Is a Murderous Taxi Driver Killing People in His Cab?
The perils of sharing photographs online manifested in a February 2018 hoax in which social media users shared an unidentified man's image along with the claim that he's a murderous taxi driver. The earliest iteration of the post, on 4 February 2018, emanated from a Facebook user in Nigeria, who posted:    The post was accompanied by a photograph of the alleged assailant:   Besides lacking much in the way of context, the photo can be found on at least two online dating sites, with divergent information: The man is identified as a resident of Casablanca on Wamba; but on JeContacte he's described as hailing from Cameroon. Wamba; JeContacte However, the web site The Zambian Observer claimed that he was Congolese in a post accusing him of committing several murders: post Zambia shares a border with the Democratic Republic of Congo, and in December 2017 a reported thousands of Congolese refugees made their way into Zambia to escape from violence in their own country. The article appears to be using the man as an anti-immigrant scapegoat and a way to attack a specific politician. reported Other iterations of the post placed the man in Freeport, Jamaica; Washington D.C.; Toledo, Ohio; and in New York City, where some social media users posted the picture and the original caption, adding the phrase "my friend from the DA'S office in Brooklyn just sent me this. Share it for your safety":   A spokesperson for the actual Brooklyn District Attorney's office told us that they "know nothing" about the person in the picture or the allegations. But as often happens around social media, users shared the claim while admitting that they had no idea whether they were helping the spread of misinformation:       But there has yet to be actual corroboration of any of the claims surrounding the unnamed man; police officials in both New York City and Washington D.C. told us that they had never heard of the post or any allegations about a "murder cab." The New York State Department of Motor Vehicles said that "2465RB" did not match any license plate attached to a taxi or any other sort of vehicle. And a spokesperson for the Toledo Police Department told us, "We have looked into this and it is not credible." We also contacted police in Zambia seeking comment, but had not heard back as of time of publication. The fact that the claim spans several continents and countries suggest that this is a false rumor, as does the Zambian Observer's claim that the man was doing "ritual killings." If this man were murdering people in Brooklyn (or Toledo, or Washington D.C., or Freeport et al), and if law enforcement had his photograph, it would have been reported in major U.S. newspapers, police would know about it, and official government sources would have published warnings.  Schlein, Lisa. "Thousands of Congolese Fleeing into Zambia to Escape Violence in DRC."
Voice of America. 3 December 2017. Added reponse from the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office.  Added response from the Toledo Police Department.
In a May 9, 2013, advertisement, Gov. Rick Perry offered President Barack Obama a handy checklist about job creation to take back to Washington, D.C.The ad, which Perrys campaign placed in theAustin American-Statesmanthe day Obama came to Austin to stress economic issues, said the checklist includes low taxes, lawsuit abuse reform, predictable and effective regulations, balanced budgets and accountable schools and a competitive workforce.And an indicator that the Texas model works, the ad said, is that while the U.S. lost 2.5 million net new jobs over the past five years, Texas created 530,000 net new jobs. Also, the ad said: Over the last 10 years, Texas created 33 percent of the net new jobs nationwide.Texas has had a healthy economy compared with most other states. Still, we were curious if one in three of the nations net new jobs over the past 10 years was gained in Texas.By email, Perry spokesman Josh Havens referred to information attributed to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics indicating that Texas reaped more than 1.75 million net new jobs from March 2003 to March 2013, a period in which the United States as a whole accounted for 5.3 million net new jobs, Havens said.To our inquiry, a regional economist for the bureau, Cheryl Abbot, confirmed the net job gain figures provided by Havens. According to aspreadsheetshe emailed our way, Texas topped 42 states with net job gains in the period, considerably outdistancing the No. 2 jobs-gainer, New York, which had a net gain of 458,000 jobs. States with net losses were Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio and Rhode Island.Among the states, Texas had the third-greatest percentage gain in jobs over the decade, 19 percent, trailing North Dakota (33 percent increase) and Utah (21 percent), the spreadsheet indicates.By email and in a telephone interview, though, Abbot said the bureau steers clear of using its employment estimates to declare how much of any national job gains are attributable to net job gains in individual states. That judgment has to do with technical difficulties comparing the results of surveys undertaken state by state to research intended to have national sweep, she said.Regardless, she said, Texas has been a very powerful job creator; during the period, the state created 1.75 million net jobs  and that was equal to one-third of the net jobs created nationwide, which is slightly different from saying the state accounted for 33 percent of national net jobs gained.We sent Perrys office the bureaus standingcautionary noteabout using its figures to reach conclusions about how much each state contributes to national job gains. Havens replied: The bottom line is, this is the most accurate way available to compare any single states job growth to the nation as a whole.We also tried a different way of gauging the degree that Texas job gains fit the national picture by adding up each states net job gains as estimated by the bureau. This delivered a slightly higher total for national jobs gained, 5.5 million. Dividing the 1.75 million net jobs gained in Texas into the higher total leaves Texas accounting for 32 percent of the nations net jobs gained.We also asked Jason Abrevaya, who chairs the University of Texas Department of Economics, to review the bureau figures. He said by email that they seem to hold up. If Texas had been performing at the average nationwide from 2003 to 2013, he added, one would expect the state to account for roughly 8 percent, rather than 33 percent, of the net job changes, since Texas accounts for about 8 percent of the nations jobs.Our rulingPerry said: Over the last 10 years, Texas created 33 percent of the net new jobs nationwide. That conclusion is supported by comparing state-by-state job gain estimates and a separate calculation of net job gains nationally, both by the federal government. This might be an imperfect way to explore this facet, but there also don't appear to be better approaches. We rate the claim as True. Claim:  Country singer Charlie Daniels authored an opinion piece about press coverage of the Paula Deen racial controversy. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July  2013] The was attributed to Charlie Daniels about Paula Deen.  Did he write it?  I think that if anything exemplifies the overt prejudice and determination of the American media to report only the news that suits their social and political interests and concept of what does and does not fit their agenda, it's the totally overblown coverage of something Paula Deen said 20 years ago, and some party she planned that she wanted to resemble a plantation scene featuring black male waiters in period dress. If Hollywood plans a movie featuring black waiters in a plantation scene or portray women as prostitutes or cast minorities in caricature roles does the media get upset and start calling the movie moguls racists? Is there any grown person who could truthfully declare under oath that they have never uttered something that someone might find personally offensive? "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Do the twenty-year-old words of a lady with a television cooking show trump the lie an Attorney General told Congress, or officials at the IRS usurping the rights of the American public and pleading the fifth amendment when confronted about it or the hiding of the facts surrounding the murder of four Americans at a Consulate in Libya or the incredibly shabby image of a president taking a one hundred million dollar vacation in this economy while closing down tours of the White House or the NSA invasion on the privacy of millions of unsuspecting citizens? [Rest of article here.] here Origins:  Grammy award-winning singer/musician Charlie Daniels regularly writes and posts opinion pieces about current political topics to the "Soapbox" section of the Charlie Daniels Band web site. As he notes in his periodic explanations of his efforts: Soapbox explanations From time to time in this column I feel somewhat obligated to explain myself, what I am, what I believe and what I am attempting to do by writing the things I write. It seems that as we acquire new readers there is some misunderstanding of what the soapbox is all about, so here we go again. First of all, this column is a series of essays made up of my personal opinion, my experiences and my beliefs.  I don't claim that the essays in this column represent anybody but myself. As far as the intellectual content is concerned it is being written by a man with limited formal education and the grammar, punctuation and spelling may from time to time leave something to be desired, but I will however, get my point across. I happen to believe very strongly in the things I write about, from the point of a private citizen who happens to love his country and its people and wants what he considers best in the national interest. My articles will range from the profound to the ridiculous, the sad to the humorous, the informative to the inane. It is not meant to be a news column and I'm not good at remembering dates and names. This above-quoted "The Press and Paula Dean" article was published by Charlie on 1 July 2013 in response to a racial discrimination controversy involving celebrity chef Paula Deen that broke in June 2013, stemming from a lawsuit filed by a former employee of restaurants owned by Deen and her brother, Earl "Bubba" Hiers. The Press and Paula Dean Last updated:  8 July 2013 Admit it: When the federal government decided last fall to spend hundreds of billions to stabilize banks through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, you thought the money was as good as gone. Not so, President Barack Obama said at the White House on June 9, 2009. Several financial institutions are set to pay back $68 billion to taxpayers, he said. And while we know that we will not escape the worst financial crisis in decades without some losses to taxpayers, it's worth noting that in the first round of repayments from these companies the government has actually turned a profit. A quick summary of how we got to this point: As part of the TARP, the government invested about $200 billion in 600 banks across the country, essentially buying up preferred stock. A lot of banks now want out. The government money came with strings, including restrictions on executive compensation. Plus, there was a stigma attached to participating in the government program. On June 9, the Treasury Department announced that 10 of the largest financial institutions that participated in the Capital Purchase Program (through TARP) have been approved to repay $68 billion. Yes, they had to be approved to repay the money. The companies had to prove they no longer needed the money, because the government doesn't want them begging for more down the road. To date, those 10 companies have paid dividends on their preferred stock to the Treasury totaling about $1.8 billion, the Treasury announced. Overall, dividend payments from all of the 600 bank participants has come to about $4.5 billion so far. That's commensurate with the 5 percent (annualized) dividend return that was part of the terms of the program. Now, the government borrowed the money it invested in the banks, and so dividends from the preferred stock are offset by interest the government has had to pay on its loans. But that interest rate has been lower than the 5 percent dividend rate. So when the companies repay the loans, it will result in some profit to the government, banking analysts told us. There's another potential profit center. As part of the deal with banks, the federal government received warrants to buy stock at a future date (with the hope that as the economy improved and bank stock value rose, the government could share in the bounty). According to the Treasury announcement on June 9, firms that repay their preferred stock have the right to repurchase those warrants at fair market value. Experts believe that could fetch the government several billion dollars. That's in addition to the dividends. David John, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said that while it's accurate to say the government is turning a profit on these specific transactions, it was so costly to create the TARP that you can't say the overall program is a moneymaker. And, John said, the 10 financial institutions that will be repaying the Treasury are among the strongest. It remains to be seen how the others will fare, he said. It's way too soon to judge the entire program, John said. I'd be surprised if it ends up anything better than break-even. Still, the public too often tagged TARP as a bailout, said John Hall, a spokesman for the American Bankers Association. It's as if people thought money was handed out to banks, Hall said. It wasn't. And it drove us nuts. The government has turned a profit. It made money plus some. Bank analyst Bert Ely said while the government may end up losing money on investments in some financial firms, it's likely the entirety of the bank portion of the TARP will ultimately turn a profit. The 5 percent paid in dividends on preferred stock purchased by the Treasury will certainly outpace the interest rate on money borrowed to finance the program, he said. And the warrants could also prove profitable. People think the government gave banks money, Ely said. They made investments in banks. As for Obama's claim, he is careful to note that the overall program could still cost taxpayers money, but he is correct to say the government turned a profit on the first round of repayments. We rate his statement True. A somewhat disturbing image of an unknown animal's feet has been circulating online for several years, alongside a variety of claims about its origins. In March 2018, the photograph was re-purposed and shared as if the creature whose prints it captured had been spotted recently on a game trail in Cleburne County, Alabama: photograph   We have not been able to identify the source of this photograph. However, the claims made in recent Facebook posts about it are false: This picture was not taken in March 2018, and the animal it captured traces of (if any) did not destroy a trail camera or kill an Alabama farmer's livestock. This image has been online since at least as far back as October 2015, when it was shared on Instagram along with a story about a sailor in Oman who was "shocked" to find the image on his camera. This photograph has also been used to illustrate similar stories about a strange creature that was supposedly found in India, Brazil, andHawaii. Needless to say, we're skeptical that this exact same photograph was pulled from cameras in so many different locations and times. Instagram India Brazil Hawaii So what does this picture actually show? While this image is frequently claimed to depict evidence of a lobisomem, South America's version of a werewolf, we're fairly certain that this is a dog (or another extant species) suffering from mange: "Mange (demodicosis) is an inflammatory disease in dogs caused by various types of the Demodex mite. When the number of mites inhabiting the hair follicles and skin of the dog become exorbitant, it can lead to skin lesions, genetic disorders, problems with the immune system and hair loss (alopecia)." mange In fact, the paws in this viral photograph closely resemble a 2014 photograph taken by the School of Veterinary Medicine and Science at the University of Nottingham, UK, of a dog suffering from a severe case of sarcoptic mange: photograph Stephen Colbert has intervieweda slew ofpresidential candidates in the first weeks of his new job hosting CBSThe Late Show, including Jeb Bush, Donald Trump, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. His time with Cruz on Sept. 21 stood out for a fact-filled back and forth about a major Republican role model, President Ronald Reagan. Colbert asked Cruz if he could agree with Reagans support of amnesty for undocumented immigrants and record of raising taxes amid budget shortfalls. Cruz said of course not before pivoting to Reagans most conservative accomplishments, one being that he signed the largest tax cut in history and spurred economic growth. You know, when Reagan came in, from 1978 to 1982, economic growth averaged less than 1 percent a year. Theres only one other four-year period where thats true. Thats true from 2008 to 2012, Cruz said. Colbert jumped in, saying But when conditions changed in the country, he reversed his worlds largest tax cut and raised taxes when revenues did not match the expectations. So its a matter of compromising. PolitiFact explored Cruzs point about economic growth inanother fact-check. We wondered if Colberts retort was on the money or overstated. (Its our first fact-check ofColbertin his new role  and the first one in five years, period.) Did Reagan really shift course on tax cuts when the growth stopped? A CBS press contact did not return an email for comment. Reagans tax cut As Cruz said, the Gipper really did cut taxes  with the help of Congress  in his first year as president. The largest tax cut in history that Cruz mentioned is in reference to the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, a $38 billion phased-in cut ($99 billion in 2015 dollars). Put in the way that economists prefer to discuss tax cuts, it represented 1.91 percent of the countrys gross domestic product. This law included across-the-board cuts of about 30 percent to statutory income tax rates. As Colbert said, Reagan raised taxes, too. Two laws, one in 1982 and another in 1984, were especially dramatic. These laws generally raised taxes by removing tax loopholes, not by raising the tax rate, said Dean Baker, a liberal economist and co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Still, Baker said, the loopholes were big ones. Reagans tax increases 1982:The most significant tax increase Reagan signed was also the first. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (yes, another law with a very sexy name) increased taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP. The 1982 tax increase was probably the largest peacetime tax increase in American history, said economist Bruce Bartlett, who advised Reagan on domestic policy and then worked as Treasury deputy assistant secretary for economic policy in the George H.W. Bush administration. (An analysis by Jerry Tempalski, an analyst in the Office of Tax Analysis with the U.S. Department of the Treasury,agrees.) This law was driven by pressure to attack the federal budget deficit, as well as the impression that Reagans tax-cutting was partially responsible for lower-than-expected tax revenues. Bartlett, who reviewed Reagans tax record forTax Notesin 2011, cited aTreasury estimatethat the 1982 law raised taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP, or about $150 billion in modern dollars. Specifically, it rolled back some but not all of the 1981 tax cut for writing off equipment, and it repealed 1981 safe harbor leasing provisions, said Stephen J. Entin, senior fellow at the Tax Foundation and former deputy assistant secretary for economic policy in the Reagan administration. 1983:A law Reagan signed in 1983 aimed to keep Social Security afloat by increasing payroll taxes and taxing Social Security benefits for some high-earners. This cost $24.6 billion, or almost $50 billion in 2015 dollars, through 1988, according to an administrationestimate. 1984:The Deficit Reduction Act that Reagan signed rolled back part of the 1981 cut on buildings, Entin said, with the idea that Congress would enact spending cuts. But many of those cuts were either never enacted or were later restored, Entin said. This led to $25 billion in tax receipts. Reagan also signed tax increases in 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 (as well as a couple other laws with revenue reductions). So where does that leave Reagans tax record on the whole? Its mixed. On one hand, revenues were lower as ashare of GDPin his last year in office (17.6 percent of GDP in 1988) compared to the year before he took office (18.5 percent of GDP in 1980), according to the White House Office of Management and Budget. However, the thrust of the 1981 tax cut that Cruz touted on Colberts show didnt prove to have lasting effects on the whole. A 2006 Treasury Departmentanalysisoffers another view of the plunge after the 1981 law and the subsequent changes that wound it back. Reagans staff tallied up the effect of major legislation on tax receipts over his tenure for his final budget proposal (page 4-4). The 1981 tax cuts comprised most of the total $275 billion in tax relief, but the other side of the ledger listed $133 billion in cumulative tax increases. Thus, Reagan took back about half the 1981 tax cut with subsequent tax increases, Bartlett wrote. Our ruling Responding to Cruzs assertion that Reagan signed the largest tax cut in history, Colbert said he reversed it and raised taxes when revenues did not match the expectations. Legislation that Reagan signed over his time in office and raised taxes did not completely reverse the 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act. But the broader point Colbert makes is on point. Reagan agreed to raise taxes to deal with budget deficits, even if he wasnt enthusiastic about it. We rate the claim Mostly True. 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. In early June 2021, social media users shared a photograph that purportedly showed a billboard displaying a black-and-white image of billionaire Tesla CEO Elon Musk along with the message, "Defend billionaires. We're just like you."   We were unable to find any evidence that this billboard exists in the real world. There are no news reports about it, which would be surprising given that single tweets penned by Musk often spark headlines. Also, none of the posts containing the photo included any specific information, such as where this alleged billboard is located. headlines The image appears to be a joke poking fun at Musk and others among the mega-wealthy, a class of people who have been in the news lately for stories critical of wealth inequality and the fact that billionaires are able to avoid paying income taxes. avoid Another red flag: The image contains what appears to be an image of Musk that can be easily found on the internet and a black background, which other social media users have used to create their own billboards. Here are some examples.      While we're very skeptical this billboard exists anywhere, without definitive proof we're rating this as "Unproven" for now. This would not be the first time, however, that Musk has been trolled via billboard. trolled In late November and early December 2020, social media users shared posts claiming that former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who has been selected by President-elect Joe Biden to serve as climate envoy in his administration, owns multiple cars, yachts, homes, and a private jet. selected The source of this claim appears to be a "copypasta" meme circulating on social media platforms, meaning that people are copying and pasting text and sharing it without any accompanying supporting evidence. The intent of the posts appeared to be criticism of Kerry's lifestyle, which leaves a larger carbon footprint than the average person's. copypasta Here is an example, with the Facebook user's name cropped out for privacy:   The text of the post reads, "John Kerry as climate czar? Only Democrats could pick a guy with 6 houses, 12 cars, 2 yachts and a private jet to tell you that YOU should take the bus, don't eat meat, use electric cars and not fart to stop pollution." The block of text appears to be based on past news stories, many of them published in the lead-up to the 2004 presidential election, in which Kerry was the Democratic challenger to Republican incumbent President George W. Bush. Kerry's bid for the White House was unsuccessful, as Bush won a second term. But his campaign resulted in media scrutiny of his finances, namely wealth in his marriage that belongs mostly to his wife, Heinz ketchup heiress Teresa Heinz Kerry, with whom Kerry signed a prenuptial agreement. signed As we reported in 2004, the couple owned five homes at the time, with a combined value of roughly $29 million. She bought four of those before her marriage, and the couple jointly owned one. In 2017 the couple sold the home in Nantucket, which belonged to his wife's family, and purchased one in Martha's Vineyard. reported sold purchased The couple did make use of a luxury yacht, which brought Kerry scrutiny and criticism during the 2004 election cycle over reports that he docked it in Rhode Island to avoid paying higher taxes in Massachusetts. They sold it in 2017. Kerry has also made use of a private jet, but that, too, belongs to his wife. sold belongs The matter of the Kerrys' cars also came up in 2004, when news outlets reported that he owned multiple vehicles. At the time, he was criticized for calling on people to buy American-made products while his wife drove a German-made car. reported It is true that Kerry has made use of multiple homes, vehicles, a private jet and a yacht over the course of years, though much of the property belongs to his wife. It does appear, however, that the meme exaggerated the number of homes and yachts they have owned. Claim:  Alabama mom's Obamacare horror story gives America a glimpse of government run healthcare. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected on the Internet, December 2013] My family's journey with securing our new insurance under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) started on October 1, 2013.   I have decided to write this letter to let the American people know what it has been like for us.   We are a family of four, with two little boys' ages seven years old and three years old.   My husband and I have had full time jobs for 6 years and 13 years respectively.  We have been with the same two companies for those years.  We are a middle class family; we own our three bedroom two bath house, we own two cars, and previously provided our own insurance for the four of us.  We have coverage through Individual Blue from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama until 12/31/13. Our premiums have been $380.00 a month, which also included dental coverage for all four of us.  On October, 1, 2013 we received our letters like other Alabamians about our new premiums and plans for 2014 from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of Alabama.  When I opened our letter to say I had sticker shock was an understatement.  Our premiums for the Blue Saver Silver would now be $753.26. This included the ACA tax but did not include the additional $75.00 we would need to pay in order to keep dental for me and my husband.  So we would need to pay total $828.26 to keep health and dental insurance for the four of us.  This payment is roughly $64.00 less than what we pay for our mortgage each month.  I was outraged that anyone thought we could afford this.  Sure we have some savings, but with that price tag we would whittle it down to almost nothing very quickly.  I consider savings as a rainy day fund, a start to saving for the kids college, our retirement, etc.  I never dreamed in a million years we would need to use it to pay our insurance premiums each month  how in the world could this help the economy too?  [Rest of article here.] here Origins:  The item referenced above, an open detailing one Alabama woman's extreme difficulty and frustration in obtaining ACA-compliant health insurance coverage for her family (including her 7-year-old son with ADHD) was posted under the name of Karri Kinder on 23 December 2013 as the sole entry in a blog and was republished (without additional comment) by the Independent Journal Review on 31 December 2013. blog republished Certainly her experience is not unique in kind, as many residents of Alabama covered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) of Alabama (an insurer who has an 88% share of the state's health insurance market) found out at the end of 2013 that they would be paying much higher premiums for ACA-compliant coverage through BCBS: Doug Hoffman, who works statewide to help people sign up for benefits through the Affordable Care Act, just received a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama notice in the mail to find health insurance rates for his family have doubled. And  he's mad  at Blue Cross. "I just got my benefits renewal from Blue Cross for next year and they doubled my rate!" he wrote AL.com in an email. "I was paying $675 for a family premium (2 adults, one 22 yo dependent) with a $1,500 deducible. The new rate for a comparable plan is $1,360 with a $3,000 deductible. Basically they have doubled my costs." "It appears as though Blue Cross is taking advantage of the ACA by hiking rates big time," said Hoffman, who is based in Birmingham with Enroll Alabama. Others, who have received the notices from the state's dominant health insurer are mad as well  at Obamacare. "Obama thinks that he is making insurance affordable," wrote one reader to the Mobile Press Register Sound Off feature. "I just got a letter from my Blue Cross Blue Shield that if I want to keep their insurance it's going to cost me $300 more a month. I already pay $300 a month now and they're wanting right at $600 a month for this Affordable Care Act." Blue Cross posted an explanation for the rate hikes to its Facebook page, maintaining that several reasons are behind the increased premiums: more taxes and fees, a requirement to rate family members individually, and the elimination of health underwriting and waiting periods for preexisting conditions: explanation The new law requires all health insurance companies in the individual and small group markets to use a consistent rating method called "member level rating." For the individual market, this means each person on an insurance policy will now be rated based on age, whether he or she uses tobacco, and the county in which the policy holder lives. In the past Blue Cross was able to offer one family premium, no matter the size.  For family plans, most family members will now be rated individually. Once each person has been rated, the amounts are added together to get a family's premium cost. For children age 20 and younger, the oldest three children will be individually rated and included in the family premium amount.   As a result, larger families may experience higher premiums. As Mike Oliver noted in an article for AL.com, the elimination of health underwriting may have a substantial effect on health insurance premiums in that state: article "Alabama has allowed medical underwriting  you're going to be quoted a high premium if you have something wrong with you," said Michael Morrisey, director of the University of Alabama at Birmingham Lister Hill Center for Health Policy. "The Affordable Care Act abolishes medical underwriting." This means that those with expensive health problems will likely now jump in and buy coverage because it will be less expensive for them  or if they already have coverage  their rates will go down. But that also means rates will go up for everyone else as the insurer spreads that new cost around. "The thing that happens when you eliminate underwriting is that you lump dissimilar people together," Morrisey said. "When you combine groups, one group is better off and the other group is worse off"  in terms of premium prices. As a policy, the elimination of medical underwriting and preexisting condition clauses helps broaden access to health care coverage and that was the aim of its inclusion in the Affordable Care Act. Reformers say it eliminates insurers from "cherry-picking" and reduces uncompensated care. Karri Kinder subsequently posted followups to her original blog entry about her insurance issue, the update of 4 January 2014 stating that: Karri Kinder blog entry I do have some good news.  Because I decided to write my letter and speak out, people stepped up and helped us.  We were contacted on January 1, 2014 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  I was told by the woman I spoke with that she had read my letter and wanted to get her team involved and see what they could do to help us.  I recounted to her what was happening and that I had been advised to go ahead and sign me and my husband up for a plan on healthcare.gov.  We went with a lower cost plan because it was going to just be the two of us.  We had no idea what it was going to cost for the children once we got some answers.  So we went with BCBS Blue Value Saver plan.  The cost of the plan is $459.19.  We qualified for $255.00 in subsidies so the final cost of the plan to us is $204.19 each month.  I told the lady that I would cancel that plan if I needed to.  What we wanted was to have all of us on one plan like we always have been.  She said, "If the kids qualify for All Kids then I am pretty sure they have to go that route or you will have to buy them a plan at the normal rate."  So again we were told more than likely we will have to go through All Kids.  She took the rest of our information down and said she was getting her team to work on it and would either call us back or All Kids would contact us. Last updated:  4 January 2014    Oliver, Mike.   "Blue Cross in Alabama: We Didn't 'Cancel' Health Policies."   AL.com.  2 December 2013.    Walsh, Alex.   "Obamacare, Big Blue, and You."   AL.com.  31 December 2013. You comparison shop for cans of tuna. Mitt Romney rides on Donald Trumps jet.A new Obama campaign ad shows those scenes to hammer at the lifestyle differences between struggling middle-class Americans and the Republican presidential candidate. Then it takes aim at Romneys economic proposals.Now he has a plan, theadsays, that would give millionaires another tax break and raises taxes on middle-class families by up to $2,000 a year.We know from ourprevious reportingon Romneys tax plan that it offers across-the-board cuts, including for the very wealthy. But a new independent study offers broader perspective on how taxpayers at all income levels would be affected by Romneys plan. So we decided to take a look.Romneys tax plan We need to be clear from the start that the problem independent analysts, journalists and fact-checkers have with digging into Romney's tax plan is that much of the plan isn't yet known. Romneyhassuggestedgeneral parameters:  The rate cuts would be paid for without adding to the deficit. People at the high end will still pay the same share of the tax burden theyre paying now. Everyone would see tax rate reductions. He has outlined specific tax cuts on hiscampaign website. They include: cutting marginal rates by 20 percent on a permanent, across-the-board basis; eliminating interest, dividend and capital gains taxes for taxpayers earning less than $200,000; eliminating the estate tax; and repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax.Romney would also cut the corporate rate to 25 percent. To offset those cuts, Romney hashinted thathe would eliminate some common tax write-offs and deductions for people with high incomes. The effect of Romney's plan Knowing all that, the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution that evaluates tax proposals submitted by presidential candidates,examinedthe effect of Romneys tax rate cuts combined with the elimination of several common tax deductions. Those include the mortgage interest deduction, charitable giving deduction and the exclusion for health insurance. The center published its findings on Aug. 1, 2012. To try and keep with Romney's guiding principles, the authors eliminated deductions and write-offs -- starting with the deductions for top earners first -- until they came up with enough revenue to offset the $360 billion in tax cuts that are part of Romney's plan. They determined that people who earn $1 million or more in taxable income would see an average net tax decrease of $87,117. Theyd save $175,961 from Romney's tax cut, but lose $88,444 in deductions. They would still get a tax cut, said Adam Looney, one of the authors. The dollar value of the tax cuts is just way bigger than the mortgage interest and other deductions. Theres no way to implement this plan in a way that doesnt result in a pretty big tax cut for that group (those making more than $1 million).People who earn between $500,000 and $1 million would see a cut of about $17,000, and taxes for people with incomes between $200,000 and $500,000 would decrease by about $1,800, the study found. But to make Romney's plan revenue neutral, deductions would also have to be removed for people with incomes below $200,000, and the effects of that would be significant, the study found. In fact, the elimination of the deductions would mean outright tax increases for everyone with incomes below $200,000. People with taxable income between $50,000 and $75,000, for example, would see an average net tax increase of $641. Theyd save $984 from Romney's rate cut, but lose $2,672 in write-offs.The authors specifically noted that taxpayers with children whose income is below $200,000 would see their taxes go up by an average of $2,041 -- the figure highlighted in Obamas ad.The reason for the increase is that the most popular tax breaks heavily benefit middle- and lower-income families, the 95 percent of the population earning less than $200,000 who carry mortgage debt and use employer-provided health insurance. And though Romney has suggested he would focus on taking the deductions away from the wealthy, the study concluded that alone would not make up the difference of the revenue sacrificed when rates are slashed.Somebody has to foot the bill for those tax cuts, Looney said. You have to tap into middle- and lower-income households. Bottom line: the study found that Romney couldn't keep all his goals based on what we know about his plan.Romney campaigns responseWhen the study appeared online, the Romney campaignposted a responseon its website that did not specifically address the discrepancy.President Obama continues to tout liberal studies calling for more tax hikes and more government spending. We've been down that road before  and it's led us to 41 straight months of unemployment above 8 percent, said Romney spokesman Ryan Williams.Looney is a senior fellow in economic studies at Brookings who has a Ph.D. from Harvard University. He served on Obamas Council of Economic Advisers in 2009 and 2010.William Gale, another of the authors, is vice president of Brookings and director of its economic studies program. He served on President George H.W. Bushs Council of Economic Advisers.Lanhee Chen, the Romney campaigns policy director, later added in a press release that the study ignored the corporate tax rate cut Romney proposes and his deficit reduction plan.These glaring gaps invalidate the reports conclusions, Chen said. The Romney campaign said that the study ignored the assertion that lower tax rates will grow the economy -- which they say will translate into more tax revenues. That will help make the plan revenue neutral even with lower overall tax rates. Spending cuts, likewise, could help balance the tax cuts without having to raise taxes on people making less than $200,000. The study, for the record, did consider that possibility but concluded it was impossible to evaluate the effect of spending cuts without knowing what would be cut. They also noted that government spending tends to benefit low- and middle-income households. We find nothing in the study that distorts Romneys proposals. It makes assumptions favorable to Romney, namely that his plan would lead to greater economic growth and raise revenues. The Tax Policy Center, whose director is another former adviser to Bush, is well-respected for its unbiased work, and even the Romney campaign praised it in November 2011 for offering objective, third-party analysis. Our rulingObama said Romney is proposing a tax plan that would give millionaires another tax break and raises taxes on middle class families by up to $2,000 a year. The claims are based on a study by the Tax Policy Center, which used what Romney has said about his tax plan and attempted to calculate outcomes for different groups of taxpayers. The study prioritizes the idea that the plan would be revenue neutral. In that scenario, millionaires lose deductions, but the lower rates would still decrease their tax bill by an average of $87,000. Middle-class taxpayers would see lower tax rates, too, but the loss of exemptions and deductions would hit them harder. People making $200,000 or less a year would see their taxes rise by an average of about $2,000. The study is making the point that Romneys plan is untenable: to cut rates that much without adding to the deficit, something has to give. It necessarily makes some assumptions, and therefore these conclusions are not definite as long as the details of the plan remain unknown. For that reason, people should be cautious in calling this Romney's plan. We rate the claim Mostly True.