Americans now spend 100 days out of the year working for government before we even start working for ourselves.
On April 14, 2010, former Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin addressed a tea party event in Boston and tried to characterize the scale of the tax burden in the United States.Americans now spend 100 days out of the year working for government before we even start working for ourselves, she said.By making her point this way, Palin was using a yardstick that receives both attention and criticism every April 15, the day federal tax returns are due. So we thought it would be as good a time as any to look once again at the skirmishing over Tax Freedom Day. (Welast studied the questionmore than two years ago, when Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee cited a similar statistic.) Tax Freedom Day is the date when Americans . . . have earned enough money to pay this year's tax obligations at the federal, state and local levels, according to the Tax Foundation, the Washington, D.C.-based group that has calculated it for decades and also determined it retroactively back to 1900.The foundation calculates Tax Freedom Day by taking the amount of tax revenue collected and dividing it by national income created, producing an average tax burden for the U.S. economy as a whole. That percentage is then multiplied by 365 to calculate the number of days over the course of a year it would take to pay off the entire tax burden. (The calculation counts every day of the year, not adjusting for weekends, holidays or leap years. )To determine tax revenue, the foundation adds together individual income taxes paid at every governmental level; payroll taxes, the federal levies that fund Social Security and Medicare; sales and excise taxes, which are typically collected at the state and local level; corporate income taxes; property taxes; and other miscellaneous taxes such as those for car licenses, energy or mineral production and estates.The Tax Foundation also offers state-specific Tax Freedom Days. These range from 85 for Alaska (Palin's home state) and Louisiana to 117 for higher-tax Connecticut. But the national average is 99.So if we measure Palin by how closely her figure tracks with the current Tax Freedom Day statistic, she scores well. She rounded up from 99 to 100 -- close enough in our book -- and she used the national average rather than any state figure, which is appropriate.Still, before giving Palin the Truth-O-Meter seal of approval, we need to determine whether she described the number's meaning accurately. And this requires delving into the annual debate over how useful the Tax Freedom Day concept is.The Tax Foundation's loyal antagonist in this annual battle is the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. CBPP doesn't suggest that Tax Freedom Day is a bad statistic; it acknowledges that it's a perfectly fine tool if you need to compare the level of taxation in different countries, or measure how the tax burden has changed over time.However, CBPP does cite a number of complaints. We're ignoring a bunch that aren't addressed by Palin's comment, such as concerns over how the state-by-state tax burdens are calculated.The one criticism by CBPP that we do think is relevant to Palin's comment is the argument that Tax Freedom Day ignores differences in how much Americans of different income levels pay in taxes.The Tax Foundation's number represents an average tax burden for the economy as a whole. But CBPP argues that the foundation's number is not a good measure of what a typical taxpayer pays. To explain the difference, CBPP offers the following example:Suppose four families with incomes of $50,000 each pay $2,500 in taxes  5 percent of their income  while one wealthy family with income of $300,000 pays $90,000 in taxes  30 percent of its income. Total income among these five families is $500,000, and the total amount paid in taxes is $100,000. Thus, 20 percent of the total income of the five families goes to pay taxes. But the 20 percent figure is highly misleading as an indicator of the typical tax burden for families in this group, since four of the five families have tax rates just one-fourth of that amount.This is obviously an extreme case, and William Ahern, the Tax Foundation's director of policy and communications, countered that in the real world of taxation, the differences between taking a strict average (as the Tax Foundation does) and using a median figure (which would more closely reflect patterns of income distribution) aren't that great. CBPP cites research showing that the difference is significant.CBPP argues that there's enough income inequality in the United States, and enough progressivity in the tax code, to undermine the usefulness of Tax Freedom Day calculations. That's because a sizable majority of taxpayers must work significantly fewer days to pay off their tax bill -- and a minority must work significantly more days. So any attempt to suggest that Tax Freedom Day represents the experience of a typical American -- as opposed to one on the higher end of the income spectrum -- may be problematic.The good news for the Truth-O-Meter is that we don't have to resolve this dispute in order to rate Palin's comment -- we only need to make sure that Palin described accurately the statistic she was using. The bad news in this particular case is that Palin's phrasing is a bit elliptical, making it difficult to parse her words. Palin said, Americans now spend 100 days out of the year working for government before we even start working for ourselves. That's pretty close to what the Tax Foundation said in its own release -- Americans will work well over three months of the year  from Jan. 1 to April 9  before they have earned enough money to pay this year's tax obligations at the federal, state and local levels. Both Palin and the Tax Foundation avoid saying that Tax Freedom Day represents the experience of a typical American, which would have been a more problematic phrasing. Our graduated tax system, which is weighted more heavily on the wealthy, means that the average amount paid is skewed upward by a smaller number of wealthy people who pay a lot. In other words, there are many, many more people who would fall under the 100-day threshold mentioned by Palin than over it. We think listeners take Palin as referring to what a typical American pays in taxes, since she didn't specify otherwise. Leaving that impression in listeners' minds, we knock her statement down to Mostly True.
The Social Security "middle digit" rumor is yet another Big Brother conspiracy theory, this one purporting that the federal government and its policies help promote racism. We're told the fifth digit of Social Security numbers denotes race, thus identifying blacks and minorities to mortgage lenders, university admissions officers, employers, and others in application processes that should be color blind. Armed with the foreknowledge of who is black and who is white, perhaps the resumes and applications of African Americans are being shuffled to the bottom of the pile. It's a chilling thought because we know in our heart of hearts if an exploitable resource did exist for pegging sight unseen what color any of us was, there are bigots out there who would not hesitate to use it. Thankfully, it doesn't.   The e-mailed warnings quoted above are bunk; none of the digits in a Social Security number has anything to do with race. The only information 'hidden' in an SSN is where and when it was issued.  Each SSN is composed of nine digits, commonly written as three fields separated by hyphens: AAA-GG-SSSS. The first three-digit field is the area number and indicates what state was listed in the applicant's mailing address when the number was issued. Someone with a mailing address in Oregon, for instance, would have a SSN beginning with 540 to 544, while the SSN of someone with a mailing address in Alabama would begin with 416 to 424. The second set of numbers (a grouping of two, which includes the supposed infamous 'race' digit) shows when the SSN was issued, not to whom. Note that it does not directly correspond to the year of issue: a 42 in this field does not indicate this particular SSN was handed out in 1942. Different states go through this two-digit code at different rates.  Moreover, when a state is done with a particular group number, the next one it begins using comes off the line according to a numbering system which makes perfect sense to the government, but to no one else. (Even so, we're going to attempt to explain it here.) Before 1965, only half of the potential group numbers were used: odd numbers below ten and even numbers above nine. In 1965, the system was changed so that assignments continued with the low even numbers and the high odd numbers. Therefore, group numbers for each area number are exhausted in the following order:   Odd numbers, 01 to 09 Even numbers, 10 to 98 Even numbers, 02 to 08 Odd numbers, 11 to 99 The last four digits on an SSN are unique to the individual and are known as the series numbers. They are handed out in chronological order within each area and group number. Simply put, if two people living in the same area apply for a SSN during the same year, the first five digits of both numbers will be identical. If their applications hit the desk at the SSA at the same time, there will be a one-number difference, say, 3456 vs. 3457. Getting back to the 'race' digit  possessed of a better understanding of how the SSA assigns that number, we find that prior to 1965, a bushelful of SSNs with even numbers in this position were  generated (45) as compared to a mere handful of odd (5). The more densely populated the area, the greater the amount of group numbers exhausted, resulting in SSNs in highly-populated areas more closely patterning themselves to the pre-1965 nine-to-one optimal result for this field. In less populated areas, however, the discrepancy between odd and even is less noticeable, because the five odd numbers are used up first (e.g., if in Alaska only twenty group numbers have been used up, then five are odd and fifteen even, resulting in a three-to-1 ratio.) From 1965 on, group numbers continue to be assigned on the above basis, but now with the second set of potential codes (49 only this time; there is no 00) being called into service when the first fifty are used up. Consequently, group codes have to achieve a ten-to-one even-to-odd imbalance before the numbers begin resetting themselves towards parity. So how does this impact the rumor? At the wildest point of the numbering swing, the odds are 10-to-1 any given person's SSN group code is an even number. Therefore, the claim that "I polled 35 African-Americans, 34 had an EVEN fifth digit in their SS#, the 35th person was White/Puerto Rican," isn't all that surprising. Especially when you consider that the five odd group numbers were handed out first, it's almost a leadpipe cinch that the SSNs of most of the people you meet will contain an even group code. All of the foregoing can be summed up thusly: The first five digits of an SSN say nothing about who the number is assigned to  they merely reflect the state and year of issue. The last four digits are particular to the individual subscriber, but they're handed out randomly, with the sole determining factor being when the paperwork is processed. Other than his state of residence at the time of application, nothing about the SSN-holder's identity is coded into the number assigned to him. Let's face it, many of us don't trust the government. Any random tidbit that seems to confirm the rightness of that stance will be seized upon by those who already believe the worst of Uncle Sam. In this case, because Social Security numbers are constructed to conform with certain arcane and almost incomprehensible numbering schemes, it's not that far of a stretch to conclude that some of the 'secret information' encoded into them could be used against us. We already harbor mistrust over being identified by a number, and the revelation that secret stuff is going on with how the numbers are handed out only serves to heighten that anxiety. White, black, or green, no one likes being reduced to a number; it smacks too much of governmental impersonalization, and its Orwellian overtones disturb us. In the case of African-Americans, this more general unease is further enhanced because of how their government treated them in the past, as Patricia Turner, a University of California-Davis African-American and African Studies professor noted in her book, I Heard It Through the Grapevine: Rumor in African-American Culture:  There is no denying that African Americans have suffered unduly at the hands of the government. The Social Security number theory's got that sort of element of the government wanting to track Black people.  It's a theory typical of a suspicion or mistrust of the government that also exists in the non-Black community. Segments of the white community initially resisted implementation of the Social Security card system because they didn't like the idea of Big Brother government nationally numbering people" Additional information:  The SSN Numbering Scheme  (Social Security Administration)    A Myth About Social Security Numbers  (Social Security Administration)   Blocksma, Mary.   Reading the Numbers.
  New York: Penguin, 1989  ISBN 0-140-10654-5  (pp. 162-164).
 Reading the Numbers Johnson, L.A.  "Cyberconspiracy Theories."
  Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  30 July 1998  (p. E1).  Turner, Patricia.  I Heard It Through the Grapevine.
  Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California, 1993.   ISBN 0-520-08185-4  (pp. 103-104). I Heard It Through the Grapevine One of Donald Trumps signature issues in his 2016 presidential bid has been stopping the outflow of American jobs to other countries. During avisitto Delaware, Ohio, heciteda recent example of a major American company moving some of its work out of the United States. Companies like Carrier are firing their workers and moving to Mexico, Trump said. Ford is moving all of their small-car production to Mexico. When I'm president, if a company wants to fire their workers and leave for Mexico or other countries, then we will charge them a 35 percent tax when they want to ship their products back into the United States. Is it really true that Ford is moving all of their small car production to Mexico? Well take a closer look. On Sept. 14, 2016, Ford CEO Mark Fields announced at an event with Wall Street analysts that we will have migrated all of our small-car production to Mexico and out of the United States over the next two to three years, according toReuters. Ford had already announced that it would be investing $1.6 billion in Mexico for small-car production starting in 2018. During contract talks in 2015, Ford confirmed that it would move Focus and C-Max production out of its Wayne, Mich., plant in 2018. The United Auto Workers Union said at the time that Ford planned to build the next Focus in Mexico, Reuters reported. The Focus and the C-Max are considered small cars. The company cited declining interest among U.S. consumers for smaller cars and growing sales for bigger vehicles in an era of low gasoline prices. It also cited Mexican labor costs that are about 40 percent lower than than in the United States. That's what it takes to compete in that (small car) segment, Fields toldCNN. So Trump is right that the company is moving all small-car production in North America to Mexico. However, he overlooked a salient point -- that both the company and the United Auto Workers do not expect any jobs to be lost at the Wayne plant. Instead of building small cars, the Wayne facility will transition into producing SUVs and pickup trucks that are more popular in the United States. Our U.S. workforce at that plant will be making those new vehicles, said Ford spokeswoman Christin Tinsworth Baker. In the past five years, Ford has invested $12 billion in U.S. plants and created nearly 28,000 U.S. jobs, Baker said. In all, the company has 85,000 U.S. employees. In a September interview with Fox News, Trump mischaracterized the changes at Ford, saying the company planned to fire all their employees in the United States and  move to Mexico. The company aggressively countered that allegation. In an interview withCNN, Fields was asked whether the company would cut any U.S. jobs as part of the relocation of work to Mexico. He said, Absolutely not. Zero. Not one job will be lost. Most of our investment is here in the U.S. And that's the way it will continue to be. In his speech in Ohio, however, Trump stuck closer to the facts. Our ruling Trump said that Ford is moving all of their small-car production to Mexico. Thats correct as far as it goes, but framing it that way ignores an important qualifier -- that no U.S. jobs will be lost in the transition. The company says that workers at the Ford plant in question will instead make SUVs and pickups. We rate the statement Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/0f5ed3db-289b-4d1c-a1d6-4c03ac61e82e To build or to renovate?That is the question Atlanta leaders are grappling with as the Atlanta Falcons have discussed plans with city and state officials to build a $1 billion retractable-roof stadium downtown and demolish the 20-year-old Georgia Dome.The key to any deal is the City Councils approval of a commitment by Atlanta to finance about 20 percent of the total cost using bonds backed by a hotel-motel tax. Thats a bargain when you compare it with other recent stadium deals across the country, some city officials say.Of the 18 stadiums built from 2004 to 2013, 47 percent of the total cost came from public sources, Atlanta Chief Operating Officer Duriya Farooqui said at the first public hearing on the proposed deal.Her boss, Mayor Kasim Reed, is a vocal proponent of a new stadium.The claim was included in a slide presentation Reeds staff prepared on stadium construction costs for the hearing in the City Councils chambers. The Feb. 13 meeting drew so much interest that additional spectators watched the proceedings on television from another room.PolitiFact Georgia wanted to know whether the claim was accurate, or is the public investment in professional sports facilities far less than the mayors staff is letting on?Reeds spokeswoman, Sonji Jacobs, referred us to a report on the sports news website Deadspin.com that had the information the mayors staff used in its presentation. Deadspin was the site that broke the Manti Teo girlfriend hoax story. [P]rivate funding (53 percent) has actually surpassed public funding for the first time in decades, Deadspin wrote.The percentage of public funding for sports facilities has decreased in recent decades, as taxpayers have become less tolerant of their money going to stadiums or arenas with teams owned by enormously wealthy owners.Lawmakers have tried to become more creative in public financing of the construction of sports facilities, using lodging taxes on out-of-towners, a ticket tax, public parking revenue, taxes from car rentals and other sources. There are also the more traditional methods of funding these multimillion-dollar projects, such as collecting the money from sales taxes.In the past decade, eight of the 18 facilities were built for Major League Baseball franchises, four for pro football, four for National Basketball Association teams and two for National Hockey League teams.The cost of the stadiums range from as low as the $250 million to build the FedEx Forum in Memphis, Tenn., home of the NBAs Memphis Grizzlies, to $1.6 billion for MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J. The NFLs New York Giants and Jets share use of MetLife Stadium, the site of next years Super Bowl.By our own count, these 18 sports facilities cost a combined $11.7 billion to build. The public contribution toward these projects totaled about $5.6 billion, 48 percent of the total cost.We wanted to look at the public investment in sports facilities that cost $1 billion or more to build since that is the projected cost of the proposed stadium in Atlanta. There were four venues in that category: MetLife Stadium; Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, Texas; the Barclays Center in New York City; and Yankee Stadium, also in New York City. The public investment in those facilities was about 18 percent. Again, the current discussion in Atlanta is a 20 percent public investment in a new football stadium downtown.Jacobs, the mayors spokeswoman, noted that most of the billion-dollar sports venues were built in the New York City area, where land and construction costs are typically higher. She also noted that MetLife Stadium is shared by two teams, and she believes that skews any comparison of the billion-dollar venues.Four of the five teams that play in the billion-dollar venues have a higher net worth than the Falcons, who ranked 28th among the NFLs 32 teams, according to Forbes. Heres the most recent Forbes breakdown:Dallas Cowboys:     $1.85 billion.New York Yankees:    $1.85 billion.New York Giants:    $1.3 billion.New York Jets:    $1.23 billion.Atlanta Falcons:    $814 million.Brooklyn Nets:        $530 million.The Falcons are owned by Arthur Blank (who has a reported net worth of $1.5 billion and whom Forbes lists at the 329th-richest American). Blank sits on the board of directors of Cox Enterprises, which owns The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.But the owners of the teams in the billion-dollar venues are super rich. For example, Nets majority owner Mikhail Prokhorov is reportedly worth $13.2 billion. Cowboys owner Jerry Jones has a net worth of $2.7 billion, Forbes reports. Jets owner Woody Johnson is part of a family that is worth about $13 billion.On the other end of the cost spectrum, the least expensive projects had a higher percentage of public funding. For example, the FedEx Forum was built through an authority created by the city of Memphis and Shelby County. The authority included a $1.15-per-ticket surcharge to help pay construction costs, according to newspaper accounts.Since Farooquis claim included smaller and, typically less-costly arenas, we also decided to break down the public investment in facilities solely used by baseball and football teams, since Atlanta is considering a football stadium. Our examination shows the public investment in those 12 facilities was 44 percent. Thats pretty close to the claim.Jacobs said the best comparison is between the Falcons proposal and other multiuse stadiums. There were three retractable-roof stadiums built in the past decade. The public investment in them were 27 percent (Arlington), 68 percent (Phoenix) and 86 percent (Indianapolis).Our conclusion:Farooqui said in her presentation that 47 percent of the cost of 18 pro sports facilities built in the past decade came from public sources. Our examination of the claim showed the estimate is on target, even if you remove arenas.The public investment, though, in other billion-dollar stadiums is much less than 47 percent. We believe this context is necessary to fully understand Farooquis statement.We rate Farooquis claim as Mostly True. On 26 February 2016, Facebook user Karl de la Guerrapublished an "Officer Warning" post alongside several pictures showing agun disguised as a cell phone which was presented a threat to police: Karl de la Guerra post   The photographs were shared tens of thousands of times, often as a warning to officers to remain vigilant, but the pictured item was neither illegal nor widely available at the time.According to the Facebook page"IDEAL Conceal  Patent Pending," the depicted weapon was marketed to licensed gun owners as a discreet method of carrying: page [We i]nvented a new style of self-defense. Looks like a cellphone when folded up, but push the saftey and you are ready to defend yourself. On 22 February 2016, the page posted an image indicating that the manufacturer advocated the guns to protect (not harm) police officers:  YEPPER! Posted by IDEAL Conceal - patent pending onMonday, February 22, 2016 IDEAL Conceal - patent pending Monday, February 22, 2016 In a separate post, the company responded to a user interested in purchasing the concept gun: Prototype phase is finishing up, production mid-2016[.] Subsequent comments indicated that the concept was marketed at gun enthusiasts, not criminals: What you're seeing is a 3D model. Production will begin mid-summer. Planning to show first proto-type in May at the NRA show in Loiseville!! STAY TUNED! IDEAL Conceal's website listed a projected price ($395) and a target market: website Specializing in concealed weaponry, we aim to deliver a high quality handgun that can be deployed very quickly for the defense of you or your family. The idea for Ideal Conceal follows the present-day demand for handguns that people can carry on a day to day basis, in a manner that makes carrying a gun easy to do. From soccer moms to professionals of every type, this gun allows you the option of not being a victim. Our mission is to promote security and public safety by designing and manufacturing innovative and unparalleled products engineered to protect ... The unrivaled Ideal Conceal pistol is a carefully engineered double barreled derringer. Cunningly designed to look like a smartphone when folded up, one click of the safety and youre ready to go. This product is a defensive weapon designed with the utmost safety in mind. On 28 February 2016, de la Guerra posted an updated about his original claim (but didn't delete the first one): Friday morning I posted some information I found in a foreign publication regarding a .380 double barrel pistol designed to appear like a cell phone. As those of you who have followed me on FB for a while know, I regularly post information on dangerous items that can potentially cause harm to those in public safety. This is merely an extension of my work as a protective services instructor. Since I posted that last piece of information, the FB friend requests I have received has rapidly increased. And since I know none of these people, I can only assume that they took an interest in my post. In some cases it appears that interest is of a negative context. To further clarify my position, I have taken the liberty of posting a FB message I received this morning (no names mentioned) and my associated response.  Friday morning I posted some information I found in a foreign publication regarding a .380 double barrel pistol designed... Posted by Karl de la Guerra onSunday, February 28, 2016 Karl de la Guerra Sunday, February 28, 2016 The rumor strongly resembled earlier warnings about purported Super Soaker modifications as "new gang trends," or a claim that gang members were removing lug nuts from officers' vehicles. All instances seemed to involve warnings rooted in things folks imagined criminals might be doing, rather than informationabout things that criminals actually were doing. Super Soaker lug nuts IDEAL Conceal told us that the device wasdesigned for officers (and others) to carry guns discreetly and legally, and that the manufacturers are strong supporters oflaw enforcement: Thanks so much for taking the time to contact us. We totally support law enforcement. Further, we would never promote or make a product for ambushing anyone, let alone police. In fact we have received MANY requests from Law Enforcement to purchase this weapon for undercover and off duty officers. This gun is for people who need or want to carry to protect themselves. Also, this pistol cannot be fired from the closed position as people assume. This is just an everyday type of conceal carry handgun. Also, it is not even on the market yet. Will come out mid-2016. Thanks again for contacting us. Hopefully you can help correct this dreadful rumor. The gun's makers expressed support for both police and the National Rifle Association, and the stealth gun didn't appear to be in any way a covert criminal effort to get the jump on cops. Also, peoplereaching for actual phones and wallets have been shot by officers in the past, making the premise that carryinga phone-shaped gunin your pocket was an effective way to target police officers extremelyshaky. actual phones wallets However, cell phone guns were not unheard of before this. In the past fifteen years, various warningshave been sounded about guns disguised as phones (and other everyday objects) but this is the first time that they appear to have been marketed to mainstream gun enthusiastsin theUnited States. warnings Remember those nerdychartsthat Ross Perot flashed during his third-party run for president in 1992?The Texas billionaires visual aids warned of the perils of Americas mounting government debt.Twenty years later, Wisconsins junior U.S. Senator, RepublicanRon Johnson, is taking a page from Perot as he acts as a surrogate for Mitt Romney and advocates for a spending slowdown.Explaining one of hisdigital chartsduring a Sept. 11, 2012 campaign stop in Sheboygan, Johnson ripped Obama forsayinghis administrations proposedBuffett ruletax plan for million-dollar earners would stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade.I havent yet publicly called President Obama a liar, Johnsontold his audience. But Im saying he lies. Slight diplomatic difference.Johnson said the Buffett rule would raise just $5 billion a year. Hes right, as PolitiFact Ohio found in ratingTruea claim by Sen. Rob Portman that it would bring in less than $5 billion per year. ... Enough to pay one weeks interest on the national debt.Johnsons presentation uses a chart to contrast the Buffett Rules revenue potential to the deficits accumulated under Obama (2009-2012) and over the two terms of his predecessor, Republican George W. Bush (2001-2008).The chart shows deficits totalling $2 trillion in eight years under Bush, and $5.3 trillion under Obama in just four years. A caption on the chart says those deficits exploded during the Obama administration.Is Johnson right on the deficit numbers and their rapid growth?As backup, Johnsons campaign cited numbers from the White HousesOffice of Management and Budget.The figures show red-ink budgets in seven of eight years that coincide with Bushs term. The annual deficits totalled $820 billion in his first term and nearly $1.2 trillion in his second.Add them up and theres the $2 trillion figure cited by Johnson.That same White House table shows four years of deficits for 2009-12, the time frame that coincides with the Obama era, ranging from $1.29 trillion to $1.4 trillion. The total, including estimated figures for 2012, is $5.33 trillion.Thats nearly triple the Bush deficit figure, in half the time.It seems simple, with the numbers and the trend matching up with Perots, er, Johnsons chart.We wish it were that simple.But there is considerable disagreement in academic and political circles over how to assign responsibility to presidents for spending and deficits.Using the same table and a slightly different approach can put a somewhat different spin on the trend line -- though we found no scenario under which the Bush-era deficits top those under Obama.Heres why.The big question any researcher faces is when to start and end the clock when looking at spending and deficit by presidents.It would be tidy to start the clock on Inauguration Day, but the federal budget year begins Oct. 1. That means an incoming president inherits a budget-in-progress from his predecessor, though he often makes changes.That timing mismatch makes a pretty big difference, for example, in pinning deficit numbers on Bush and Obama.To wit: Democrat Bill Clintons last budget, for fiscal 2001, resulted in a surplus of $128 billion -- the last black-ink budget on record. But Johnson attributed that surplus to Bush, who entered office Jan. 20, 2001. Johnson argues that once elected the budget can be changed by the new president.Similarly, on the back end of the Bush years, Johnson gives the eye-popping 2009 deficit of     $1.4 trillion all to Obama -- even though Obama was working with Bushs last budget, which took effect in October 2008, during the final months of Bushs second term.That methodology becomes even more important when you consider that just before Bush left office, the deficit for fiscal year 2009 already was projected to be $1.2 trillion, according to the scorekeeping agency for Congress, as reported byPolitiFact.So, Johnson attributes the 2009 deficit entirely to Obama even though much it was already anticipated before the Democrats inauguration. (By the end of the 2009 fiscal year, the deficit rose to $1.4 trillion in part due to Obamas economic stimulus plan).What about Johnsons methodology?We asked three experts who closely follow the budget, and each said there is no consensus on how to attribute the overlapping budget years.Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, said apportioning responsibility is really tricky.Looking at what has happened -- budget deficit-wise -- during the Bush and the Obama presidencies doesnt tell the whole picture because of the differences of the fiscal year and impacts of policies that were enacted prior to either of them assuming office, Ellis wrote in an email.Still, Ellis said he considered Johnsons numbers correct even if the presentation was simplistic.Whats more, there are some extra complicating factors unique to the Bush-Obama changeover, such as how best to parcel out the deficit blame for such things as Bushs major tax cuts and Obamas more modest tax trims, two wars that overlap their presidencies, two recessions, a Wall Street bailout that each supported, and major new programs under each (Medicare prescription drugs, stimulus).The Great Recession of 2007-2009, which fueled deficits when tax collections fell, also overlapped the two presidencies.Jason Peuquet, research director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said Johnsons numbers were defensible. He suggested looking at theincrease in debt-- as opposed to deficits -- because it can be tracked to the day a president starts and ends a term.By that measure, we found a $4.9 trillion increase in gross public debt in Bushs two terms vs. $5.4 trillion so far in Obamas single term.Gary Burtless, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said there is no good answer to your question that is going to satisfy everyone.Our ratingJohnsons chart showed $2 trillion in deficits under Bush and $5.3 trillion under Obama, and concluded that deficits exploded during the Obama administration.The numbers check out, but comparing presidents budget records is not as simple as Johnsons chart suggests. For instance, Bush owns some debatable piece of the Obama deficits.We rate Johnsons claim Mostly True. Following controversial airstrikes on Syria in April 2018, a 2017 article published by repeat offender YourNewsWire.com with the claim that Hillary Clinton voiced support for destroying Syria in a "leaked" e-mail popped up and began to circulate again: Syria article Lest We Forget  Hillary Clinton: We Must Destroy Syria For israel https://t.co/VxkzUu1IkE pic.twitter.com/Zf4iagpqsv https://t.co/VxkzUu1IkE pic.twitter.com/Zf4iagpqsv  Michael Lee (@MichaelLee2009) April 15, 2018 April 15, 2018  The piece included a screenshot of what were purportedly Clinton's views taken from an e-mail, as well as quotes: Clinton Email: We Must Destroy Syria For Israel [...] The best way to help Israel deal with Irans growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad, Clinton forthrightly starts off by saying. Even though all US intelligence reports had long dismissed Irans atom bomb program as a hoax (a conclusion supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency), Clinton continues to use these lies to justify destroying Syria in the name of Israel. She specifically links Irans mythical atom bomb program to Syria because, she says, Irans atom bomb program threatens Israels monopoly on nuclear weapons in the Middle East.   A nearly identical claim (since deleted) was published by a separate site in March 2016. Both attribute the text of the purported e-mail to Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State, a position she held for approximately four years between 2009 and 2013. published held The text is indeed a part of WikiLeaks' "Hillary Clinton Email Archive," and the title search returns three documents in that data set. The same document was also available via FOIA.state.gov [PDF]. three FOIA.state.gov PDF Although its content was characterized as an e-mail authored by Hillary Clinton, that is misleading. It appears that she actually received and forwarded an attachment from James P. Rubin. In all three documents (two forwards and an attachment) it is clear that Rubin authored and sent the commentary to Clinton, stating in his preface that the then-Secretary of State "may not agree" with his stance on Syria: forwarded attachment James P. Rubin commentary From: James P. RubinSent: Monday, April 30, 2012 11:03 AMTo: H Subject: Best of luck on China trip First, I want to wish you and Kurt best of luck getting out of the pickle Mr Chen has you in as you arrive in China. I wanted to pass on something I intend to publish on Syria and Iran, because I think it is worth trying to urge the President and his political advisers to act. As you can see from today's column by Jackson Diehl, the pundits and many in the media will push the Syria issue very hard for the foreseeable future. It may not be on the front burner every day, but it will be close to or at the top of the media's attention indefinitely. Interestingly, the Republicans have showed their hand on the foreign policy debate, in which inaction on Syria is pretty much the only serious criticism they can offer that will stick. As you will see from the attached piece, I believe that action on Syria will forestall the biggest danger on the horizon, that Israel launches a surprise attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Although the pressure has now eased for a variety of reasons, it will return. Action by Washington on Syria, on the other hand, I believe will eliminate much of the urgency for Israeli action. In other words, a more aggressive policy on Syria will eliminate the best case the republican's have going into the November election, will ease substantially the pressure on Israel to attack Iran and possibly spark a wider war in the Middle East, and finally would be the right stance on Syria going forward. I know you may not agree but I thought it was better to share this with you first as at least a new way to look at the problem. All best, your friend,Jamie James P. Rubin Walsh, Nick Paton.  "What Do The US, UK And French Airstrikes Mean For Syria's War?"
  CNN.  15 April 2018. Claim:  Several million fewer dependents were claimed on federal income tax returns the year the IRS started requiring taxpayers to list the Social Security numbers of their children. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] I had read at some point that millions of dependents dropped off the 1040 forms the year that the IRS required social security numbers. This seems incredibly high, but I know that it was a fact that there had been a lot of divorced parents both claiming the same children as dependents and people claiming their pets.   Origins:  The U.S. federal income tax code requires residents to be responsible for their own taxes  that is, it's up to each taxpayer to reckon his income, determine his allowable deductions, and file a tax return with the Internal Revenue Service (or to hire someone to do it for  him).  Such a system allows (some say it even encourages) taxpayers to cheat, engaging in everything from fudging the line between business and personal expenses to hiding large amounts of unreported income.  Although tax fraud may never be completely eliminated, the increasing use of automated record-keeping and tracking technology has made many of the more common cheating schemes quite difficult, if not impossible, to pull off successfully these days. Given how often we're asked to provide our Social Security numbers  (they seem to used for just about everything these days), those of us who began paying federal income tax only in the last twenty years might be surprised to discover that not until 1987 did the IRS begin requiring taxpayers to include the Social Security numbers of all dependent children claimed on their returns.  After all, listing phony dependents in order to claim illegitimate extra deductions has historically been one of the more common forms of tax fraud, so it makes sense the IRS would always have wanted to track such information as closely as possible. This is the notion behind the legend  made familiar to many readers by the 2005 best-seller Freakonomics  that the  year the IRS did begin asking taxpayers to provide Social Security numbers for all dependent children, the number of claimed dependents suddenly dropped significantly: Some cheating leaves barely a shadow of evidence. In other cases, the evidence is massive. Consider what happened one spring evening at midnight in 1987: seven million American children suddenly disappeared. The worst kidnapping wave in history? Hardly. It was the night of April 15, and the Internal Revenue Service had just changed a rule. Instead of merely listing each dependent child, tax filers were now required to provide a Social Security number for each child. Suddenly, seven million children  children who had existed only as phantom exemptions on the previous year's 1040 forms  vanished, representing about one in ten of all dependent children in the United States. The "seven million" figure appears to be accurate, as noted in a December 2000 National Tax Journal article by Jeffrey B. Liebman that drew its data from a 1990 Internal Revenue Service conference report: article Another way in which taxpayers without children might claim a dependent child is to invent a fictional one. The strongest evidence for this possibility is that in 1987, the first year in which taxpayers were required to list social security numbers of dependents on their tax returns, 7 million fewer dependent children were claimed than in the previous year. The suggestion by the Freakonomics authors that most or all of that drop in the number of dependents claimed in 1987 was directly attributable to fraud was an obvious one but not necessarily the only one, as alternative explanations could have accounted for a substantial portion of the reduction in number of claimed dependents.  For example, it was not until 1987 that the IRS first demonstrated a program to allow parents to automatically obtain Social Security numbers for their newborn children when those births were registered, and the program did not become nationwide until 1989.  Since the average citizen doesn't generally keep abreast of all the changes made to the tax code from year to year until they directly affect him, perhaps many taxpayers sat down to fill out their returns in 1987 and didn't realize until it was too late that they had never applied for Social Security numbers for their children. 1987 However, the assumption that many taxpayers had previously claimed non-existent children until the newly-implemented Social Security number requirement made it much more difficult for them to safely do so is certainly an obvious one, and seems to be supported by additional information provided by Liebman: Further evidence that nonexistent children may have been claimed comes from the 1988 TCMP [Taxpayer Compliance Measurement Program]. In 1988, taxpayers were required to list on their tax returns the social security numbers of all dependents who were at least five years old. On tax returns where the TCMP auditor disallowed an EITC [Earned Income Tax Credit] claim, 39 percent of the disallowed dependent child claims were dependents for whom the taxpayer checked the box stating the child was under five and did not provide a social security number  possibly because the children did not exist. Likewise, although followup reports in subsequent years noted that some portion of the previously claimed dependents who went "missing" in the 1987 tax year were indeed real people who were not claimed as dependents in 1987 for reasons other than their being fictitious (e.g., they were children who had in earlier years been unlawfully claimed as dependents by each of two divorced parents), the pattern of disappearing dependents in 1987 was indicative of widespread fraud: Starting in 1987, the I.R.S. required that taxpayers report the Social Security number of all dependents over the age of 5. That year 7 million American children disappeared from the nation's tax returns, representing a 9 percent drop in the 77 million dependents claimed the previous year and $2.9 billion more in yearly tax revenue. The tax agency said about 20 percent of the vanished dependents were children who had been claimed as dependents by both parents after a divorce. Under the law, only one parent may claim the child as a deduction. Most of the others probably never existed, John Szilagyi, an I.R.S. researcher, said. And some families apparently became quite greedy in creating dependents, each worth a $1,080 deduction in 1986, and $1,900 in 1987. About 66,000 taxpayers who claimed four or more dependents in 1986 claimed none in 1987, after the Social Security identification rule went into effect. And more than 11,000 families claimed seven or more dependents in 1986, but none in 1987. Those returns are now under investigation, with more than 1,000 audits in which the 1986 dependents were disallowed, and back taxes and fines collected. Mr. Szilagyi said some cases of apparent fraud have also been referred to the authorities for criminal investigation.  "In any individual family, you can imagine that one or two children might legitimately have stopped being dependents in 1987, but it's hard to imagine a legitimate situation in which a taxpayer had seven dependents one year and none the next," said Mr. Szilagyi, who drafted the proposal to require Social Security numbers from dependents and baby sitters. Mr. Szilagyi said his research indicates that there are probably four million to five million more dependents being claimed illegally, either because they are fictitious or do not legally qualify as dependents. Last updated:  15 April 2014 Freakonomics    Lewin, Tamar.  "I.R.S. Sees Evidence of Wide Tax Cheating on Child Care"   The New York Times.  6 January 1991.    Liebman, Jeffrey B.  "Who Are the Ineligible EITC Recipients?"   National Tax Journal.  December 2000  (pp. 1165-1186). Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO Since the start of the COVID-19 coronavirus in the United States in March 2020, a scam has been circulating on the internet falsely informing viewers that streaming giant Netflix was offering a free one-year subscription due to the pandemic. scam Here's an example of the scam we found circulating on Twitter, with the user's name cropped out for privacy reasons:   The text of the scam read, "Due to the CoronaVirus pandemic worldwide, Netflix is giving some free pass for their platform during the period of isolation. Run on the site cause it will end quick!" The post also included a link, which we cropped out because it is likely a phishing site. phishing Netflix is making no such offer, and in fact as of October 2020, it no longer even offered temporary free trials for potential subscribers. no longer In other Netflix-related scams, members of the public reported receiving emails and text messages from scammers posing as Netflix representatives, telling them they need to update their accounts. The company stated it wouldn't seek personal information, like banking or credit card numbers, in texts or emails. scams stated Some conservatives are pushing Gov. Scott Walker to use his second term to enact much deeper changes in Wisconsin government. When Walker got to office, Wisconsin was one of the worst states in the country in which to do business, with one of the highest regulatory and tax burdens,Mario Loyola, a senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation,wrote in the conservative National Reviewon Nov. 5, 2014. Some estimates now rate it as number 14 for doing business, but dont be deceived, Loyola wrote under the headline, Walkers Win: Why it was the most important GOP win in the country. He added: Wisconsins state budget is almost twice as large per person as the state budget of Texas, and even after billions in tax cuts, Wisconsins working families and businesses remain subject to a heavy tax burden. As Walker ramps up exploration of a 2016 presidential campaign, lets check the claim about spending and taxation in the Badger state. Well take the easy part first. Taxes Walker and Republican legislators have approved a variety of tax freezes and cuts. In March 2014, we ratedTruea Walker claim that hes delivered $2 billion in tax cuts, mainly by reducing income tax rates and limiting local property tax hikes. But an Oct. 14, 2014report by the Tax Foundationranked Wisconsin among the highest 10 states for business taxes on a scale that included corporate, individual income, sales, unemployment insurance and property taxes. Census figures on tax collections lag by two years, so they dont account for all of Walkers cuts. But the latest figures showed that property-tax and income-tax collections in Wisconsin run more than 25 percent above the national average,we reported. Theres ample evidence that Wisconsin is among the middle group of states when all sources of revenue are considered. But on taxes alone, the state remains closer to the top. Spending To back up his claim, Loyola, a University of Wisconsin-Madison graduate, pointed us to thestate expenditure study done in 2013 by the National Association of State Budget Officers. That report doesnt compute per-capita spending, but based on a survey of budget officials it shows a total spending figure from state revenues, federal aid and other sources. We did the math and it backs up the claim: In 2013, Wisconsin state budget spending was about $7,500 per capita compared to about $3,600 in Texas. The study comes from a respected trade group andother organizationsrefer to its findings. The study cautions, however: State governments have specific functional responsibilities that vary among states depending on the role of local governments in providing services. For example, in many states, the funding of elementary and secondary education is considered primarily a local function. We could not replicate the studys findings using U.S. Census surveys of state and local government finances. That Census data is preferred by researchers, though one drawback is that reporting of the data lags about two years. One researcher, Dale Knapp with the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, said the census figures are better because the Budget Officers study includes some things that we generally dont consider part of the state budget -- the biggest of which is state retirement payments. They also include unemployment payments, lottery prizes, and capital expenditures, which can vary from year to year. When looking just at state spending (and excluding transfers to local governments), Wisconsin state government spends 27.1% more per capita than Texas in 2011, Knapp found. We also asked the Wisconsin Budget Project to run comparisons. Tamarine Cornelius and Jon Peacock of the group told us that Wisconsin per capita direct general expenditures were $1,114 above that of Texas, or 15 percent. That was for state and local expenditures. Wisconsin ranked #21 among the states; Texas was #38. So neither group backs up the claim that Wisconsin state government spends 100% more -- twice as much -- as Wisconsin on a per-capita basis. Still, we found that the numbers in the study cited by Loyola were drawn from the annual financial reports published by Texas and Wisconsin. On a topic where various definitions of state budget are fair game, that gives his claim a reasonable basis. Our rating Wisconsins state budget is almost twice as large per person as the state budget of Texas, and even after billions in tax cuts, Wisconsins working families and businesses remain subject to a heavy tax burden. Loyolas on target on taxes, and cites a credible study on spending that is open to challenge but generally defensible. We rate his claim Mostly True. In late September 2021, Snopes readers asked us to examine the facts surrounding a widely-shared but suspicious-looking Facebook promotion that promised users free Texas Roadhouse vouchers in return for them sharing and commenting on the post.  One version of the scam consisted of several photos of what appeared to be Texas Roadhouse steak dishes, as well as a picture of staff attending a ribbon-cutting ceremony for a new restaurant, along with the following text: Im Gerald L.Morgan, CEO of texas roadhouses. I know times have been tough so to help everyone out I have a special surprise for everyone who shares&comments then. Every person who does this by Sep 29th can get a voucher. Each voucher can be used at any texas roadhouses restaurant to get a meal for two with drinks!   A second version of the scam invited users to like, share or comment on the post, before clicking on a link and "entering" or "registering" [safe link] for the voucher: registering   Users who clicked on one of those links were directed to various dubious websites (we have archived or made screenshots of these links, so they are safe to click on) where they were instructed to "claim" their prize or "register." Clicking on those links, in turn, brought users to a variety of entirely unrelated websites offering various dubious promotions and gift card offers of their own.  various dubious websites dubious promotions Snopes discovered that at least 13 separate Facebook profiles ran various versions of the Texas Roadhouse scam, in the final days of September 2021, with all of them using the blatantly inauthentic profile name "Texas Roadhouse's." The actual Texas Roadhouse chain addressed the scam in a Sept. 28 Facebook post, writing: Sept. 28 Facebook post There is a scam circulating on Facebook offering Texas Roadhouse meal vouchers and other benefits to our guests who share their posts. This account is attempting to gain access to personal information... If you see a suspicious post in your News Feed offering free vouchers to Texas Roadhouse, please do not click on any links or share with your friends.