The bill that I carried cutting MOs income tax for 1st time in over 100 years will start its 1st phase in jan 1 2018. #moleg @Eric_Schmitt
Taxes have been a hot topic in the political world lately. President Donald Trump has been calling for reduction of corporate taxes. This is something he talked about when visiting Missouri in August. However, income tax is a hot button topic in Missouri as well. State Sen. Andrew Koenig, R-Manchester, boasted on Twitter that a law he helped pass would be the first cut to Missouri income tax in over a century. The bill that I carried cutting MOs income tax for 1st time in over 100 years will start its 1st phase in jan 1 2018, the senator tweeted on Aug. 30, 2017, with the hashtag moleg and tagging Missouri State Treasurer Eric Schmitt. Over a century? This seemed a little bit out there. When Koenigs office did not answer our inquiry, we started digging for ourselves. Koenig was referring to Senate Bill 509 from 2014. Koenig was the House handler for the bill, as a state representative at the time. What does the now law actually do to income tax though? Simply put, income tax rates will decrease by a tenth of a percent every year until the top tax rate is a half of a percent lower, or 5.5 percent instead of the current 6 percent. There will also be an increase in income tax deductibles for business income until it reaches 25 percent. To trigger the start of the law, the states gross income had to exceed income in one of the three previous years by $150 million. That happened in the last fiscal year, so now the bill will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2018. The prospect of decreasing income tax is appealing for taxpayers, but is this really the first time it is happening in over a century? We talked to Anne Rottman, the library administrator at the Missouri Legislative Library, about the last time Missouri saw a reduction in income taxes. I dont think there ever has been a cut, she said. It turns out, shes right. Missouri income tax was established in 1917. This tax was for a half of a percent annually on individuals income. Income tax saw revisions throughout the years. Graduated tax brackets were created in 1939 and have not been changed since 1972. The limit for deduction for federal income taxes was created in 1993. There were various other revisions and adjustments as well. However, none of these were decreases in the tax levied. For a century, tax law has been growing into what income tax looks like today. Why has there always been an increase and never a decrease? No idea why this approach took so long, said Joseph Haslag, an economics professor at MU. Others seem to be stumped as well. The half-percentage reduction of the tax rate per year gives the state legislature some time to adjust to having less revenue for the budget. Meanwhile, theres a more immediate impact for individuals: Tax brackets will now be adjusted annually based on percent increase in inflation. However, when it comes to the economy overall, it isnt as exciting as it sounds, Haslag said. For a revenue-test state like Missouri, the tax cut reduction will have small, very small, positive effect on Missouris economic growth, Haslag said. And while Koenig is correct that the states income rate has never decreased, its important to note that the legislature has enacted many income tax deductions that have the same effect of lowering someones state income tax bill. Beginning in 2016, for example, 100 percent of a military pension income became exempt from Missouri state tax. The state also created a new deduction for people from Missouri who relocated a business to Missouri. Koenig said that Senate Bill 509 would cut Missouri income tax for the first time in over 100 years. The truth of the matter is Missouri income tax has never been cut. Income tax laws were put in place in 1917. This was 100 years ago exactly. Its not over 100 years, but Koenig was pretty close. Its worth noting, however, that Missouri has created a long list of deductions that could reduce a persons state income tax bill without having to decrease the overall tax rate. Koenigs statement is accurate but needs that clarifying information. That meets our definition of Mostly True.
Every mass shooting event in the United States prompts renewed debate about the efficacy of gun control regulations, and the 1 October 2015 shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon that left nine people dead on was no exception.  Such debates typically feature each side presenting charts contrasting violent crime and homicide rates in countries with permissive and restrictive gun ownership laws to make the case that the prevalence of guns corresponds to either higher or lower crime rates. The wake of the Umpqua Community College shooting brought the widespread online circulation of an image which sought to make the point that two countries of roughly equal population, Honduras and Switzerland, had radically different laws regarding gun ownership and radically different homicide rates: Switzerland, where gun ownership is supposedly mandatory, has the world's lowest homicide rate, while Honduras, where gun ownership is supposedly prohibited, has the world's highest homicide rate:  First off, even before we check the specific claims about each country, we have to note that this item presents a flawed premise.  For a comparison of this nature to be valid, the two things being compared should be fairly equivalent outside of the factors being examined, but that isn't the case here.  The two countries mentioned here are so very different that this isn't just a comparison of apples and oranges; it's more like a comparison of apples and radishes. Honduras and Switzerland are roughly equivalent in population (a little of upwards of 8 million people each), but other than that, they aren't the least bit similar in geography, economics, or culture.  Switzerland is a small, landlocked country in western Europe surrounded by three of the most affluent countries in the world (Germany, France, and Italy) in terms of gross domestic product (GDP), and even though Switzerland itself is fairly small in population (96th in the world) and size (134th in the world), it ranks in the top 20 in terms of GDP.  On the other hand, Honduras is a Central American country that is nearly three times the size of Switzerland and possesses coasts along both the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean sea, but is a "lower middle-income country with persistent poverty and inequality challenges,"with a GDP only about 2.5% that of Switzerland and three neighbors (Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala) that share similar economic conditions.  Not to mention that Honduras is right in the path of the flow of drugs shipped by sea and air from Colombia and has therefore been ravaged by the drug war and its attendant factors of massive criminal organizations, violence, and governmental instability. population GDP size poverty drug war As far as homicide rates go, Honduras does have the highest intentional homicide rate in the world at about 90.4 homicides per 100,000 people per year (which is even shockingly higher than the homicide rate of the next worst country, Venezuela, at 53.7).  Although Switzerland's intentional homicide rate is indeed low at 0.6, it isn't quite the lowest in the world: it's bested by several other countries such as Liechtenstein, Monaco, Iceland, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, the latter two of which have some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the world.  Moreover, a better metric for comparison purposes here might perhaps be the firearm-related death rate rather than the overall intentional homicide rate; in that case, Honduras is still the worst, but Switzerland doesn't fare quite as well (ranking behind about 43 other countries). highest latter two firearm-related Additionally, it is not true that Honduras "bans citizens from owning guns" nor that Switzerland "requires citizens to own guns."  Honduras enacted a ban on open and concealed carry in 2007, but a 2012 news report stated that "under the existing law, citizens are allowed to own as many as five personal firearms," and in mid-2014 Guns & Ammo rated Honduras as one of the "10 Best Countries for Gun Owners," saying that "Hondurans may purchase most popular types of shotguns, handguns or rifles for the recognized purposes of self-defense and recreation."  While Switzerland ranks fourth among all countries in gun ownership per capita (much higher than Honduras), they do not "require" all their citizens to own guns.  Switzerland has a long history of mandatory military service for all able-bodied male citizens.  The government issues firearms to conscripted men which, after training, they take home with them and keep until the conclusion of their military obligation (about age 34 for non-officers), but no other citizens are "required" to own guns: news report rated gun ownership mandatory firearms Switzerland trails behind only the U.S, Yemen and Serbia in the number of guns per capita; between 2.3 million and 4.5 million military and private firearms are estimated to be in circulation in a country of only 8 million people. Yet, despite the prevalence of guns, the violent-crime rate is low: government figures show about 0.5 gun homicides per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010. By comparison, the U.S rate in the same year was about 5 firearm killings per 100,000 people, according to a 2011 U.N. report. Unlike some other heavily armed nations, Switzerlands gun ownership is deeply rooted in a sense of patriotic duty and national identity. Weapons are kept at home because of the long-held belief that enemies could invade tiny Switzerland quickly, so every soldier had to be able to fight his way to his regiment's assembly point. (Switzerland was at risk of being invaded by Germany during World War II but was spared, historians say, because every Swiss man was armed and trained to shoot.) The "gun in every closet" tradition was challenged in 2001, after a disgruntled citizen opened fire with his army rifle inside a regional parliament, killing 14 and injuring 14 others. The subsequent opposition to widespread gun ownership spearheaded a push for stricter arms legislation. The government and pro-gun groups argued, however, that the country's existing laws regulating the sale, ownership and licensing of private guns, which includes a ban on carrying concealed weapons, are stringent enough. The law allows citizens or legal residents over the age of 18, who have obtained a permit from the government and who have no criminal record or history of mental illness, to buy up to three weapons from an authorized dealer, with the exception of automatic firearms and selective fire weapons, which are banned. Semiautomatics, which have caused havoc in the U.S., can be legally purchased. The authorities made one concession, though: since 2008, all military  but not private  ammunition must be stored in central arsenals rather than in soldiers homes. The debate culminated in a nationwide referendum, when 56% of voters rejected the proposal initiated by anti-gun organizations to ban army rifles from homes altogether. Swiss citizens may buy and keep firearms, subject to certain restrictions and licensing requirements: restrictions An acquisition license is required primarily for handguns.  Rifles and semiautomatic long arms that are customarily used by recreational hunters are exempt from the licensing requirement,whereas fully automatic guns are banned. An applicant for a weapons license must be at least eighteen years of age, may not have been placed under guardianship, may not give cause for suspicion that he would endanger himself or others with the weapon, and may not have a criminal record with a conviction for a violent crime or of several convictions for nonviolent crimes. The license is issued by the canton of residence of the applicant but is valid throughout Switzerland. All in all, this meme compares two countries that aren't the least bit similar, then gets wrong nearly all the aspects of those countries it references.  As such, it isn't the least bit useful or instructive as a discussion point for debates over gun ownership laws. In March 2021, a photograph supposedly showing an antelope with a large spiderweb between its horns started to circulate on social media:   These are genuine photographs of a gemsbok, a large antelope that lives in South Africa, with spiderwebs between its horns. photographs These photographs were taken by Dr. Jess Isden, a research associate with the animal conservation group WildCRU, during a safari at the Central Kalahari Game Reserve in Botswana. Isden originally shared these pictures to "The Spider Club of Southern Africa" Facebook page in an attempt to find more information about what sort of spider would make this web. While we still don't know the type of spider  some users suggested it could be a golden orb spider  Isden's post did provide some additional information about these photographs.  Isden wrote: At first I thought the gemsbok must have walked through the web, but on closer inspection it was clear that it was much more intricate than that, and there were living spiders in the webs too. Seen on several animals. They could have easily wiped the webs off their face and horns, yet seem to tolerate it. We also saw the same animal multiple times over 4 days with the web still intact! Seen in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve, Botswana.   This is not the first time a spider has chosen an animal's horns or antlers for placement of a web. Photographer Frank Solomon has also captured pictures showing spiderwebs between an animals antlers. You can see those images here. Below is a a photograph from wildlife photographer Hector Astorga: here   Correction [30 March 2021]: Previous version of this article mistakenly said "antlers" instead of horns. With Illinois entering its 17th month without a state budget as Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner and Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan continue their epic stalemate, Republican legislative leaders repeatedly talk about the need for a property tax freeze. They suggest the freeze, which Rauner hasmade a prerequisite for any budget negotiation, is particularly necessary, as the state will need to raise other taxes to cover itsgrowing bill backlogwhen a budget is signed into law. Rauner has called for daily meetings with Madigan and the states three other legislative leaders as the states stopgap spending authority expires at years end. As the legislative leaders began those closed-door meetings in their six-day fall veto session, both Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno and House Republican Leader Jim Durkin again made the case for a property tax freeze by saying Illinois has one of the worst tax burdens nationwide. Radogno said, People in this state right now are suffering because they dont have jobs. We have the fifth-highest tax burden in the country. People are moving out of their homes because of the property tax burden. These are issues that have to be addressed and have to be addressed now. This is a claim weve often heard for years in Illinois, and it seems various groups are releasing rankings daily. So we decided to check this one out. Patty Schuh, press secretary to the Illinois Senate GOP staff, said the source for the fifth-worst tax burden claim was a January release of rankings by the Tax Foundation. Indeed, the nonpartisan foundation did issue rankings of the 50 states tax burdens that showed Illinois at No. 5 for its overall burden. But thats not the entire picture. Measuring the rankings What does the Foundations overall burden measure? And is that the best, most relevant measurement? Jared Walczak, a policy analyst at the Tax Foundation, noted there are many ways to measure tax systems and rates and burdens. A states own tax structure can play a big part in how it ranks compared to others. For instance, he said Alaska derives a lot of its tax revenue from oil sales, but Alaskans pay relatively little of those taxes, which are paid by all of us who use gasoline, Walczak said. The Tax Foundation does measure the overall tax burden of the people paying taxes in a state, but that overall metric includes both taxes that return to Illinois and those that are paid outside of Illinois, Walczak said. Annette Nellen, a professor in and director of San Jos State University's graduate tax program, agreed, noting that people need to understand how the rankings are calculated and what they mean. I think it gets to that legislator using that information incorrectly. A legislator should look at whats paid and what the rates are in Illinois if she is trying to make the argument that Illinois taxes are too high, she said. They should look at the rate in the state for income and sales and property taxes and how much does the middle quintile of taxpayers pay for various taxes within Illinois, Nellen added. The Tax Foundations ownwebsitenotes, Tax collections are useful for some purposes and cited frequently. However, dividing total taxes collected by governments in a state by the states total income is not an accurate measure of the tax burden on a states residents as a whole because it does not accurately reflect the taxes that are actually paid out of that states income. Walczak, the Foundation analyst, said Illinois actually ranked seventh-highest in taxes residents paid to their own state and the fifth-most overall when taxes paid outside of Illinois are included. The ranking of taxes paid by residents in their state is a more accurate reflection of the states tax structure and burden on residents, experts agreed. But theres one more thing to consider. The Tax Foundation rankings were released in January but were calculated using census data from 2012, the bureaus most recent release of that particular data. John Frendreis, a Loyola University political science professor, said the Foundations work was sound, but noted the income tax rate in 2012 was higher than it is now. The rate then for individuals was 5 percent but dropped in January 2015 to 3.75 percent. As a point of comparison, during the two fiscal years preceding FY 2012, the total state tax burden was 10.5 percent, which dropped Illinois several places in the ranking, Frendreis noted. Still, he said, In general, Illinois total tax burden puts it into roughly the top quarter of states on a regular basis. Our ruling Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno said Illinois has the fifth-highest tax burden in the country. Its a statistic she and other Republicans cite often as they argue for a property tax freeze as one of several changes they want made before they will agree to a budget with Madigan and Democrats. While independent experts say the No. 5 rank for Illinois issued by the Tax Foundation for overall tax burden is accurate, the overall burden includes taxes paid outside of Illinois and is not the best metric for the burden taxpayers carry as a result of tax policy and structure and those taxes paid within the state. Illinois actually is No. 7 nationwide by the measure that best reflects in-state tax policy set by lawmakers. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. We rate this claim Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/f500e006-4c6e-49cb-b6c3-eada6c7ee46a On 7 August 2016, the web site The American Mirror published an article reporting that Hillary Clinton's "health condition" should be a "major issue" of the 2016 presidential race, along with two photographs purportedly showing Clinton being helped up a flight of stairs:  SHOCK PHOTO: Multiple staffers help unstable Hillary up stairs The questionable health condition of Hillary Clinton should be a major issue of the 2016 campaign. The latest evidence comes in the form of Clinton being helped up a set of stairs by multiple individuals outside what appears to be a home. The photographs received wider attention when they were shared by conservative commentator Matt Drudge on Twitter:  Other pro-Donald Trump web pages paired the above-displayed photographs with images of Donald Trump ascending stairs with ease: images Donald Trump on his way the presidency of the United States. Donald Trump on his way the presidency of the United States.  While the above-displayed photographs are real, they are not the "latest evidence" of Clinton's alleged poor health, nor are they by themselves indicative of any significant health problems. The photographs were originally published in February 2016, more than five months before they started circulating on various right-wing web sites. When Getty Images published their photograph, it was accompanied with a caption explaining that it depicted Clinton being assisted as she had just slipped while walked up stairs in South Carolina: slipped Democratic Presidential candidate, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton slips as she walks up the stairs into the non-profit SC Strong, a 2 year residential facility that helps former felons, substance abusers, and homeless move into self-sufficiency February 24, 2016 in North Charleston. The South Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary is held on February 27. Although these photographs were offered as "proof" that Clinton is in such poor health that she needs constant accompaniment while ascending stairs, several photographs of the Democratic presidential nominee ascending and descending stairs without help from anyone are not difficult to find: several photographs ascending descending The Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, was envisioned as a giant pot of money the federal government could use to buy toxic assets, the mortgage-backed investments that triggered the nation's financial crisis. The idea was to buy the bad assets so banks would be in better shape to do more lending. That was the original vision of Henry Paulson, the Bush administration's treasury secretary and one of the architects of the plan. He won quick approval from Congress in early October 2008. But Paulson changed his strategy. Instead of using the early TARP money to buy the toxic assets, he decided to use it to invest in banks. That, Paulson said, would get them to resume lending. Since then, critics have questioned whether the TARP money has been wisely spent. They have criticized TARP investments in banks that did not appear to be in serious trouble, and said it was unwise to spend $25 billion on the auto industry. In his column on March 24, 2009, conservative writer George Will took aim at a variety of recent acts by Congress and the Obama administration. He described members of Congress as braying yahoos and said the Obama administration had invited private sector investors to become business partners with the capricious and increasingly anticonstitutional government. This latest plan to unfreeze the financial system came almost half a year after Congress shoveled $700 billion into the Troubled Assets Relief Program, $325 billion of which has been spent without purchasing any toxic assets. We had a vague recollection that TARP spending had been broadened at some point, but we wondered if Will was correct that such a large amount had been spent without buying the assets that were the original focus of the program. (Indeed, the program was named after them, creating a metaphorical acronym that suggested it was a temporary protection from storms.) A quick history: In early October, with fears that the economy was on the brink of collapse, Congress approved the $700 billion Paulson wanted, and President George W. Bush signed the measure into law. As we noted above, the early vision was to buy toxic assets. But just 10 days later, Paulson and the Bush administration changed the game plan. Instead of buying toxic assets, they said they would buy stock in American banks to put them on sound footing so they could resume lending. Today we are taking decisive actions to protect the U.S. economy, Paulson said on Oct. 14. We regret having to take these actions. Today's actions are not what we ever wanted to do  but today's actions are what we must do to restore confidence to our financial system. Criticism grew. Some said Paulson had gotten too much leeway to spend the money. Congress began harrumphing and holding hearings, and oversight groups known as SIGTARP (the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program) and COP (the Congressional Oversight Panel) began to scrutinize the spending. (A quick aside: The financial crisis has spawned some of coolest acronyms this side of the Pentagon, making it possible for Treasury officials to utter sentences like, COP and SIGTARP have examined the TARP but haven't yet focused on the P-PIP.) The $325 billion cited by Will comes from the March 11 testimony by Neel Kashkari, the interim assistant secretary for financial stability who directs the TARP, before the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Asked about the status of the program and how much more would be needed, Kashkari said, We've deployed about 325 billion cash dollars out the door. And at that point, none of the money had been spent on buying toxic assets, according to the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan congressional research group, and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, an independent group tracking spending on TARP and other stimulus programs on its siteStimulus Watch. We should note that since that testimony, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has unveiled his proposal for buying the toxic assets, which would be partly paid for by a portion of the TARP money. But that wasn't the case when Will's column was published, so we find his claim to be True. During Russia's invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, American social media users enthusiastically shared posts that called for a boycott of Lukoil gas stations on the East Coast, on the basis that they were Russian owned. As one very widely shared tweet summarized: social media users enthusiastically shared posts called boycott Russian summarized "#BoycottRussia. Lukoil gas is Russian owned."   wrote "Fill your tank elsewhere. Lukoil is a Russian multinational corporation headquartered in Moscow. Their CEO, Vagit Alekperov, is a Russian oligarch worth an estimated $19.6 billion. Lukoil gas stations are all over PA, NJ and NY." These posts undoubtedly contained a significant element of truth. Lukoil is indeed a large Russian-headquartered multinational petroleum and natural gas producer, with a U.S. subsidiary that oversees a network of gas stations, primarily in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York. Moreover, the company's billionaire president, Vagit Alekperov, has ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin. has ties However, Lukoil typically does not operate those U.S. gas stations itself. Rather, it operates on a franchise basis, meaning any successful boycott of Lukoil-branded gas stations would likely have a negligible effect on the parent company or its billionaire president, but could prove financially devastating for dozens of U.S. franchise owners and their hundreds of local employees. In brief, Lukoil itself might be "Russian owned," but its U.S. gas stations are U.S.-operated and locally staffed. As such, we're issuing a rating of "Mixture." Lukoil emerged from the dissolving Soviet Union in the early 1990s, and entered the American market a decade later. According to the company's website, Lukoil acquired the American company Getty Oil in 2000, taking over and rebranding its existing network of gas stations. the company's website The first Lukoil-branded gas station was opened in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan in September, 2003. Notably, the grand opening was attended by Putin himself  who was in the U.S. at that time for talks with then-President George W. Bush. In the photograph below, Putin can be seen outside the Manhattan Lukoil, with Alekperov to his right, and U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to his left: attended by Putin himself  Russian President Vladimir Putin (C) and Lukoil President Vagit Alekperov (L) listen as U.S. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) (R) gestures as he speaks about U.S.-Russian relations during the opening of Lukoil's gasoline station September 26, 2003 in the Chelsea neighborhood of New York City. Lukoil, a Russian oil company, acquired Getty Petroleum Marketing Inc. and its 1,300 stations in November 2000. (Photo by Stephen Chernin/Getty Images)  At the time, Lukoil was reported to have taken over Getty's existing network of 1,300 gas stations, but by 2022, the number of Lukoil-branded gas stations in the United States had declined to around 230  most, if not all, located in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York.  Importantly, most  if not all  of those gas stations are operated as franchises. Franchising is a popular business model in the United States, with the best-known examples being fast food restaurants such as McDonald's and convenience stores like 7-Eleven.  popular business model in the United States Roughly speaking, the franchisee (local entrepreneur) pays the franchisor (main company) some fees: typically an up-front franchise fee, and regular royalties  usually a percentage cut of their income from sales. In return, the franchisor gives the franchisee the right to operate a business using their well-known brand, for a defined period of time, usually several years. The company might also provide advice or assistance with logistics, advertising, marketing, and so on. The local entrepreneur is also contractually obliged to operate the business in accordance with certain prescribed methods, customer service models, and so on. Lukoil  or more specifically, Lukoil North America, a Delaware-registered LLC with an address in Moorestown, New Jersey offers three-year leases to franchisees in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York. In fact, as of March 2, the company's website listed for lease 13 different gas station sites in those states: Lukoil North America, a Delaware-registered LLC 13 different gas station sites   offer to lease" document The aforementioned Bidder is submitting the below rental offer to lease the LUKOIL branded service station listed above, and is prepared to enter into an Agreement with LNA for the lease of the same, subject to the conditions specified below. The lease term is generally three (3) years, however a longer term can be approved, at LNA's discretion, provided a sufficient site improvement or supply commitment is made to justify a longer term.   Google post "LUKOIL gas stations in the United States are independently owned and operated by local business owners who are members of the communities they serve, and 100% of the gasoline and diesel fuel sold is sourced from American oil refiners." Snopes asked Lukoil for details on the exact number of Lukoil-branded gas stations in the United States, and the number of those operated on a franchise basis, if not all. We also asked for precise details about the company's revenue from franchise fees, royalties and/or rent paid by U.S. franchisees, but we did not receive a response in time for publication.  However, Lukoil's 2021 financial results, which were published on March 2, gave an indication of the relatively small role of U.S. gas station revenue in the company's overall income, most of which stems from oil and gas exploration and production inside Russia. Lukoil's 2021 financial results In 2021, according to Lukoil, the company had total sales of 9.4 trillion rubles ($88 billion), and its earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) were 1.4 trillion rubles ($13 billion). Of that $13 billion, just 8.3% ($1 billion) was made up of "refining, marketing and distribution" outside Russia. Although a more detailed breakdown is not available, it is reasonable to suppose that income related specifically to U.S. gas stations made up an even smaller fraction of that $1 billion, given that Lukoil refines, markets, and distributes petroleum in several other countries throughout the world.  It's also not clear whether, in the event of an effective widespread boycott of U.S. Lukoil-branded gas stations, franchisees would still be obliged to continue paying fees and rent to Lukoil North America even if they had no income from gas or convenience store sales. Therefore, a successful boycott could require financial devastation  if not ruination  among many dozens of local entrepreneurs in the United States, as well as sudden unemployment for their hundreds of workers, in order to achieve what would be only a very small financial impact on the Russian parent company, or its bosses in Moscow.  On March 3, Lukoil's board of directors issued a statement in which they expressed their "deepest concerns about the tragic events in Ukraine," and called for an immediate end to the conflict and a "lasting ceasefire." issued a statement Maass, Peter. The Triumph of the Quiet Tycoon. The New York Times, 1 Aug. 2004. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/01/magazine/the-triumph-of-the-quiet-tycoon.html. PRESS RELEASE MARCH 02, 2022 LUKOIL RELEASES FINANCIAL RESULTS UNDER IFRS FOR 2021 PJSC LUKOIL Today Released Its Audited Consol. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3AnFU75r0Wkh4J%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.lukoil.com%2Fapi%2Fpresscenter%2Fexportpressrelease%3Fid%3D577486+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us. Accessed 3 Mar. 2022. Updated [March 4, 2022]: Added reference to the Lukoil board of directors March 3 statement about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In closed-doorremarks to campaignsupporterson April 14, 2011, President Barack Obama looked back in frustration at lengthy negotiations with Republicans over funding to keep the federal government operating.Obama opined, as aCBS News onlinestoryreported, that he expects Republicans to continue using the budget process to enact their political agenda under the guise of cutting spending.The president singled out U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the House Budget Committee chairman who has authored a long-term deficit-reduction plan.When Paul Ryan says his priority is to make sure, you know, he's just being America's accountant, trying to be responsible ...This is the same guy who voted for two wars that were unpaid for, voted for the Bush tax cuts that were unpaid for, voted for the prescription drug bill that cost as much as my health care bill -- but wasn't paid for, Obama told his supporters. So it's not on the level.In making the remark, Obama pointed to several big-ticket items approved during the Bush administration while Ryan was in Congress -- ones he says have helped drive the nations record deficits.Given the prominence of the protagonists and the timeliness of the comments, we decided to take a look at Obamas critique of Ryan.With the words, Obama is offering an opinion about how Ryan has framed his budget-cutting efforts. We cant fact-check the presidents opinion about Ryans message. But we can focus on the factual assertions, and try to put them into some context.We started with the White House, which declined to comment, saying the presidents remarks spoke for themselves.Lets look at the votes.There is no dispute Ryan voted forAfghanistanandIraqwarfunding; for themajor taxcutsenacted under President George W. Bush in 2001 and2003(andextended in 2010); and for the new Medicare prescription drug benefitcreated in 2003.All were big-ticket items.But Obama goes a step further to assert that all were unpaid for. Thats Washington parlance for bills not offset by corresponding spending cuts or tax increases elsewhere in the federal budget.Budget experts we consulted and the historical record confirm there were no direct offsets built into those bills.Obamas claim on the prescription drug bill was slightly different -- that it wasnt paid for and cost as much as my health care bill.Lets break this into two parts.Obama appears to refer to the gross outlays needed for the two landmark bills.For the Medicare prescription drug bill, passed in 2003 and effective in 2006, we found a range of cost estimates for 10 years: $395 billion to $720 billion. Theofficial Congressional Budget Officeestimatewas the low end.That was at the time. Now, government estimates show the original cost projections were too high, perhaps by as much as 40 percent, said Jon Gabel, senior fellow in health care research at the National Opinion Research Center.Obamas health reform bill -- thePatient Protection and Affordable Care Act-- was pricier, with estimates in the$800 billion to $1.4 trillion range. Ryan and Republicans opposed the bill.But the two measures were passed seven years apart, so inflation may be a factor.Paul Van de Water, a former Congressional Budget Office official who is now a senior fellow with the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, did an inflation-adjusted comparison and found the Medicare bill is probably two-thirds or three-quarters the cost of the Obama health care measure.That is, Obamas health care bill is still hundreds of millions of dollars more costly than the Medicare drug bill.So the president was off in equating the gross cost of the bills.On the offset question, the Medicare prescription drug bill, however, indisputably added to the federal deficit. It was not offset by new revenue or other spending cuts.In contrast, theofficial governmentestimateof the 2010 health care laws impact said it would actually reduce the deficit, in part because of the new taxes it enacts to help offset the cost of expanding health coverage.The source for that is the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.TheCBOs estimate is hardly undisputed-- Ryan, other Republican leaders and various budget analysts haveargued that the CBOs report was skewed by questionableassumptionsgiven to it by the Obama administration. They contend the law would actually add to the deficit.Nevertheless, we -- and Congress -- have used CBO estimates as the gold standard on such matters. So Obama has a pretty firm leg to stand on in saying his health bill was paid for while the Medicare bill was not.That covers the details behind the presidents remarks. In this case, its important to put them into their proper context. We consulted several experts and sought Ryans take.Ryan was asked in arecentinterviewabout Obamas citing the Medicare drug program, the two wars and the Bush tax cuts as major drivers of the deficit.He disagreed: We still had these enormous, building, unfunded liabilities, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security -- I mean, the big drivers of our debt.His office sent us a defense of his votes on war funding, quotinghis budget plan: Like all categories of government spending, defense spending should be executed with greater efficiency and accountability. But responsible budgeting must never lose sight of the fact that the first responsibility of the federal government is to provide for the defense of the nation.On the Bush tax cuts, Ryan aides said the congressman believes that we have deficits because Washington spends too much, not because Americans are taxed too little. He says the tax cuts helped fuel economic growth and bring in more tax revenue.Indeed, in December, Obama himself backeda compromise with Republicans, including Ryan,that extended the Bush tax cuts.Bottom line: Ryan has voted for massive new spending and so has the president, said Tad DeHaven, a budget analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute.Iraq war costs have topped $1 trillion, said Scott Lilly, former staff director for the House Appropriations Committee and now a research fellow at the left-leaning Center for American Progress. Neither Bushs war effort in Afghanistan nor Obamas escalation there has been paid for, both analysts noted.In April, bothObamaandRyanunveiled long-term deficit reduction plans in the neighborhood of $4 trillion over a decade or more.So where does this leave us?The president cherry-picked a handful of votes in an effort to show that Ryan is not pristine on the subject of the deficit.Obama got it right on Ryans support for the big-ticket bills, including war funding, Medicare prescription drugs and the Bush tax cuts. He was also on target in saying that none was offset or paid for by spending cuts or tax increases. Thats the main part of his claim.He was off the mark in asserting that one of the bills -- Medicare prescription drugs -- was as costly as his 2010 health care reform bill.That puts him at Mostly True. Gov. Rick Scott asked Florida legislators to pass his proposed budget during his first State of the State speech on March 8, 2011. It's a budget that cuts spending to balance the budget as required by the state Constitution. And,it cuts taxes. I delivered to you a budget that ... cuts taxes by $2 billion, Scott told legislators on the first day of its 60-day legislative session. Let's walk through the math of his budget. Scott proposed a two-year budget that cuts a host of taxes and fees.Here's a breakdown from the governor's office. Scott's budget proposal would: Reduce the corporate income taxfrom 5.5 percent to 3 percent in 2011-12 and from 3 percent to 2.5 percent in 2012-13. The rate cut will save those who pay the tax $459 million this year and a little more than $1 billion in 2012-13;Reduce the required local effort, a property tax to fund schools, saving taxpayers around $600 million in 2011-12. The tax cut would carry forward in 2012-13;Reduce the property tax collected by state water management districts25 percent for two years, saving taxpayers $180 million annually; Reduce unemployment compensation taxes by shortening how long Floridians can collect benefits and making it more difficult for them to be eligible. Scott's office says that will save $630.8 million over two years; Roll back 2009 Legislature-approved fee increases for driver licenses, vehicle registrations and other motor vehicle fees. Scott says the rollback would save drivers $492 million over two years; And repeal or alter other small taxes on ammonia, pesticides, fertilizer, solvents, dry cleaning, tires and lead acid batteries, among other things. The changes would save $77 million over two years, Scott's office says.Taken together, that is a total of $1.7 billion in tax and fee cuts in 2011-12 -- slightly below the figure he claimed in his speech. (Scott's office, by the way, claims a total of $4.1 billion over two years, but that number is deceivingbecause most cuts in the second year of Scott's budget aren'tadditionalcuts; they are just the same cuts rolled over.) Scott said his budget cuts taxes by $2 billion. But really, the number is about 15 percent high, based on the estimates of his own budget office. We rate this claim Mostly True. Claim:  The IOC has announced 3-on-3 basketball will be an official sport at the 2016 Olympics.   Example:  [Collected via Twitter, January 2015]  The 2016 Olympics will feature 3-on-3 basketball. Who would you chose? pic.twitter.com/4VZhxLLy2i pic.twitter.com/4VZhxLLy2i  BALL UP NBA (@BallUpNBA) January 15, 2015 January 15, 2015  Origins:  On 14 January 2015, the satirical Australian web site Betoota Advocate published a fake news article claiming 3-on-3 basketball would be an officially sanctioned sport at the 2016 Summer Olympics: published After decades of pressure and debate, as well as an official application submitted by the International Basketball Federation, the IOC have this week confirmed that a three-men-a-side basketball variant will be included as a part of the official event program for the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro. The final decision was made quietly during an annual committee meeting late last month. After nearly a decade of exploring different options, the International Olympic Committees executive board have confirmed that they will to go ahead with the proposal despite the fact that the request would result in a higher number of athletes and increased number of medals, thereby adding to the cost and complexity of the Games. While the Betoota Advocate's article was shared only a few hundred times on social media, the rumor about 3-on-3 basketball's becoming an official Olympic sport received a viral push when Deadspin reported the hoax as real news: reported The IOC has officially added a new half-court 3-on-3 basketball event to the competitions to be held in the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro. This rules. Right away, you'll have to throw a big bucket of calm down on your head because, as the IOC put it in a 2012 letter discussing its interest in 3-on-3, a large part of the impetus is to focus more on the amateurism of sports and get the event away from being "somewhat of an exhibition for the American NBA." When reporter Kyle Wagner realized his mistake, he added an update at the top of the article stating he had been duped by a satire site: Nah, this isn't happening. I wrote a post based on a satire website, which is just about the dumbest way to f*ck up. Sorry. F*ck me. Woulda been cool though.   Last updated:  16 January 2015 Anad unveiled Oct. 15, 2010, by Democrat Jack Conway so angered his opponent for a Kentucky Senate seat, Republican Rand Paul, that Paulrefused to shake handsafter a debate two days later.The primary reason for the bad blood was the charge in Conway's ad that Paul, as a college student at Baylor University, had participated in some unorthodox activities, according to an account inGQ.Why was Rand Paul a member of a secret society that called the Holy Bible 'a hoax' -- that was banned from mocking Christianity and Christ? said the ad's narrator. Why did Rand Paul once tie a woman up? Tell her to bow down before a false idol and say his God was 'Aqua Buddha? 'The ad provoked outrage in the Paul camp, and even some liberal commentators protested.The New Republic'sJonathan Chait called itthe ugliest, most illiberal political ad of the year for coming perilously close to saying that non-belief in Christianity is a disqualification for public office, an idea that Chait called a pretty sickening premise for a Democratic campaign.Because the most salacious details of theGQstory were provided by a woman who requested anonymity, we're not going to attempt to fact-check that part of the story. But the ad does contain two policy-focused claims. We'll turn our focus on those instead.After the reference to the Aqua Buddha story, the ad asks, Why does Rand Paul now want to end all federal faith-based initiatives and even end the deduction for religious charities?We thought we'd take a look.The Paul campaign did not return a telephone inquiry, so we reviewed the sources cited in the ad.To back up the first claim -- that Paul wants to end all federal faith-based initiatives -- the ad citedthe June 20, 2008, edition of a public-affairs television showcalledKentuckyTonight. Paul was one of four guests invited to join an hour-long discussion of the Kentucky state budget.At one point -- it's about 70 percent of the way through the video -- the conversation turns to state budget cuts and the intersection of church-related charity work with state support for social services. Paul offers a note of caution.You mentioned faith-based intermingling -- government and faith-based, Paul said. George (W.) Bush did that, and I think it was a horrible mistake. One, I think the money sort of pollutes the mission of a purely Christian organization, or Muslim or whatever organization it is, and it obscures the church-state separation that there really ought to be. We shouldn't have tax money flowing into churches. We should let churches do charity work, and that's wonderful, but they shouldn't be corrupted with government money.This seems to be a pretty clear statement of Paul's views on the subject. The only potential complication we see with the ad's wording is that Paul's statement onKentuckyTonightwas focused on the expenditure of taxpayer dollars. It's possible to envision a partnership between the federal government and a religious group that doesn't involve money, but we think it's reasonable to assume that most would. So the ad's claim seems pretty accurate to us.On the second point -- that Paul would end the deduction for religious charities -- the ad cites an Associated Press account. The AP actually ran a half-dozen stories beginning on Oct. 12, 2010, that addressed Paul's support for a national sales tax. The tale gets a bit complicated, so bear with us.On Oct. 12, the AP quoted Paul saying, The federal tax code is a disaster no one would come up with if we were starting from scratch. I support making taxes flatter and simpler. I would vote for the Fair Tax to get rid of the 16th Amendment, the IRS and a lot of the control the federal government exerts over us. The story attributed the quote to a written statement distributed by an anti-tax group and verified by his campaign. TheFair Taxwould eliminatethe federal income tax, employment tax, and estate and gift taxes, replacing them with a 23 percent national sales tax on the use or consumption in the United States of taxable property or services. Eliminating the federal income tax would also eliminate deductions such as tax deductions for donations to religious charities. Bills proposing to make that change, which have come up annually for years in Congress, have all failed to progress to a full hearing. Nonetheless, Democrats have used the Fair Tax as the basis for many ads against Republicans this year, one of which we recently ratedHalf True.One day later, Paul began to walk back the comment. The AP reported that Paul, a limited-government advocate, said he supports a 'simpler tax code' but wouldn't offer specifics about his written comments to an anti-tax group supporting repeal of the 16th Amendment that created the federal income tax. 'I haven't really been saying anything like that,' Paul told reporters following a speech in Henderson as part of his Kentucky bus tour. 'I think it's probably better to go ... with what I'm saying on the campaign trail. 'On Oct. 14, theOwensboro Messenger-Inquirerinterviewed Paul before a rally. Paul told the paper that he is for tax reform in general but hasn't committed to the Fair Tax. I'd like to flatten the income tax, Paul said. The church doesn't ask for more than 10 percent of your income.On Oct. 15, Paul's campaign manager, Jesse Benton, told the AP that a tax reform activist -- former Paul campaign manager David Adams -- had distributed the statement that was the basis for the original AP story, and in so doing, distorted Paul's views on the Fair Tax. Our campaign respects the Fair Taxation movement, but the Kentucky coordinator got a little overzealous promoting his cause and created a statement that does not accurately reflect Dr. Paul's views, Benton said in a statement to the AP. Rand knows our tax code is broken and will fight for fundamental reform that both simplifies the system and reduces the financial burden for all Kentuckians. Dr. Paul will study and consider all plans that attempt to do so.The Oct. 15 AP story noted that Adams had said he distributed the statement only after receiving permission from Benton and that Benton had personally verified the statement to the AP for its initial story.Finally, on Oct. 16, the AP reported the existence of a video from a campaign event in February in which Paul told Americans for Fair Taxation volunteer Terry Schmitt, I'm in favor of any change in the tax code that reduces the overall tax burden. That would include the Fair Tax, changing to a sales tax. One great advantage of it would be no more IRS, no more income tax, no more reams of paper that we all have to deal with.This series of explanations suggests that Paul is backtracking to avoid being associated with a policy proposal that could be unpopular among some voters. But even if he does seem ambivalent, we think there's enough evidence to justify the Conway camp's claim that Paul did support the Fair Tax, at least at one point. That said, we think the Conway ad is somewhat misleading in its description of Paul's views. We don't see evidence that Paul made the religious-charity exemption a target of his opposition. His opposition, such as it was, would have been part of his support for a broader, fundamental tax overhaul. So we think Conway's decision to focus on this narrow aspect of the Fair Tax is misleading.All told, then, Conway is close to accurate on both claims but with a slight exaggeration on the question of religious tax exemptions. Keeping in mind that we're not rating the Aqua Buddha portion of the ad, we rate the two policy statements Mostly True.