Did Soleimani Command Forces That Killed U.S. Capt. Brian S. Freeman?
In January 2020, readers asked us about viral Facebook posts that offered a particularly poignant perspective in the U.S. on the U.S.-ordered assassination of Major General Qassem Soleimani, head of Iran's elite clandestine Quds Force.  On Jan. 3, the following message was posted to Facebook: posted For those people who want to apologize to Iran for the killing of Qassem Soleimani, I present you with Army Captain Brian S. Freeman. Brian was a loving husband, father, Olympic caliber athlete and Army Civil Affairs team leader who actually cared about people regardless of who they were, where they came from, what God they worshipped, or their politics. 13 years ago this month, Cpt. Brian Freeman and his team of Civil Affairs soldiers were in Karbala, Iraq at a meeting to help improve the lives of the people of that province. During that meeting, a team under the command of Gen. Qassem Soleimani, stormed in, killing a number of Americans, and capturing Brian and several members of his team. The captured CA team members were handcuffed, driven away from the meeting and later executed. Once found, in spite of our best efforts, several medics, including myself, unsuccessfully attempted to save Brian. Captain Freeman is but one of the lives lost due to the evil of Qassem Soleimani. Qassem Soleimani was an evil person whose end, regardless of the politics surrounding it is a good thing. With that, anyone apologizing to Iran for Soleimani's death is, I feel, pandering to an oppressive regime out of either ignorance, moral bankruptcy, or in a heartless attempt at self-promotion. Rest in Peace Brian.  That message was promulgated even further when it was re-posted by another user.   re-posted According to the U.S. Department of Defense, sufficient evidence and intelligence exists to conclude that the January 2007 attack in Karbala, Iraq, which killed five U.S. service members including Freeman, was one of several that was directed, planned, and funded by the Quds Force  an elite branch of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard. Soleimani was head of that force until his death on Jan. 2, 2020. So the key claim made in the Facebook posts shared so widely in January  that Soleimani, as senior leader of the Quds Force, was responsible for the death of Freeman  reflects the official position and conclusion of the U.S. government. However, both the Iranian government and Soleimani himself have denied any Quds Force involvement in attacks perpetrated against U.S. forces in Iraq at that time of Freeman's death. We asked the Department of Defense (DOD) if it could provide evidence that would demonstrate the role of the Quds Force, and Soleimani in particular, in the planning or ordering of the attack, but we received no response. The claim that Soleimani was, at least in part, responsible for the death of Freeman and four others in the January 2007 attack appears quite plausible. However, evidence that would definitively demonstrate that responsibility is not publicly available, and as a result, we are issuing a rating of "Unproven." If we obtain such evidence, we will update this fact check accordingly.  Freeman was assigned to the 412th Civil Affairs Battalion and was attending meetings at the Provincial Joint Coordination Center in Karbala, on Jan. 20, 2007. Around 5 p.m. local time that day, insurgents wearing U.S.-style military uniforms attacked the compound. Here's how DOD described the attack, a week later: described At about 5 p.m. that day, a convoy consisting of at least five sport utility vehicles entered the Karbala compound and about 12 armed militants attacked the American troops with rifle fire and hand grenades, officials said. One soldier was killed and three others wounded by a hand grenade thrown into the center's main office. Other explosions within the compound destroyed three Humvees. The attackers withdrew with four captured U.S. soldiers and drove out of the Karbala province into the neighboring Babil province. Iraqi police began trailing the assailants after they drew suspicion at a checkpoint. Three soldiers were found dead and one fatally wounded, along with five abandoned vehicles, near the town of Mahawil. Two were found handcuffed together in the back of one of the vehicles. The other two were found nearby on the ground. One soldier was found alive but died en route to a nearby hospital. All suffered from gunshot wounds. Also recovered at the site were U.S. Army-type combat uniforms, boots, radios and a non-U.S. made rifle, officials said. The five U.S. service members listed as killed in the attack were: Due to the relative sophistication of the attack, U.S. military officials quickly suspected Iranian involvement in its planning. By July 2007, DOD had come to the conclusion that the Karbala attack was indeed one of several carried out against U.S. and Coalition forces in Iraq, which had been planned and directed by Iran, specifically by "senior leadership" of the Quds Force. At that time, Soleimani was the head of the Quds Force. Here's how the Department of Defense described that Iranian involvement in a July 2007 statement: suspected statement While al Qaeda in Iraq remains the main enemy in the country, coalition and Iraqi forces are increasingly targeting groups whose training, funding and supplies come from Iran, a spokesman for Multinational Force Iraq said today. Army Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner also said Iran is funding Hezbollah operatives in Iraq. Hezbollah is a Shiia extremist group based in Lebanon. The terror group has seats in the Lebanese parliament and operates as a shadow government for Shiia areas of that country. Iran trains, supplies and funds that group. Actions against these Iraqi groups have allowed coalition intelligence officials to piece together the Iranian connection to terrorism in Iraq. Bergner said that Irans Quds Force, a special branch of Irans Revolutionary Guards, is training, funding and arming the Iraqi groups. ... The groups operate throughout Iraq. They planned and executed a string of bombings, kidnappings, sectarian murders and more against Iraqi citizens, Iraqi forces and coalition personnel. They receive arms -- including explosively formed penetrators, the most deadly form of improvised explosive device -- and funding from Iran. They also have received planning, help and orders from Iran, Bergner said. Of greatest relevance to this fact check, U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner said two men prominently involved in the series of attacks, including the Karbala attack  Ali Musa Daqduq and Qayis Khazali  had themselves not only acknowledged the role of the Quds Force in planning and funding the Karbala attack, but said Iran's assistance was essential to its execution. One group leader was Azhar Dulaymi, whom coalition forces killed May 19. Bergner said the terrorist led the Jan. 20 attack on the Provincial Joint Coordination Center in Karbala that killed five U.S. soldiers. Dulaymi worked closely with Ali Musa Daqduq and Qayis Khazali, two men with direct links to Iran. Coalition forces captured Daqduq on March 20. He is Lebanese-born and has served for the past 24 years in Lebanese Hezbollah, Bergner said. He was in Iraq working as a surrogate for Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps Quds Force operatives involved with special groups. Daqduq, a member of Hezbollah in Lebanon since 1983, served as a bodyguard for Hezbollah leader Sayyad Hassan Nazrullah. He also led Hezbollah operations in large areas of Lebanon, Bergner said. In 2005, he was directed by senior Lebanese Hezbollah leadership to go to Iran and work with the Quds Force to train Iraqi extremists, the general said. In May 2006, he traveled to Tehran with Yussef Hashim, a fellow Lebanese Hezbollah and head of their operations in Iraq. There they met with the commander and deputy commander of the Iranian Quds Force special external operations. Daqduq was ordered to Iraq to report on the training and operations of the Iraqi special groups. In the year prior to his capture, Ali Musa Daqduq made four trips to Iraq, Bergner said. He monitored and reported on the training and arming of special groups in mortars and rockets, manufacturing and employment of improvised explosive devices, and kidnapping operations. Most significantly, he was tasked to organize the special groups in ways that mirrored how Hezbollah was organized in Lebanon. Daqduq also helped the Quds Force in training Iraqis inside Iran. Quds Force, along with Hezbollah instructors train approximately 20 to 60 Iraqis at a time, sending them back to Iraq organized into these special groups, he said. They are being taught how to use (explosively formed penetrators), mortars, rockets, as well as intelligence, sniper and kidnapping operations. The Quds Force also supplies the groups with weapons and a funding stream of between $750,000 to $3 million a month. Without this support, these special groups would be hard-pressed to conduct their operations in Iraq, Bergner said. ...Khazali was captured with Daqduq. He was in charge of these groups throughout Iraq since June 2006. He is an Iraqi who worked to develop the Iraqi groups into a network similar to Hezbollah. It is important to point out that both Ali Musa Daqduq and Qayis Khazali state that senior leadership within the Quds Force knew of and supported planning for the eventual Karbala attack that killed five coalition soldiers, Bergner said. Ali Musa Daqduq contends the Iraqi special groups could not have conducted this complex operation without the support and direction of the Quds Force." Ali Musa Daqduq and Qayis Khazali both confirm that Qayis Khazali authorized the operation and Azhar al Dulaymi, who we killed in an operation earlier this year, executed the operation. All of this is counter to pledges Iran has made to the Iraqi government to respect territorial boundaries and work to ease violence inside Iraq, Bergner said. [Emphasis is added]. So the official position of the U.S. government has been that the Karbala attack which killed Freeman and four other service members was one of several attacks on U.S. and Coalition forces in Iraq which were planned, coordinated, funded or directed by the Quds Force, and that two terrorists captured months later had themselves said "senior leadership" of the Quds Force (which can reasonably be understood to mean Soleimani) "knew of and supported planning" for the Karbala attack.  This would certainly appear to lend credibility to the claim, in widely shared Facebook posts, that the forces that killed Freeman were commanded by Soleimani, though it seems more likely they were trained and commanded by others, as part of a broader strategy overseen and directed by Soleimani, on behalf of the Iranian government.  However, definitive proof of Quds Force and Soleimani involvement in the Karbala attack is not publicly available. We asked DOD to provide any evidence, potentially including correspondence or statements made by participants such as Daqduq or Khazali, that would corroborate and support the official U.S. position on responsibility for the Karbala attack. Unfortunately, we did not receive a response. Furthermore, both the Iranian government and Soleimani himself denied being responsible for attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq. After Bergner's July 2007 briefing, an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson rejected allegations of Iranian involvement, in general, non-specific terms, saying: "American leaders have gotten into the habit of issuing ridiculous and false statements without providing evidence, with political and psychological aims. The country's defense minister, Mohammad Najar, also reportedly denied Iranian "military interference" in Iraq.  rejected denied In 2007, shortly after the Karbala attack, then-U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad sent a diplomatic cable in which he recounted a meeting with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. According to Khalilzad, Talabani had met with Soleimani in Syria, and the Quds Force leader had assured the president he was not directing attacks on American troops in Iraq, reportedly saying: "I swear on the grave of Khomeini I haven't authorized a bullet against the U.S." recounted Those denials should be viewed with an appropriate degree of skepticism, but they must be noted. The Iranian denials, combined with the absence of publicly available evidence that definitively demonstrates Iranian, Quds Force, or Soleimani responsibility for the Jan. 20, 2007, attack that killed Freeman and four other Americans in Karbala, means we are, for now, issuing a rating of "Unproven." American Forces Press Service. "Karbala Attackers Used U.S. Army-Styled Uniforms to Gain Access."
 U.S. Department of Defense. 26 January 2007. CNN. "Iran Involvement Suspected in Karbala Compound Attack."
 31 January 2007. Garamone, Jim. "Iran Arming, Training, Directing Terror Groups in Iraq, U.S. Official Says."
 American Forces Press Service, U.S. Department of Defense. 2 July 2007. NBC News/The Associated Press. "U.S. Accuses Iran of Role in Deadly Attack in Iraq."
 2 July 2007. Gordon, Michael R. "U.S. Ties Iran to Deadly Iraq Attack."
 The New York Times. 2 July 2007. Gordon, Michael R. and Bernard E. Trainor. "The Endgame: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Iraq, From George W. Bush to Barack Obama."
 Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. 25 September 2012.
In Gov. Andrew Cuomos 10th State of the State address last week, he claimed that under his administration, We have the lowest corporate tax rate since 1968. New Yorks business climate has for years been thesubject of criticismfrom business groups and conservative lawmakers, so we wondered about this claim. We approached Cuomos office, where spokesman Jason Conwall provided us with historical tax data. The Department of Taxation and Finance maintains this data, and atabletitled History of Corporate Tax Rates in New York State, 1917-2009, shows that between 1968 and 1970, the corporate tax rate, also known as the corporation franchise tax, was 7 percent. The rate did not fall below 7 percent in later years, and in the final year, 2009, the rate was 7.1 percent. Since 2009, the rate changed once, when it was lowered to 6.5 percent, Conwall said. The 6.5 percent ratetook effect on Jan. 1, 2016. Historically, New York has had separate rates for banks and insurance companies. The bank tax wasmergedinto the corporate tax system in 2015. We reached out to observers of the states tax policies for context and to check for any conflicting data. The Tax Foundation, a national organization, studies federal and state tax policy and advocated for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act supported by President Trump and congressional Republicans. The Tax Foundation confirmed Cuomos claim. New York saw remarkable improvement in both its corporate rate - bringing it down to 6.5 percent - and structure - cutting four corporate bases down to three - through tax reform in 2014, said policy analyst Janelle Cammenga. The Tax Foundation advocates for simpler tax codes, and Cammenga noted that New Yorks complex individual income tax code affects so-called pass-through businesses, such as partnerships, sole-proprietorships, and limited liability companies. E.J. McMahon, founder and research director at the conservative Empire Center, also confirmed Cuomos claim. McMahon added that in the 12-county region in downstate New York served by the Metropolitan Transit Authority, a surcharge brings the tax rate to 8.34 percent there. But even with the surcharge, its still the lowest rate since 1970, McMahon said. At the left-leaning Fiscal Policy Institute, executive director Ron Deutsch confirmed Cuomos claim. Dave Friedfel, director of state studies at the Citizens Budget Commission, a nonpartisan research and advocacy organization in Albany and New York City, said that readers should be aware that companies in New York pay more than just the corporate franchise tax. In addition to the MTA surcharge,set by the state, New York City imposes a 8.85 percent corporate franchise tax. Overall, its good that New York States corporate franchise tax rates are lower than they were and arecompetitive nationwide, but its just a small part of the taxes paid by businesses in New York, Friedfel said. Cuomo claims that under his administration, New York has the lowest corporate tax rate since 1968. Though there are other taxes levied on businesses in New York, experts from the left and the right agree with Cuomo's assertion. We rate Cuomos statement True. During Donald Trumps recent fundraising trip to San Diego, Democratic Congressman Scott Peters had some harsh words for the GOP nominee. His economic policies are dangerous, Peters, who represents much of 'America's Finest City,' told reporters on a conference call. He will say or do anything that benefits him. We cant fact check that statement because its the congressmans opinion. But Peters repeated one critique thats open to examination: This is a guy, he said of Trump, who rooted for the housing crisis, because he knew he could make money off of it. Congressman Scott Peters, D-San Diego, campaigns at a town hall in October 2014. AP Photo/Lenny Ignelzi Hillary Clinton lodged the same attack in a Maycampaign video. In 2006, Donald Trump was hoping for a real estate crash, the ad says, showing a picture of Trump giving two thumbs up. The ad goes on to list consequences from the Great Recession, which peaked in 2008. It lists 9 million jobs lost and 5 million families who lost their homes. This campaign ad from Hillary For America includes 2006 audio from Donald Trump about the housing market. That's followed by audio, identified as being from 2006, of Trump saying, I sort of hope that happens because then people like me would go in and buy ... If there is a bubble burst, as they call it, you know, you could make a lot of money. And the man who could be our next president was rooting for it to happen, the ad contends. Peters statement that Trump rooted for the housing crisis, clearly draws on the Clinton ad. His office referred us to the Democratic National Committee, which supplied the Clinton ad with Trumps I sort of hope that happens audio. Our national PolitiFact team checked the original claim made in May by the Clinton ad andrated it Mostly True. Heres why: I sort of hope that happens Trumps statement comes from the audiobook How to Build a Fortune, created as part ofTrump University, which has been the subject of three lawsuits from former students who allege they were ripped off by the billionaire. In 2006, real estate values had peaked and there was concern that they were overpriced, creating a bubble that could burst, producing a rapid fall in values. The man interviewing Trump for the audiobook says, There's a lot of talk, which you've no doubt heard too, about a so-called real estate bubble. What's your take on that pessimism? Well first of all, I sort of hope that happens because then people like me would go in and buy. You know, if you're in a good cash position  which I'm in a good cash position today  then people like me would go in and buy like crazy, he says in a portion of the audiobookposted by CNN. If there is a bubble burst, as they call it, you know, you can make a lot of money. Whether the bubble burst that Trump was hoping for deserves to be called a crash, especially a crash on the scale of what occurred during the Great Recession, is open to debate. Trump, in the audiobook, adds: At the same time, I don't think that (real estate bubble burst) will happen because if interest rates stay fairly low, if the dollar stays pretty much where it is or even goes a little bit higher, but basically if you have a weak dollar, this is tremendous amounts of money pouring in, so I don't think that's going to happen. I'm not a believer that the interest market, that the real estate market, is going to take a big hit. Obviously, he would turn out to be wrong. A year later, in 2007, Trump wastelling the Toronto Globe and Mailthat he was ready to invest in real estate because the market was starting to head down. People have been talking about the end of the cycle for 12 years, and I'm excited if it is, he told the paper. I've always made more money in bad markets than in good markets. The Trump campaign didn't respond to PolitiFact's emails. Our ruling Rep. Scott Peters, D-CA, said Donald Trump rooted for the housing crisis, because he knew he could make money off of it. His statement parallels a claim in Hillary Clintons May campaign ad: In 2006, Donald Trump was hoping for a real estate crash. Trump said on more than one occasion that he welcomed a downturn in the real estate market because it would give him a chance to buy properties at a bargain and sell them at a higher price later. What's far less clear is whether Trump was rooting for something on the scale of the Great Recession, a suggestion made in the Clinton ad, or a housing crisis, as suggested by Peters. In fact, Trumps comments in his audiobook and to the Globe and Mail show he didn't envision the financial meltdown that followed. PolitiFact rated Clintons statementMostly True, saying it was accurate but needs clarification or additional information. For the same reason, we rate Peters statement Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/20b849c5-4175-4117-a150-6010ffdaec89 Wisconsin DemocratKathleen Vinehout, who is considering a run for governor in 2018, is sounding alarm bells about the state budget proposed by Republican Gov.Scott Walker-- who appears to be preparing to runfor a third term. In a Feb. 20, 2017interview, the state senator from Alma was asked by Wisconsin Public Radio talk show host Joy Cardin abouta columnshe had written about Walkers 2017-19 spending plan, which was released a couple of weeks earlier. The column highlighted what Vinehout -- who ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic nomination to run against Walker in the 2012 gubernatorial recall election -- described as little known details about the budget. Cardin wanted to know why there would be a large increase in the number of people working for the Department of Administration. Thats a department, whose secretary is appointed by Walker, that works closely with the governors office. Vinehout replied by saying 485 positions would be added to the department in the category of supervisor and management, although in many cases, they would be people transferred from other departments. It really kind of takes the whole heart of state government -- especially as money flows in and out of agencies, and puts it into the Department of Administration, she added. Leaving aside Vinehouts view of the impact of the move, lets check whether Walker is proposing to add 485 positions in the category of supervisor and management to his Department of Administration. The numbers The major functions of theDepartment of Administrationinclude helping the governor develop and implement the state budget and supporting other state agencies with centralized purchasing and financial management.The department alsocoordinates telecommunications, energy, and land use planning and community development, and it regulates racing, charitable gaming and Indian gaming. Walkers budget, which must be approved by the Legislature, would increase the departments positions in both years of the budget. The new total for the department would be 1,149 positions -- an increase of 485. And those positions are listed under the heading of supervision and management. But Bob Lang, director of the nonpartisan state Legislative Fiscal Bureau, gave us some context about the 485: The majority of positions are held by existing employees who work for other agencies; these are not new state government positions. The majority would continue to physically work in those agencies, such as the Department of Natural Resources, but would become employees of the Department of Administration. Despite the designation in the budget document as supervision and management, the vast majority would not be supervisors or managers -- rather they are involved in the supervision and management of human resource activities such as employee recruitment and assistance, training, and payroll and benefits. Walker saysthe primary aim is to assign various administrative functions to a single entity, allowing individual agencies to focus on their core business missions and avoid redundant efforts on services that can be offered most effectively from a central entity. But its also true that if the Legislature goes along with Walkers plan, those employees would be more directly under his control. Our rating In sounding alarms about Walkers budget, Vinehout says the governor is proposing to add 485 positions in the category of supervisor and management to his Department of Administration. Vinehout is correct on the number and, technically, they are in the category of supervisor and management. But while they are involved in the supervision and management of human resource activities, the vast majority are not actually in supervisory or management positions. For a statement that is accurate but needs clarification, our rating is Mostly True. In March 2021, fake email renewals for Norton Internet Security landed in inboxes and spam folders, and warned of devices infected with viruses. An example email had the subject line: "your norton subscription has expired your device has been infected with viruses n020953." A variation said the same thing with a different ending number: "your norton subscription has expired your device has been infected with viruses n915093." The email that appeared to be from "Norton-Support2021" notified users that their supposed subscription to Norton Internet Security had expired.  The Norton renewal offer was a scam.  The headline claimed that recipients' devices had become infected with viruses. However, that seemingly important item didn't appear in the body of the email: EXPIRATION NOTIFICATION Our records indicate that your subscription to Norton Internet Security Expired on: 20 Feb 2021 11:11:22 -0500 Therefore, you are no longer receiving automatic updates that protect you against the latest threats, including viruses, spyware, hackers, and identity thieves. If you are browsing, banking, shopping, checking email or doing anything online, we highly recommend you renew your subscription now and get the new Norton Internet Security. Renew Now You will receive a full year of protection for up to 3 household PCs and peace of mind when you're online. Sincerely,The Norton Team This was not a legitimate email from Norton AntiVirus or Norton Internet Security. In an example email we reviewed, all links in the message pointed to a website hosted on a Brazilian domain. The "unsubscribe" link at the bottom of the message led to the scam as well. If readers receive a suspicious email that claims to be from Norton, desktop users can safely hover over links (but not click on them) in order to see where they lead. If they don't go to an official Norton website, such as "norton.com," do not click the link. Also, the email address the message came from appeared to begin with "Norton-Support2021@" and end with a long string of random letters. The email address did not end in "@norton.com" or anything similar. The company published a page to help keep Norton users safe from these kinds of renewal email virus scams. For example, it listed several email addresses they used to send official correspondence: norton@nortonlifelock.com, norton@secure.norton.com, ems@norton.com, lifelock@secure.norton.com, and information@mail.nortonstore.hk. published a page It's true that Norton may send renewal offers. However, such offers will never arrive with completely lowercase subject lines. Further, there was no indication that Norton notifies customers "your device has been infected with viruses" in renewal email offers. "The URLs in our emails point to the server at: https://secure.norton.com. Make sure that the URLs begin with https:// and has a norton.com or lifelock.com domain." Norton users who run the company's apps will potentially receive official emails from noreply@norton.com, no-reply@nortonlifelock.com, NortonAccount@norton.com, norton@nortonlifelock.com, and management@norton.com. Other email addresses are covered on the Norton Support page. Norton Support page We've covered concerns regarding computer viruses since the 1990s. For example, the purported virus in a Budweiser frogs screensaver first made the rounds in 1997. Thankfully, it was a hoax. made the rounds Twenty-four years later, the Norton emails being received by readers were not a hoax. We recommend proceeding with caution when reviewing potentially harmful messages. Hovering over links to see where they lead is safe, but clicking on them may not be. In sum, fake renewal email offers appeared to be from Norton Internet Security and claimed that devices were infected with viruses. This was not official correspondence from the company. The scams should be avoided. The wordconservativewas uttered 18 times during the Fox Business News Republican presidential debate on Nov. 10, 2015. The first 17 references made in the Milwaukee Theatre were done with particular emphasis by U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. (Ohio Gov. John Kasich used the word once.) Paul called himself the only fiscal conservative among the eight candidates on stage -- and made a point to contrast himself with U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, in one of the more contentious exchanges of the night. Rubio had just defended his proposal to increase a child tax credit when Paul interjected. We have to decide what is conservative and what isn't conservative. Is it fiscally conservative to have a trillion-dollar expenditure? We're not talking about giving people back their tax money. He's talking about giving people money they didn't pay. It's a welfare transfer payment,Paul saidof Rubios tax credit plan. So, here's what we have. Is it conservative to have $1 trillion in transfer payments -- a new welfare program that's a refundable tax credit? Add that to Marco's plan for $1 trillion in new military spending, and you get something that looks, to me, not very conservative. Defending the tax credit and his defense spending proposals, Rubio said the family is the most important institution in society and the world is a stronger and a better place when the United States is the strongest military power in the world. But is Rubio proposing a new $1 trillion welfare program and $1 trillion in new military spending? And $1 trillion over what period of time? Tax credit Rubiostax planincludes creating a new, partially refundable child tax credit of up to $2,500 per child. It is meant to offset income and payroll taxes and is considerably larger than the $1,000 credit that is currently available. Refundabletax credits help people at the lower end of the income scale, in that people who are too poor to pay any income tax can get money back from the government. Pauls campaign referred us to a March 2015analysisby the nonpartisan Tax Foundation of a tax plan proposed in the Senate by Rubio and U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah. That analysis estimated the credit would result in a loss of tax revenue of about $170 billion per year. Thats the equivalent of $1.7 trillion over 10 years -- 10 years being a common time frame for federal budget planning. But its worth noting that Paul didnt say 10 years in making his claim. Well note that, unlike the original Rubio-Lee plan, Rubio as a candidate isproposingthat the credit would be phased out at higher income levels --  beginning at $150,000 for an individual and $300,000 for a family. That would mean the lost revenue would be something less than $1.7 trillion over 10 years, but still well above $1 trillion, saidKyle Pomerleau, director of federal projects at the Tax Foundation, a free market-oriented think tank. Thats because relatively few people at the higher incomes have children and would be eligible for the tax credits, he told us. In other words, the tax credit is expensive, Pomerlau said, because its large and nearly universal for families. The Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of theUrban InstituteandBrookings Institution, also did anestimateof the original tax credit proposal and came up with a figure similar to that of the Tax Foundation -- an estimated loss of nearly $1.58 trillion in tax revenue over 10 years. Roberton Williams, a fellow at the Tax Policy Center, told us the center hasn't analyzed Rubio's current proposal. But he said a loss of $1 trillion in tax revenue over 10 years is a fair estimate. Pauls characterization of Rubios tax credit as welfare is a stretch, however. Eleanor May, Pauls campaign spokeswoman, said giving people a refundable credit -- meaning, giving them more than they paid is a welfare transfer payment from one group of people to another. But as our colleagues at PunditFactnoted, even the most expansive definition of welfare --  including the cash program called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (formerly known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children), traditional food stamps, Medicaid and the food program called Women, Infants and Children -- doesnt include tax credits. Rubio, whose campaign did not respond to our requests for this article, noted in the debate that everyone who works pays the payroll tax. Defense spending Rubio has backed more defense spending since at least March 2015, when he and U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., introduced a budget amendment to increase the Pentagons budget. At the time, Rubio argued that adjusted for inflation, defense spending had declined by 21 percent since 2010 -- a claim PolitiFact National ratedMostly True. Rubios amendment proposed restoring defense spending levels to what had been proposed in the spring of 2011, for fiscal 2012 going forward, by then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Gates proposal was prior to spending limits that were imposed by theBudget Control Actof 2011, which became law in the summer of 2011. Returning to the so-called 2012 proposed spending levels would add $1 trillion in defense spending over 10 years,Benjamin Friedman, a defense research fellow at the liberatrian Cato Institute, told us. That is also the estimate made in a July 2015reportfrom the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. The morning after the Milwaukee debate, Rubio was asked in a Fox News interview: So, where are you going to get the trillion dollars from that Rand Paul says we shouldnt be spending? Rubio didnt address the figure, saying: First of all, before we fund anything, the federal government should be fully funding national security. But he has made references to the $1 trillion cost in the past. In a September 2014speech, Rubio said he agreed with a recommendation by the bipartisan National Defense Panel to return to the 2012-level spending, which we are on track to be around $1 trillion short of through fiscal year 2022. And on his campaign website, Rubiosayshe would restore defense spending to the 2012 level, and begin to undo the damage caused by $1 trillion in indiscriminate defense cuts. Our rating Paul said Rubio is proposing a new $1 trillion welfare program and $1 trillion in new military spending. Its estimated that over 10 years, a common time frame for federal budget planning, Rubios child tax credit would result in the loss of $1 trillion in tax revenue; and his plan to reverse declines in Pentagon spending would cost $1 trillion. But its a stretch to call the tax credit welfare and in making his claim, Paul didnt state that the $1 trillion costs would be over 10 years. We rate Pauls statement Mostly True. More debate claims Go herefor PolitiFact National's fact checks on statements made during the Milwaukee debate. And herefor PolitiFact Wisconsin's night-of review of the debate. Debt is typically a major campaign issue in elections from the municipal level all the way up to the office of the President of the United States.  Candidates tout their accomplishments in balancing budgets or reducing government debt as examples of fiscal prudence while pointing to increased debts during their opponents' administrations as indicators of profligate and wasteful spending of taxpayers' money.    The chart reproduced above, which was posted to the Flickr account of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, attempted to reverse conventional political stereotypes by portraying recent Republican presidents as responsible for huge increases in the national debt, while showing recent Democratic presidents as responsible for much lower increases in the level of debt.   Flickr account As a first step in evaluating this chart, we have to determine the applicable definition of "debt."  In general, the term "public debt" (or "debt held by the public") refers to money borrowed by the government through the issuance and sale of securities, government bonds, and bills.  It includes federal debt held by all investors outside of the federal government, including individuals, corporations, state or local governments, the Federal Reserve banking system, and foreign governments. Another form of debt is "intragovernmental debt" (or "debt held by government accounts"), which refers to money that the government has borrowed from itself, such as when the U.S. government invests money from federal savings programs such as Medicare and the Social Security trust fund by buying up its own treasury securities.  A variety of names have been applied to the total of these two forms of debt, including "gross federal debt," "total public debt," and "national debt." Although this chart is labeled as presenting a "percent increase in public debt," it actually uses figures corresponding to the total described as "gross federal debt" above (i.e., a combination of debt held by the public and debt held by government accounts, rather than just the former).  We checked the numbers in this chart by using (for pre-1993 years) the U.S. Treasury's Monthly Statement of the Public Debt (MSPD), noting the total debt reported as of January 31 of each relevant year, and (for 1993 onwards) the Treasury's The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It application, noting the total debt reported as of Inauguration Day of each relevant year. Monthly Statement of the Public Debt The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It From these records, we gleaned the following information: Ronald Reagan:Took office January 1981.  Total debt: $848 billionLeft office January 1989.    Total debt: $2,698 billionPercent change in total debt:  +218%  George H.W. Bush:Took office January 1989.  Total debt: $2,698 billionLeft office 20 January 1993.    Total debt: $4,188 billionPercent change in total debt:  +55% Bill Clinton:Took office 20 January 1993.  Total debt: $4,188 billionLeft office 20 January 2001.  Total debt: $5,728 billionPercent change in total debt:  +37% George W. Bush:Took office 20 January 2001.  Total debt: $5,728 billionLeft office 20 January 2009.  Total debt: $10,627 billionPercent change in total debt:  +86% Barack Obama:Took office 20 January 2009.  Total debt: $10,627 billionTotal debt (as of the end of April 2011):  $14,288 billionPercent change in total debt:  +34% So, as far as raw numbers go, the chart is reasonably accurate (although our calculations produced a somewhat higher debt increase for Ronald Reagan than reported).  That said, however, we have to consider how valuable these numbers are; whether by themselves they present a reasonable comparative measure of presidential fiscal responsibility.  In that regard, one could find a number of aspects to take issue with:  The chart isn't a true comparison of equals, as it includes three presidents who served two full terms (Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush), a president who served one term (George H.W. Bush), and a president who had served half a term (Obama).  Obviously, the longer a president holds office the greater the opportunity for him to influence the debt, and certainly (barring a radical change in current circumstances)  the increase reported for Barack Obama would be considerably higher by the time he left office.   All presidents come into office with policies and budgets that were put into place by their predecessors in the White House and Congress, and they all pass the same along to their successors when they leave office.  Therefore, determining how much of the change in debt that occurs during a given president's administration is actually the result of his actions (rather than the consequence of factors over which he had little or no influence) would require a much more complex analysis than the one presented here.  Which is the best measure of debt for this purpose: public debt, intragovernmental debt, or a combination of the two?  As noted in the General Accounting Office's FAQ on Federal Debt, they represent rather different concepts: FAQ Debt held by the public approximates current federal demand on credit markets. It represents a burden on today's economy, and the interest paid on this debt represents a burden on current taxpayers. Federal borrowing from the public absorbs resources available for private investment and may put upward pressure on interest rates. Further, debt held by the public is the accumulation of what the federal government borrowed in the past and is reported as a liability on the balance sheet of the government's consolidated financial statements. In contrast, debt held by government accounts (intragovernmental debt) and the interest on it represent a claim on future resources. This debt performs largely an internal accounting function. Special federal securities credited to government accounts (primarily trust funds) represent the cumulative surpluses of these accounts that have been lent to the general fund. These transactions net out on the government's consolidated financial statements. Debt issued to government accounts does not affect today's economy and does not currently compete with the private sector for available funds in the credit market.   Are plain percentage changes in the national debt level a useful figure, or do they need to be placed in context to have relevance?  Some would argue, for example, that the Debt-to-GDP ratio is a better measure of economic health relative to the national debt than raw debt figures alone, and a chart which tracked the change in that ratio over the last several presidencies would paint a significantly different picture of debt levels than the one displayed above.  Debt-to-GDP chart All in all, this is a case of relatively accurate information which is of marginal value due to a lack of proper comparative context. Claim:  Actor Sean Penn published a letter to President George W. Bush in The Washington Post. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] An Open Letter to the President of the United States of America Mr. Bush: Good morning sir. Like you, I am a father and an American. Like you, I consider myself a patriot. Like you, I was horrified by the events of this past year, concerned for my family and my country. However,I do not believe in a simplistic and inflammatory view of good and evil. I believe this is a big world full of men, women, and children who struggle  to eat, to love, to work, to protect their families, their beliefs, and their dreams. My father, like yours, was decorated for service in World War II. He raised me with a deep belief in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as they should apply to all Americans who would sacrifice to maintain them and to all human beings as a matter of principle.  Many of your actions to date and those proposed seem to violate every defining principle of this country over which you preside: intolerance of debate ("with us or against us"), marginalization of your critics, the promoting of fear through unsubstantiated rhetoric, manipulation of a quick comfort media, and position of your administration's deconstruction of civil liberties all contradict the very core of the patriotism you claim. You lead, it seems, through a blood-lined sense of entitlement. Take a close look at your mostvehement media supporters. See the fear in their eyes as their loud voices of support ring out with that historically disastrous undercurrent of rage and panic masked as "straight tough talk." How far have we come from understanding what it is to kill one man, one woman, or one child, much less the "collateral damage" of many hundreds of thousands. Your use of the words, "this is a new kind of war" is often accompanied by an odd smile. It concerns me that what you are asking of us is to abandon all previous lessons of history in favor of following you blindly into the future. It worries me because with all your best intentions, an enormous economic surplus has been squandered. Your administration has virtually dismissed the most fundamental environmental concerns and therefore, by implication, one gets the message that, as you seem to be willing to sacrifice the children of the world, would you also be willing to sacrifice ours. I know this cannot be your aim so, I beg you Mr. President, listen toGershwin, read chapters of Stegner, of Saroyan, the speeches of Martin Luther King. Remind yourself of America. Remember the Iraqi children, our children, and your own.  There can be no justification for the actions of Al Qaeda. Nor acceptance of the criminal viciousness of the tyrant, Saddam Hussein. Yet, that bombing is answered by bombing, mutilation by mutilation, killing by killing, is a pattern that only a great country like ours can stop. However, principles cannot be recklessly or greedily abandoned in the guise of preserving them.  Avoiding war while accomplishing national security is no simple task. But you will recall that we Americans had a little missile problem down in Cuba once. Mr. Kennedy's restraint (and that of the nuclear submarine captain, Arkhipov) is to be aspired to. Weapons of mass destruction areclearly a threat to the entire world in any hands. But as Americans, we must ask ourselves, since the potential for Mr. Hussein to possess them threatens not only our country, (and in fact, his technology to launch is likely not yet at that high a level of sophistication) therefore, many in his own region would have the greatest cause for concern. Why then, is the United States, as led by your administration, in the small minority of the world nations predisposed toward a preemptive military assault on Iraq?  Simply put, sir, let us re-introduce inspection teams, inhibiting offensive capability. We buy time, maintain our principles here and abroad and demand of ourselves the ingenuity to be the strongest diplomatic muscle on the planet, perhaps in the history of the planet. The answers will come. You are a man of faith, but your saber is rattling the faith of many Americans in you.  I do understand what a tremendously daunting task it must be to stand in your shoes at this moment. As a father of two young children who will live their lives in the world as it will be affected by critical choices today, I have no choice but to believe that you can ultimately stand as a great president. History has offered you such a destiny. So again, sir, I beg you, help save America before yours is a legacy of shame and horror. Don't destroy our children's future. We will support you. You must support us, your fellow Americans, and indeed, mankind.  Defend us from fundamentalism abroad but don't turn a blind eye to the fundamentalism of a diminished citizenry through loss of civil liberties, of dangerously heightened presidential autonomy through acts of Congress, and of this country's mistaken and pervasive belief that its "manifest destiny" is to police the world. We know that Americans are frightened and angry. However, sacrificing American soldiers or innocent civilians in an unprecedented preemptive attack on a separate sovereign nation, may well prove itself a most temporary medicine. On the other hand, should you mine and have faith in the best of this country to support your leadership in representing a strong, thoughtful, and educated United States, you may well triumph for the long haul. Lead us there, Mr. President, and we will standwith you. Sincerely,Sean PennSan Francisco, California  Origins:  The letter quoted above did indeed appear in the pages of The Washington Post as a paid advertisement.  Numerous news stories have reported that it cost actor Sean Penn $56,000 to run the ad, which took up most of a page in the first section of the 18 October 2002 edition of The Washington Post. Is Sean Penn right? It doesn't matter  the point is every American always has opinions about the government, and this condition exists no matter who is in the White House or what he's doing. There are going to be people on both sides of any issue, and at times some of them will be famous and/or wealthy. There's a larger question here: Should the opinions of celebrities or the well-to-do be accorded higher degrees of respect simply because the folks they issue from have the power or money to publicize them? Most folks don't have the requisite $56,000 to ensure their views get printed in The Washington Post and instead have to make do with a 37 stamp and their faith in the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail to the White House. This method, by the way, works well when the sole object of the activity is to relay one citizen's deeply-felt concerns to the President of his country  a stamp places that power to be heard into every person's hands, no matter how humble. Buying space in a newspaper, however, is far less about securing the attention of a President deemed urgently in need of guidance than it is about pontificating to the masses, even if the piece is putatively "addressed" to just one person. It's a soapbox grab and an especially arrogant, self-entitled one in that the podium is gained not by virtue of stunning displays of eloquence or irrefutable logic but by way of its having been rented for the day. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 1999 the median income for American households was $41,994. In other words, the wage earners in a statistically typical American family  would have to work at least 16 months just to gross what this Sean Penn paid for a turn on the soapbox.  For many of them, including the millions of families living far below the poverty line, $56,000 is an unimaginable fortune, the likes of which they'll never see unless they hit the lottery. They therefore cannot pay to get their opinions published in a newspaper. $41,994 Barbara "money talks" Mikkelson Additional information:  Last updated:  2 December 2007 In early November 2015, potholes prompted some crossing of party lines when theLegislatures Joint Finance Committeeapproved Republican Gov. Scott Walkers plan to borrow $350 million over the next two years for road projects. Democrats offered key support. Even before that, Senate Minority Leader Jennifer Shilling (D-La Crosse) was arguing more spending was needed. On Oct. 1, 2015 shetweeted this: 71% of WIs roads are in poor or mediocre condition and 14% of WIs bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. #JustFixIt In Wisconsins budget battles over infrastructure, few deny the need for road maintenance. But is Shilling right about how bad the situation is? Digging into the numbers Shillings team directed us toa reportfrom the U.S. Department of Transportation that cited the same statistics as the tweet -- that 71 percent of roads in Wisconsin are in poor or mediocre condition and 14 percent of bridges are classified as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. So, the report is quoted accurately. But what about the numbers themselves? The two statistics were drawn from different sources of data. The data on road conditions came from the2013 Report Card for Americas Infrastructure. The report, the most recent available, is put out by the American Society of Civil Engineers, a trade and advocacy organization. By the groups tally, Wisconsin is one of just six states with at least 70 percent of roads rated in poor or mediocre condition, meaning our roads are in worse shape than the national average. But experts caution that the report card can overstate the amount of need for road repairs. First, the report uses a small source of data for each state and then extrapolates that data to the entire state roadway system. Ashwat Anandanarayanan, director of transportation policy for the environmental group 1000 Friends of Wisconsin, said the civil engineers reports also conflate new roadway construction and maintenance, resulting in what appears to be greater need. Lots of roads need to be fixed, he said. Not a lot need to be expanded. So then, what is a better measuring stick? The Wisconsin Department of Transportation collects its own data on road conditions that is used in the Highway Performance Monitoring System by the Federal Highway Administration, which is considered the gold standard of transportation information. According to these figures, the percentage of Wisconsin roads in poor or mediocre condition is much lower -- 38 percent of the state highway system falls into those categories. That doesnt mean the state will fare better in a national comparison by that measure. In fact, the state lags behind the U.S. average in most indicators of roadway quality. As for bridges, Shilling said 14 percent of Wisconsins bridges were in disrepair or functionally obsolete. This statistic, which is accurate, came from WisDOT data submitted to the Federal Highway Administration. But while Shilling cites the number as evidence of the state being behind, Wisconsin does pretty well here in a national comparison. Only three states  Arizona, Minnesota and Nevada  reported a smaller percentage of bridges in disrepair. Our rating Shilling said 71 % of WIs roads are in poor or mediocre condition and 14% of WIs bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. The report she cited from the federal Department of Transportation backed up her figures, but the numbers used for her road statistic arent the most accurate available. By another measure, the percentage of roads in poor or mediocre condition is far smaller. There was no dispute on the bridge number, though on that front the state actually fares better than most others. We rate the claim Mostly True. North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper called for more money to renovate the states aging public schools during hisState of the State addresson Feb. 25. Right now, four in 10 public schools in our state are at least 50 years old, Cooper said. That means theyre still using the schools you and I went to. We wondered whether the states public schools are actually that old, so we decided to check out Coopers numbers ourselves. As it turns out, the data is not so easy to come by. We started with Jamal Little, the governors spokesman, who told us that the information about the ages of public schools came from the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, which collected that data in 2016 while compiling itsmost recent surveyon school facility needs. Little gave us a table that said 949 of 2,306 public schools that reported construction dates were at least 50 years old (325 schools did not report their dates). He said the table came from the Department of Public Instruction but was not publicly available online. According to the table, about 41 percent of the schools that reported construction dates are more than 50 years old. But Drew Elliot, communications director for the Department of Public Instruction, said he could not confirm the table came from his department. He said he believes his office could get those numbers or something very close to it but could not validate them without a weeks time. We have no reason to think that his numbers are off, he said. Nothing in there looks anomalous to what we know about the age of school buildings in North Carolina. We wanted more definitive evidence, so we asked Elliot for the data the state did have. He sent us a copy of thedepartments list of construction datesso we could crunch the numbers for ourselves. That wasnt easy. The list assigns multiple construction dates to each school, and its not immediately clear what each date refers to. But Elliot said the dates correspond to construction of separate structures and that the earliest date listed for each school would offer the best approximation of the schools age. So, we did our best to sort through the raw numbers. It turns out that the number of old schools may actually be larger than Cooper claimed. Out of 2,631 total schools, we counted 2,299 that had construction dates listed beside them. And judging by the earliest dates listed for each, 1,118 of those 2,299 schools were built during or before 1969, making them at least 50 years old. That means that, by our calculations, nearly half the public schools are greater than 50 years old. But because the dates on the list were not labeled, even our calculations may be imperfect. Also, the totals could change with more information about the schools that did not report their ages for the 2016 survey. And theres potentially a big caveat because some schools have been renovated since their original construction, making them newer than their age suggests. Cooper said, Right now, four in 10 public schools in our state are at least 50 years old. The raw numbers from the department  the best information available  put Coopers statement in the right ballpark and showed it may even be an underestimate. But there are some uncertainties. So we rate this statement Mostly True. This story was produced by the North Carolina Fact-Checking Project, a partnership of McClatchy Carolinas, the Duke University Reporters Lab and PolitiFact. The NC Local News Lab Fund and the International Center for Journalists provide support for the project, which shares fact-checks with newsrooms statewide. To offer ideas for fact checks, email[email protected]. Supporters of a California ballot measure that would remove some of Proposition 13s tax protections say claims shared thousands of times on Facebook and other social media platforms have distorted their initiative. The campaign for theCalifornia Schools and Local Communities Funding Act of 2020, also known as the split-roll measure,is still gathering signatures to qualify for the November ballot. It is backed by a group of union and social justice organizations. If approved by voters, the measure would hike taxes on factories, stores and other commercial and industrial real estate by requiring they pay property tax based on current market value rather than the value of the property when it was purchased. It would raise an estimated $7.5 billion to $12 billion annually, according to ananalysisby the nonpartisan Legislative Analysts Office. The money would be distributed to schools and local governments. The proposed ballot measure, however, would not touch tax protections for homeowners. Yet many claims on social media suggest the initiative would repeal all parts of Prop. 13, stoking concerns that residential property taxes could spike. Heres one example posted on Facebook Dec. 31, 2019:  A similar Facebook postby Bakersfield Tuff, a media company focused on racing and rodeo, was shared more than 2,200 times. Others have appeared on the platforms Next Door and We Chat, according to the campaign for the initiative. Do these claims distort the truth? We set out on a fact check to find out. Background on Prop. 13 In 1978, voters approved Prop. 13, which slashed property taxes and limited how much they could go up. It also tied tax rates to a propertys purchase price, rather than to the fluctuations of Californias real estate market, ensuring homeowners greater financial stability. The lawremains popularamong homeowners and business groups, who argue it allows neighborhoods to stay intact and older residents on fixed-incomes to remain in their homes rather than being forced out by high tax bills. Groups such asCalifornians to Stop Higher Property Taxeshave warned that removing Prop. 13s commercial tax protections will lead companies to pass along any increased tax burden to consumers. Critics of Prop. 13, on the other hand, say the law has cut too deeply into the foundation of tax revenue for local governments. Social Media Claims Completely False The campaign spearheading the November ballot measure contacted PolitiFact about the social media claims. They are completely false, said Alex Stack, spokesperson for theinitiative. It would completely protect and exempt all residential property, that means homeowners, renters and seniors. Thats backed up by the initiatives officialtitle and summaryprepared by the Attorney Generals office. That document says the measure exempts residential properties; agricultural properties; and owners of commercial and industrial properties with combined value of $3 million or less. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli) Becerra's Role The social media posts claimed Becerra was putting together plans to eliminate Prop. 13. Theres no evidence to substantiate that. Becerra and others attorneys general, however, have been criticized for drafting misleading ballot measure titles and summaries. For example,Becerra wasaccused of giving an earlier version of this measure a friendly write-up. But attorneys general do not initiate ballot measures. A spokesperson for Becerra declined to directly address the social media posts. Wesley Hussey, a political science professor at Sacramento State University, said the claim about Becerra planning to repeal Prop. 13 is clearly wrong and described the rest of the information as cleverly fuzzy. Its very intelligently written, he said of the posts, suggesting they may have originated with a political operative. Only one or two spots are wrong. A lot is political opinion. Theres no doubting the ballot measures significance, Hussey added. It would be a dramatic revision to Prop. 13. If passed, it would be by far the biggest change weve seen since voters approved the law, he said. Keith Smith is a political science professor at the University of the Pacific in Stockton, where he studies elections and voting behavior. He agreed the claim about Becerra was technically wrong. But given that the initiative represents a big change to Prop. 13, some voters may see it as a gateway to repealing the measure altogether. Asked if social media posts were accurate, he replied: It depends on your perspective. Is [Prop. 13] going away? No, its not going away. Is [the ballot measure] proposing to do away with some aspect of Prop. 13 that currently exists? Yes. The claims published on Facebook and other sites, Smith explained, could be more convincing to voters than any details in the ballot measure. Earlier this month,ABC 10 Sacramento examined similar claimsand found theres no effort to eliminate Prop. 13. Adding to the confusion about the proposed November ballot measure, theres a voter initiative on Californias March primary ballot calledProposition 13, the School and College Facilities Bond. But it has nothing to do with the landmark measure of the same name passed four decades ago. A spokesman for the California Secretary of States Office said that the numbers assigned to propositions are reused through the years, sometimes leading to duplicates. Our Ruling Social media posts claimed a November ballot measure would repeal Californias Prop. 13, and that Attorney General Becerra is putting together plans to eliminate the historic law. The proposed measure would undo Prop. 13s tax protections for commercial and industrial properties with a value over $3 million. It would be a major change to the law. But homeowners, small businesses and agricultural properties would not lose their Prop. 13 tax safeguards. Thats spelled out in the measures official statetitle and summary document. While Becerras office writes the legal titles and summaries for voter initiatives, the attorney general does not put forward ballot measures. Theres no evidence Becerra is trying to eliminate Prop. 13. In the end, the social media posts capture the real concern about potential changes to Prop. 13, but they also greatly misrepresent the specific changes the November ballot measure would make to it. We rate their claims about repealing Prop. 13 as False. FALSEThe statement is not accurate. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Read more about Prop. 13, its history and efforts to change it in'The Block That Prop. 13 Built,' a collaboration between CapRadio, CALmattersand public radio stations across California. Email us at[email protected]with feedback or contact us onTwitterorFacebook. Also, were starting a new project calledAsk PolitiFact California.Is there something in California government or politics that we should fact-check next? Send us a question, and one of our reporters and fact-checkers might reach out to find the answer.