Was there a decrease of $102 billion in the National Debt following Donald Trump's inauguration?
On 30 July 2017, the conservative Truth Division web site reported that the United States' national debt had fallen to a "surprising" extent in the seven months since the inauguration of President Donald Trump: Truth Division President Donald Trump and his administration are undoing the governments rampant spending that occurred under former President Obamas watch.  According the U.S. Treasurys direct record, a surprising amount of money has been saved over the course of seven months. On January 20th, the day Trump was inaugurated, the total debt was $19,947,304,555,212.49. On July 30th, seven short months later, its at $19,844,938,940,351.37. Overall the debt has decreased by $102,365,614,861.12. We have checked these numbers and set them in context, and found that the national debt did indeed fall by $102 billion between 20 January and the end of July 2017. This decline is also historically remarkable, in both absolute and percentage terms. This six-month fall in the national debt is also significant when measured against the size of the overall economy. National debt  the basics  The national debt is, in brief, the total value of what the federal government owes, and is made up of accumulated annual deficits (when the government spends more than it receives in taxes and other income). It is made up of "public debt" and "intragovernmental holdings." Public debt is, essentially, debt held by sources outside the central government. Intragovernmental holdings are debts between agencies within the federal government, in the form of government trust funds, such as Social Security trust funds.  National debt  the numbers According to figures published by the Treasury Department's Bureau of Fiscal Services on the TreasuryDirect web site, the national debt was $19.84 trillion on 27 July 2017 (not 30 July, as stated by Truth Division. On 20 January, it was $19.95 trillion. TreasuryDirect That shows a fall of $102.37 billion, or 0.51 percent, over a period of 131 business days. To set that in context, we analyzed national debt data stretching back to 12 July 1993, and examined every 131-day period in the last 24 years. You can download a spreadsheet containing all the relevant data here. here Debt-to-GDP ratio The national debt, however, is best viewed with reference to the overall economy. If two countries have about the same national debt, the one with the smaller economy will likely be more constrained in its spending, whereas the larger economy  despite having the same level of debt  will be less affected in terms of economic and fiscal policy. A good way of checking this is to compare the size of the debt to the size of the economy, measured as GDP (gross domestic product). GDP is the combined market value of all goods and services produced in a given jurisdiction (in this case, the United States). This comparison between the size of the national debt and the size of the economy is known as the debt-to-GDP ratio.  While the Treasury Department publishes the national debt for every business day, GDP is only published on a quarterly basis (once every three months). In order to compare the debt-to-GDP ratio on 27 July with the same figure on Inauguration Day, we have to get a little bit creative.  For example, we know that the United States GDP was $18.9 trillion at the end of December 2016 (the end of the fourth quarter), according to figures published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.  Bureau of Economic Analysis We also know that the national debt on 30 December 2016 was $19.98 trillion, so the estimated debt-to-GDP ratio on that date was 105.67 percent. In other words, the debts of the United States federal government were 5.67 percent bigger than the size of the Unites States economy (when measured by GDP). At the end of the first quarter of 2017 (the end of March), GDP was $19.06 trillion. And we know that on 31 March, the national debt was $19.85 trillion, meaning the debt-to-GDP ratio was 104.14 percent  a healthier number than at the end of December. But to estimate GDP for all the days in between 30 December and 31 March (including 20 January, Inauguration Day) we have to cheat a little bit. You can read more about our methodology by downloading this spreadsheet, but here's what our estimates revealed: Causes The Truth Division, a conservative, openly pro-Trump web site, clearly attributes this decline in the national debt to the president, claiming he and his administration are "undoing the government's rampant spending" and "keeping his promises regarding fiscal responsibility". However, the article does not cite any examples of actions taken by Donald Trump which would support this conclusion.  Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and former economic adviser to Vice President Joe Biden, dismissed any claims that President Trump is responsible:  Trump hasn't legislated anything that would have any impact on the fiscal accounts, so it simply doesn't make sense on the face it.  Instead, Bernstein told us, the cause of the drop in the debt is simple  the federal debt ceiling that has been in place since March 2017. If you look at a plot of the total debt right now, it's holding steady at the limit, because to go over the limit is unconstitutional. So you either have to engage in extraordinary measures or eventually default, and the latter is unimaginable so right now Treasury is engaged in the former. That is, they are delaying or suspending various payments that need to be made, particularly within some of their intra-governmental accounts... By those measures, they can hold the national debt where it is for a certain amount of time.  Eventually, Bernstein says, the debt ceiling will have to be lifted, and the payments that had been delayed will cause the national debt to increase once again.  That pattern can be seen in this chart, which shows the national debt from January 2011 up to the end of July 2017. There are four flat lines showing four periods during which the debt ceiling was frozen: from May to August 2011; May to October 2013; March to October 2015; and the ongoing period since March 2017.  2011 2013 2015   Conclusion The Truth Division article accurately describes the extent to which the national debt fell between the inauguration of Donald Trump in January 2017 and the end of July of the same year. And it rightly describes this fall as "surprising", since it ranks among the very largest 131-day declines in the national debt since July 1993, both in absolute and percentage terms.  Similarly, the decline in both components of the national debt  public debt and intragovernmental holdings  was highly significant between 20 January and 27 July 2017, both in absolute and percentage terms, and as we have shown, the national debt has fallen by an estimated 2.25 percent since Inauguration Day  even when measured against the size of the overall Unites States economy. Whether or not any actions or decisions made by Donald Trump have caused or contributed to these historically remarkable declines in the debt is a question that goes beyond the scope of this particular fact check. Unfortunately, the  national debt resumed its upward march in August 2017 and by mid-August 2018 stood at about $21.3 trillion (up $1.4 trillion since Inauguration Day), so the early 2017 drop has not proved to be a long-term trend. national debt A spreadsheet containing all the data relevant to this article can be downloaded here. here Bureau of Fiscal Services.  "Frequently Asked Questions About the Public Debt".
 TreasuryDirect.gov.  1 April 2016.
On June 14, 2022, a tweet went viral that supposedly showed two cans of Arizona Iced Tea labeled with different prices. The tweet suggested that it was time to start "panicking" and insinuated that rising inflation rates had resulted in the cost of cans of Arizona Iced Tea rising from $0.99 to $1.29.  tweet went viral rising inflation rates  While this photograph is genuine, the cost of Arizona Iced Tea did not increase from $0.99 to $1.29. The picture actually shows the price for cans of iced tea in different countries. The can on the left shows the cost of Arizona Iced Tea in USD, and the can on the right shows the cost of this beverage in CAD (Canadian dollars).  Arizona Iced Tea responded to the rumor on social media, writing that there was no need to panic and that the cost of their beverage is still $0.99 in the United States.   This was not the first time this rumor has spread on social media. The same picture racked up more than 140,000 likes in January 2021 when it was shared with the caption: "If this world is coming, I dont want to live in it." Arizona Iced Tea also responded to that viral tweet:  In April 2022, Don Vultaggio, the co-founder of Arizona Beverage Company, told the Los Angeles Times that he was "committed to that 99-cent price." Vultaggio said: Im committed to that 99-cent price  when things go against you, you tighten your belt. I dont want to do what the bread guys and the gas guys and everybody else are doing. Consumers dont need another price increase from a guy like me. No, AriZona Iced Tea Hasnt Raised the Price of Its 99-Cent Can to $1.29. Wtsp.Com, 6 June 2022, https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/verify/money-verify/arizona-iced-tea-price-not-raised-from-99-cents/536-06ac8786-911b-436b-b640-48a013d06f72. Twitter, et al. As Inflation Soars, How Is AriZona Iced Tea Still 99 Cents? Los Angeles Times, 12 Apr. 2022, https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-04-12/az-iced-tea-inflation-99-cents. Claim:  Letters written by Alaskans offer viewpoints of Alaska governor and vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin. Status:  Multiple  see below. Origins:  In the immediate aftermath of the selection of Alaska governor Sarah Palin as the 2008 Republican vice-presidential nominee came a deluge of Internet-circulated open letters about her, each written by someone claiming a direct or indirect connection to the candidate (e.g., knowing her personally; having lived in the town of Wasilla, Alaska, where Palin served as mayor; or having been a long-time resident of Alaska), and each seemingly attempting to outdo its predecessors in terms of effusive praise or condemnatory criticism of her politics. The letter which was by far the most widely circulated (and which drew the most media attention) was a critical 31 August 2008 missive attributed to a Wasilla resident named Anne Kilkenny, who said she had known Sarah Palin since 1992: ABOUT SARAH PALIN I am a resident of Wasilla, Alaska. I have known Sarah since 1992. Everyone here knows Sarah, so it is nothing special to say we are on a first-name basis. Our children have attended the same schools. Her father was my child's favorite substitute teacher. I also am on a first name basis with her parents and mother-in-law. I attended more City Council meetings during her administration than about 99% of theresidents of the city. She is enormously popular; in every way shes like the most popular girl in middle school. Even men who think she is a poor choice and won't vote for her can't quit  smiling when talking about her because she is a "babe". It is astonishing and almost scary how well she can keep a secret. She kept her most recent pregnancy a secret from her children and parents for seven months. She is "pro-life". She recently gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby. There is no cover-up involved, here; Trig is her baby. She is energetic and hardworking. She regularly worked out at the gym. She is savvy. She doesn't take positions; she just "puts things out there" and if they prove to be popular, then she takes credit. Her husband works a union job on the North Slope for BP and is a champion snowmobile racer. Todd Palin's kind of job is highly sought-after because of the schedule and high pay. He arranges his work schedule so he can fish for salmon in Bristol Bay for a month or so in summer, but by no stretch of the imagination is fishing their major source of income. Nor has her life-style ever been anything like that of native Alaskans. [Remainder of letter here.] here This letter was indeed written, as claimed, by Wasilla resident Anne Kilkenny, who explained her motivations for drafting it to a Daily Journal reporter: Recently, we received a note about the Web post, "Letter from Anne Kilkenny," about Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee. We thought for sure it was not really, "a resident of Wasilla, Alaska" who has known Palin since 1992 as the post claims. So, we checked it out. Kilkenny does exist, and she does live in Alaska. We reached her by phone and asked if she wrote the rather long note that calls Palin "smart" but also questions her abilities. We asked Kilkenny, "Did you write that letter?" She replied skeptically, "Well, I don't know. Read me parts of it. I'll tell you if it's mine or not." After we read it to her, she said, "Yes, I wrote that." She sent it out to 40 people, brothers, sisters and friends, on Sunday  two days after U.S. Sen. John McCain announced Palin as his choice. On Wednesday, if you enter Kilkenny and Palin's names on Google, about 200 sites refer to this letter. Why did she do it? Kilkenny told The Daily Journal she wanted to offer people information and her experiences. She does not flatter Palin, but she said she did vote for Palin when she ran for city council. "How affirming it has been," she said. "I am pleased to know how idealistic Americans are. They want information not just the politics of destruction." Another popular entry was this 28 August 2008 letter by Wasilla resident Debbie Frost, which cast the Alaska governor as the "US's answer to [British prime minister] Margaret Thatcher": Sarah Palin is the US's answer to Margaret Thatcher! Anyone who thinks she cannot handle the job or deal briskly and efficiently with ANY issue, including foreign governments ... well, they haven't met our Sarah. As an Alaskan resident as well as a resident of Wasilla, AK, where Sarah Palin was at one time Mayor ... I can speak with confidence. Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska is exactly what she portrayed during her introduction this morning and exactly what our US Government needs. She is ethical to a fault (if there is such a thing), a refreshing change to the status-quo and as smart and determined a PERSON (gender really isn't an issue here as far as I'm concerned) as anyone could ask for at the head of government.  Sarah is no naive 'small town mayor'  she just *started out* there. BTW, as Mayor of Wasilla<, she brought this 'small town' through a lot of GOOD changes and left it at the end of her term having grown to the 4th largest CITY in Alaska  a lot of growth and a stronger economic base than ever before. She has EXECTUTIVE experience *running a government* (something NONE of the other candidates can actually boast, even John McCain) as Governor of Alaska and got there by defeating the *incumbent* Republican Governor, who was definitely part of the 'old school' and who WAS very much in the pocket of the big oil companies. We in Alaska wanted change  and we got it in the person of Sarah Palin! [Remainder of letter here.] here Yet another letter, this one attributed to Butch King, a "lifetime Alaskan" who is also a proprietor of the Wildman Lake Lodge, attempted to answer (positively) the question of "Who is Sarah Palin?": Many of our friends are asking us "Who is Sarah Palin?" Of course, as Alaskans, Kathy and I are extremely proud of her. We just want to let you know that Sarah "Barracuda" Palin is a straight shooting, hard charging, get it done gal. She knows when to listen, how to analyze the facts and how to make a decision, then implement the plan. She doesn't do a poll before jumping in with both feet like too many of the Washington types. She has little legislative experience because she has always held the EXECUTIVE position; in private life, as mayor of Anchorage 's largest bedroom community or more recently as Governor of our State. She is a smart, attractive home grown Alaska girl with excellent moral and family values. She can see what needs to be done and does not hesitate to get it done. One of our State's major problems is that its Capital is in Juneau, 500 miles from the nearest road and 800 air miles from the population base which is Anchorage, Wasilla and Fairbanks. Our legislature and most of the State government is in Juneau and they ALL behave like a bunch of freshmen in a college town. It has been this way since Statehood in 1959. When Sarah moved to Juneau, so did accountability and responsibility When the oil revenue started flowing and a barrel of North Slope Crude hit $23.00, these people began spending money like drunken sailors. You can only imagine what was happening when oil hit $100.00 a barrel, about the time Sarah took command. My wife Kathy has first-hand experience with this fiasco, as her father and also her ex-husband were Alaska Legislators who served in Juneau as Senators, Senate President, or members of the State House for a combined period spanning nearly three decades. About the time Sarah took the HELM as Governor of Alaska, about half of the State legislature was in the pocket of big oil companies or contractors doing big projects for Native Corporations around Alaska, all funded by State oil revenue. Alaska government was nothing but a good old boys club riding the perpetual wave of prosperity. This filtered down from the legislature, through the Department of Natural Resources, Department of Labor and even spilled in to the Public Safety who are supposed to "preserve and protect". [Remainder of letter here.] here Another entry, attributed only to an "Alaskan" named "Jackie S." (we haven't yet determined the author's true identity), cast Governor Palin as an environmentally unfriendly "redneck": As an Alaskan, I am writing to give all of you some information on Sarah Palin, Senator McCain's choice for VP. As an Alaska voter, I know more than most of you about her and, frankly, I am horrified that he picked her. The most accurate description of her is redneck. Her husband works in the oil fields of Prudhoe Bay and races snow mobiles. She is a life time member of the NRA and has worked tirelessly to allow indiscriminatehunting of wildlife in Alaska, particularly wolves and bears. She has spent millions of Alaska state dollars on aerial hunting of these predators from helicopters and airplanes, dollars that should have been spent, for example, on Alaska's failing school system. We have the lowest rate of high school graduation in the country. Not all of you may think aerial predator hunting is so bad, but how anyone (other than Alaskawolf-haters, of which there are many, most without teeth), could think this use of funds is appropriate is beyond me. If you want to know more about the aerial hunting travesty, let me know and I will send some links to informative web sites. She has been a strong supporter of increased use of fossil fuels, yet the  McCain campaign has the nerve to say she has "green" policies. The only thing green about Sarah Palin is her lack of experience. She hasconsistently supported drilling in ANWR, use of coal-burning power plants (as I write this, a new coal plant is being built in her home town of Wasilla), strip mining, and almost anything else that will unnecessarilyexploit the diminishing resources of Alaska and destroy its environment. [Remainder of letter here.] here Last updated:  13 September 2008    Sources:   Schultz, Susy.  "Alaska Resident Writes About VP Nominee Palin."   The [Illinois] Daily Journal.  4 September 2008.    White, Rindi.  "Palin Asked Wasilla Librarian About Censoring Books."   Anchorage Daily News.  4 September 2008.    The Nation.  "The Word from Wasilla."   4 September 2008. Gov. John Kasichs wish to sell off six state prisons has become yet another partisan political hot potato in Columbus. Then again, what isnt during budget season.But state Rep. Matt Lundy, an Elyria Democrat, kicked it up a notch with comments during a May 2 news conference called for the purpose of throwing cold water on the Republican governors plan to sell off five adult prison facilities and one youth detention center.Kasich has said the transaction could net Ohio a profit of $200 million.Lundy disagrees. He argues that there still will be bonds and improvement debts to be serviced and that will cut into the profit.He likened the proposal to an insane yard sale and questioned the logic of selling state assets during a down economic period when they may fetch low bids.He also accused Republicans in control of the House of helping Kasich to lure buyers.The substitute budget now adds in tax breaks and tax deductions for those who buy these prisons, Lundy said. The House passed its version of the budget on May 5.Politifact Ohio decided to take a closer look.The House did propose a sales tax exemption, income tax deduction and commercial tax exclusion for any buyer that strikes a deal with Ohio to take over the prisons offered for sale. Lundy said such friendly trinkets will eat away at the states expect profits on the deal.So, why was it included? Kasichs proposal didnt offer the tax breaks but the House Republicans did.House Finance Chairman Ron Amstutz, a Wooster Republican, said the tax provisions were added to assure that the private buyer of the prisons would be treated like any other state entity since they will essentially be performing a state function by housing inmates.Typically state entities dont pay taxes on their functions and that is true of local governments, as well, Amstutz said. And I think the desire is to maintain that status in order to provide for services at the lowest cost that we can.If the private entities were to pay these particular taxes, which go back to supporting the local communities where the facilities are located, then basically the state taxpayers would be subsidizing the local taxpayers at that point for a state function and typically we dont do that, Amstutz explained.State prisons spokesman Carlo LoParo noted, however, that any buyer of the state prisons would be expected to pay property taxes each year, which would net a huge amount of cash for the local governments where there facilities are located.Thats pretty substantial, LoParo said. He added that the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections had closely monitored the House negotiations to make sure that a carve out for property taxes was not stuck in.We took pains to make sure there were no loopholes, he said. We fully expect them to pay property taxes to those communities where the prisons are located.The impact for local governments could be substantial.For example, there are two facilities offered for sale that are in Marion -- the North Central Correctional Institution that houses adults and the Marion Juvenile Correctional Facility, which is currently closed.Combined, the two properties are valued at $100 million, which would result in about $1.5 million annually in property tax collections for that small city. LoParo said that should be enough money help Marions police force pick up criminal investigations at the two facilities, which would fall to the city and not state highway patrol, as is currently the case.So where does Lundy land on the Truth-O-Meter.Lundy is correct that the the substitute budget includes tax breaks and tax deductions for those who buy the prisons. There would be no sales tax on the purchase and there are other exclusions for income and commercial taxes.The administration is demanding that local property taxes absolutely be paid, which could yield significant revenue to local governments and schools.And Lundy is correct that the tax breaks and deductions in the budget bill were added in by the House.On the Truth-O-Meter, we rate Lundys comment as True. A big part of President Barack Obama's first State of the Union speech on Jan. 27, 2010, focused on the economy.To set the stage, he said his predecessor was largely responsible for the country's fiscal shape.At the beginning of the last decade ... America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion, Obama said. By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program.We've checked several claims to this effect in the last year,most recently one by Obama adviser David Axelrod. Indeed, we found that the government was enjoying a surplus of about $236 billion circa 2001. Later, when Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office reported the deficit was over $1.2 trillion. A good chunk of the deficits racked up by the Bush administration came from tax cuts, the war in Iraq and actions that Bush and a Democratic Congress took to prop up the economy right before he left office.In the same report, the CBO projected a 10-year deficit of about $3.1 trillion. But Obama said $8 trillion, based on budget numbers published by the White House Office of Management and Budget shortly after Obama took office.Why the discrepancy? When we checked the similar claim by Axelrod, we spoke with Josh Gordon, policy director for the Concord Coalition. He said it has to do with how the two offices estimate the future. The CBO bases its projections on the assumption that the Bush tax cuts would expire in 2010 and that a patch to fix the alternative minimum tax would expire, among other things. The White House does not; instead, it assumes that nothing changes in current law.So, Obama's overall point is correct that the government was enjoying a substantial surplus when Bush took office and had a big deficit when he departed; he's spot on about the surplus Bush began with. He's also correct about the deficit at the end of Bush's presidency, but there are two different ways to measure the 10-year projection when Bush left office. The CBO's estimate is $5 trillion lower than the White House numbers, though economists don't quibble with the White House methodology. So given that discussion, we'll take Obama down a notch to Mostly True. With control of the U.S. House at stake, Republicans and Democrats are waging fierce election campaigns across the country. In Ohio, at least four seats are considered in play, including the 16th Congressional District seat held by freshman Democratic Rep. John Boccieri of Alliance, a former state legislator who faces a well-financed Republican challenge from businessman Jim Renacci, a former Wadsworth mayor.The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union has joined the fight, attacking Renacci in two television advertisements. We recently looked into astatementin the first ad, which accused Renacci of backing a massive tax increase, and found it to be Half True.The second ad levels an even harsher accusation that Renacci cheated on his income taxes and labels him a deadbeat citizen.Renacci hasfiled a defamationlawsuitin Stark County Common Pleas Court over the ad, which says he hid more than $13 million, and was forced to pay $1.4 million in back taxes and penalties. We wanted to see if AFSCME got closer to the truth the second time around.The basis of the attack is a dispute between Renacci and the Ohio Department of Taxation. Renacci has built a fortune from business interests that include nursing homes, real estate investments, auto and motorcycle dealerships, a bar and grill, an arena football team and a minor-league baseball team.The tax department assessed Renacci about $1.4 million in back taxes, interest and penalties for misreporting his income in 2000. Renacci and his wife, Tina, filed a state tax return for that year that claimed they had a loss of $247,336, but an audit found they actually made $13,730,440. The couple filed a tax appeal when the state dinged them for $954,650 in back taxes, $146,938 in interest and $293,876 in penalties.At issue was Renaccis trust income from an S corporation that had not been subject to state taxes for several years before Ohios tax commissioner issued an information release in January 2000 that changed the states policy and directed taxpayers to add such trust income to their federal adjusted gross income. S corporations permit income to be taxed at an individual rate for federal tax purposes and avoid double taxation on corporate income.The tax department followed up with another information release in 2002 warning that it was launching audits and would impose fraud penalties on taxpayers who did not file amended returns reflecting the trust income and pay the taxes due.Renacci was among a group of taxpayers who fought the state decision. He contended that the trust income should have been tax-free and that he had reasonable cause to exclude it on his tax return, according to tax department and court documents.Others dropped their appeals, but Renacci continued to fight, despite an Ohio Supreme Court ruling in 2006 in a similar case in which the court said the trust income was subject to taxation. In that case, the taxpayers reported their S corporation income on their 2000 tax return and then unsuccessfully asked for a refund.Court records show the Renaccis eventually settled the tax dispute and sent the state the full amount due.He was proud of his fight, and to have fought till the end, along with many other Ohioans for tax fairness, Renaccis campaign spokesman Jim Slepian said in an interview for a Plain Dealer story in April.The AFSCME ad cites as its source an Associated Press story from April that said Renacci fought vigorously but eventually paid the back taxes and other assessments.Websters New World Dictionary defines cheat as a person who defrauds, deceives, or tricks others; swindler. And it defines deadbeat as a person who tries to evade paying debts.It seems legitimate to raise questions about Renaccis failure to properly report his income. Some facts are not in dispute. But in the end, after taking his dispute to court and working within the system to resolve it, he did ultimately pay the state the full amount due and he wasnt ever charged with tax fraud.We rate AFSCMEs statement as Mostly True. Comment on this item. The hotly contested West Virginia primary for a U.S. Senate seat is now over. But it didnt take more than a few hours for the general election to start. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., appeared on West Virginia radio host Hoppy Kerchevals show, the morning after election night. In the general election, Manchin faces Republican state Attorney General Patrick Morrisey in what most observers see as a competitive race. Manchin portrayed himself as a fiscal conservative both as governor and in the Senate in hisinterviewwith Kercheval. He expressed concern about the rising federal debt, which exceeds $21 trillion in the broadest measurement. By 2022, just the interest payment on our debt will be greater than the defense of our country, Manchin said. Is Manchin right? We found that hes at least certainly close. You may not realize this, but as a nonprofit news organization, we depend on  and answer to  you. Your support directly impacts our abilility to provide objective, factual reporting  on issues that matter.Donate now to our Spring Campaign and go on the record as saying facts matter! In 2017, the last year for which complete data is available, defense spending stood at $590 billion. Net interest on the debt stood at $263 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan budget analysis arm of Congress. So defense spending is currently more than twice as big as net interest. However, net interest is expected to grow faster than defense spending over the next decade. Thats according to CBOs most recentBudget and Economic Outlookreport, which projects a variety of budget categories 10 years into the future. (See Fig. 2.1here.) Between 2018 and 2028, CBO projects, both defense and interest will rise, with interest overtaking defense spending in fiscal year 2023. In 2023, defense spending will be $679 billion and net interest will reach $702 billion. The gap will only grow from there. So CBO has it one year later than Manchin said. That said, things could change between now and then  and CBOs assumptions are not the only way to make these projections. CBOs projections assume that defense spending will return to tighter levels in 2020, after the current spending bill expires, said Todd Harrison, director of defense budget analysis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. However, Congress has regularly raised the spending limits since they were first imposed in 2011. And if Congress acts as it has in the past, that would change the calculations. However, CBO does not specify the amounts under this alternative assumption, so that scenario is too speculative to consider. Manchin said, By 2022, just the interest payment on our debt will be greater than the defense of our country. The closest official estimate we could find says that net interest will pass defense spending in 2023, or one year later than Manchin said. But using a different set of unofficial assumptions, it could be different. We rate his statement Mostly True. On 7 August 2018, Texas governor Greg Abbott posted a 9gag.com-branded meme on Twitter which included a statement attributed to former British prime minister Sir Winston Churchill about how "fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists":   However apt this quote may (or may not) be, it did not originate with Winston Churchill. Abbott deleted his tweet after critics pointed out that fact to him, but he said during a press conference that knowing who originally made the statement was "irrelevant" because he believed in its sentiment regardless of who said it: "What I tweeted was a sentiment that I had. It was irrelevant to me who may or may not have said that in the past. I didn't want to be accused of plagiarism for saying it. If no one else said it, attribute the quote to me because it's what I believe in." press conference So who does deserve credit? Similar quotes positing the idea that fascism would come to America disguised by a different name can be traced at least as far back as 1936 (although they weren't attached to Churchill's name until decades later).  On 18 March 1936, for example, the Cincinnati Inquirer reported on words delivered by Norman Thomas, an American Presbyterian minister who was running for president as the Socialist Party of America's candidate, at an informal luncheon: "Fascism is coming in the United States most probably, but it will not come under that name."   A few days later the same newspaper mentioned the same statement in a book review of In the Second Year, a dystopian novel by Storm Jameson set in a fascist Britain. That article added some additional words to the statement and reported that Thomas had been quoting Huey Long, an American politician who had been assassinated the previous year: Norman Thomas said recently in a speech made in Cincinnati "Fascism is coming in the United States most probably, but it will not come under that name." In this statement he was repeating the words of the late Huey Long, but Huey added: "Of course we'll have it. We'll have it under the guise of anti-fascism." No one has yet been able to document Huey Long's having made such a statement, however. Several variations of this quote have appeared in print since Thomas' 1936 remark. In 1938, for instance, Rev. Dr Halford E. Luccock of the Yale Divinity School said that "When fascism comes to America, and it has already come to some parts, it will not be marked with the swastika and labeled 'Made in Germany ... It will not even be called Fascism ... But will be called by that high-sounding and highly praised name - Americanism." Playwright Clare Booth reportedly had a similar take: "Speaking of Fascism," she writes, "Of all national ways of life, it is, perhaps, the most quickly habit-forming. It is the alcohol and the opium of the political systems; it will rob us eventually of our physical and mental and even moral powers, but it gives us temporary illusion of escape from an inimical world, a lift of the spirit, a feeling of superiority, of power ... also, we are warned (though not loudly, not often enough) when -- or if -- fascism comes in all America she will come so prettily costumed in red, white and blue as to be practically indistinguishable from a music hall's Fourth of July performance 'Rockette,' than which nothing could look more charmingly, happily, uniformly american.  Apparently Churchill's name was spuriously appended to this statement about fascism circa 2010 more than 40 years after his death (and with no supporting evidence). 2010 Timothy Riley of the National Churchill Museum told us that these words do not appear in any of the articles, speeches, or books penned by Churchill: "Winston Churchill authored over 15 million words  in articles, speeches, books and other writings. There is no evidence that the statesman wrote the words in question.  It is impossible to know if he uttered the words in conversation, but I am not aware of any of Churchills contemporaries who recorded or recalled the statement." The Cincinnati Enquirer.  "Fascism Coming  Under New Name!"
  18 February 1936. JYK.  "This and That."
  The Morning Call.  5 March 1939. McD, J.F.  "A 'Lively Age' to Come?'
  The Cincinnati Enquirer.  22 February 1936. McGaughy, Lauren.  "Texas Gov. Greg Abbott Tweets Fake Winston Churchill Quote About Anti-Fascists."
  The Dallas Morning News.  7 August 2018. An eye-catching billboard in the state of Minnesota caused some controversy in the early days of January 2018. Purportedly sponsored by "Republicans for Honesty in Government," the billboard showed a photograph of President Donald Trump accompanied by the words "Big Mistake." billboard We received several inquiries from readers about the authenticity of the billboard, and whether it was actually produced by Republicans.  The billboard is real, as is another similar one found elsewhere in Minnesota. However, the group behind it"Republicans for Honesty in Government"is run by a Democratic donor and businessman in the state, suggesting there is more to the campaign than meets the eye. On 2 January 2018, the left-wing Facebook page Occupy Democrats posted a photo of the billboard, along with a message emphasizing the apparent party affiliation of its sponsors: photo REPUBLICANS erected this billboard in Minnesota...speaks volumes about the current state of our Liar-in-Chief's presidency, doesn't it?   That post was shared almost 25,000 times within three days.  The photo appears to have originally been posted to Facebook in October 2017 by Rosemary Rocco, who said the billboard was located along U.S. Route 52, in the state's second congressional district, which includes parts of Minneapolis-St. Paul and Wabasha County. She wrote: posted Seen on MN Highway 52 south-CD2! Proof there are Republicans who care about our country. Note the disclaimer on the billboard. This is what country first looks like. Earlier in October, a Reddit user posted another photograph of a billboard bearing a photograph of Trump along with the word "Clueless." It was also purported to have been erected by the same group.  photograph According to records held by the Minnesota Secretary State, Republicans for Honesty in Government was first registered as a non-profit corporation in Minnesota in 2006, as reported by the regional news web site Bluestem Prairie. Its registered agent is Robert Johnson, founder and director of the Minnesota real estate investment firm AEI Capital.  records Bluestem Prairie AEI Capital Republicans for Honesty in Government shares its address with that of AEI Capital. The group was dissolved in 2009, but was reinstated in March 2017.  However, despite being the man behind a non-profit organization that labels itself Republican, Johnson is a prolific donor to Democratic candidates and the Minnesota branch of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party (DFL). Federal Election Commission records show that a "Robert P. Johnson," "Robert Johnson" or "Bob Johnson" at "AEI Fund Management" or related company names in Minnesota has donated a total of $43,830.50 in federal campaign funding since 2004. All of it went to DFL and Democratic candidates or political action committees. records Johnson told the Minnesota news web site GoMN that he had leaned towards the Republican party in the past, but switched allegiances after what the web site described as a shift to the right within the GOP.  GoMN "My political position was staked out decades ago and has not changed," he told GoMN. "What has changed is the positions of the parties and their platforms." Federal Election Commission records show that in 1980, Johnson did donate $500 to the Minnesota Independent-Republican Finance Committee, his only non-Democratic federal election donation. records However, Johnson registered "Republicans for Honesty in Government" in 2006, two years after he began donating exclusively to Democratic and DFL candidates, including $7,000 to former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, and more than $10,000 to the Minnesota DFL party.  $7,000 We asked Johnson questions about his involvement with Republicans for Honesty in Government, his party affiliation, his political donations, and the purpose of the billboards. We did not receive a response. He told GoMN that the billboards were intended to provoke Minnesotans to think more carefully about their electoral choices"to maybe rub their chin metaphorically a little bit and wonder, what kind of decisions are we making?" Sorenson, Sally Jo. "Is Billboard on Highway 52 for Real?; Or, Who Are Those 'Republicans for Honesty in Government'".
 Bluestem Prairie. 2 January 2018. McLaughlin, Shaymus. "Who is the Group Behind the Donald Trump 'BIG MISTAKE' Billboard?"
 GoMN. 3 January 2018. In May 2016, an image purportedly showing the visual difference between lithium mines (from which a key element of rechargeable batteries is extracted) and oil sands (i.e., an unconventional type of petroleum deposit) began circulating online, with text suggesting that using the latter as a fuel source was actually less harmful to the environment than electric or hybrid automobiles:  The image, however, does not feature a photograph of a lithium mine. The top portion of the image shows BHP's Escondida copper mine in Chile, one of the largest such mines in the world: largest Rio Tinto has a 30% interest in Chile's Escondida, the worlds largest copper-producing mine, which is managed by BHP Billiton.  The bottom photograph was taken in Canada, but it shows a type of oil sands drilling site that isn't really comparable to a copper mine. Instead of selecting a picture of an open tar sand pit, the creator of this image chose a "cleaner" photograph showing an in situ oil sands facility that operates deep underground with little surface impact: Canada operates MEG Energy uses steam-assisted gravity drainage, or SAGD, technology to recover bitumen from the oil sands. In SAGD operations, pairs of stacked horizontal wells are drilled into the reservoir about 400 metres beneath the surface. The top well injects steam to heat the bitumen, which separates from the sand and collects with the produced water in the lower well, approximately five metres below. The bitumen is then pumped to the surface, where it is separated from the water. The water is treated and recycled into the system:   Other pictures show very different views of oil sands extraction sites, such as this 2009 National Geographic photograph of an Alberta oil sands site: photograph Dust clouds the sunset above this open-pit mine, a close up view of a small fraction of the areas surveyed in the Landsat satellite images. Oil sands mining operations are conducted on a massive scale.  Similarly, this photograph shows an aerial view of Syncrude Aurora tar sands mine in the Boreal Forest north of Fort McMurray, Alberta: tar sands  In short, this attempt to portray oil sands as an energy source much more environmentally-friendly than (batteries derived from) lithium mines used a photograph of a completely different type of mine for the latter, and a misleading photograph of a non-representative site for the former. Claim:  Image presents information about Costco CEO James Sinegal. PARTLY  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2012] Is this true? Costco CEO pays his employees $17 hour plus benefits and resists Wall Street demands to cut pay and benefits.  Origins:   This graphic featuring a photograph and information about  Costco warehouse store chain CEO James Sinegal was circulated in November 2012 and was generally accurate, but a bit outdated.   Jim Sinegal co-founded Costco and served as the company's President and CEO for nearly three decades, but he stepped down from those positions in January 2012 (although he remains a company advisor and a member of the Costco board of directors).   The accompanying text about employee pay and benefits and Sinegal's resistance to Wall Street criticisms appears to have been drawn from a July 2005 New York Times profile of Sinegal and Costco: Combining high quality with stunningly low prices,  [Costco products] appeal to upscale customers  and epitomize why some retail analysts say Mr. Sinegal just might be America's shrewdest merchant since Sam Walton. But not everyone is happy with Costco's business strategy. Some Wall Street analysts assert that Mr. Sinegal is overly generous not only to Costco's customers but to its workers as well. Costco's average pay, for example, is $17 an hour, 42 percent higher than its fiercest rival, Sam's Club. And Costco's health plan makes those at many other  retailers look Scroogish. One analyst, Bill Dreher of Deutsche Bank, complained last year that at Costco "it's better to be an employee or a customer than a shareholder." Mr. Sinegal begs to differ. He rejects Wall Street's assumption that to succeed in discount retailing, companies must pay poorly and skimp on benefits, or must ratchet up prices to meet Wall Street's profit demands. Good wages and benefits are why Costco has extremely low rates of turnover and theft by employees, he said. And Costco's customers, who are more affluent than other warehouse store shoppers, stay loyal because they like that low prices do not come at the workers' expense. "This is not altruistic," he said. "This is good business." He also dismisses calls to increase Costco's product markups. Mr. Sinegal, who has been in the retailing business for more than a half-century, said that heeding Wall Street's advice to raise some prices would bring Costco's downfall. Despite Costco's impressive record, Mr. Sinegal's salary is just $350,000, although he also received a $200,000 bonus last year. That puts him at less than 10 percent of many other chief executives, though Costco ranks 29th in revenue among all American companies. Similarly, Slate wrote in 2008 that: It's not hard to make a case that Costco pays employees more. The most relevant comparison is between Costco and Sam's Club, Wal-Mart's membership warehouse, since both business models rely on membership fees for a large percentage of revenues. A Sam's Club employee starts at $10 and makes $12.50 after four and a half years. A new Costco employee, at $11 an hour, doesn't start out much better, but after four and a half years she makes $19.50 an hour. In addition to this, she receives something called an "extra check"  a bonus of more than $2,000 every six months. A cashier at Costco, after five years, makes about $40,000 a year. Health benefits are among the best in the industry, with workers paying only about 12 percent of their premiums out-of-pocket while Wal-Mart workers pay more than 40 percent. In my interview with Costco CFO Richard Galanti, he mentioned Jim Sinegal every couple of minutes, attributing the company's high wages to the CEO's personal values. CFO Galanti acknowledged having at times argued with his boss, urging him to curb Costco's generosity on health care. (Sinegal eventually agreed with him, reluctantly, in 2003 but insisted that care remain affordable to employees.) Sinegal's kindliness is impressive, but he's also 72 years old and thus won't be around forever. Perhaps he's created a corporate culture strong enough to outlast him, but that's impossible to predict. In a November 2010 report of data gathered by the job site CareerBliss.com, Costco employees gave the company "the highest ratings for salary, benefits and work-life balance." CareerBliss.com According to Yahoo! Finance, in 2011 Jim Sinegal's  total yearly compensation as a Costco company executive, including salary and bonuses, was $629,000, and he garnered another $12,300,000 through the exercise of stock options. Yahoo! Finance Last updated:  28 November 2012    Featherstone, Liza.  "Wage Against the Machine."   Slate.  27 June 2008.    Goldwert, Lindsay.  "Costco Employees Give company Top Ratings ."   New York [Daily News].  29 November 2010.    Greenhouse, Steven.  "How Costco Became the Anti-Wal-Mart."   The New York Times.  17 July 2005.    Schmit, Julie.  "Costco Wins Loyalty with Bulky Bargains."   USA Today.  23 September 2004.