better understand the impacts of race, measure inequities, and track changes in the disparities for different groups over time." will be Oakland's Equality Index In their coverage, The Associated Press described the project as "the first program to limit participation strictly to Black, Indigenous and people of color communities." At the time of the reporting, this was a fair representation of Oakland Resilient Families goals, as the program's website  as well as the mayor  explicitly stated the program was intended for "Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) families." website the mayor That reporting led to tabloid headlines and angry tweets: tabloid headlines angry tweets Following this latter coverage, Oakland Resilient Families changed its website's answer to the "Who is this for?" question to "families with the greatest wealth disparities per the Oakland Equity Index, with low-incomes and at least 1 child under 18, regardless of documentation status."  changed Explaining the change to KQED, Rae Oglesby, the vice president of membership and communications at the Family Independence Initiative  a partner with the Oakland Resilient Families program  said the program is targeting racial groups experiencing the largest disparities," but that "it is open to all residents." said Justin Berton, the communications director for Mayor Schaaf, told KQED that, We have not changed the program. We have had to clarify that while no family is prohibited from applying, this pilot is intentionally designed to serve and support BIPOC families, who evidence shows suffer the greatest and most disproportionate impacts of poverty." told According to Oakland's Equality Index, the median income for white households in Oakland was almost three times the median income of African American households: three times The median income for White households was highest ($110,000) and the median income for African American households was lowest ($37,500). The median income for Asian households ($76,000) was similar to the citywide median income ($73,200), while Latino households fell below the citywide median with a median income of $65,000. The program is still in its earliest phases. At the moment, sign-ups for the program are not yet available. "The goal," Oakland Resilient Families' website states, "is to begin payments to families this spring after incorporating more community feedback and to have the entire program up and running this summer."  states Because the program is "targeted" toward BIPOC families, but because  at least after some clarification on the part of Oakland Resilient Families  any family meeting the financial requirements can apply, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truth. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here In mid-November 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump's reelection campaign sent supporters fundraising emails saying poll workers were thrown out of rooms where elections officials were counting ballots in the presidential election. (Read more fact checks like this one here.) Donald Trump here "Large numbers of poll watchers were thrown out of vote counting rooms in many key battleground states," claimed a Nov. 17 email obtained by Snopes.   Separately, the Trump campaign sent supporters another fundraising email that claimed Republican poll watchers were not "thrown out" but prohibited from entering ballot-processing rooms altogether, suggesting that the alleged lack of surveillance benefited President-elect Joe Biden. Joe Biden The best description of this situation is widespread, nationwide voter fraud, of which this is a part," Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal attorney, said of the alleged conspiracy by Democrats, without citing any evidence. Rudy Giulian Together, the emails and Giuliani's statement claimed that some unidentified person, or a group of people, ordered Republican poll workers to leave ballot-counting rooms, or to not enter them in the first place  essentially breaking laws that allow for poll observers to monitor the elections process on behalf of a political party or candidate. Before we unpack those allegations, let us explain about whom we're talking. whom Every state allows some form of "poll watching" or "election observing," by means of which political parties or candidates appoint volunteers to monitor polling sites for fairness on Election Day. Additionally, states train and certify nonpartisan poll watchers to keep an eye out for any voting issues. Rules governing both types of poll watching, especially to combat any voter harassment or intimidation, vary state by state, and apply to poll watchers regardless of their political affiliation. intimidation "State rules vary on who can be a poll watcher, how many are allowed at polling places or local elections offices, and how they must conduct themselves inside the office or precinct," according to The Associated Press. The Associated Press The Trump campaign alleged poll watchers were blocked from doing their jobs "in many key battleground states," though it did not, in its emails, pinpoint one or more locations where this supposedly occurred. Giuliani, however, claimed Democrats in cities including Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Las Vegas, and Phoenix were behind the alleged conspiracy to undermine Trump's reelection. No poll watchers with the Democratic party raised issues with the 2020 election. For more details about the Trump campaign's allegations, we referred to the campaign's lawsuits challenging various aspects of the presidential election to determine where, exactly, the campaign believed citizen monitors were wrongfully kicked out of ballot-processing rooms. lawsuits At least two legal complaints in Pennsylvania and Michigan involved Republican poll watchers. However, on Nov. 17, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled distancing regulations at polling sites were "reasonable" in that they allowed poll monitors to see what was happening, as prescribed by state law. (You can read that decision here.) The high court's ruling countered an earlier decision by a lower court that sided with the Trump campaign. here   Days before that decision, U.S. District Judge Paul S. Diamond asked a Trump campaign lawyer during a court hearing if poll watchers were allowed in the room where election workers were processing mail-in ballots in Philadelphia. Theres a nonzero number of people in the room, campaign lawyer Jerome Marcus replied, acknowledging that Trump representatives were indeed present despite the campaign's messaging. Additionally, Republican poll watchers in Michigan's Wayne County filed a lawsuit alleging fraud during absentee ballot counting at a Detroit convention center. That litigation sought to halt the state's vote certification process. But two judges found no evidence to support the accusations and allowed the process of certifying votes to proceed, finalizing the state's voter tallies. finalizing the state's voter tallies Of separate lawsuits, The Associated Press reported: reported "Other lawsuits claimed poll watchers were temporarily denied access in some locations, but there has been no evidence to back it up. Nor was there evidence of votes being miscounted out of political bias. And most of the litigation alleging this has been dismissed." In other words, there was no evidence of any person or entity blocking poll watchers' access to polling sites on Election Day, no matter their presidential candidate of choice. Additionally, there were no reports of someone, or a group of people, "throwing out" poll observers from rooms to which election laws guarantee them the right, as of this report. Those conclusions do not eliminate the possibility that poll watchers at some (or many) sites across the country were asked to follow distancing guidelines to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and avoid distracting voters. However, there's no proof of such requests being part of a nefarious scheme to help Trump or Biden, or any political cause. COVID-19 We should note here: The emails about poll observers from Trump's campaign asked supporters to chip in to a so-called "Official Election Defense Fund" or "Election Defense Task Force," both of which the campaign framed as costly initiatives involving ballot recounts or various lawsuits to challenge Biden's win. But according to Brendan Fischer, director of the federal reform program at Campaign Legal Center, the average donor's money was not covering those expenses. Rather, people were giving their money to the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, where contributions are divided between Trump's committees and the Republican National Committee.  Brendan Fischer Republican National Committee "Small donors who give to Trump thinking they are financing an 'official election defense fund' are in fact helping pay down the Trump campaigns debt or funding his post-presidential political operation," Fischer tweeted. tweeted In sum, no evidence showed poll watchers were removed or prohibited from rooms were ballots were being counted in the Biden-Trump race, even though physical distancing rules may have affected the monitoring. In fact, one Republican lawyer representing Trump provided evidence to the contrary and acknowledged Republican poll watchers in Philadelphia were indeed allowed in ballot counting rooms. For those reasons, we rate this claim A reader questioned Sen. Ted Cruzs comparison of military spending to how much it costs Americans to get their taxes done. According to ablog poston txwinelover.com, Cruz toured Becker Vineyards in July 2014 before holding a roundtable with wine industry representatives during which he agreed the tax system should be simplified. Every year, Cruz elaborated, we spend roughly $500 billion on tax compliance. That is roughly the budget of our entire military, entirely wasted on tax compliance. I agree with you we should move to a simple flat tax where everyone can fill out their taxes on a postcard and that we should shut down the IRS. Cruz, a Texas lawyer elected to the U.S. Senate in 2012, has since declared his candidacy for president.But hed already calledfor a flat-rate income tax and abolishing the IRS. And was he right that about the same $500 billion a year getting spent on complying with tax laws and funding the military? Both figures need explaining. Military spending Per military spending, Cruz campaign spokesman  Rick Tyler said by email that Cruz drew ona chartposted byThe Washington Postin 2012 indicating that adjusted for inflation, defense spending has exceeded $500 billion a year since 2007 or so: SOURCE:Blog post,Defense spending in the U.S., in four charts,Wonkblog,The Washington Post, Aug. 28, 2012, chart citingCenter for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments(noted in an email from Rick Tyler, chief national spokesperson, Ted Cruz presidential campaign, May 5, 2015) ThePostrelied on the Washington, D.C.-basedCenter for Strategic and Budgetary Assessmentswhere by email, analyst Todd Harrison told us the militarys 2014 base budget, meaning the cost of maintaining a standing military in peacetime, totaled $496 billion. So far so good, except, Harrison advised, that figure did not reflect all military spending. Generally, he said, the base budget does not include the cost of using the military to fight a conflict, nor does it include legacy costs, such as unfunded pensions and veterans benefits, or military activities conducted outside of (the Department of Defense) such as the maintenance and upgrade of nuclear weapons. All of those things are extra, he said. If you count those other expenses, Harrison said, the U.S. spent $866 billion on the military in 2014. By email, Tyler stressed the militarys base budget doesnt include overseas contingencies. But its your rigged game, you make up any facts you want, Tyler said by email. Next, we turned to what it costs Americans to fulfill federal tax requirements. Tax compliance costs To get our arms around compliance costs, we reached out to certified public accountantConnie Weaver, a Texas A&M University professor, who guided us toJune 2011 testimonyon compliance costs by tax expert Michael Brostek of the investigative arm of Congress, the General Accountability Office. Broadly, Brostek said that complying with IRS regulations costs taxpayers time and money, at least $107 billion in 2005, the GAO estimated, with other studies estimating costs 1.5 times as large. Beyond compliance costs, Bostek noted even larger estimated economic efficiency costs, which are reductions in economic well-being caused by changes in behavior due to taxes. Previous fact checks Even before Cruz commented at the roundtable, the FactChecker atThe Washington Postawarded two Pinocchios toHouse Speaker John Boehners claim that it was costing Americans $500 billion a year to comply with federal tax demands. Cost estimates varied, thePostwrote, with the safest bet at the time being $163 billion as estimated by the IRSsTaxpayer Advocate Service, entrusted with helping taxpayers resolve problems and recommending changes.Adjusting for inflation,that cost would have been nearly $172 billion a year around the time Cruz spoke in 2014. More recently, the FactChecker weighed in again afternoticing Cruzmade his $500 billion military-tax compliance spending comparison at a May 2015 South Carolina stop. Like Boehner, Cruz drew a couple Pinocchios. Weaver told us that because Cruz didnt say what he meant by compliance costs  where hed draw the boundaries  an observer could explore three possibilities: a taxpayers basic liability as in how much he or she sends the government in taxes; the costs associated with pulling together information and submitting it to the government; or efficiency costs as in lost outputs, time taken from other productive activities or from missing out on other consumption activities. For an individual, she said, its easy to calculate compliance costs by gauging how long it takes to fill out the required forms and multiplying that by an hourly dollar figure for how the individual values their time. When you try to aggregate that nationally, she said, its very difficult. She said she wouldnt be comfortable specifying a national compliance-costs figure. But all in all, Weaver said, it looks like Cruzs figure was high. Cruz aide: Senator relied on two studies Tyler told us Cruz got his tax-compliance costs from anApril 2011 analysisby supply-side economist Arthur B. Laffer and others indicating $431.1 billion in combined annual costs incurred by taxpayers to pay federal taxes and aMay 2013 studyby researchers at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University stating the annual hidden costs of U.S. tax compliance ranged from $215 billion to $987 billion. Laffer study The Laffer-led study said researchers created a comprehensive estimate of the total administrative costs, time costs, and direct tax compliance costs created by the complex U.S. federal income tax code. The $431.1 billion in estimated annual spending, the report said, reflects money spent to comply with and administer the U.S. income tax system. * Its estimate, relying on 2010 figures, broke out to approximately $31.5 billion in direct outlays (paying a professional tax preparer or purchasing tax software), total IRS administrative costs of $12.4 billion; and nearly $378 billion for the  time value costs taxpayers must bear to pay their taxes, filling out and submitting forms. In 2011, thePosts FactChecker called the Laffer study dubious, noting it took a figure from the Internal Revenue Services Tax Advocate  that individuals and businesses spent 6.1 billion hours complying with tax filing requirements  and got to its cost estimate by multiplying it against an absurd hourly income of $68.42 on the theory that the wealthy pay most of the income taxes. Mercatus Center study The Mercatus Centers study, led byJason J. Fichtner, a senior research fellow, similarly noted the high wage costs applied in the Laffer study, stating that in the study, the average income used to monetize taxpayers time is significantly greater than the average income used in other estimates. For its part, the center suggested a range of hidden costs connected to paying taxes including time and money spent submitting tax forms, foregone economic growth, lobbying expenditures, and gaps in revenue collection though the authors said they couldnt pin a figure for lobbying by interests trying to reduce taxes paid. As far as compliance costs, what Cruz singled out, the center study estimated $67 billion to $378 billion a year in accounting costs associated with filing taxes, a range based on IRS information suggesting 60 percent of individual taxpayers and 71 percent of unincorporated business taxpayers pay someone--an accountant, lawyer or tax professional--to prepare their taxes, with 32 percent of individual taxpayers relying on software. Significantly, Fichtner told us, his paper, based on a review of relevant studies, was intended to cover far more than simple compliance costs. I chose to give a range based on the different methodologies that I found in the research literature. Its not that one method is better than anotheror right versus wrong, Fichtner said. All the measures have different assumptions for the time value of an hour of lost work/productivity as well as time spent. Heres a chart from the study summarizing a range of cost studies dating back to 2003:                  Other analyses Next, we asked the Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation about Cruzs figure. Spokesman Richard Borean said by email it had no analysis to confirm or refute the $500 billion figure. But he noted the Mercatus Center study and suggested we consider annual reports on tax compliance costs put out by the National Taxpayers Union, a non-partisan research and educational organizationthat saysits devoted to showing Americans how taxes, government spending and regulations affect them. The unions April 2014report, which would have been the the latest one available before Cruz spoke, noted the IRSs National Taxpayer Advocate had most recently estimated the annual paperwork burden generated by the federal personal and corporate tax system at 6.1 billion hours  the equivalent of about 3.05 million employees working 40-hour weeks year-round with two weeks off each. The group said: The value of the labor behind the 6.1 billion hours amounts to a jaw-dropping $192.6 billion, when calculated with the most recently reported average employer cost for non-federal civilian workers by the Bureau of Labor Statistics: $31.57 per hour. Add in the $31.7 billion spent on tax software and other out-of-pocket costs for individuals and the total is $224.3 billion a year. (The unionslatestlook at compliance costs, released in April 2015, said compliance with the federal income tax cost the economy $233.8 billion in productivity in 2014.) Our ruling Cruz said: Every year we spend roughly $500 billion on tax compliance. That is roughly the budget of our entire military, entirely wasted on tax compliance. This claim proved squishy at both ends. It looks like depending on how you value time, you can get to almost any total for what it costs Americans to prepare and file tax returns. However, most estimates run short of Cruzs figure. Meantime, military spending exceeded $800 billion when he spoke though the senators spokesman indicated he meant to not count spending on conflicts abroad and other items not in the militarys nearly $500 billion base budget. We rate the statement False. FALSE The statement is not accurate. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. FACT CHECK: Was Nick Hanauer's 2012 TED Talk about income inequality banned because it was "too politically controversial" to release?  Claim: A 2012 TED Talk video featuring wealthy entrepreneur Nick Hanauer speaking on the subject of income inequality was banned because it was deemed "too politically controversial."    Example: [Collected via e-mail, July 2015]   There are several articles that claim "TED Banned This Billionaire For Exposing Capitalism's Biggest Lie" or some similar wording. This is about the speech of Nick Hanauer, apparently a Seattle venture capitalist. The language of this sensational claim makes me suspicious, as does the unlikelihood of the claim. Is it true? What is the source of the rumour?   Origins: On 1 March 2012, Seattle-based venture capitalist and entrepreneur Nick Hanauer participated in the global conference series of "TED Talks." The video of his six-minute talk, widely circulated since its release, captured him addressing a spate of issues pertaining to income inequality and capitalism from the perspective of a very wealthy individual:  Not long after Hanauer's March 2012 talk was filmed, rumors began circulating claiming that TED had deliberately suppressed the clip due to its potentially offensive (to rich people) nature. On 16 May 2012, National Journal published an article contending that TED's organizers had quashed the groundbreaking talk because its content was simply too controversial to release, an odd assertion considering the 2011 emergence of a well-known (and widely reported upon) protest movement known as Occupy Wall Street): article Occupy Wall Street TED organizers invited a multimillionaire Seattle venture capitalist named Nick Hanauer  the first nonfamily investor in Amazon.com  to give a speech on March 1 at their TED University conference. Inequality was the topic  specifically, Hanauer's contention that the middle class, and not wealthy innovators like himself, are America's true "job creators." "We've had it backward for the last 30 years," he said. "Rich businesspeople like me don't create jobs. Rather they are a consequence of an ecosystemic feedback loop animated by middle-class consumers, and when they thrive, businesses grow and hire, and owners profit. That's why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich." You can't find that speech online. TED officials told Hanauer initially they were eager to distribute it. "I want to put this talk out into the world!" one of them wrote him in an e-mail in late April. But early this month they changed course, telling Hanauer that his remarks were too "political" and too controversial for posting. In the years since 2012, Hanauer's TED clip has paradoxically been viewed millions of times while remaining the focus of articles describing it as described as "banned," "too controversial," or the speech TED "doesn't want you to see." While it's difficult to determine the accuracy of statements about its online availability in March 2012, the clip clearly became widely available and was frequently viewed on sharing sites such as YouTube shortly thereafter, and it has remained popular ever since. But in 2015, many social media users continued to assert Hanauer's talk was banned: Banned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer  Rich People Dont Create Jobs (VIDEO) #news https://t.co/wmlAmaIZ48 #news https://t.co/wmlAmaIZ48  Hannah Kennison (@HannahKennison1) July 6, 2015 July 6, 2015   Nick Hanauer on His Banned TED Talk & Why the Middle Class are the Job Creators https://t.co/KKQOqIK5PQ https://t.co/KKQOqIK5PQ  Jonathan Goodman (@GoodmanJonathan) July 20, 2015 July 20, 2015   if you are interested in #economics, then it is worth listeningBanned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer 'Rich people don't... https://t.co/00E6rlPF1g #economics https://t.co/00E6rlPF1g  Mudassar Bashir (@mb62020) June 15, 2015 June 15, 2015   Nick Hanauer too politically controversial: rich people dont create jobs, consumers do - via Reese Jones https://t.co/9xzs0vn1kz https://t.co/9xzs0vn1kz  VritTV (@Verite_TV) June 11, 2015 June 11, 2015   In late May 2012 a contributor to TED's forums specifically asked why Hanauer's talk had been "banned," prompting a lengthy discussion during the course of which individuals affiliated with TED linked to a statement issued by TED curator Chris Anderson on why Hanauer's talk had not been promoted.     The service by which Anderson published the explanation (Posterous) shuttered in April 2013, taking Anderson's remarks with it. However, a cached version revealed the date (17 May 2012), title ("TED and inequality: The real story"), and content of Anderson's rebuttal. asked shuttered version Anderson opened by stating that "TED was subject to a story so misleading it would be funny... except it successfully launched an aggressive online campaign against us." He described an ensuing "firestorm of outrage" on sites including Reddit and Huffington Post, wherein TED was "accused of being cowards ... in the pay of our corporate partners ... [and] the despicable puppets of the Republican party." Anderson's account of the decision not to release Hanauer's talk differed dramatically from the circulating rumors: Here's what actually happened. At TED this year, an attendee pitched a 3-minute audience talk on inequality. The talk tapped into a really important and timely issue. But it framed the issue in a way that was explicitly partisan. (The talk is explicitly attacking what he calls an article of faith for Republicans. He criticizes Democrats too, but only for not also attacking this idea more often.) And it included a number of arguments that were unconvincing, even to those of us who supported his overall stance, such as the apparent ruling out of entrepreneurial initiative as a root cause of job creation. The audience at TED who heard it live (and who are often accused of being overly enthusiastic about left-leaning ideas) gave it, on average, mediocre ratings  some enthusiastic, others critical. At TED we post one talk a day on our home page. We're drawing from a pool of 250+ that we record at our own conferences each year and up to 10,000 recorded at the various TEDx events around the world, not to mention our other conference partners. Our policy is to post only talks that are truly special. And we try to steer clear of talks that are bound to descend into the same dismal partisan head-butting people can find every day elsewhere in the media. We discussed internally and ultimately told the speaker we did not plan to post. He did not react well. He had hired a PR firm to promote the talk to MoveOn and others, and the PR firm warned us that unless we posted he would go to the press and accuse us of censoring him. We again declined and this time I wrote him and tried gently to explain in detail why I thought his talk was flawed. So he forwarded portions of the private emails to a reporter and the National Journal duly bit on the story. And it was picked up by various other outlets. As Anderson noted, income inequality was the subject of at least one [uncensored] TED Talk video in 2011. video Much of the rumor regarding Nick Hanauer's purportedly banned TED Talk segment hinged upon the differing assertions made by TED and Nick Hanauer at the time of the controversy in 2012. However, Anderson's claims (that TED curators are tasked with promoting only the most impactful clips) weren't implausible or suggestive of a coverup. It would be difficult to determine whether Hanauer or anyone working on his behalf threatened a public relations offensive, but TED maintained that quality and not content was behind the decision not to feature the video (which clearly was not "banned" from public view but was simply not promoted by TED). Since the time of the initial debate over whether or why the TED talk was "banned," the clip has been distributed both by TED and other outlets and widely viewed by a large online audience. In August 2014, Hanauer returned for a TED Talk titled "Beware, fellow plutocrats, the pitchforks are coming." titled While it's true that TED opted not to promote Hanauer's initial appearance (during which he discussed income inequality) his segment was not banned, and the organization cited his lack of substantive content alongside his primary reliance on partisan ideas as the reason it was not curated alongside other featured TED Talks. At no point during the immediate controversy did TED appear to deny the existence of the video, remove it from the Internet, interfere with its distribution, or otherwise thwart the ideas advocated by Hanauer from spreading. The group simply chose initially not to promote the clip (as they do for a large number of TED Talks) in favor of other content selected by their curators. Last updated:  27July 2015 Originally published: 27July 2015 This piece about an upcoming "gay Jesus film" is one of those examples that demonstrates a good petition never goes away, even when the issue it addresses has long since been settled (or was never really an issue in the first place).  The "gay Jesus film" petition first hit the fan in 1984, and by the end of 1985 more than a million Christians had written protest letters in an attempt to have the non-existent movie it referenced banned. Yes, non-existent. There never was such a film in production, but petitions likes these were circulated anyway: Modern People News has revealed plans for the filming of a movie based  on the SEX LIFE OF JESUS in which Jesus is portrayed as a swinging HOMOSEXUAL. This film will be shot in the U.S.A. this year unless the public outcry is great. Already a French Prostitute has been named to play the part of Mary Magdalene, with who Christ has a blatant affair. We CANNOT AFFORD to standby and DO NOTHING about this disgrace. We must not allow this perveted world to drag our Lord through the dirt. PLEASE HELP us to get this film banned from the U.S.A. as it has been in Europe.  Let us show how we feel. Detach and mail the form below to the address shown. Make a few copies and give them to your friends.  Only one name per copy. -------------------------------------------------------- Attorney General Scott,301 South Second Street,SpringfieldILLINOIS  62606 Dear Attorney General Scott, I would like to protest, in the strongest terms possible, the production, filming, and showing of any movie that supposedly depicts the sex life of JESUS CHRIST by MODERN PEOPLE NEWS, 11030 West Addison Street, Franklin Park, Illinois 60181. Such a movie would be blasphemous and would be an outrage and contrary to the truth.  We urge you to take proper action against this moral corruption. NAME:...................................................ADDRESS:.............................................CITY:.....................................................STATE:..............................CODE:.......... In the early incarnations of this call to arms, people were asked to fill out an attached form letter of protest and mail it to the Attorney General of Alabama.  The message often contained the following postscript: Evangelist Jimmy Swaggart recently reported that the above mentioned movie HAS BEEN COMPLETED!!! According to Brother Swaggart, the movie company has released word that the movie is scheduled to be shown in various locations around the country during the Christmas Season. So, the time is short to put a stop to it. We sincerely hope that all spiritually and morally minded people will band together and keep this UNGODLY type of filth out of Alabama. Many readers fell for it, including a radio station that happily passed the story along to their listeners and later had to retract it, according to folklorist Jan Brunvand: By later the same day the radio station [in Gadsen, Alabama] personnel had attempted to contact Modern People News and had been in touch with the Alabama Attorney General's office. Following these efforts at verification, a statement was read on the air saying that although the attorney general had received between two and three thousand letters over a period of several weeks concerning the supposed gay-Jesus movie, no evidence could be found that such a project ever existed. Modern People News, it was stated, seemed to have either gone out of business or changed their name. In January 1985 Ann Landers published a letter from the Attorney General's office of Illinois which tried to set the record straight. By then it was Modern Film News (not Modern People News) who supposedly had offices in Illinois, which is how that state got dragged into this issue).  People were exhorted to write to Attorney General William J. Scott . . . a man who had last held that office four years earlier: Dear Ann Landers:  The office of the Attorney General of the State of Illnois respectfully requests your assistance in combating an international chain letter that is distressing hundreds and thousands of Christians and those of other faiths as well. The chain letter is a plea to protest "in the strongest possible language" the making of a movie in which Jesus Christ could be depicted as a swinging homosexual. Both this office and the Associated Press have chased down every possible clue and cannot find a shred of truth in the story that such a film was ever in production. Modern Film News, which reported the film plans, has been out of business for more than two years. Moreover, 90 percent of the protest mail that has been overwhelming our staff is addressed to the former attorney general, William J. Scott, who has been out of office longer than four years. Despite our efforts to get the word to the public that the chain letter is a hoax, we continue to receive approximately 1,000 protests every week and at least a dozen phone inquiries each working day. The inquiries and protests have come from 41 states, Canada, Puerto Rico, New Zealand, Australia, Cambodia, Spain, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, India, the Philippines, Guatemala, Costa Rica and Portugal. We have concluded that the "Jesus movie" rumor originated in 1977 when a suburban Chicago publication, Modern People News, reported that certain interests in Europe were planning such a film and requested that readers express their opinion of the purported project. The result was the chain-letter protest, which, for some unknown reason, has been revived and is again sweeping the world. We are appealing to you, Ann Landers, to help us get the word out. The scope of your readership and impact on millions of newspaper readers around the world cannot be overestimated. The postage and phone calls, not to mention the valuable time of employees, run into a great deal of money that could be used for so many worthwhile purposes. Will you please help us?   Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General, State of Illnois Dear Attorney General Hartigan: Hoaxes die hard and the zanier the hoax, the more difficult it is to convince people that it is not true.  If any of you, my readers, receive a copy of that wacky chain letter, take my word for the fact that there is not an iota of truth in it. And please tell friends that chain letters are illegal and should be tossed into the handiest wastebasket or fed to the nearest goat. The only such movie that seems to have been planned or made when this petition originally began circulating decades ago was the 1974 film Him, described briefly in Harry and Michael Medved's 1980 book, The Golden Turkey Awards, as an "everything you ever wanted to know about bad movies, but were afraid to ask" offering: This innovative film, designed exclusively for gay audiences, goes into excruciating detail concerning the erotic career of Jesus Christ. The ads for the film show the face of The Savior (with a cross glistening in one eye) while the headline inquires 'Are You Curious About HIS Sexual Life?'  Filmmaker Ed D. Louie satisfies that curiosity by showing us that the Son of Man was a voracious homosexual. (After all, why did he spend all that time hanging around with the Apostles?) The central character of the film is actually a young gay male in contemporary America whose sexual obsession with Jesus helps him to understand the "hidden meaning" of the Gospels. Contrary to common belief, the entry for Him in the Medveds' book was not a hoax concocted by them.  However, the minor, low-budget film was so obscure even after its release that it's hard to imagine it could have triggered a massive outpouring of petitions to halt its production. obscure  The non-existence of a "gay Jesus film" did not stem the ire of those who heard about it. Blasphemy  even the mere hint of it  is enough to mobilize good Christian soldiers everywhere. In 1988, Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ reaped massive publicity  and long lines at the box office  after fundamentalist Christians picketed theaters. The uproar wasn't over a gay Jesus, merely one who both questioned his fate and who had a dream about a sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene. The film remains controversial to this day. We take our religious icons seriously, as Denis Lemon, editor of the British publication Gay News, found out in 1978. He lost his appeal against conviction for blasphemous libel involving poem he had published about a Roman centurion's homosexual love for Jesus. Though the nine month suspended sentence was set aside, the $900 fine against him and $1,900 fine against his magazine were upheld. A non-film version of a work similar to the one described in the petition was produced in 1998, when Terrance McNally's dramatic offering Corpus Christi began previews at the Manhattan Theater Club in New York. As described by the New York Times, the production "retells the Biblical story of a Jesus-like figure  from his birth in a Texas flea-bag hotel with people having profane, violent sex in a room next door, to his crucifixion as 'king of the queers' in a manner with the potential to offend many people."  Corpus Christi And it did. The Manhattan Theater Club's announcement of the play as part of its fall season was greeted with bomb threats promising to "burn the place to the ground" if the production opened. In May 1998 the theatre announced it was pulling "Corpus Christi" from its line-up. A week later it changed its mind, reinstating the play to its fall roster. Caught between cries of censorship on one side and outraged sensibilities on the other, the theatre had to make a choice.  Additional security measures were taken during the play's run to protect both the actors and the audience. The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights (self-described as the nation's largest Catholic civil rights group) planned an opening-night protest at the theatre involving busloads of people from as far away as Baltimore and Philadelphia as well as nuns, priests and lay people from Long Island. "Hopefully we'll send a message that this is basically unacceptable," said William A. Donohue, the league's president.  Corpus Christi continues to play various live theatres from time to time. It completed a four-week engagement at London's Pleasance Theatre in late 1999, and in March 2001 it became the subject of a brouhaha at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton when several state lawmakers threatened to cut funding for FAU because their theatre department staged the play.  In March 2010, Tarleton State University's decision to host to a student performance of Terrence McNally's Corpus Christi drew ire from some residents of Stephenville, Texas, home of that institute of higher learning.  Corpus Christi is undoubtedly the "play that went on for a while but never stopped" referred to in the current petition, but there are still no plans to make a movie out of it.  The 2010 release Corpus Christi: Playing with Redemption is often mistakenly cited as a film version of the play Corpus Christi, but it is not; it's a documentary about the controversy surrounding one particular troupe's production of the play,  not a movie version of the play itself.   Likewise, the 2006 DVD release entitled Corpus Christi is simply a documentary about the historical figure of Jesus, not a film version of the similarly titled play. documentary Corpus Christi Abrams, Joseph.  "Texas Town Cross Over Play's 'Gay' Christ."
  FOXNews.com.  25 March 2010. Applebomb, Peter.  "In Reversal, Theater Vows to Stage Play That Drew Threats."
  The New York Times.  29 May 1998  (p. A1). Brunvand, Jan Harold.  The Mexican Pet.
  New York: W. W. Norton, 1986.   ISBN 0-393-30542-2   (pp. 175-177). Landers, Ann.  "Ann Landers."
  20 January 1985  [syndicated column]. Leo, John.  "Bigotry Still Has No Place in World of Art."
  The Detroit News.  9 June 1998  (p. A7). Medved, Harry and Michael Medved.  The Golden Turkey Awards.
  New York: Perigee Books, 1980.  (pp. 122-124). O'Haire, Patricia.  "Curtains for Play Depicting Christ As Gay."
  [New York] Daily News.  22 May 1998  (p. 7). Reel, Bill.  "Artistic Freedom Is Not a License to Commit or Aid Artistic Assault."
  Newsday.  2 June 1998  (p. A40). Associated Press.  "Florida University Under Fire for Play with Gay Christ Character."
  30 March 2001.  The New York Times.  "Lemon Loses Appeal."
  18 March 1978  (p. 7). renovated