Our economy (in Louisiana) has grown 50 percent faster than the national GDP, even since the national recession.
Louisianas Republican governor, Bobby Jindal, attracted some media attention recently while attending an annual meeting of the National Governors Association in Washington. At a press event after meeting President Barack Obama with a bipartisan group of governors,Jindal said, The Obama economy is now the minimum wage economy. I think we can do better than that. That prompted Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy, a Democrat, to come to the microphone and call it a breach of the traditional bipartisan decorum for such events. Jindal, a potential Republican presidential candidate, hit the airwaves again two days later when he was interviewed on MSNBCsMorning Joe. Panelist Mike Barnicle asked Jindal to defend his own economic record: The last time the Census Bureau checked the per capita income of Louisiana, you were 47th lowest in the United States, not all under your watch. What have you done, as governor, to bring in all these better paying jobs and boost your people's per capita income? Jindal responded, Well, the great thing is, we're doing exactly what the president has not. Cut taxes, reform debt, make some investment in workforce training, make it easier for businesses to create jobs. And here's the record. In Louisiana, we now have more people working, highest incomes in our state's history. Larger population than ever before. And the president can't say all those things about the country. Our economy has grown 50 percent faster than the national GDP, even since the national recession. We wondered whether its correct that Louisiana has grown 50 percent faster than the national GDP, even since the national recession. When we asked Jindals office for more detail, they said he had been comparing the growth in inflation-adjusted gross domestic product for his state and the nation since 2007 -- a year he chose because it was the baseline year before he began his first term as governor. We looked at the numbers and found that Jindal actually understated the comparison. Between 2007 and 2012 (the last year for which data is available), inflation-adjusted GDP grew by 2.5 percent nationally, but by 6.4 percent in Louisiana. This definitely supports Jindals claim. However, well note a caveat: While the timespan Jindal used certainly makes sense given his tenure as governor, its not the only way to define since the national recession -- the words he used in the MSNBC interview. The recessionofficially beganin December 2007 and ended in June 2009. So if you want to look at the period since the recession, one could just as easily use the range 2008-12, 2009-12 or 2010-12. So lets look at how these date ranges stack up. For 2008-12, Jindal would also be correct. During that period, Louisiana growth (7.9 percent) easily outpaced United States growth (3.2 percent). But hed be wrong for 2009-12, when United States growth (6.7 percent) exceeded Louisiana growth (4.6 percent). And hed also be wrong for 2010-12, when the United States economy grew (4.1 percent) and the Louisiana economy actually shrank (by 1.2 percent). United States growth also exceeded Louisiana growth between 2011 and 2012 -- 2.5 percent to 1.5 percent. Perhaps an easier way to look at it is to compare the year-over-year growth in GDP for Louisiana and the United States. The more robust statistic for each year is listed in bold. 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 United States -0.7 -3.3 +2.4 +1.6 +2.5 Louisiana -1.4 +3.2 +5.8 -2.6 +1.5  If you look at it this way, the United States economy has grown faster (or shrunk less) in three of these years, compared to two years when the Louisiana economy did better, which undercuts Jindals claim. This doesnt surprise John Francis, an economist at Louisiana Tech. Louisiana's economy is highly dependent on the energy sector which, no matter where in the business cycle we lie, is always in demand, he said. So, when the economy is in a recession, we tend to do better than average. When the economy is doing better, energy demand is somewhat higher, but not dramatically so. So when the economy is doing well, we lag behind the U.S. average. I suspect that we were doing better when the economy was in the heart of the Great Recession, but we have fallen behind as the overall economy has rebounded. However, Jindals camp draws the following analogy: In a football game between the United States team and the Louisiana team, the winner would be the one who ended up with more points, not the one who won more quarters. By any objective analysis, Louisiana has outperformed the national economy since January 2008, said Michael Reed, a spokesman for Jindal. Our ruling Jindal said, Our economy (in Louisiana) has grown 50 percent faster than the national GDP, even since the national recession. The time frame Jindals office said he used -- from 2007 to 2012 -- is a reasonable one, and using that period does make his claim accurate. However, its worth remembering that taking one crack at the numbers can tell an incomplete story. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.
Debate has begun over a proposal by the new owners of the Pawtucket Red Sox to move the team to Providence, where they want to build a new riverfront stadium. The project is still in the planning phase, but the owners have said they intend to ask for some financial support from the state and the city, including possibly getting the state-owned land for the stadium for free. But would a new stadium be worth the price tag? Rhode Islands Republican National Committeeman Steve Frias says no. Ina Feb. 24, 2015 commentaryin The Providence Journal, he said giving away the valuable land, which was freed up by the relocation of Route 195, would be a mistake. Research performed by economists has shown no consistent, positive impact on jobs, income or tax revenues arising from stadiums or sports franchises, Frias argued. We thought that claim was worth checking out. When we contacted him, he immediately referred us toa 2008 summary of research in the fieldby economistsDennis Coatesof the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, andBrad Humphreysof West Virginia University. The authors reviewed more than 40 academic studies, spanning nearly two decades, that examined public subsidies for professional sports teams. Their findings were clear. There now exists almost 20 years of research on the economic impact of professional sports franchises and facilities on the local economy, they wrote, reporting that studies published in peer-reviewed economic journals show there is almost no evidence that professional sports franchises and facilities have a measurable economic impact on the economy. And that's for major-league teams. In this case, we're talking about a minor league team, said Humphreys when we contacted him by phone. For example, he and Coates found no difference in economic impact between the years when teams were playing their regular schedules and five time periods when they didn't, due to strikes. And in a subsequent analysis, they found that having postseason games did not affect real per-person income in a city. Money may shift from one part of the economy to another, but there's no net benefit. The evidence is overwhelming,Coates and Humphreys wrote. Economists reach the nearly unanimous conclusion that tangible economic benefits generated by professional sports facilities and franchises are very small; clearly far smaller than stadium advocates suggest and smaller than the size of the subsidies. They also noted that in 2005, when a random group of economists was asked if they agreed or disagreed with the statement, Local and state governments in the U.S. should eliminate subsidies to professional sports franchises, 28 percent agreed and 58 percent strongly agreed. That's a whopping 86 percent. Only 5 percent disagreed. There are special-interest reports that claim an economic benefit and contend that every dollar invested in a sports franchise generates a specific amount of money, Humphreys said, but those are never published in reputable journals because you can make them say whatever you want them to say by tinkering with the assumptions that influence how the numbers are crunched. We posed the question to other experts, including Rick Eckstein, professor of sociology at Villanova University and author of Public Dollars, Private Stadiums: The Battle over Building Sports Stadiums. There are absolutely no publicly subsidized stadiums and arenas that generate enough direct or indirect tax increases to balance the initial (and ongoing) public outlay, he said in an email. In fact, some research suggests that sports stadiums actually decrease economic activity and tax revenue in areas where they are built, said Eckstein. However, strategically placed stadiums and arenas can sometimes ride existing redevelopment trends, but they are never the cause of these trends. Coates and Humphreys said there are several reasons to explain a lack of economic benefit. In many cases -- and this would be particularly true in Rhode Island -- the state would simply be transferring the economic activity from one city to another. And even if more people went to see the Sox in a new stadium, when people spend to go to a ballgame, local entertainment spending on sports increases and local entertainment spending on other activities like movies, bowling, etc. decreases. There are other costs people need to weigh, they wrote. For every individual who derives enjoyment from the presence of the sports franchises in the community, there are likely to be other individuals who are uninterested in sports or even resent being taxed to subsidize an activity they have no use for. And the money used to subsidize a move might be better spent for other public projects with higher social rates of return than a stadium such as construction and maintenance projects, or even reducing taxes. Supporters of public support for professional sports teams often point to intangible benefits, such as boosting civic pride. But that argument is beyond the scope of this item. So here's the box score. Steven Frias said, Research performed by economists has shown no consistent, positive impact on jobs, income or tax revenues arising from stadiums or sports franchises. It appears that he belted this one out of the park. We rate his claimTrue. (If you have a claim youd likePolitiFact Rhode Islandto check, email us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.) Scam:  Thousands of people were scammed out of millions of dollars in a "miracle cars" fraud.  Origins:  Affinity fraud is a type of scam wherein members of a close-knit group are exploited via a con artist's presenting himself as one of their own kind. Such grifts work on the principle that people who are like us  folks of our particular ethnicity or religion, who hail from our hometowns, who attend the same church (or club, or school), who live in the same neighborhood, or who have weathered similar hardships and setbacks to those we have endured  can be trusted. They talk our talk and walk our walk, and since we ourselves are honest people, we assume by extension that people who are so much like us must be just as trustworthy. The nature of the bond itself matters not; what matters is the victims' being led to believe they have a great deal in common with those who are about to cheat them out of their life savings. Affinity fraud The "Miracle Cars" scam that ran between 1998 and 2002 is a good example of affinity fraud. Before it finished running its course, thousands of churchgoers had been convinced to part ways with millions of dollars, all because they trusted as one of their own the person they handed their money to. In 1998, rumors began to circulate among congregations in California that a wealthy man named John Bowers had died a few years earlier, leaving behind a $400 million estate. Part of that estate reportedly included a huge inventory of vehicles that the estate's beneficiary, Bowers' adopted son Robert Gomez, had been instructed to sell at bargain prices to Christians who acted in accordance with the Bible's teachings. The proceeds of those sales were to be used to defray the estate tax on the inherited fortune. These rumors were started by Robert Gomez, who announced the deal from the pulpit of a church in one of Los Angeles' poorest areas, and the rumors were supported by James Nichols, Gomez's roommate, whose family had long been associated with the church where the pitch was made. For as little as $1,000 each, those of strong religious faith could acquire good, reliable cars  all they had to do was pick a vehicle they wanted off the handwritten list being circulated, pay the money requested, and wait for the estate to settle before receiving their cars. Those who chose to buy were given "contracts" in exchange for their checks, cash, or money orders, but those contracts did not include mention of the vehicles' identification numbers (VINs), that information supposedly withheld under a gag order issued by the judge probating the will.  The list of available vehicles was mouthwatering: one could have a practically brand new Toyota Camry for $1,000, a Lexus for $3,000, or a Cadillac Escalade for $6,500. News of this windfall fell on highly receptive ears, many of them belonging to folks of limited means who had up until then been making do with unreliable transportation (or none at all). But thanks to this dead millionaire's generosity, in due time they would be able to get to their doctors' appointments and tend to ailing relatives across town all on their own. A little time, a little money, and a whole lot of faith would set them on their way to vehicular-assisted freedom. Word about the purported deals circulated through grass-roots Christian networks across the nation, then escaped into the secular world. As the scam rolled along, Gomez and Nichols hired two women, Corinne Conway and Gwendolyn Baker, to talk up the cars and to embroil further congregations in the scam. Churchgoers were told that God wanted to reward them and that all they needed was to believe. Congregations in various communities were worked into buying frenzies by these practiced pitchwomen, who presented themselves as fellow believers out to share good news with their brethren. Duped members of the clergy also preached the good news of the discounted cars  from their pulpits, adding another patina of credibility to the  pitch. As time went on and no cars appeared, faith in the scheme was maintained in a variety of ways. First, there was always the handy explanation that the cars were still tied up in the legal wranglings attendant to the disposition of a large estate. Court delays were therefore to be expected. Lack of information about the vehicles themselves (such as their VINs or the location where they were being housed) was explained as having to do with a gag order placed on the matter by the judge probating the will. And those who grew tired of waiting for their "miracle cars" and demanded their money back, got it  they were issued full refunds, acts that worked to frame the entire proposition as being on the up-and-up. After all, if one knew of a doubter who'd gotten his money back, didn't that prove that the people behind the "miracle cars" proposition were to be trusted? Yet all that belief to the contrary, it was a scam. There never were any cars to be had, either by those of strong faith or otherwise. There was also no deceased millionaire named John Bowers. By the time the fraud was uncovered and halted, believers across the nation had shelled out more than $20 million for vehicles that didn't exist, all on the strength of what they heard through their local churches. In all, 7000+ vehicles were "sold" during the run of the fraud, the list of available cars always expanding to include more vehicles for those determined to have them.  The two men who ran the con, James Nichols and Robert Gomez, received sentences of 24 years and 22 years respectively, while the two women they recruited, Corinne Conway and Gwendolyn Baker, received sentences of 14 months and 5 years respectively. All four were ordered to make restitution to their victims, but even after all their cash and assets were rounded up millions of dollars remained unaccounted for. On 17 March 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office posted a notice for the victims of the Miracle Cars scam, advising them that it was ready to begin mailing restitution checks to those duped by the fraud. Victims can expect refunds in the amount of approximately 6% of their total losses.  Most cons run on the basis of blinding potential victims to the underlying fraud by placing before them tantalizing mental images of great riches or extraordinary windfalls that are about to be theirs. The "miracle cars" scam had that in its promise of barely-used automobiles to be had for a mere pittance. Yet what truly caused this fraud to succeed was its "affinity" element:  the victims were especially trusting thanks to their reliance on the presumed commonality between them and those running the con. Themselves good Christians, they believed those who were telling them about the cars were also good Christians  they did not doubt that the cars existed or that there was a deceased millionaire who had left instructions that his fleet of vehicles was to be handed over to fellow Christians for a nominal fee.  In affinity scams, con artists sometimes provide returns to leaders of the targeted group first, then use those trusted individuals' names as proof of their own integrity. While no one at any level of the fraud received one of the "miracle cars," church leaders were duped into participating in the con through their own belief in the promised windfall, and a number of pastors stood before their flocks to share with their congregations the good news about the discounted vehicles. This phenomenon is part and parcel of an affinity scam: before anyone involved catches wise to the game being run, those being victimized enthusiastically recruit friends and relatives to share in the wealth, thereby themselves becoming unwitting agents of con men. "Miracle cars" victims not only had to overcome their reluctance to admit (even to themselves) that they might be getting taken, they also had to grapple with their own faith in God. Those running the game had the ones they were fleecing convinced that giving up on their "investment" was tantamount to turning their backs on God. He had a grand plan for them, and opting out of it would have demonstrated weakness in their faith, so they therefore chose to continue to believe. Barbara "lambs to the financial slaughter" Mikkelson Additional information:        'Miracle Cars' Scheme Targeted Churches, Religious Groups   (United States Attorney's Office, Western District of Missouri)  Last updated:  28 April 2008   Sources:   Harris, Sheryl.  "Scam Artists Get Close to Victims."   Plain Dealer.  15 June 2006  (p. C5).    Logan, Casey.  "God's Little Acura."   The Pitch [Kansas City].  16 January 2003.    Tubbs, Sharon.  "Duped by Faith?"   St. Petersburg Times.  26 July 2002  (p. D1).    Associated Press.  "Government Alleges Four Offered Discount Cars to People of Faith."   8 July 2002.    Associated Press.  "Two Women Sentenced to Federal Prison Terms for Roles in Miracle Car Scheme."   23 October 2003.    Associated Press.  "Man Must Pay Back $12.5 million, Serve 24 Years in Car Sales Scam."   4 December 2003.    Associated Press.  "Final Man Sentenced in Miracle Cars Scheme."   11 December 2003.    Associated Press.  "Prosecutors Don't Want Convict to Benefit from Role in Miracle Cars Scheme."   24 September 2005. 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. Since as early as 2013, a photo of Joan Baez and Jimi Hendrix apparently smoking marijuana and sharing a bong repeatedly goes viral on various social media platforms: as 2013 repeatedly viral  This picture has been manipulated. The original photo, taken in August 1968, contains no bong: original photo  The caption provided by Getty Images explains the context behind the photograph, which occurred during a relief concert for refugees of the Biafra-Nigeria Civil War: caption Folk singer Joan Baez and rock singer Jimi Hendrix chat between acts at a Biafran Relief Benefit show at a place in Manhattan called Steve Paul's Scene. Both Miss Baez and Hendrix performed free of charge and Hendrix contributed $500 cash to the fund. The benefit was to raise food and money for refugees of the Biafra-Nigeria Civil War. It is unlikely that Baez would be photographed smoking marijuana, as she has publicly stated her distaste for drugs. In discussing her short-lived relationship with Bob Dylan with Rolling Stone Magazine, for example, Baez referenced her lack of interest in drugs: discussing By 1965, though, Dylan's desire to move toward rock and his waning interest in protest songs helped drive them apart. Baez thinks her distaste for drugs distanced her from Dylan in the Sixties and later, during their reunion on the 197576 Rolling Thunder Revue. "I was the only one who didn't do drugs," she says of those shows. "It was the same as that trip to England," she adds, referring to the 1965 Dylan tour documented in Don't Look Back. "I couldn't connect with what their brains were doing." In a 2021 interview with CBS, Baez said that she did "zero" drugs during her heyday as a musician in the 60s, though she has, periodically, tried marijuana more recently. "I try periodically because people say it's a great way to relax or whatever," she said. "It doesn't work for me." 2021 interview Because the image is photoshopped to add a bong and marijuana smoke that were not there in the original photo, we rate it Fake.  alihamzah23023. "Joan Baez & Jimi Hendrix Sharing a Bong before a Performance, Early 1970." R/OldSchoolCool, 7 Apr. 2016, www.reddit.com/r/OldSchoolCool/comments/4dpoo4/joan_baez_jimi_hendrix_sharing_a_bong_before_a/. Browne, David. "Joan Baez's Fighting Side: The Life and Times of a Secret Badass." Rolling Stone, 5 Apr. 2017, https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/joan-baezs-fighting-side-the-life-and-times-of-a-secret-badass-129051/. "CBS Mornings on TikTok." TikTok, https://www.tiktok.com/@cbsmornings/video/6969232037899275526?lang=en. Accessed 31 Aug. 2023. "Folk Singer Joan Baez and Rock Singer Jimi Hendrix Chat between Acts..." Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/folk-singer-joan-baez-and-rock-singer-jimi-hendrix-chat-news-photo/515448732. Accessed 31 Aug. 2023. insanepuma. "Hits from the Bong with Jimi Hendrix and Joan Baez." R/OldCoolSchool, 24 Feb. 2017, www.reddit.com/r/OldCoolSchool/comments/5vxope/hits_from_the_bong_with_jimi_hendrix_and_joan_baez/. https://www.instagram.com/p/iMxB20P_RD/?hl=af. Accessed 31 Aug. 2023. A Florida House bill that would make school districts share capital funding with charter schools has sparked a debate over how much money the privately run institutions should get. A bill sponsored by Rep. Erik Fresen, R-Miami, would in part require that charter schools have access to local school board levies that are normally reserved for traditional public schools capital improvements. Charter schools are financed with taxpayer money but managed by private companies. Initially touted as an option for students attending low-performing public schools, charters have grown in popularity. Critics have complained that too many taxpayer dollars have subsequently been shifted to the private companies that run charters, while traditional schools suffer from a lack of resources. In aHouse Appropriations Committee hearingfor Fresen'sHB 873, Republicans supported equal access to capital improvement funds by charter schools. I think it is time that we recognize that there is great disparity, tremendous disparity, in the funding on a per-student basis between our traditional public schools and our charter public schools, said Rep. Janet Adkins, R-Fernandina Beach, at the Feb. 9 hearing. The bill hasdrawn some extra scrutinybecause Fresen works for an architecture firm that builds charter schools and his sister and brother-in-law are executives for the state's largest charter-school operator. The bill passed Appropriations 19-5 and on Feb. 17 passed the Education Committee, 13-4, both times along party lines. These votes move the bill to the House floor. The Legislature has argued about charter-school funding for years, and the subject is confusing, to say the least. We wanted to run the numbers to see if Adkins, acandidate for Nassau County Schools superintendent, is correct to say theres a tremendous disparity between charter and traditional schools. It turns out that while the figures arent so easy to decipher, it seems Adkins has a point. School funding 101 Florida has 4,270 public schools with around 2.7 million children enrolled and more coming every month. Those figures include some 650 charter schools across the state, with about 250,000 students. Charter-school enrollment has grown at least fivefold in the last decade. That means statewide, there are more than six traditional schools for every charter school. But since charter schools often have much smaller enrollments than their counterparts, traditional schools have almost 11 students for every one in a charter. Calculating school funding is confusing alchemy that mixes money from the state and local governments, including several kinds of tax revenues, grants and awards. Many of these sources are earmarked for specific things, like vocational-technical career centers and money to even out class sizes. For this fact-check, well focus on capital outlay costs, which are dollars set aside largely for construction and maintenance. Adkins confirmed to PolitiFact Florida she was referring specifically to those capital dollars, not operating funds. State money for operations is allocated annually by the Legislature on a per-pupil basis  around $7,100 per student  and given to school districts, which divide the money among charter and traditional public schools. (This is the cash Gov. Rick Scott likes to mentionwhen he talks about school funding.) Capital funding is a different story. Districtshave been under pressureto build schools as Floridas population grows, and a good chunk of the capital funding the state sets aside for schools is to pay down debts on projects theyve already completed. Many charter schools, however, lease the property they occupy instead of erect new buildings, so much of their capital funding goes to paying rent. Thats a controversial practice on its own, since districts areoften left without assets if a charter school closes. There areseveral sources for these capital dollars, but were going to look at the two most relevant sources: state Public Education Capital Outlay money and local school board levies. Split access As charter schools grew more popular, the Legislature gave them more of the state capital money, known as PECO, than it gave traditional schools  whichreceived nothing from that fund in some years. The totals have been in flux recently, but charter schools get vastly more PECO money than traditional schools on a per-student basis. Last year lawmakers gave $50 million to those 650 charter schools and $50 million to the other 3,600 traditional schools. That gives charter schools a bit more than $200 per student in PECO funding, while traditional schools get roughly $20 per student. The Legislature iscurrently debating how much to allocate for 2016-17. (As lawmakers head into budget negotiations, the House has proposed $90 million in capital funding for charter schools. The Senate has offered charters zero capital dollars. Both chambers would keep traditional schools capital outlay at $50 million.) But school boards have the power to add to their capital budgets in the form of levies. These levies can be up to 1.5 mills (thats $1.50 per $1,000 in taxable property values) on an annual property tax bill. Money from those local levies, however, is largely off limits to charters. State statute allows districts to share this money with charter schools, but only five districts do. Fresens bill would require school districts toshare a portion of this money with charters. Districts argue these local levies are needed to keep up with ever-growing communities. A common argument is that the districts have needed this money as the state has cut other sources of funding. Its important to remember that not every district levies these taxesat the same rate or brings in the same amount. But theres no denying its a huge pot of money to which charter schools dont have ready access. According to the Florida Department of Revenue, these levies created an annual pool of about $2.3 billion statewide in 2015. Traditional schools also receive an additional $850 million or so in dedicated capital funding along with their PECO money,a House comparison says. Charter schools Traditional schools PECO funding $50 million $50 million School board levies N/A* $2.3 billion Other state and local revenues N/A $850 million Total capital outlay funding $50 million $3.2 billion Full-time students 250,000 2.4 million Capital funding per student $200 $1,300 Sources: Florida Department of Education, Florida Department of Revenue, Florida House Appropriations Committee, Office of the Speaker of the House * Five counties share some levy funds with charters These figures are rounded estimates, of course, and we need to remember that traditional schools and charter schools face different challenges. It also doesnt include money from bonds that school districts can ask voters to approve. But using these estimates, we found that traditional schools have a more than 6 to 1 ratio of capital dollars than do charters. Wed consider that a pretty big disparity, regardless of the reasons behind the policies. Our ruling Adkins said, There is great disparity, tremendous disparity, in the (capital) funding on a per-student basis between our traditional public schools and our charter public schools. While charter schools do get a larger per-student share of one kind of state capital funding, traditional schools can bring in much more by taking advantage of school board levies and other sources that charters cant access. There are many fine details that can get lost in discussions about the subject. But we found that currently, traditional schools potentially can get six times the capital funding per pupil than charter schools can. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. We rate it Mostly True. U.S. Rep. Kevin Brady, R-The Woodlands, last month spoke in support of creating an Emergency Trade Deficit Commission, while noting his hopes for congressional ratification of trade agreements with South Korea, Panama and Colombia. The world has changed, Brady said on the House floor July 28. Its not enough to simply buy American; we have to sell American, sell our products and goods and services throughout this world. And in fact, over 80 percent of our trade deficit today is with countries that are not trade agreement partners, that are not level playing fields for the United States; thats why we push hard for those agreements. The 80 percent figure jarred a reader who urged us to give it a once-over; happy to oblige. Some background: In June, the U.S. trade deficit reached nearly $50 billion, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Exports in June totaled $150.5 billion, imports $200.3 billion. According to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the United States has free-trade agreements  meaning neither country imposes trade restrictions such as tariffs  with 17 nations, which together account for 34 percent of U.S. imports and exports. The countries are Israel, Canada, Mexico, Jordan, Chile, Singapore, Australia, Morocco, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Bahrain, Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Oman and Peru. Through participation in the World Trade Organization, the United States has agreements permitting some restrictions with many nations. These include export powerhouses such as China, which from January through June 2010 was the leading exporter to the United States, with $161 billion in exported goods, according to the Census Bureau. China was followed in the exports-to-USA category by Canada, Mexico and Japan. And what of Brady's more than 80 percent breakout? Joe Kafchinski, a bureau statistician, said that from January through June, 13 percent of the nations trade deficit involved the countries that have free-trade agreements with the United States  meaning 87 percent of the deficit was with nations without such agreements. Next, we wondered about Brady's statement that those agreements serve to level the playing field with other countries, trade-wise  and thus reduce the U.S. trade deficit. The National Association of Manufacturers says free-trade agreements ease the export of American goods: Free trade agreements (FTAs) account for nearly one-half of U.S. manufactured goods exports, the association says on its website. They lower the price for consumer goods in the United States as well as the costs U.S. businesses pay for imported materials. Bilateral deals also open foreign markets to U.S. goods, increasing employment in those export sectors. The manufacturers note that the Census Bureau reports that over the past two years, U.S. manufacturers had a $50 billion surplus with their counterparts in FTA partner countries. Conversely, in the same time period, the U.S. trade deficit in manufacturing goods with the rest of the world was an astounding $820 billion. Put another way, the group says, 95 percent of the nations manufactured-goods deficit is with nations that do not have free-trade agreements with the United States. For labor's perspective, we contacted Jeff Vogt, global economic policy specialist for the AFL-CIO. Vogt said Chinas 2001 entry into the WTO drove up the U.S. deficit with non-free-trade nations. Regardless of which countries account for the deficit, Vogt said, the imbalance is a problem because the domestic economy benefits more from exports than imports. Vogt shared a March 2010 report by the nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute, which focuses on the economic needs of low- and middle-income Americans. The report says the U.S. trade deficit with China increased $186 billion between 2001 and 2008. Rapidly growing imports of computer and electronic parts (including computers, parts, semiconductors, and audio-video equipment) accounted for more than 40 percent of the surge, the report says, with deficits in advanced technology products responsible for 27 percent of the U.S.-China deficit. Also, according to the report, the growth of the deficit contributed to the loss of 627,700 U.S. jobs in computer and electronic products, along with other hard-hit industrial sectors including apparel and accessories (150,200 jobs), miscellaneous manufactured goods (136,900) and fabricated metal products (108,700). But trade agreements are not all that's behind the deficit with China. The report says a major cause is currency manipulation. Unlike other currencies, the Chinese yuan does not fluctuate freely against the dollar, giving Chinese-made goods an artificial price advantage overseas. In June 2010, Chinas central bank announced that it would allow the yuan to fluctuate more, but the value of the yuan has since increased less than 1 percent, according to a news report posted online this week by FinanceAsia. Robert Scott, an economist at the nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute in Washington, cautioned against presuming that free-trade agreements benefit the United States, saying that depends in part on whether the other nation is as developed as the United States and has open markets. For instance, the U.S. runs a trade deficit with its free-trade neighbor Mexico, he said, dominated by a flow of manufacturing plants to the less-developed country. Free-trade agreements, Scott said, are designed to make the world safe for multinationals to outsource production forever. And in aJuly 1article on the institute's website that criticized the proposed trade agreement with South Korea as foolish, Scott wrote: History shows that such trade deals lead to rapidly growing trade deficits and job loss in the United States. Clearly, there's a difference of opinion on whether free-trade agreements are a good thing vis-a-vis the growing U.S. trade deficit, as Brady asserts. But the key statistic in Bradys statement stands up. In fact, he understates the share of our trade deficit with nations that don't have free-trade agreements with the U.S. We rate Brady's statement Mostly True. On 21 August 2018, President Donald Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to eight criminal charges, including multiple counts of tax evasion and violations of federal campaign finance laws. Cohen also appeared to implicate his former client in possible criminal wrongdoing, alleging that Trump, while a candidate, directed Cohen to pay hush money to two women who claimed to have had affairs with the future president. guilty Those bombshell revelations came on the same afternoon that a jury in Virginia convicted President Trump's former 2016 presidential campaign chairman Paul Manafort on eight counts of banking fraud and filing false tax returns, while failing to agree on a verdict for ten other charges. convicted Both the Manafort and Cohen cases came about due to investigative work undertaken as part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe into potential Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election  and the possibility of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Understandably, much of the news media in the United States gave these major developments extensive coverage that day, in print, online, and on the major television news networks. Some observers accused the conservative-leaning Fox News of downplaying the Cohen and Manafort stories, or of deliberately focusing on other issues of lesser import. Elements of this criticism were accurate and proportionate in pointing out the striking differences between how most TV news networks reported on the developments and how Fox News covered them. differences However, one viral Twitter post appeared to contain a screen shot of Fox News contributor Tomi Lahren discussing the 'War on Christmas,' while other networks covered Cohen's guilty pleas. The chyron in the image read "TOMI: OBAMA CREATED FESTIVUS TO DESTROY CHRISTMAS." War on Christmas (Festivus is an unofficial holiday which acts as an alternative to Christmas, and originated in an episode of the sitcom "Seinfeld.")  CNN: Michael Cohen to plead guilty.ABC: Michael Cohen to plead guilty.NBC: Michael Cohen to plead guilty.FOX News: pic.twitter.com/JR4uAnyCQn pic.twitter.com/JR4uAnyCQn  Diane N. Sevenay (@Diane_7A) August 21, 2018 August 21, 2018   That tweet was then reposted on Facebook by the left-wing page "The Other 98%": The image is fake, and is an old meme which first appeared in December 2017. appeared Congrats, @BarackObama, on apparently creating Seinfeld pic.twitter.com/5g2t7eYDHj @BarackObama pic.twitter.com/5g2t7eYDHj  jordan (@JordanUhl) December 24, 2017 December 24, 2017  Lahren herself publicly dismissed the meme: Does it not bother you to circulate a photoshopped piece of FAKE NEWS? Classy. https://t.co/hvwdgwPkd2 https://t.co/hvwdgwPkd2  Tomi Lahren (@TomiLahren) December 24, 2017 December 24, 2017  The meme does indeed consist of a screenshot of a real Fox News appearance which Lahren made in August 2017, but with the original chyron digitally edited and replaced with something different and non-relevant: .@TomiLahren: "How about when the mainstream media stops covering Russia day in and day out, maybe we can drop the Hillary email scandal." pic.twitter.com/OwfYWfuhDD @TomiLahren pic.twitter.com/OwfYWfuhDD  Fox News (@FoxNews) August 31, 2017 August 31, 2017  It's not clear whether those who posted the edited image in the context of Cohen and Manafort's legal travails in August 2018 intended to engage in satire, or to trick other internet users into believing Lahren really discussed Festivus on that day. Diane Sevenay, whose viral tweet was re-posted by "The Other 98%", is a comedy writer. writer As reported by Mashable, a satirical Fox/Cohen news coverage meme emerged on 21 August, with Twitter users taking turns to parody Fox News' content on the day of Cohen's guilty pleas: Mashable CNN - Cohen plea dealMSNBC - Cohen plea dealFox News - Are cats becoming too tall?  Fred Delicious (@Fred_Delicious) August 21, 2018 August 21, 2018  CNN: Manafort guilty on 8 countsNYT: Manafort guilty of fraudAP: Cohen pleads guiltyFox News: Were the lobsters on the Titanic happy that it sank?  #1 Rachel (@rachel) August 21, 2018 August 21, 2018  Another widely-shared screenshot purported to show Fox News reframing the conviction of Manafort by only mentioning, in a mobile news alert, the fact that a mistrial was declared on ten of the charges against him, while other news organizations reported his being found guilty on eight charges:   The image, posted to Facebook by the "Angry Americans" page, is authentic but very misleading. Another screenshot shows that Fox News first sent out an alert which read "Jury finds Manafort guilty on eight counts in fraud trial" before following up with a second one about the mistrial on the ten other charges: page Same topic. Different perspectives. ?? #Manafort pic.twitter.com/r2ZUgFSxDS #Manafort pic.twitter.com/r2ZUgFSxDS  Push the Push (@pushthepush) August 21, 2018 August 21, 2018  Neumeister, Larry and Tom Hays.  "Cohen Pleads Guilty, Implicates Trump in Hush-Money Scheme."
  Associated Press.  22 August 2018. Barakat, Matthew et al.  "Ex-Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort Guilty of 8 Charges."
  Associated Press.  22 August 2018. Stanley-Becker, Isaac.  "In Trump's Right-Wing Media Universe, It Was a Day Like Any Other."
  The Washington Post.  22 August 2018. Sung, Morgan.  "What Was Fox News Covering While Manafort and Cohen Were in Court? This Hilarious Meme Has Some Answers."
  Mashable.  21 August 2018. This article discussed the potential implications of a case that was, at the time of writing, undecided by the Supreme Court. On 17 June 2019 the Supreme Court decided that case, rejecting arguments that could have resulted in a stronger presidential pardon. Far from Kavanaugh's being a deciding vote on the case, the court ruled 7-2 against the notion that Federal and State prosecution for the same crime violates the so-called double jeopardy clause of the Constitution. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented. decided On 29 November 2015, a motorist named Terance Gamble, who had been convicted of second degree robbery seven years earlier, was pulled over by an Alabama police officer because of a faulty headlight on his vehicle. Upon searching the car, the officer found a handgun, among other items. It is illegal under both Alabama law and United States law for convicted felons to possess firearms, and Gamble was eventually sentenced to one year in prison on that charge by the state of Alabama. Terance Gamble During Gamble's prosecution under Alabama law for possession of a firearm as a felon, the Federal Government also charged him with the same crime. Gambles lawyers argued that this second conviction was a violation of the U.S. Constitutions ban on double jeopardy, which is intended to protect people from being prosecuted for the same crime more than once. The double jeopardy clause is found in Fifth Amendment to the U.S. constitution, which states (in part) that "No person shall ... be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. Specifically, the clause has been interpreted to be a prohibition on: interpreted Gamble has been in federal prison since entering a guilty plea on 18 October 2016 that allowed him to appeal his case. In June 2018, the Supreme Court agreed to hear his argument that he has been unconstitutionally punished multiple times for the same crime. While the case is about the constitutionality of a man being charged twice for the same gun possession incident in a narrow sense, the case more broadly has the potential to significantly alter 150 years of Supreme Court precedent. Since the 1850s, the Supreme Court has allowed for one explicit exception to the Constitutions double jeopardy protections: cases of dual sovereignty (or separate sovereigns) which stem from view that the federal government and state governments are distinct entities with occasionally overlapping jurisdictions. (Exceptions to this exception exist which seek to limit double prosecutions at the federal level, but as this case shows they do not always have that effect.) federal level, This separate sovereigns exception to double jeopardy, though built on several previous rulings, was made most explicit in a 1920s bootlegging case, United States v. Lanza, which allowed a man to be charged with bootlegging crimes by both the state of Washington and the federal government. With respect to that case, Chief Justice William Howard Taft argued: United States v. Lanza We have here two sovereignties, deriving power from different sources, capable of dealing with the same subject matter within the same territory. Each may, without interference by the other, enact laws to secure prohibition, with the limitation that no legislation can give validity to acts prohibited by the amendment. Each government, in determining what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity, is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other. The separate sovereigns exemption has for much of its history been a controversial precedent which critics maintain is not rooted in the original text of the Constitution but is instead cobbled together from different partially relevant Supreme Court decisions -- decisions rooted in a time when the federal government was less powerful and whose questions never directly sought to address the explicit matter of double punishment for the same crime in state and federal jurisdictions. This argument is reflected in Gambles filing. filing The government argues in this case that the precedent is well-established through myriad Supreme Court cases and consistent with the Founding Fathers' vision of state and federal government duality: The dual-sovereignty principle has been long held, and consistently endorsed by this Court, which has recognized its soundness as a matter of [p]recedent, experience, and reason alike, The Court explained the roots of the principle more than 150 years ago. And in 1959, the Court described a challenge to the dual-sovereignty doctrine as not a new question, having been invoked and rejected in over twenty cases" ... Each sovereign is entitled to exercis[e] its own sovereignty to determin[e] what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity and prosecute the offender without interference by the other. Under petitioners interpretation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, one sovereigns efforts (successful or not) to enforce its own laws would vitiate the other sovereigns similar law-enforcement prerogatives. But that cannot be squared with the Constitutions bedrock structure of governance. In this case, Gamble has explicitly asked the Supreme Court to rule on a single specific question: Whether the Court should overrule the separate sovereigns exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause. The reason Gamble v. United States is generating buzz from people other than constitutional law scholars is that the separate sovereigns exception also prevents President Trump from pardoning people for state crimes. Under current Supreme Court precedent, a presidential pardon of an individual does not prevent that individual from being prosecuted for the same or similar crimes under state law. Under the dual sovereignty doctrine, Adam J. Adler wrote in the Yale Law Review, as long as two offenses are defined by different jurisdictions, they cannot constitute the same offense. wrote The Congressional Research Service issued an August 2018 report on the potential ramifications of the case, and this report included a discussion of its possible effect on the presidential pardon power: report The Gamble case may nevertheless have significant collateral legal effects ... A win for Gamble could also indirectly strengthen the Presidents pardon power, by precluding a state from prosecuting an already-pardoned defendant who has gone to trial on an overlapping offense. Some pundits have speculated that the reason why certain politicians seem to be in a rush to seat Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court is that is that he has a notably strong view of presidential powers and therefore would be a vote in favor of Gamble and for an expansion of presidential pardon powers -- and the Supreme Court announced they would be hearing this case the day after Justice Kennedys retirement. This temporal proximity has prompted some commenters to opine that the rush might be motivated by a desire to limit the presidents legal liability in the Russia probe and other investigations: strong view day after   While we cannot speculate on the motives of politicians who are supporting Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, The Atlantic reported that prominent political legal scholars agree in a general sense with the view of this cases having importance with regard to President Trumps pardon power: reported Within the context of the Mueller probe, legal observers have seen the dual-sovereignty doctrine as a check on President Donald Trumps power: It could discourage him from trying to shut down the Mueller investigation or pardon anyone caught up in the probe, because the pardon wouldnt be applied to state charges. Under settled law, if Trump were to pardon his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, for example -- he was convicted in federal court on eight counts of tax and bank fraud -- both New York and Virginia state prosecutors could still charge him for any crimes that violated their respective laws ... If the dual-sovereignty doctrine were tossed ... then Trumps pardon could theoretically protect Manafort from state action. If Trump were to shut down the investigation or pardon his associates, the escape hatch, then, is for cases to be farmed out or picked up by state-level attorneys general, who cannot be shut down by Trump and who generally -- but with some existing limits --can charge state crimes even after a federal pardon, explained Elie Honig, a former assistant U.S. attorney in New Jersey. The Atlantic also reported that at least one member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who approved Kavanaugh for a floor vote before the full Senate, Orrin Hatch, has publicly weighed in on the topic (unmotivated, he says, by the implications for the pardon power), filing an Amicus Curiae brief in favor of Gamble which argued that the pervasive federalization of criminal law to cover conduct that traditionally was prosecuted and punished by the states, and that falls within the states core legislative interests, threatens to undermine the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause unless the dual sovereignty doctrine is overruled in this context. Amicus Curiae Oral arguments for the case have not been scheduled but will occur during this Supreme Court term. If confirmed, Judge Kavanaugh could become a deciding vote in the case. Supreme Court of the United States.  Brief for Petitioner (No. 17-646)."
  24 October 2017. Cornell Legal Information Institute.  Double Jeopardy."
  Accessed 3 October 2018. U.S. Department of Justice.  9-2.031 - Dual and Successive Prosecution Policy ("Petite Policy")."
  Accessed 3 October 2018. Supreme Court of the United States.  United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377."
  11 December 1922. Supreme Court of the United States.  Brief for the United States in Opposition (No. 17-646)."
  16 January 2018. Adler, Adam J.  "Dual Sovereignty, Due Process, and Duplicative Punishment: A New Solution to an Old Problem."
  Yale Law Journal.  November 2014. Hsin, S.  "When Does Double Prosecution Count as Double Jeopardy?"
  Congressional Research Service.  16 August 2018. Kirby, Jen.  "7 Legal Experts on How Kavanaugh Views Executive Power  And What It Could Mean for Mueller."
  Vox.  11 July 2018. Vazquez, Maegan.  "Supreme Court Agrees to Hear 'Double Jeopardy' Case in the Fall."
  CNN.  22 June 2018. Bertrand, Natasha.  "A Supreme Court Case Could Liberate Trump to Pardon His Associates."
  The Atlantic.  25 September 2018 Supreme Court of the United States.  Brief of Senator Orrin Hatch as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner (No. 17-646)."
  11 September 2018. Updated [17 June 2019]: Added note that the Supreme Court ruled on this case. On 6 April 2016, the Facebook page "Worldwide Infidels United" published the above-reproduced meme, along with the following text: published This is Sajid Muhammed, a Muslim man living in the UK. In 2002 he set a woman on fire for eating a bacon sandwitch and only got 2 year in prison! He was released early to appease the local Muslims protesting against his arrest! SHARE if you think he should be hung! The text included a photograph of theactor Ian Hart, who portrayed Professor Quirinus Quirrell in the film adaptation ofHarry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone: Professor Quirinus Quirrell    The meme achieved tens of thousands of shares; alarge number of those sharing were in on the joke, but not all of them.Some were outraged: I'm not sure on the death penalty but he should served his sentence then been deported n not allowed a passport again pure evil the system over here stinks It's unbelievable what these Muslims get away with in our country what is our government trying to do .God Help Us Others were offended for different reasons: Whoever put up this post should be prosecuted for using a misleading image from Harry Potter and The Philosophers stone to promote racist comment whoever you are you should be ashamed of yourself! And you need to apologise to the Muslim community for peddling such lies! Incitement to hatred is a criminal offence! Putting asideany individual reader or commenter's interpretation, "World Infidels United" was not ananti-Muslim page, nor was its content meant to be taken literally. Additional content on the page clarifiedits satirical nature:  Posted by Worldwide Infidels United onWednesday, April 6, 2016 Worldwide Infidels United Wednesday, April 6, 2016  Please share to help spread the word! Posted by Worldwide Infidels United onWednesday, April 6, 2016 Worldwide Infidels United Wednesday, April 6, 2016 The meme's maker was mocking British people who shared similar (but serious) anti-Muslim memes on Facebook, and wasn't literally claiming that Professor Quirrell set a woman on fire for eating a bacon sandwich. The Internal Revenue Service has been on the defensive since the news broke that the agency has been giving extra scrutiny to conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. Among the lawmakers expressing concern about the IRS was Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va. In a May 17, 2013, interview, Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson asked Forbes, What's your No. 1 concern about the IRS being in charge of Obamacare? (Carlson was wrong about the agency's role. It is not in charge, as we addressed with ourrecent fact-check of Michele Bachmann.) Forbes responded, Well, Gretchen, first of all, it is the power that the IRS has that's different than any other agency, any other department. The IRS doesn't have to prove something against you. They can walk in and you've got the burden of proof. The idea that the burden of proof rests on the accuser is a bedrock principle of justice around the world. While neither of the terms burden of proof or presumption of innocence appears in the U.S Constitution, an accusers burden of proving that someone has committed a criminal act goes back to ancient times. In 1895, when the Supreme Court issued a resounding defense of the concept in the caseCoffin vs. United States, it cited sources as varied as the Bible, Sparta, Athens and Rome. The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law, the court wrote. So we wondered whether its really the case that the IRS doesn't have to prove something against you. You've got the burden of proof. The ways in which Forbes is correct Saving receipts and canceled checks in case the IRS calls is all too familiar to many taxpayers. And generally speaking -- beyond some exceptions that well outline below -- the burden of supplying information is indeed on the taxpayer when he or she is told by the IRS that they underpaid their taxes or when they face an IRS audit. This is a traditional rule, going back a long way, said David Weisbach, a University of Chicago law professor who worked earlier in his career as an attorney-advisor in the Department of Treasurys Office of the Tax Legislative Counsel. The IRS lays out the specifics on aWeb pagetitled Burden of Proof. The responsibility to prove entries, deductions, and statements made on your tax returns is known as the burden of proof, it says. You must be able to prove  certain elements of expenses to deduct them. Generally, taxpayers meet their burden of proof by having the information and receipts  for the expenses. You should keep adequate records to prove your expenses or have sufficient evidence that will support your own statement. You generally must have documentary evidence, such as receipts, canceled checks, or bills, to support your expenses. In other words, the IRS is presumed to be correct unless the taxpayer produces credible evidence to counter the agencys finding, said Timothy Jacobs, a partner specializing in tax law at the firm Hunton & Williams. Its worth noting that as frustrating as this burden may be, the alternative is even worse, said Neil H. Buchanan, a law professor at George Washington University. If the IRS had the burden to produce evidence, it would have to be given access to individuals' private files, in order to find that evidence, he said. Is that what we really want the IRS to be doing? So, for the most common interactions with the IRS, the burden of proof is indeed on the taxpayer. The exceptions to the rule There are a few exceptions to this rule. The most notable, since the penalties are so severe, are for tax-related criminal cases and civil fraud cases. In these types of cases, the burden of proof is essentially the same as it is for any other criminal case: The government, not the taxpayer, has to prove their case. If the government wants to convict you of murder, it has to show that you intentionally killed someone, said Kermit Roosevelt, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. And if the IRS takes you to court, he said, it has to show that you owe a certain amount of taxes and didnt pay it. Technically, Forbes was referring to the burden of production, which is the burden of providing supporting evidence, rather than the burden of proof, which typically refers to the burden of proving a case in court, Buchanan said. Still, the IRS uses the term burden of proof on the Web page that spells out what people have to provide to justify their deductions. So how common are the exceptions? Tax experts said criminal and civil-fraud cases are rare today when compared to ordinary tax-liability cases. Essentially all tax cases are normal, non-fraudulent adjustments, Weisbach said. This ratio of cases suggests that Forbes claim is largely accurate. Nothing the congressman said on the burden of proof would strike me as outside of the norm or the general rule if I or any other tax litigator heard it in everyday conversation, Jacobs said. Our ruling Forbes said the IRS doesn't have to prove something against you. They can walk in and you've got the burden of proof. Hes correct for most tax disputes. As long as no criminal or fraud charges are being tried, and as long as the case is taken up administratively rather than in court, the burden of justifying a taxpayers calculations falls upon the taxpayer. But in the relatively small number of criminal or civil fraud cases, the burden is on the government, just as it is in other types of prosecutions. On balance, we rate Forbes claim Mostly True.