Of the 14 wealthy OECD countries with a wealth tax in 1996, 10 have since then abandoned it.
Elizabeth Warren pins a lot of hopes on her ultra-millionaire tax. The Democratic presidential candidate would like to put a 2% levy on assets over the $50 million mark, and 3% on those over $1 billion. The revenues would pay for her plans to pay for universal child care, student debt forgiveness and other programs she has in mind. In a Fox News op-ed, an analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation noted that a wealth tax isnt a new idea. Joel Griffith said many European nations have tried it. And scrapped it. Of the 14 wealthy (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries with a wealth tax in 1996, 10 have since then abandoned it, Griffith wroteApril 28. We found different numbers, but there has been a turn away from wealth taxes. And with Warrens plan on the table, the European experience is worth exploring. Griffith got his numbers from an article on the website of theTax Foundation, a group that is concerned about the ways that taxes distort business decisions. The foundations analysis drew on data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a Paris-based international body that has its roots in the post-war recovery of Europe. The OECD datashows 13 countries collected revenues from net wealth taxes in 1996, measured in local currency. But it shows 14 when measured as a percentage of GDP. We cant account for the difference. Theres another twist. One of those countries is Austria, but Austria ended its wealth tax in 1994. So the actual count that year was either 12 or 13. (Its only slightly off from what Griffith wrote, but we care about these details.) Tallying the countries that have a wealth tax today is even trickier, largely because definitions vary. We found room for debate over what constitutes a wealth tax. All wealth taxes tax things that are owned, not money earned, but they vary in a couple of key respects. They might target the wealthy (Norways tax, for example, affects net worth above 1.48 million Norwegian Kroner) or a broader swath of residents. And some tax all assets, while others  such as Belgium with stocks and bonds, or France with real estate  focus only on specific assets. A 2018 report from the respected German-based think tankIfo Institute for Economic Researchcounted just three countries with a wealth tax: Switzerland, Norway and Spain. But the authors noted that Italy and the Netherlands also tax wealth in limited ways, and France swapped a broad wealth tax for a narrow one on real estate wealth that kicks in on property worth at least 1.3 million Euros. The international accounting firmErnst and Youngaffirmed that Italy does have a wealth tax. Another accounting firmKPMG reported in 2018 that Belgiumadded a wealth tax when it imposed a tax on securities, such as stocks and bonds. To make things even more complicated, some OECD countries dropped, added, or changed their wealth taxes since 1996. The Tax Foundation article Griffith relied on said that today, six OECD countries had wealth taxes in one form or another. (One of its charts showed four, but that stopped counting in 2017.) How to sort this out? By the strictest definition, today only three wealthy OECD countries have a wealth tax. With a looser standard, as many as seven do. (Some tallies include Hungary, but it might not count as a wealthy country, as the claim says.) The general reason European countries dropped their wealth taxes was they were more trouble than they were worth. In Germany, the tax was found unconstitutional, but it wasnt raising that much money anyway. Areview of the wealth tax optionby the European Commission said that in the past, determining the value of assets was challenging and cheating was easier. Opportunities of avoidance and evasion reduce the capacity of wealth taxes to generate revenue, and they contribute to the perception that wealth taxes produce little net benefit, the report said. Decisions to repeal net wealth taxes have often been justified by efficiency and administrative concerns, OECD analystswrote in a 2018 report. The revenues collected from net wealth taxes have also, with a few exceptions, been very low. Switzerland reaps far more than other nations, taking in revenues equal to 1% of GDP. But Norway brings in 0.4% and Spain 0.2%. Of the countries that did away with a wealth tax, Denmark was typical. In 1996, the tax brought in just 0.1% of GDP. The earlier taxes also tended to reach down into the middle class, not just the uber-rich. Getting rid of them was politically popular. For some, the European experience casts a deep shadow over Warrens proposal. Wojciech Kopczuk, an economist at Columbia University, warned that no matter what, valuing assets is tough. (Warrens) plan would apply only to the very rich, Kopczuk said. That does not at all resolve administrative problems. Those are as daunting in the United State as in Europe. On the other hand, Kopczuk added that a tax that starts at $50 million could hold popular support. Theres also a difference in overall tax regimes. The OECD analysts said that the arguments for and against a wealth tax depend on all the other tax laws in a given country. In that light, Reuven Avi-Yonah, director of the international tax program at the University of Michigan Law School, said Europe is not at all like America. Income tax rates and sometime inheritance taxes are higher in Europe, Avi-Yonah said. This means there is less need to tax the rich through a wealth tax. Weve looked before at the debatewhether Warrens plan would raise as much as she hopes. Warrens campaign staff told us that they have learned the lessons from Europe. They argue that focusing on the 76,000 wealthiest people and taxing all assets with no complicating exceptions would lighten the administrative burden. Theres also a hint that Europe is taking a second look at wealth taxes. Both the OECD and the European Commission wrote of a renewed interest in wealth taxation. Griffith said that of the 14 wealthy OECD countries with a wealth tax in 1996, 10 have since then abandoned it. We found there are different ways to consider wealth taxes, and Griffith used the strictest one based on dated information. We found that either 12 or 13 countries had a wealth tax in 1996, and nine ended their taxes since then. Today, six or seven European nations have some form of a wealth taxes, either broad ones or narrow ones. The meaning of the European experience from two decades ago is debatable, but thats not the basis for our ruling. We looked only at the countries and their tax laws. The numbers in the statement are off. European countries did move away from the wealth taxes, but not quite to the extent stated in the op-ed. We rate this claim Mostly True.
In January 2018, amid a brief government shutdown and a furor over the potential deportation of recipients of the Delayed Action for Childhood Arrivals act, or DACA, a months-old meme reappeared featuring a photograph of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California) and a quote about how building a wall on the southern United States border "will violate the right of millions of illegals":   The graphic proved popular in some conservative circles, where it was shared along with messages that insult Pelosi as dumb, clueless, or out of touch. It was also frequently attached to comments asserting (inaccurately) that the rights of "illegals" couldn't be violated since illegal immigrants don't have any rights to violate: shared clueless   already barrier knows This fake quote originally appeared in August 2017, after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened a government shutdown in order to secure funding for a border wall. Nancy Pelosi released a statement in response which labeled the wall "immoral" (emphasis ours): threatened statement "Last night, President Trump yet again threatened to cause chaos in the lives of millions of Americans if he doesnt get his way. Make no mistake: the President said he will purposefully hurt American communities to force American taxpayers to fund an immoral, ineffective and expensive border wall. President Trumps multi-billion dollar border wall boondoggle is strongly opposed by Democrats and many Republicans. Democrats will stand fast against the immoral, ineffective border wall and the rest of Republicans unacceptable poison pill riders." This fake quote began to circulate shortly after Pelosi released that statement: circulate   The argument might be made that this particular meme paraphrases Pelosi's attitude toward the wall. However, it naturally became incorrectly presented as though it was a direct quote from House Minority Leader: incorrectly presented   The idea that undocumented people can't have their rights violated because they have no rights to begin with is false. Undocumented people may not enjoy all of the Constitutional rights given to American citizens, but they do have some protections under the law. Furthermore, referring to undocumented people as "illegal" is not accurate, as the violation in and of itself is civil, not criminal: protections civil criminal In fact, a 2006 study showed that roughly 45% of undocumented immigrants originally entered the US legally, but then remained in the country without authorization after their visas had expired. a 2006 study The penalty for this type of violation of immigration law is deportation, and according to the ACLU, "civil removal proceedings far outnumber criminal prosecutions and remain the primary manner in which the federal authorities enforce the immigration laws." according to the ACLU If, however, an undocumented immigrant is deported and then returns to the US without permission, then that "illegal re-entry" constitutes a federal offense with different tiers of accompanying prison time. a federal offense  Even so, undocumented individuals do have rights in the United States, despite concerted disinformation and propaganda efforts to obscure them. The Supreme Court ruled in 2001, for instance, that the due process clause (that is, the 14th Amendment) applies to "all persons within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent." instance due process clause Epstein, Jennifer.  "Trump Threatens Government Shutdown Over Border Wall Funding."
  Bloomberg. 22 August 2017. Detrow, Scott.  "Republicans And Democrats Seek Path To DACA Deal In Coming Weeks."
  NPR. 4 January 2018. Contreras, Raoul.  "Yes, Illegal Aliens Have Constitutional Rights."
  The Hill. 29 September 2015. In the crowded Republican primary to replace U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, Lt. Gov. Carlos Lopez-Cantera says he has evidence that he takes care of taxpayers wallets. I've cut the budget of the office by more than half, reduced the staff, he said in aninterviewon the April 30Money, Power, Politicsshow on Fox 13 in Tampa. I'm the only lieutenant governor to not take a security detail. He hasdeclined his security detail, breaking from his predecessors. Lopez-Cantera has also cut the budget and reduced staff positions. But he is leaving out some context. The only official role of the lieutenant governor is to replace the governor if he leaves offices or dies. What he or she does in the meantime varies with the governor and his or her vision. Lopez-Cantera is not as active or in the public eye as much as some of his predecessors, rarely posting official events on his public calendar and not tasked with any special assignments from Gov. Rick Scott. Scotts first lieutenant governor,Jennifer Carroll,resigned in March 2013 after she was questioned by law enforcement about her ties to a charity group that was the subject of probes. (She was not charged with wrongdoing.) She chaired a task force about Floridas Stand Your Ground law afterTrayvon Martins deathand chaired the Space Florida Board. Scott tapped Lopez-Cantera, a former state legislator and Miami-Dade property appraiser, to replace her almost a year later in February 2014. Lets see how the budget changed. Reducing budget and staff The lieutenant governors budget has ranged from about $245,000 to $540,000 in recent years. Lopez-Canteras office does not have its own budget like other state agencies. Scott proposes a budget that includes the lieutenant governor. It is then up to the Legislature to pass a budget, which Scott then signs into law. The amount of money below includes the $125,000 annual salary for the lieutenant governor. Year Allotment Expenditure 2009-10 $439,646 $433,006 2010-11 $540,440 $537,664 2011-12 $504,169 $587,389 2012-13 $509,806 $471,091 2013-14 $245,016 $156,435 2014-15 $485,160 $415,522 2015-16 $240,693 $242,875 2016-17 Not announced yet NA So for a few years the lieutenant governors budget was about $500,000. The it was chopped in half to $245,016 for the 2013-14 budget year that started July 1, 2013, a few months after Carroll resigned. Its no surprise that the allocation dropped since the office was vacant. Since Lopez-Cantera took office in February 2014, it is also not surprising the allotment nearly doubled to $485,160 for the 2014-15 budget year. The next year, the budget allotment dropped to slightly less than when Lopez-Cantera started to $240,693  a 50 percent decrease. Most of the budget is staff salaries. Employee Count (excluding LG) As of January 1, 2010* 3 As of January 1, 2011** 5 As of January 1, 2012** 5 As of January 1, 2013** 5 As of February, 2014*** 4 As of January 1, 2015*** 2 As of January 1, 2016*** 1 *     Kottkamp **   Carroll *** Lopez-Cantera Lopez-Cantera cut the staff, but its worth noting that the size of the staff was small for starters. It's also worth keeping in mind that Lopez-Cantera has access to the full weight of the governor's office for his needs, including the press office, legislative aides and budget analysts. Under Carroll, there were five employees in the lieutenant governors office each year, which included a chief of staff and assistants. When Lopez-Cantera started in February 2014, there were four staffers. Then the number dropped to two, and now he just has one employee whose title is a special assistant. The governors office said no one was laid off. We asked if that meant that Lopez-Cantera cut empty positions or shifted jobs to the governors office or elsewhere. The governors office didnt answer that question. Our ruling Lopez-Cantera said, I've cut the budget of the office by more than half. He omits some context about how his office budget works. Scott recommends a budget, which is then approved by the Legislature. Lopez-Cantera's own resources may be limited, but he downplays the access he has to Scott's vast governing operation for assistance. Months after Lopez-Cantera started, the budget rose by roughly double to bring it more in line to where it was when a lieutenant governor in the office. But after that increase, the budget allotment dropped the next year to slightly less than when Lopez-Cantera started to $240,693  a 50 percent decrease. The budget largely pays for Lopez-Canteras salary as well as a special assistant. We rate this claim Mostly True. In 1991, as the cover art for Nirvana's second studio album  a now iconic photograph of a naked baby in a pool swimming after a dollar on a fishing hook  was being prepared, there was some discussion about censoring the image by airbrushing out the nudity. Late front man Kurt Cobain reportedly replied by saying that they could censor it by placing a sticker over the baby's genitals along with the statement: "If you're offended by this you must be a closet pedophile." This quote resurfaced in August 2021 when the model who portrayed the baby, Spencer Elden, filed a lawsuit against the band claiming that he was exploited and that the artwork bordered on child pornography.  resurfaced filed a lawsuit against the band   This is a genuine quote from Cobain.  Art Director Robert Fisher was one of the first to suggest that the baby's genitalia could be censored if anyone thought that it would be problematic. A photograph showing early concept art for the album's cover includes two written comments by Fisher.  Fisher wrote: "If anyone has a problem with his dick we can remove it."  Image via cait22888 on Flickr  Flickr Cobain responded to Fisher's comments by saying that they could censor the nudity with a sticker, reading "If you're offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile." This incident is recalled in a passage from Michael Azerrad's book "Come As You Are: The Story of Nirvana." Come As You Are: The Story of Nirvana. The only thing was, the baby's penis was quit visible. "If there's a problem with his dick," Fisher said, "we can cut it off." Some people in the Geffen/DGC sales department did worry that the traditionally conservative chain stores might object to the penis and Fisher even went so far as to begin preparing cover with the penis airbushed out. Kurt had anticipated some outcry as well, and has already composed some copy to put on a sticker over the problematic member. It read, "If you're offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile." Cobain recounted his version of these events during an interview for "Hot Metal" with journalist Robyn Doreian in 1991. In Cobain's version, he doesn't quite take credit for the idea, instead saying that "we prepared" to deal with censorship issues with a sticker.  interview As with most artists signed to the Geffen label, Nirvana have complete artistic control over everyting they do. "I designed out T-shirts, and we have had control over things like how long we tour and who we tour with, and we had control over what songs we recorded." Whilst on the subject of the aesthetically pleasing cover of Nevermind, I enquire as to whether the boy is actually a photo of Kurt as a little tacker. "No, it's not," he remarks drly. Has there been any trouble from censorship groups such as the PMRC for blatantly displaying a willy on the cover? "No, surprisingly not. We prepared to alleviate that problem if anyone were to freak out about it by putting a sticker on it saying, "if you are offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile.'" The sticker wasn't needed in the end as the album was released without any alterations to the baby's body. But now, just over 30 years after the album's release, the band is being sued, as Elden alleges that the picture violates child pornography laws.  Elden alleges Sources: As social media users sorted through a flurry of news articles, opinion pieces, calls for boycotts, and other hot takes in September 2018 about Colin Kaepernick's involvement in a new Nike ad campaign, some stumbled across what appeared to be a news article reporting that Ford USA was following Nike's example by making the former NFL quarterback the face of their new ad campaign: articles   This item was not a social media link to a genuine news article, nor did the featured image show a genuine Ford advertisement featuring Colin Kaepernick. This item was created as a joke for the political humor section of the Reddit social news site. Kaepernick became a controversial figure in 2016 when he started kneeling during the pre-game performance of the U.S. national anthem in protest of racial inequality and police brutality. A number of conservative football fans, including President Trump, maintained that Kaepernick's protest was disrespectful to veterans, so when Nike announced that the former football star would be featured in their latest ad campaign, social media users urged each other to boycott the brand and started posting images purportedly showing them destroying various pieces of Nike apparel. 2016 Twitter user @Patterico apparently found the videos of people burning their shoes to be amusing but noted that the entertainment value would increase if people were burning Ford F-150 trucks instead: I'll pay Ford $10 if they put Kaepernick in a commercial for F-150s so I can watch some dumbass torch his pickup on Twitter, who's with me  Patterico (@Patterico) September 4, 2018 September 4, 2018  Reddit user u/fakenewsanchorman saw this tweet and decided to create a fake news item (note the username) stating that Ford USA had indeed named Kaepernick as their new brand ambassador. On 5 September 2018, his meme was posted to the Political Humor subreddit under the title "Please Make This Actually Happen." Political Humor That Reddit user admitted in the comments section that his image did not reflect a genuine news item, but we double-checked with FoxNews.com to see if reporter Judson Berger had filed any such report. This article does not appear on Berger's author page nor anywhere else on the Fox News web site. author page This bit of fake news may have sparked sparked interest in a genuine, albeit outdated, article about Ford's stance on the national anthem protests. In September 2017, the company officially took the side of the protesting players, saying that they respected the "individuals' right to express their views": article "We respect individuals' rights to express their views, even if they are not ones we share," the company said. "That's part of what makes America great" ... Martha Firestone Ford, owner and chairwoman of the Detroit Lions and a member of the Ford family, issued a statement criticizing President Trump for his comments. "Our game has long provided a powerful platform for dialogue and positive change in many communities throughout our nation," she said. "Negative and disrespectful comments suggesting otherwise are contrary to the founding principles of our country, and we do not support those comments or opinions." Abad-Santos, Alex.  "Why the Social Media Boycott Over Colin Kaepernick Is a Win for Nike."
  Vox.  6 September 2018. Sandritter, Mark.  "A Timeline of Colin Kaepernicks National Anthem Protest and the Athletes Who Joined Him."
  SB Nation.  25 September 2017. Wiener-Bronner, Danielle.  "Ford: We Respect the Right of NFL Players to Protest."
  CNN.  25 September 2017. On Nov. 20, 2021, Twitter user @delaneykingrox tweeted that film actor Harrison Ford improvised "I know" to Carrie Fisher's "I love you" in 1980's "Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back," just before his character, Han Solo, is frozen in carbonite. She also claimed that the originally scripted line for Solo to respond to Princess Leia was, "I love you too." tweeted frozen in carbonite claimed She tweeted the thread to talk about "on the nose" dialogue, which she defined as "communicating what is obvious to the audience with no subtly or subtext." tweeted     There are a number of rumors out there about "The Empire Strikes Back" that aren't true. For example, there's the fake audience reaction sound recording from 1980 that's received nearly 10 million views on YouTube. (A video with genuine audience reaction audio from 1980 does exist, but it only had several thousand views.) rumors fake audience reaction sound recording from 1980 As for this fact check, it's true that Ford improvised Solo's line, "I know," in "The Empire Strikes Back," and that the originally scripted line was, "I love you too." While many fans might debate that the trophy for the best line in the franchise would go to Darth Vader's "I am your father," there would perhaps also be a handful of people who would vote for Solo's "I know." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdlRmWd_R7AIn a 2011 sitdown with "Cowboys and Aliens" director Jon Favreau, Ford explained that he wasn't a fan of "I love you too," which was the original line in the "Empire Strikes Back" script from story creator George Lucas. Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan also drafted the screenplay. Lucas also served as an executive producer on the film but did not direct it. The film was directed by Irvin Kershner. directed In the interview, Ford called Lucas "a powerful producer at the time," after the success of "American Graffiti" and "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope." "George had artfully contrived for Han Solo to say, 'I love you too,'" Ford said. However, the actor called it a "lost opportunity" and told Favreau: "You want your badasses to be a badass until the end." On the set of the film, Ford said he asked a question of Lucas and perhaps other members of the cast and crew. "What's the last thing a woman wants to hear when she says, 'I love you'? She says 'I love you,' and I say... 'I know.'" said https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4xdWpo4bh8According to Ford, they shot one take with the line, "I love you too," but said it was "just for protection." That recording has never been made public. "We shot one just for protection where I spoke the line as written," Ford said. "And George, I think, this is fair enough to say, he went apeshit. He thought it was horrible and that it would get a bad laugh. So I was obliged to sit next to him when he tested it for the first screening. There was a laugh, but it was a laugh of recognition. And so, he generously let it stay in the movie."  Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford in 1980's "Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back." (Photo by Lucasfilm/Sunset Boulevard/Corbis via Getty Images)  In a separate interview that appeared to be recorded years before 2011, Kershner remembered that there were perhaps more takes with either the "I love you too" line or "I know," but didn't specify which one. remembered "We tried take after take after take. Nothing satisfied me," Kershner said. "And finally, I said, 'Harrison, don't think about it. Don't think about it. Let's shoot it. Ok, action.' And he dropped in and I said, 'cut.' I said, 'yeah, that's a great line. That's Han Solo.'" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM_tGKSnMUEIn sum, yes, Ford improvised Solo's "I know" that was spoken in response to Leia's "I love you" in "The Empire Strikes Back," an exchange that perhaps could be considered as a pivotal scene in one of the most beloved onscreen love stories of all time. During theJuly 31, 2011, edition of NBCsMeet the Press, Jennifer Granholm -- a Democrat who served as governor of Michigan from 2003 to 2011 -- was asked to bring her own experience to bear on the debate over the federal debt ceiling.Clearly the entitlement question has to be addressed, Granholm said, referring to the rising cost of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which is a major contributor to the growing federal debt.However, Granholm told host David Gregory that she was skeptical about whether such cuts would be a boon for the economy at large.I can tell you, David, I cut more as a percentage out of government than any state in the country this past decade, Granholm said. And where is Michigan in terms of its economic growth? Cutting did not result in economic growth. What results in growth is making sure you've got a good business climate for businesses to grow and prosper. And so we've got to cut where we can in order to invest where we must in order to grow the economy. And it's that investment side that I worry that those who are affiliated with the tea party or who are on the far right don't realize that other countries are co-investing with businesses in order to create jobs in their countries.If we do nothing more than just cut, she continued, that will continue to accelerate the lack of growth in (gross domestic product). So we've got to realize that the strategy here must be very specific. Yes, you've got to reform entitlements, but you've got reform entitlements and invest in order to grow because the quickest way to take down your deficit is through growth.We wondered about three elements of Granholms comments: whether she cut more as a percentage out of government than any state in the country this past decade, how poor Michigans economic growth has been over the same period and whether spending cuts to state government hampered economic growth. (Separately, were looking at a comment from the same show by Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, in which he accused Granholm of supporting the highest tax increases in the history of Michigan, which helped push unemployment from 6.8 percent to 15.3 percent. )Well take up the three claims in order.Did Michigan cut more from its government than any state in the country?To answer this question, we turned toThe Fiscal Survey of States, a twice-annual publication of the National Association of State Budget Officers that offers fiscal data for the 50 states going back to 1979.We determined that the most appropriate data to use were figures for annual expenditures from the 50 states general funds. Well acknowledge up front that this is not the only measure that could be used to compare how much state governments have been cut. In fact, Michigans state revenues flow into two accounts, the general fund and the school-aid fund, and the numbers we looked at only take into account the general fund. However, fiscal experts told us that the general fund offers a reasonable yardstick for state spending, and it also turned out to be the same measurement Granholm used, according to a spokeswoman. (Then theres the eternal statisticians lament: When comparing all 50 states across a period of nearly a decade, you take the statistics you can get. )We calculated the change in general fund expenditures for all 50 states between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2010 -- the closest approximation we could get to the start and end dates of Granholms tenure.And by this measure, Granholm is right. Every state but two saw their general-fund expenditures increase over that period (without taking inflation into account). The two that didnt? Georgia, which saw its general fund expenditures fall by $54 million over that period, and Michigan, which saw its general fund expenditures fall by more than $1 billion. If theyd been adjusted for inflation, the decrease would be even more severe.Using another measure, Carole Polan, a spokeswoman for Granholm, added that from 2000 to 2008, the number of state employees fell by about 11,000 -- a 17 percent decline. That was a more rapid decline than in private employment, which fell in the state by 12 percent over the same period, Polan said.Well address the causes of these declines in a moment, but for now, we can say that by this measure, Granholm is right that spending on government declined faster in Michigan than in any other state between 2003 and 2010.How poor was Michigans economic growth during Granholms tenure?To answer this question, we looked at gross domestic product data for Michigan as published by the U.S. Commerce Departments Bureau of Economic Analysis. (Just as the bureau calculates the national gross domestic product, it does the same for individual states.) Once again, we compared Michigans GDP for 2003 and 2010.By this measure too, Michigan performed worst in the nation. Its gross domestic product rose by 6 percent over that period (again, not adjusted for inflation). That may sound okay, but its not. Its only about one-third the rate of the next worst-performing state -- Ohio, at 17 percent growth. And its less than one-fifth of the increase of the nation as a whole, which was 31 percent.So where economic growth is concerned, Granholm is right again: Michigans performance during her tenure was uniquely poor among the 50 states.Did spending cuts to state government hamper Michigans economic growth?The cuts to government almost certainly hampered Michigans economy. But experts say that they werent the primary cause of the states poor economic performance.Long-term troubles in the automotive industry, the national recession and raising taxes on businesses and individuals were all partially to blame, said Patrick L. Anderson, an economic analyst in East Lansing, Mich., who wrote a report released by Granholm's successor elected in 2010, Republican Rick Snyder.Charles Ballard, an economist at Michigan State University and author ofMichigan's Economic Future: A New Look, added that even before the national economic crisis of 2008, the auto industry limped along for much of the decade, with General Motors, Ford and Chrysler losing market share steadily. In Michigan, we dont have Honda plants -- we have GM, Ford and Chrysler plants. Two of those companies went into bankruptcy. For better or for worse, we are home to the portions of the industry that did the worst.Meanwhile, Ballard added that Michigans tax structure -- which doesnt tax most services or Internet sales and mail-order -- exacerbated the fiscal impact of these economic problems.If the sectors that arent taxed are growing faster than those that are, the sales tax applies to an ever-shrinking portion of the economy, Ballard said. So if you put the tax law on autopilot, the portion of your economy going to tax revenues shrinks every year.In fact, Michigans revenues peaked in 2000 and are not projected to return to peak until 2020, said Arturo Perez, a state budget analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures. No other state has had a similar revenue situation.Given this backdrop, a more appropriate way of thinking about it is that a poor economy in Michigan caused a drop in state tax revenue, which in turn forced Granholm to cut government services -- not the other way around. Declining tax revenue is a much more urgent factor for state governments than for the federal government, since most states are constrained from using deficit spending. (Michigan is one, though unavoidable deficits may be resolved in the next fiscal year.) This means that tax revenues play a more direct role in determining spending levels than they do at the federal level.The plain fact is that state economic growth rates are in the short run linked to the demand for products that are produced in the state -- products like autos in Michigan, oil in Texas, sunny vacations in Florida and gambling holidays in Nevada, said Gary Burtless, an economist with the centrist-to-liberal Brookings Institution. Demand for these products can have booms and busts that are completely unrelated to a states typical tax rate or spending level. In the short run, when demand for a states products plummets, its state tax revenues fall, forcing the state to trim state spending or increase state tax rates. Our ruling Theres strong evidence supporting two of Granholms statistical claims -- that government spending has fallen faster in Michigan than in any other state, and that the states economic performance has been especially poor compared to other states.However, in theMeet the Pressinterview, Granholm was trying to use her experience as a governor to make a larger point about how cutting government did not result in economic growth. She's probably correct that government cuts hampered her state's recovery, at least in the short term, but Michigans experience over the last decade suggests that the reverse is an even bigger factor -- that is, poor economic growth hurts tax revenues and, in turn, forces government cuts. This doesnt mean that Granholms point is inaccurate, but in trying to apply a state lesson to a federal problem, shes ignored a key factor in how state fiscal policy works. On balance, we rate her statement Mostly True. FACT CHECK: Can Facebook users get a $100 JCPenney coupon for liking and sharing a post?      Claim:  Facebook users can get a $100 JCPenney coupon for liking and sharing a post.     Origins: In August 2015 a link began circulating on Facebook that promised users a $100 JCPenney coupon in exchange for liking and sharing a post (with a seemingly ticking deadline clock impressing upon them the need to hurry up and do so). Users who clicked through those shared links were greeted by a page titled "Back to School with a $100 JCPenney Coupon," which mimicked the style of Facebook-based content (despite being hosted outside that social network): However, those who looked closely at the embedded link may have noticed one prominent red flag. As seen in the example at the top of this page, the URL pointed to "JCPeeney.net" and not JCPenney.com, the official website of JCPenney. Users who shared the link to the real JCPenney's Facebook wall to ask if the attractive offer was legitimate received replies from chain representatives stating: Facebook I do apologize that I have to disappoint you. The $100 off $110 coupon offer that has been posted to some social media sites is not a valid JCPenney coupon. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused. Please stop by jcpenney.com to view offers that are currently available online and in our stores. Currently we are offering our Friends and Family discount. Happy Shopping. At this point most regular Facebook users have encountered (and will continue to see) similar survey scams; Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's, Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among retailers previously used as bait by scammers aiming collect personal information and page likes from social media users. Kohl's Costco Home Depot Lowe's Kroger Best Buy Macy's Olive Garden Publix Target Walmart scammers A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau described common hallmarks of social media coupon scams: article Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. Legitimate coupons for JC Penney (and a large variety of other retailers) can be found on sale aggregators such as RetailMeNot, but even the largest discount codes never approach the $100+ savings promised by Facebook coupon scammers. RetailMeNot Last updated:  10August 2015 Originally published: 10August 2015 On June 21, 2021, the day before New York City's mayoral primary election, a New York Times reporter claimed one of the Democratic candidates  Andrew Yang  said on a conservative talk radio show that people with mental illnesses need to be hospitalized in order for the city's economy to improve.  According to a tweet by the Times journalist, Emma Fitzsimmons, billionaire John Catsimatidis and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani had just spoken with Yang on 77 WABC's "Election Coverage" show. tweet Emma Fitzsimmons John Catsimatidis Rudy Giuliani Fitzsimmons said in the post, which hundreds of users retweeted for their own followers, at 4:18 (EST):   The attribution was correct. According to 77 WABC's video recording of the June 21 broadcast segment, which featured candidates of several New York races fielding questions from Catsimatidis and Giuliani, Yang phoned into the show and had the below-transcribed exchange: video recording Yang: We're poised to win this race, and then I'm going to get to work on delivering for New Yorkers the public safety we expect and deserve, which includes getting the homeless men who are struggling mentally into environments where they're safer and healthier. It's better for everyone. [...] Catsimatidis: One of the most important things with law and order in New York City, is we have all of these homeless people in the streets and lot of them are mentally ill. [...] What happened? Don't those people deserve treatment? Aren't we better of spending money to build hospitals to treat those poor people? Yang: 100 percent. We need to get them the care that they need, but that will also supercharge our economic recovery because we all see these mentally ill people on our streets and subways, and you know who else sees them? Tourists. And then they don't come back, and they tell their friends, 'Don't go to New York City.' We're never going to get our jobs back and our economy back if we don't get the mentally ill people who are on our streets in a better environment. It's going to be worth every penny. In other words,Yang did not explicitly say hospitalizing people with severe mental health issues was "the only way" (verbatim) to restart the city's economy after the COVID-19 pandemic. However, he did say "we're never going to get our jobs back and our economy back" without supposedly taking the step, implying the same thing. Hours after the radio interview, Yang told The New York Times that he stood by his comments on the radio show, again framing the issue as one of public safety. told The New York Times We all know that public safety is top of mind for New Yorkers, he told the newspaper. There will not be an economic recovery until people feel safe walking our streets and walking our subways. It was not the first instance of Yang, a former presidential candidate, saying people with severe mental issues perpetuate some of the city's economic and social problems. During a debate on June 16 with other Democratic candidates (there are 13 total), Yang said city officials need to get people with untreated mental health issues "off of our streets and our subways into a better environment," and that "mentally ill homeless men are changing the character of our neighborhoods," presumably for the worse. June 16 Yes, mentally ill people have rights, but you know who else have rights? We do: the people and families of the city, Yang said at the debate. We have the right to walk the street and not fear for our safety because a mentally ill person is going to lash out at us. Those comments sparked criticism among social media users who pointed out research that shows people with severe mental illness are far more likely to be victims of crime  not perpetrators  and the fact that mental health includes a wide spectrum of disorders that affect everyone. research The day after the debate, Yang responded to that outcry with the below-displayed tweet. responded   Full context here was mental illness is behind half of anti-Asian hate crimes, he said. We need to get them compassionate comprehensive care  and not let them languish on our streets. FACT CHECK: Was Nick Hanauer's 2012 TED Talk about income inequality banned because it was "too politically controversial" to release?  Claim: A 2012 TED Talk video featuring wealthy entrepreneur Nick Hanauer speaking on the subject of income inequality was banned because it was deemed "too politically controversial."    Example: [Collected via e-mail, July 2015]   There are several articles that claim "TED Banned This Billionaire For Exposing Capitalism's Biggest Lie" or some similar wording. This is about the speech of Nick Hanauer, apparently a Seattle venture capitalist. The language of this sensational claim makes me suspicious, as does the unlikelihood of the claim. Is it true? What is the source of the rumour?   Origins: On 1 March 2012, Seattle-based venture capitalist and entrepreneur Nick Hanauer participated in the global conference series of "TED Talks." The video of his six-minute talk, widely circulated since its release, captured him addressing a spate of issues pertaining to income inequality and capitalism from the perspective of a very wealthy individual:  Not long after Hanauer's March 2012 talk was filmed, rumors began circulating claiming that TED had deliberately suppressed the clip due to its potentially offensive (to rich people) nature. On 16 May 2012, National Journal published an article contending that TED's organizers had quashed the groundbreaking talk because its content was simply too controversial to release, an odd assertion considering the 2011 emergence of a well-known (and widely reported upon) protest movement known as Occupy Wall Street): article Occupy Wall Street TED organizers invited a multimillionaire Seattle venture capitalist named Nick Hanauer  the first nonfamily investor in Amazon.com  to give a speech on March 1 at their TED University conference. Inequality was the topic  specifically, Hanauer's contention that the middle class, and not wealthy innovators like himself, are America's true "job creators." "We've had it backward for the last 30 years," he said. "Rich businesspeople like me don't create jobs. Rather they are a consequence of an ecosystemic feedback loop animated by middle-class consumers, and when they thrive, businesses grow and hire, and owners profit. That's why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich." You can't find that speech online. TED officials told Hanauer initially they were eager to distribute it. "I want to put this talk out into the world!" one of them wrote him in an e-mail in late April. But early this month they changed course, telling Hanauer that his remarks were too "political" and too controversial for posting. In the years since 2012, Hanauer's TED clip has paradoxically been viewed millions of times while remaining the focus of articles describing it as described as "banned," "too controversial," or the speech TED "doesn't want you to see." While it's difficult to determine the accuracy of statements about its online availability in March 2012, the clip clearly became widely available and was frequently viewed on sharing sites such as YouTube shortly thereafter, and it has remained popular ever since. But in 2015, many social media users continued to assert Hanauer's talk was banned: Banned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer  Rich People Dont Create Jobs (VIDEO) #news https://t.co/wmlAmaIZ48 #news https://t.co/wmlAmaIZ48  Hannah Kennison (@HannahKennison1) July 6, 2015 July 6, 2015   Nick Hanauer on His Banned TED Talk & Why the Middle Class are the Job Creators https://t.co/KKQOqIK5PQ https://t.co/KKQOqIK5PQ  Jonathan Goodman (@GoodmanJonathan) July 20, 2015 July 20, 2015   if you are interested in #economics, then it is worth listeningBanned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer 'Rich people don't... https://t.co/00E6rlPF1g #economics https://t.co/00E6rlPF1g  Mudassar Bashir (@mb62020) June 15, 2015 June 15, 2015   Nick Hanauer too politically controversial: rich people dont create jobs, consumers do - via Reese Jones https://t.co/9xzs0vn1kz https://t.co/9xzs0vn1kz  VritTV (@Verite_TV) June 11, 2015 June 11, 2015   In late May 2012 a contributor to TED's forums specifically asked why Hanauer's talk had been "banned," prompting a lengthy discussion during the course of which individuals affiliated with TED linked to a statement issued by TED curator Chris Anderson on why Hanauer's talk had not been promoted.     The service by which Anderson published the explanation (Posterous) shuttered in April 2013, taking Anderson's remarks with it. However, a cached version revealed the date (17 May 2012), title ("TED and inequality: The real story"), and content of Anderson's rebuttal. asked shuttered version Anderson opened by stating that "TED was subject to a story so misleading it would be funny... except it successfully launched an aggressive online campaign against us." He described an ensuing "firestorm of outrage" on sites including Reddit and Huffington Post, wherein TED was "accused of being cowards ... in the pay of our corporate partners ... [and] the despicable puppets of the Republican party." Anderson's account of the decision not to release Hanauer's talk differed dramatically from the circulating rumors: Here's what actually happened. At TED this year, an attendee pitched a 3-minute audience talk on inequality. The talk tapped into a really important and timely issue. But it framed the issue in a way that was explicitly partisan. (The talk is explicitly attacking what he calls an article of faith for Republicans. He criticizes Democrats too, but only for not also attacking this idea more often.) And it included a number of arguments that were unconvincing, even to those of us who supported his overall stance, such as the apparent ruling out of entrepreneurial initiative as a root cause of job creation. The audience at TED who heard it live (and who are often accused of being overly enthusiastic about left-leaning ideas) gave it, on average, mediocre ratings  some enthusiastic, others critical. At TED we post one talk a day on our home page. We're drawing from a pool of 250+ that we record at our own conferences each year and up to 10,000 recorded at the various TEDx events around the world, not to mention our other conference partners. Our policy is to post only talks that are truly special. And we try to steer clear of talks that are bound to descend into the same dismal partisan head-butting people can find every day elsewhere in the media. We discussed internally and ultimately told the speaker we did not plan to post. He did not react well. He had hired a PR firm to promote the talk to MoveOn and others, and the PR firm warned us that unless we posted he would go to the press and accuse us of censoring him. We again declined and this time I wrote him and tried gently to explain in detail why I thought his talk was flawed. So he forwarded portions of the private emails to a reporter and the National Journal duly bit on the story. And it was picked up by various other outlets. As Anderson noted, income inequality was the subject of at least one [uncensored] TED Talk video in 2011. video Much of the rumor regarding Nick Hanauer's purportedly banned TED Talk segment hinged upon the differing assertions made by TED and Nick Hanauer at the time of the controversy in 2012. However, Anderson's claims (that TED curators are tasked with promoting only the most impactful clips) weren't implausible or suggestive of a coverup. It would be difficult to determine whether Hanauer or anyone working on his behalf threatened a public relations offensive, but TED maintained that quality and not content was behind the decision not to feature the video (which clearly was not "banned" from public view but was simply not promoted by TED). Since the time of the initial debate over whether or why the TED talk was "banned," the clip has been distributed both by TED and other outlets and widely viewed by a large online audience. In August 2014, Hanauer returned for a TED Talk titled "Beware, fellow plutocrats, the pitchforks are coming." titled While it's true that TED opted not to promote Hanauer's initial appearance (during which he discussed income inequality) his segment was not banned, and the organization cited his lack of substantive content alongside his primary reliance on partisan ideas as the reason it was not curated alongside other featured TED Talks. At no point during the immediate controversy did TED appear to deny the existence of the video, remove it from the Internet, interfere with its distribution, or otherwise thwart the ideas advocated by Hanauer from spreading. The group simply chose initially not to promote the clip (as they do for a large number of TED Talks) in favor of other content selected by their curators. Last updated:  27July 2015 Originally published: 27July 2015 Bell peppers come in a variety of sizes and colors, and, according to a popular internet rumor, a variety of genders as well:  This old cook's tale about identifying the gender of bell peppers has been around for years, but it has recently seen an uptick in Internet interest on social media sites such as Pinterest. But no matter how many times the above-displayed image is shared, it will not change the fact that a bell pepper's sex cannot be determined by the number of bumps on its outer surface  in large part because peppers aren't classifiable as being wholly one sex or the other: Pinterest A section on the reproductive biology of peppers in The Encyclopedia of Fruit and Nuts notes that bell peppers come from flowers possessing both male and female sex organs: "Pepper flowers are complete and perfect, that is they have a calyx, corolla and male and female sex organs. The flowers are protogynous, but readily self-pollinate." notes David Karp, a pomologist at UC Riverside, also addressed the rumor of bell pepper gender in 2013: "The supposition that there are male and female peppers is a common canard, but untrue. Peppers grow from flowers that have both male and female parts. The fruits do not have a gender." addressed While bell peppers are neither male nor female, some food blogs have insisted there is still some usefulness to this widespread rumor. For example, the Garden Frugal writes that while it is not scientifically accurate to label bell peppers male or female, assigning a gender may help cooks remember how to choose the right peppers: writes Describing peppers as a gender is not accurate, because bell peppers are hermaphroditic. The gender reference is used only as a memory aid to help select the best bell pepper for each purpose either eating raw, seed collection, or for cooking. There is a simple method for identifying which bell pepper has the traits you desire. Peppers with four lobes are female and those with three lobes are male. The female peppers with more lobes, contain more seeds are best for seed collecting and growing new plants (hence female). They are also sweeter when eaten raw. The male peppers with three or fewer lobes are better for grilling, cooking. They also contain fewer seeds. But this claim is also unfounded, as the number of lobes on a pepper does not have any bearing on its taste. And while it could be argued a four-lobed pepper has more seeds than a three-lobed pepper, this has more to do with the overall size of the fruit than the number of lobes.