Ronald Reagan raised taxes in 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987.
U.S. Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-11th, recently invoked the name of Ronald Reagan to drum up support for raising taxes for a new stimulus program.During a June 5floor speech, Connolly lamented the refusal of House Republican leaders to allow the American Jobs Act to come up for a vote. The bill, proposed by President Barack Obama, calls for $447 billion over 10 years to pay for infrastructure and school improvements, new job training programs, unemployment insurance, and temporary tax cuts for working families and small businesses.The stimulus would be funded by levying taxes on corporations and people earning more than $1 million a year.Connolly said the House, in considering the legislation, should ask, What would Ronald Reagan do?Many Republicans decried the use of additional revenue to help offset any increase in national debt, Connolly said. Apparently, they forgot that when faced with rising deficits, Ronald Reagan looked to revenue increases, broadening the tax base, closing loopholes and raising taxes. Yes, he raised taxes in 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987.Did the Gipper really raise taxes during five years of his presidency? We checked.Lets start by noting that if you recall Reagan as tax cutter, your memory is good. Reagan campaigned in 1980 on reducing taxes. During his administration, the top income tax rate decreased from 70 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1986.But to combat a rising deficit and debt burden, Reagan also approved increased taxes.In 1982, The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year, and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by $3.3 billion.In 1983, Reagan signed off on legislation to raise payroll taxes and tax Social Security benefits for some higher earners.In 1984, the Deficit Reduction Act included increases in taxes on estates and distilled spirits and ended some business tax breaks, to the tune of $18 billion per year.In 1985, Reagan signed legislation making permanent a 16-cent federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes, then worth about $2.4 billion a year.In 1986, the Tax Reform Act lowered the top income tax bracket from 50 percent to 28 percent. To pay for the reductions, however, the legislation closed a number of tax loopholes.In 1987, Reagan signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act that extended the telephone excise tax and eliminated a real estate tax deduction loophole.So its accurate to say Reagan increased levies during five years of his administration, but theres a caveat: The overall tax burden on businesses and individuals went down during his presidency.We examined data from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center that computes the nations tax revenues as a percentage of its Gross Domestic Product -- the total of all goods and services produced.When Reagan took office in 1981, federal taxes were 19.6 percent of GDP, the highest level since World War II. That figure dropped to 17.3 percent during his first term and rose to 18.2 percent at the end of his second term.For comparison, federal tax revenues for this fiscal year are estimated at 15.8 percent of GDP.Reagans efforts to cut top income tax rates at the same time he was increasing defense spending created strain, and the federal debt rose from $994 billion at the start of his first term to almost $2.9 trillion at the end. As a result, Reagan was willing to accept and sometimes promote proposals that would close loopholes and create a broader tax base, according to C. Eugene Steuerle, who organized the Treasury Department's 1984-86 tax reform effort and is now a fellow at the Urban Institute and Tax Policy Center.This April, President Barack Obama said Reagan understood repeatedly that when the deficit started to get out of control, that for him to make a deal, he would have to propose both spending cuts and tax increases. PolitiFact National rated the claimMostly True, noting that Reagan did not repeatedly propose increases but agreed to tax hikes put forth by Congress.Our rulingConnolly said Reagan, as president raised taxes in 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987. Reagan did, in fact, sign off on at least one tax increase during each of those years.Some of the increases were modest in scope. And its important to note that overall U.S. taxes, when measured as a portion of the nations GDP, went down during Reagans presidency.But theres no doubt that Reagan was willing to cut budget deals that included raising revenues. We rate Connollys statement True.
To counter Republican criticism that the stimulus money is not being spent fast enough, Vice President Joe Biden has been traveling the country to boast about the recovery plan's success stories.In conjunction with a July 9, 2009, trip to Ohio, Biden's office put out a news release with this talking point: Across the country, $174 billion of the Recovery Act have been committed in its first 130 days.The White House says it is getting the numbers from its own Web site, Recovery.gov. We counted 130 days after Obama signed the bill on Feb. 17, which took us to June 27. On that day, the government had committed $157.8 billion, slightly less than the $174 billion cited by Biden.Those numbers are culled from weekly reports submitted by all federal agencies. The total stimulus cost will ultimately be roughly $787 billion, with about $499 billion for new spending. (The other $288 billion is for tax relief.) So that means that about 35 percent of the spending ($174.9 billion of $499 billion) has been allocated so far.That might sound like a lot, but Republican critics complain the money is just trickling out. For example, Sen. Jon Kyl, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, complained last week that only 6.8 percent of the stimulus package has been spent.The numbers can be confusing, making you wonder whether Kyl is right about the 6.8 percent or Biden is right about the 35 percent. So we investigated and found that, like so many things in the federal budgeting process, it all comes down to semantics.John Porcari, deputy secretary of the Department of Transportation, wrote how this confusion is playing out in miniature at his agency, after getting what he considered some bad press in aUSA Todaystory that maintained that only $132 million of the total $27.5 billion earmarked for road construction funding has been spent.Indeed, there's a big difference between how much money the government has already spent  that figure is about $60 billion, according to the White House  and how much the government has obligated or committed to a project.Whenever a state obligates or dedicates their Recovery dollars to a project that means it is green-lighted, Porcari wrote on Recovery.gov. States can start advertising the project and soliciting bids and once a bid is awarded contractors can buy supplies, bring workers on board and start breaking ground. It could be weeks before the reimbursement process starts so those outlays are in no way an indicator of how much money is getting to states, how much work is being done or how many people are working. The $16 billion obligated to thousands of highway projects is the true measure of how much highway money is reaching states.Using his definition, about $16 billion has been obligated to road construction projects, far more than what's actually been spent.So for practical purposes, money committed is the same as obligated and allocated. It's money that will be spent on a particular project.It's fair to use those broader terms, according to Jim Horney, a budget expert at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, because the guarantee of the money can sometimes be enough to keep an agency or a company from laying off a worker.It's not just when the check has been written that we see an impact, he said.Take Virginia, for example. Earlier in the year, lawmakers were planning to lay off teachers to save cash. But when the stimulus passed, the state knew it would be getting some financial relief, so officials changed their budget to keep those teachers employed.The money isn't in the state treasury at that moment, but it still has a ripple effect on the economy, Horney said.If [teachers] knew they would be laid off, they would have started saving money, stopped buying clothes, preparing for hard times ahead, he said. Knowing they would have a job in the coming school year, teachers were less likely to adopt austerity measures.Horney had this caveat: Impact on the economy depends on how quickly the money is actually spent or reimbursed. If it takes five years for the government to pay a state back for a project, then the state may take some cost-cutting measures in the meantime.Conservatives, though, say the true measurement of economic impact is money actually spent, said Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.The economic theory behind the stimulus suggests only actual outlays can create jobs and drive money through the economy, he said.So back to Biden. He said that $174 billion had been committed at the 130-day mark. Federal records show he was a little off. The administration's Recovery.gov site shows that $157.8 billion had been committed. So we give Biden a Mostly True. In 2012, PolitiFact twiceratedTrueclaims that President Barack Obama failed to keep a promise to cut federal deficits in half by the end of his first term. At that point, the budget gap topped a trillion bucks and Republican congressmencalled out Obamabecause the deficit had been reduced by just 15 percent. But there was the president atLaborfest 2014in Milwaukee proclaiming we cut our deficits by more than half. In his Sept. 1, 2014speech, the president ticked off for union supporters a list of major policy decisions he contends helped boost the economy and improve the governments bottom line. We cant cover all of those here, but the deficit claim grabbed our attention. Has it really been cut in half? The White House Office of Management and Budget pointed us to achart prepared by that officein 2013 as proof of Obama's claim. It compares the yearly deficits under Obama, expressed -- as they often are -- as a share of the nations entire economy, which is measured by the Gross Domestic Product. At the start of Obamas term, the chart showed, the figure was 9.2 percent. The latest figure was 4.1 percent. That appears to back Obama's statement. But let's examine this in detail. To do that, we reviewed figures published by the Congressional Budget Office as well as theWhite Houses Office of Management and Budget. We also consulted with independent fiscal experts. The baseline year for comparison is fiscal year 2009, which ended Sept. 30 of that year. This was the last budget from President George W. Bush, as Obama took office in January of that year. The most recent complete fiscal year is 2013. Those are the same years Obama's chart showed. Our analysis showed the drop easily topped 50 percent, and was actually somewhat higher than Obama's chart would indicate. As a share of the economy, we found -- and our experts confirmed -- the drop was from 9.8 percent in 2009 to 4.1 percent in 2013. Obamas chart actually reflects a lower deficit figure for 2009, and therefore a lower share of GDP, 9.2%. Thats because instead of using the actual 2009 deficit of $1.4 trillion, Obama lowers it by the $200 billion in increased deficit spending that he -- not Bush -- pushed through in the stimulus plan to address the crisis that became the Great Recession. That resulting figure is what Obama calls the deficit he inherited from Bush. But no matter which figure is used, the deficit as a share of the economy still fell by more than half. Show me the money There's another way to look at this. That is, in raw dollars -- the way attendees at the union event probably would. Indeed, deficits are often expressed that way as well. The White House and CBO figures each show that in 2009 the deficit reached $1.4 trillion. As a share of GDP, it easily topped any year since World War II, said Steve Ellis, vice president of the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense. By the end of fiscal year 2013, the deficit figure had fallen to $679.5 billion in dollars unadjusted for inflation. Thats a 52 percent drop. Heres the year-by-year trend in 2009 dollars: Fiscal year Deficit Deficit as share of GDP 2009 1,412,688,000,000 9.8 percent 2010 1,294,373,000,000 8.8 percent 2011 1,299,593,000,000 8.4 percent 2012 1,086,963,000,000 6.8 percent 2013 679,502,000,000 4.1 percent There is one wrinkle. When you use Obama's methodology to compare the deficit Obama inherited -- the 2009 result minus the stimulus package to that in 2013 --  the drop in the deficit is slightly under half, at 48%. Ellis and Marc Goldwein, senior policy director at the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, both included an additional year, the 2014 fiscal year, which is just a month from completion. The Aug. 27, 2014CBO estimate for this years budget,fiscal year 2014, is a continued shrinking of the deficit to $506 billion, or 2.9 percent of GDP. Those figures would put Obama's claim over the top no matter the number-crunching method. Looking ahead Ellis cautioned that talking about deficit amounts in raw dollars doesnt really give a good sense of the scale: A $400 billion deficit in a $10 trillion economy is a lot bigger than a $400 billion deficit in $17 trillion economy. And he and Goldwein emphasized that while the deficit has been halved, its been halved from a skyscraping peak. In the decade before deficits exploded in 2008 and 2009, they averaged just over 1 percent of GDP, including three years of surpluses, we calculated. As of 2013, that figure was at 4.1 percent. The growth in the deficit from 2007 to 2009 was due mainly to factors related to the Great Recession, said Goldwein. Tax collections fell as people lost jobs and corporate profits dropped; spending on food stamps and other aid programs rose with increased need; stimulus and tax break legislation passed, as did bailouts of financial firms. The economic recovery, wind-down of stimulus, reversal of TARP/Fannie transactions, and lower interest rates are really what has caused our deficit to fall so much, Goldwein told us. He mentioned cuts in discretionary spending as well. Looking ahead, the CBO warns that later in the next decade deficits as a share of the economy will grow and federal debt will climb without changes in current policies. But Obama, its fair to say, was speaking of the change during his presidency. And his claim dovetails with one PolitiFact National checked in July 2013, ratingTrueObamas claim that the deficit is falling at the fastest rate in 60 years. Our rating At a union rally on Labor Day, Obama declared We cut our deficits by more than half. The numbers back up Obamas claim:  Thanks to income tax revenues rising and spending on emergency assistance dropping, Americas deficit has fallen by more than 50 percent from its highest point since World War II to a level $733 billion lower. We rate the claim 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 Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In April 2020, a set of screenshots supposedly showing comments from a "John McDaniels," in which he called COVID-19 a "political ploy" and social-distancing measures "bullshit," started to circulate on social media. Along with the posts were articles claiming he died from complications of the coronavirus disease.  Here's a screenshot supposedly showing a post from McDaniel on March 15 and a snippet from his obituary a month later:   McDaniel truly died from complications related to COVID-19 in April 2020 after he downplayed the seriousness of the disease on social media.  died The New York Daily News wrote:  wrote An Ohio man has tragically died from COVID-19 after criticizing his states coronavirus lockdown. John W. McDaniel, 60, died Wednesday in Columbus, exactly one month after reportedly calling Gov. Mike DeWines stay-at-home order madness. If what Im hearing is true, that DeWine has ordered all bars and restaurants to be closed, I say bullshit! He doesnt have the authority," McDaniel reportedly wrote in a since-deleted social media post circulated widely on social media. As screenshots of McDaniel's posts went viral, many social media users took the opportunity to criticize McDaniel, saying he had received his comeuppance for calling the virus a political ploy.  McDaniel's wife, Lisa, acknowledged that her husband had made some "early assumptions" about the virus on social media, but added that social media users were also making unfair assumptions about him.  In a statement posted to the Snyder Funeral Homes Facebook page that announced services for McDaniel would not be live-streamed due to concerns about unwanted, negative social media reactions, she explained that McDaniel, like many others, was initially not fully aware of the severity of the pandemic. However, she wrote that he ordered the employees at his company O&M to work from home on March 16 (the day after the above-displayed Facebook post). Furthermore, according to her Facebook message, he self-isolated as soon as he was made aware that he had been in contact with someone who tested positive for COVID-19. Snyder Funeral Homes Facebook page Lastly, she wrote that if he were still alive, he would have abided by the state's stay-at-home order and would have encouraged others to do the same.  Here's her statement from April 22, 2020 (emphasis ours): Words do not describe all of the emotions we, John W. McDaniel's family, are experiencing right now. We are overwhelmed with grief for the loss of our believed husband, father, soon to be father-in-law, son, brother, uncle, and dear friend to many. Similar to thousands of people, we are suffering from an unexpected and untimely loss due to the effects of COVID-19, the likes of which we never could have imagined. During this time of mourning, John's story, along with early assumptions that he stated on Twitter and Facebook have turned into national news. The news has opened the flood gates for people to share their own misguided anger and unfounded assumptions about a man they don't know. Wanting to protect my family and John's legacy, we have decided not to live stream his funeral services via Facebook today. We will be privately recording his services today and we will be sharing it directly with his family and friends. We have not come to this decision lightly and we hope everyone will honor and respect this decision.  As each day passes, we all are learning more about this "invisible enemy." We have all learned that the early actions taken by our National and State government were indeed the right action to take. Quarantine and social distancing have been effective in flattening the curve. John, President of O&M, ordered the company to work from home on March 16. In addition, it is important to note that John immediately self-isolated as soon as he learned he had been in contact with someone who had tested positive. Many, like John, made statements early on not fully aware of the severity of COVID-19; many have retracted their statements knowing now the effects of this pandemic. We know if John was still here with us he would acknowledge the national crisis we're are in, abide by the stay-at-home order, and encourage family and friends to do the same. But sadly he is not with us and we will forever have to live and cope with how his life ended far too soon. Further, we will never be able to erase from our hears and minds the negative posts that have been made and shared about John this past week. To all of our family and friends, my sons and I will never be able to appropriately say "thank you" for all the love and support you have given us throughout this entire process. From the bottom of our hearts we will forever be grateful for you and the special relationship we share. While some may cast aspersions on McDaniel for not treating COVID-19 with the seriousness it deserved in March 2020, it should be noted that misinformation has been rampant during this pandemic. rampant We've debunked scores of rumors over several months that have touted bad medical advice and promoted conspiracy theories. U.S. President Donald Trump, too, has been criticized for downplaying the seriousness of COVID-19 and has repeatedly called the news outlets outlets covering this pandemic "fake news." On Feb. 28, just two weeks before McDaniel posted on social media that COVID-19 was a "political ploy," Trump said during a rally that "Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus" as their "new hoax."  bad medical advice conspiracy theories. fake news said Brown, Bruce.  "Its Dangerous for Public Officials to Cry Fake News During the COVID-19 Pandemic."
  Miami Herald.  27 March 2020. Egan, Lauren.  "Trump Calls Coronavirus Democrats' 'New Hoax.'"
  NBC News.  28 February 2020. Carter, Andrew.  "Marion Man Dies After Contracting Coronavirus; Local Cases Climb to 276."
  Marion Star.  16 April 2020. Dillon, Nancy.  "Ohio Man Dies From COVID-19 After Criticizing Governors Coronavirus Lockdown as 'Madness.'"
  New York Daily News.  21 April 2020. In January 2022, a number of trucks participated in a convoy across Canada in protest of the country's requirement for cross-border truckers to be vaccinated for COVID-19. As videos of the so-called "freedom convoy" spread on social media, so did a number of claims concerning just how many trucks were participating in this event. These claims ranged from a few hundred to more than 50,000. Some even claimed that the freedom convoy had set a Guinness World Record for the world's largest truck convoy.  country's requirement for cross-border truckers to be vaccinated for COVID-19   As of this writing, the freedom convoy has not earned a place in the Guinness World Records book. Furthermore, the claim that this convoy involved 50,000 trucks appears to be a gross exaggeration that goes against all available evidence.  The largest truck convoy on record was set in November 2020 in Cairo, Egypt. That convoy involved 480 trucks and stretched 7.5 km (4.6 miles). Guinness writes: Guinness writes The largest parade of trucks consisted of 480 trucks and is achieved by Tahya Misr Fund (Egypt), in Cairo, Egypt, on 20 November 2020. With a length of 7.5 km, Tahya Misr Fund was able to organize a parade of 480 trucks, amid the harsh weather and heavy rain, breaking the Guinness World Records title for the largest parade of trucks, which was achieved 16 years ago in the Netherlands with a parade size of 416 trucks, thus the Tahya Misr Fund became the ne record holder. This Guinness World Records entry provides a data point that makes us skeptical of the 50,000 truck claim. If a 500 truck convoy stretched 7.5 km, a 50,000 truck convoy would stretch 750 km (about 460 miles). We have seen no evidence to support the idea that the freedom convoy is anywhere near 460 miles long.  So just how many trucks participated in this freedom convoy? There's no official count for the number of trucks participating in this convoy. Estimates are also difficult because this big rig convoy also includes a number of cars and other smaller vehicles. Furthermore, the "freedom convoy" has been a multiple-day event and some trucks may only be participating for a portion of the journey.  These variables make it difficult to estimate just how many trucks are participating. We reached out to the Canadian Trucking Alliance for more information and we will update this article if more information is made available.  Many Canadian news outlets have used the word "hundreds" to quantify the number of trucks in this convoy. The CBC, for example, reported: "Hundreds of truckers set off from British Columbia to Ottawa on Sunday to protest a federal vaccine mandate despite the urging of the country's largest trucking federation to comply." reported Adrian Ghobrial, a reporter for the Toronto news outlet City News, said that while thousands of people have come out to watch and support the truckers as they drive by, he was skeptical that the convoy consisted of more than 100 trucks:  David Akin, the chief global correspondent with Global News, cited a report from the Ontario Provincial Police that 113 trucks (as well as 276 personal vehicles) were recorded coming into Thunder Bay from Winnipeg.   On social media, the estimate of trucks involved in this convoy has grown by the tweet. A post from Fox News host Sean Hannity, for example, claimed that the freedom convoy consisted of 10,000 trucks. Others claimed that this number was in excess of 50,000 trucks.  freedom convoy consisted of 10,000 trucks   The claim that 50,000 trucks are participating in this convoy appears to have originated with one of the protest's organizers. The organizers may not be the most reliable source for this figure, however, as they have reason to inflate these numbers.  originated with one of the protest's organizers The number also seems implausible due to what we know about the trucking industry in Canada.  According to the Canadian Trucking Alliance, the cross-border vaccine mandate would impact about 15% (or about 16,000) of the country's truckers. If the 50,000 truck claim is to be believed, that would mean that not only would every one of those 16,000 truckers have to participate in the event, but they'd also need to be joined by 34,000 additional trucks who weren't impacted by the mandate.  Canadian Trucking Alliance The Canadian Trucking Alliance said in a statement that the "the vast majority of the Canadian trucking industry is vaccinated with the overall industry vaccination rate among truck drivers closely mirroring that of the general public. Accordingly, most of our nations hard-working truck drivers are continuing to move cross-border and domestic freight to ensure our economy continues to function." statement   Canada Police Fear Violence at Trucker Vaccine Protest. ABC News, https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/canada-police-fear-violence-trucker-vaccine-protest-82497084. Accessed 27 Jan. 2022. Canadian Trucking Alliance Statement to Those Engaged in Road/Border Protests - Canadian Trucking Alliance. https://cantruck.ca/canadian-trucking-alliance-statement-to-those-engaged-in-road-border-protests/. Accessed 27 Jan. 2022. Hundreds of Truckers Headed to Ottawa in Freedom Rally Convoy against Vaccine Mandate | CBC News. CBC, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/freedom-rally-bc-jan-23-1.6324942. Accessed 27 Jan. 2022. Largest Parade of Trucks. Guinness World Records, https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/largest-truck-convoy. Accessed 27 Jan. 2022. A viral video purporting to show a statue of Jesus Christ in Mexico miraculously opening and closing its eyes captured a fair amount of international media attention in early August 2016.  "SPOOKY footage has emerged of a statue of Jesus appearing to open its eyes, with many believers claiming the spectacle is a miracle," UK tabloid The Sun reported on 10 August. The coverage continued: reported Investigators have scoured over the vision which appears to show the figure quickly open its eyes at a church in Mexico. Social media users were quick to comment on the clip filmed in the Chapel of Saltillo, saying it was merely an optical illusion or Photoshop job. What a coincidence that there was someone there to record it, one person wrote. Paranormal investigator Ivan Escamilla of the web site Adimensional, where the video was first posted, was undaunted by the skeptical reaction, claiming the video had been examined "for weeks" by more than 20 specialists, including priests, who "found no proof it had been doctored," the Mirror reported. According to the Argentinian newspaper El Ancasti, officials of the Diocese of Saltillo, who were the first to receive the video, declined to even view it, much less issue a statement about its authenticity. Adimensional reported El Ancasti As an exercise in documenting paranormal activity, there is frankly very little to recommend the footage. It's dark, blurry, shaky and low-resolution. As has been pointed out, the serendipitous timing of the video is suspicious. One does see the statue apparently open and close its eyes, but the sequence is more apt to bring to mind the cheesy special effects in a low-budget horror film than the impression that a miracle has occurred. The most striking thing is how thoroughly creepy and terrifying Jesus Christ's eyes look when they're open. If it is a miracle, it's a very odd miracle indeed. The best clue to the fact that the video was doctored is the fact that alterations in other areas of the image occur at precisely the same moments the eyes open and close. For example, here, in sequence, are three frames showing the statue's eyes wide open, in the process of closing, and completely closed. Observe the changes in the shadows around the eyes and  not to be indelicate, but this is a giveaway  the change in the shape of Jesus' right nipple:       If the only thing happening in these relatively stable frames were the closing of the statue's eyes, no other changes ought to be visible. But changes are visible, especially when the footage is viewed at slow speed or frame-by-frame. For a much better demonstration of this than we can provide here, please give your attention to the video below uploaded by the Australian Phenomena YouTube channel. It seems the maker of this video, a UFO researcher named Dylan, had no trouble whatsoever finding the evidence of fakery that 20 previous experts (and priests) failed to detect. video Warnings about dog-snatchers tagging homes with colored stickers to facilitate the stealing of canines for use in dogfighting events were originally circulated in the suburbs of Perth, Australia, in February 2013 before being relocated to a UK setting the following month: Any dog owners beware, leaflet droppers or anyone walking around housing estates.Keep your eye out for small coloured STICKERS on gates or doors, gangs are marking how many dogs live there to steal and they are using them for DOG BAIT FOR FIGHTING.Ring the police immediately if you see any and inform the home owners.Remove the stickers immediately!Red stickers are for big dogsYellow for medium andPink for small breedsPlease re-share and keep your dog safe!This is already happening in the Goole Yorkshire area, UK and could be spreading across the country. This is disgusting The same rumor has also been spread involving plastic bags in trees: I've seen on Facebook that people's homes are being marked by plastic bags tied in trees indicating they have a dog. This is a sign for criminals to abduct the dog for it be used as bait in dog fighting rings. This just doesn't seem feasible.  Officials in the former area quickly got out the word that this warning was a hoax: The internet has been flooded with chilling tales of an organised underground dog fighting ring operating out of Perth's suburbs. Family pets have been systematically stolen from their yards to be trained as fighting dogs, according to reports appearing on social media and online classified websites. While many in Perth claim to know somebody who knows somebody whose pet has fallen prey to a kidnapping, authorities and social media experts have dismissed the warnings as a viral hoax. Animal welfare authorities in Perth, who have been inundated with phone calls since the messages started to appear, said the warnings were "completely unfounded." "It's a viral hoax," RSPCA spokesman Tim Mayne told Fairfax Media. "Police and the RSPCA have no solid evidence on this at all. "We've been monitoring this situation and still, to the best of our knowledge, it's a viral hoax." Curtin University internet studies lecturer and social media expert Tama Leaver said the lack of specific details in the messages was a dead giveaway for a viral hoax. "If people were really trying to stop something there would be specific details about it and who they could contact," he said. He said the messages were so vague they had managed to cover "the entire spectrum of Perth". "If something like that is appearing for two weeks and there's no official information released whatsoever  there's no police follow up  and there's no evidence of an actual fight, you'd have to question it," he said. Similarly, in March 2013 UK officials in Yorkshire issued a denial that area dognappers were placing stickers or other markings on vehicle tires to identify the homes of dog owners (a variant of a similar rumor that such a method was being used to target gun owners): denial rumor Police in Whitby and other areas of the county want to reassure residents that there are no gangs of dog thieves operating in the area and placing stickers on vehicles. A local officer who was called by concerned residents, has enlisted the advice of a local tyre fitter to prove that marks left on vehicle tyres are not the work of dog-nappers. Rumours have been circulating on social media sites that dog thieves have been placing stickers on vehicle tyres to mark the homes of dog owners, ready for them to go back and steal the dogs. This is not the case. The red and yellow dots seen on tyres are placed there by tyre manufacturers. The red dot denotes the heaviest part of the tyre and a yellow dot denotes the lightest. They are not the work of dog thieves. The rumor traveled to the U.S. in early 2015, when it emerged in the form of a warning involving plastic bags tied to trees as a harbinger of dognappers. According to the rumor (which spread widely on Facebook), criminals marked dog-owning homes by tying grocery bags to trees so pets could later be kidnapped for dogfighting rings. There was no explanation of how those who became wise to the purported ruse managed to differentiate bags purposefully tied to trees for signaling from discarded grocery bags that coincidentally came to rest among the branches after being blown about by wind. And as with prior variations, no instances in which pets were abducted were linked to plastic bags mysteriously found in trees prior to the canines' disappearances. As noted in our article about a similar putative home-marking scheme, there's no practical reason for persons seeking to perpetrate crimes against property to surreptitiously mark the homes of their intended victims rather than simply recording the addresses of those homes. A related warning was originally circulated in March 2012 (and again in March 2013) about a man named Michael Anthony Burdis who was reportedly attempting to obtain dogs from animal shelters to "use as bait in dog fighting": article This is Michael Anthony Burdis  watch out for him in all rescue centres as he's trying to get his hands on a dog to use as bait in dog fighting! Please share this far and wide  we have to stop this evil man! This warning was apparently based on information originating with the UK-based Scruples Whippet Rescue, who posted on their Facebook page back in March 2012 that: Facebook There is currently a statement being posted all over facebook about a Michael Burdis. It is claimed that the statement was written by Scruples Whippet Rescue and is badly written and reads like Michael is a volunteer for us. The statement was NOT written by any member of the Scruples team. Michael Burdis is NOT in any way a Volunteer for Scruples or in any way associated with our Rescue. He wrote on our Facebook page last week enquiring about young dogs and was REFUSED a dog and was BLOCKED from our page due to his dog fighting links. This man is currently under investigation by the RSPCA . All our Volunteers are very strictly vetted and home checked and Scruples Whippet Rescue will not have, and never have had anything to do with anyone involved in the barbaric illegal activity that is dog fighting. We are very concerned that this badly worded statement that has been written by someone unknown to Scruples is making people believe that we are involved with Michael and his activities and we are asking all Facebook groups to delete the incorrect post and post and share this statement instead. However, we found no evidence that someone named Michael Burdis is (or was) being investigated by the RSPCA in connection with dogfighting activities, and the Scruples Whippet Rescue notice states only that someone using that name inquired of them about some dogs via Facebook. The photograph circulated with this warning (not reproduced here) appears to be a picture of someone by the same name from the U.S. who has no connection to any of the claims. A similar unconfirmed warning was circulated in April 2013 naming Dell Schanze as the person going to animal shelters to obtain dogs for use as bait in dog fights. And in May 2017, the "bags in trees" version of the rumor re-emerged on Facebook, purportedly confirmed by a police department in Pennsylvania: re-emerged Facebook SHARING!!!!I usually don't post much on Facebook however, I just wanted to spread the word/ make people aware of this. So I came home yesterday and noticed a bag hanging from a tree that had not been there when I left my house for about an hour, if that. The bag immediately caught my attention for some reason and it's placement looked like it had been put there on purpose rather than trash that blew into the tree. It was positioned right at the corner of my fence. For some reason, I thought I remembered hearing someone tell me that there had been other cases of this and that it was related to marking houses for people who apparently steal dogs. When I walked out and looked at the tree and the bag, I noticed that the bag was tied in 3 different places to the tree meaning someone clearly put it there for a reason, so that alone was strange to me. Even though I thought they would tell me I was psycho for calling, I called 911 and explained the situation to them and asked if I should contact SPCA or something with this problem. I was surprised to hear that this was a concerning problem and that I was correct for calling/ report it to the police. I was even more alarmed when the 911 dispatcher asked me if I had any dogs and if so if they were inside to which I replied that my dog was inside. He then asked me if I was aware of the several recent cases of dogs being stolen/ going missing while in their own backyards. I was instructed to lock my doors, keep myself and my dog inside, not to touch the bag or any evidence at the scene and that they were sending out a police officer right away. I was told that this "tagging" or "marking" is thought to be used for people who are scoping out neighborhoods/ homes in which people have dogs that go outside or are left outside alone even for brief periods of time. They mark the house with a plastic bag tied to a tree at the home to leave a mark for people who will then come later and apparently lure dogs out of their yard and steal them. Although not absolutely certain why they are stealing them, they are apparently being used for dog fighting. Smaller breeds, larger breeds, or medium breeds. As I knew many of my friends here on Facebook have dogs or many of us have dogs of course, I wanted to spread the word. I was told by the police officer as well as the 911 dispatcher that even if letting the dog out for 5 minutes to go with them.   please read this especially if you have a dog or dogs!!!! pic.twitter.com/Gh0sYVtD2l pic.twitter.com/Gh0sYVtD2l  Bella (@b3llaconigliaro) May 19, 2017 May 19, 2017  Yet again, the warning to dog owners was shared tens of thousands of times. We contacted the Dallastown Police Department in Dallastown, Pennsylvania in an attempt to confirm that police validated the user's concerns about bags in trees and dog theft. An employee with whom we spoke denied they received any reports of dog kidnapping overall, including the sort connected to bags in trees. When Susan Goodman Komen died of breast cancer at the age of 33 in 1980, her younger sister, Nancy Goodman Brinker promised she would do whatever she could to help end that disease.  Brinker fulfilled that promise by founding The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation (later known as Susan G. Komen for the Cure, then just Susan G. Komen) in 1982, a group that has since become the largest and most well known breast cancer organization in the United States: breast cancer Brinker fulfilled a promise to her sister that she would do everything she could to help eradicate the disease  a disease that Brinker also was diagnosed with and successfully fought. "At that time, there was a stigma and shame around breast cancer," Brinker said. "You didn't talk about it. There were no 800-numbers, no Internet. Our government didn't spend much on breast cancer research. There were few major cancer centers with expertise about breast cancer. That's the world we faced when Suzy was diagnosed. It's a world I watched her suffer in, and it's a world she wanted us to change." In 2012, Komen founder and CEO Nancy Brinker became the focus of controversy when she announced Komen would be pulling the grants the organization had been providing to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screenings, then quickly reversed that decision.  Several months later Brinker announced she would be stepping down as Komen's CEO, but the following year she was again the focus of controversy when news outlets reported that not only did she still hold her CEO position, but she had received a hefty raise to boot that brought her annual compensation up to $684,000 per year: In early 2012, Komen announced it was pulling its grants for breast-cancer screenings from Planned Parenthood, drawing an immediate backlash from Komen supporters and abortion rights advocates. Within days, Nancy Brinker, the groups founder and CEO, reversed the decision to defund the organization. Then, in August, Brinker announced that she would be stepping down. But 10 months later, Brinker still holds her position and tax documents reveal that she received a 64 percent raise and now makes $684,000 a year, according to the charitys latest available tax filing.  Komen says the raise came in November 2010, prior to last year's controversy. Ken Berger, president and CEO of Charity Navigator, which evaluates and rates charities, called Brinker's salary "extremely high." "This pay package is way outside the norm," he said. "It's about a quarter of a million dollars more than what we see for charities of this size. This is more than the head of the Red Cross is making, for an organization that is one-tenth the size of the Red Cross."  The American Red Cross had revenue of about $3.4 billion, while Komens was about $340 million last year.  Red Cross CEO Gail McGovern makes $500,000, according to the most recent financial documents available for the charity. Charity Navigator's last compensation figure for Nancy Brinker was $560,896 per year, which at the time put her below Komen president Elizabeth Thompson's reported annual compensation of $606,461.   In June 2013, Komen finally announced that Brinker would be stepping down as president and CEO of that organization and named Judith A. Salerno, M.D. as her successor.  In June 2015, Brinker reportedly resigned from her paid position to assume an unpaid role role as a top volunteer with Komen. Dr. Salerno's most recently reported compensation (in August 2017) was $479,858, while Nancy Brinker was still listed as a "founder" receiving a salary of $397,093. compensation announced unpaid In September 2017, Paula Schneider took over as president and CEO of Komen, with compensation of $137,155 reported as of the end of the fiscal year in March 2018. Paula Schneider The reference to Komen's applying only 20% of donated money to breast cancer research likely comes from a pie chart displayed in the "Use of Funds" section of Wikipedia's article about Susan G. Komen for the Cure, which showed Komen's 2009-2010 Expenses: Use of Funds  While it may have been true that breast cancer research comprised only a 21% share of Komen's program expenses (Charity Navigator puts the figure at 28.8% as of March 2018), citing that figure as a criticism of the organization reflects a common misbelief that groups dedicated to addressing particular diseases (e.g., the Muscular Dystrophy Association, the ALS Association) exist solely or primarily to fund and direct research into curing and/or preventing those diseases.  This perception is inaccurate: Komen and other groups like it have goals that include delivering a wide array of services to the communities they support beyond the funding of research, such as funding educational awareness and outreach programs, providing screening and diagnostic procedures, and arranging medical treatment and home care for persons currently living with those diseases.  A more relevant metric for assessing a charity's overall financial effectiveness is the percentage of the organization's budget that is actually spent on all the programs and services the charity delivers, and in this area the Charity Navigator charity evaluation site gives  Komen an 80.3 rating (as well as a 96.0 rating for Accountability & Transparency).  Charity Navigator does rank many other breast cancer charities higher than Susan G. Komen for the Cure, however. Komen breast cancer Regarding the seemingly excessively high level of CEO salaries at some charities, Charity Navigator advises that: advises While there are certainly some charities that overpay their leaders, Charity Navigator's data shows that those organizations are the minority. Among the charities we've evaluated (those being mid to large-sized charities), the typical CEO's annual compensation is in the low to mid six figures. Before you make any judgments about salaries higher or lower than that range, we encourage you to keep in mind that these charities are complex organizations, with multi-million dollar budgets, hundreds of employees, and thousands of constituents. These leaders could inevitably make much more running similarly sized for-profit firms. Furthermore, when making your decision it is important to consider that it takes a certain level of professionalism to effectively run a charity and charities must offer a competitive salary if they want to attract and retain that level of leadership. In closed-doorremarks to campaignsupporterson April 14, 2011, President Barack Obama looked back in frustration at lengthy negotiations with Republicans over funding to keep the federal government operating.Obama opined, as aCBS News onlinestoryreported, that he expects Republicans to continue using the budget process to enact their political agenda under the guise of cutting spending.The president singled out U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the House Budget Committee chairman who has authored a long-term deficit-reduction plan.When Paul Ryan says his priority is to make sure, you know, he's just being America's accountant, trying to be responsible ...This is the same guy who voted for two wars that were unpaid for, voted for the Bush tax cuts that were unpaid for, voted for the prescription drug bill that cost as much as my health care bill -- but wasn't paid for, Obama told his supporters. So it's not on the level.In making the remark, Obama pointed to several big-ticket items approved during the Bush administration while Ryan was in Congress -- ones he says have helped drive the nations record deficits.Given the prominence of the protagonists and the timeliness of the comments, we decided to take a look at Obamas critique of Ryan.With the words, Obama is offering an opinion about how Ryan has framed his budget-cutting efforts. We cant fact-check the presidents opinion about Ryans message. But we can focus on the factual assertions, and try to put them into some context.We started with the White House, which declined to comment, saying the presidents remarks spoke for themselves.Lets look at the votes.There is no dispute Ryan voted forAfghanistanandIraqwarfunding; for themajor taxcutsenacted under President George W. Bush in 2001 and2003(andextended in 2010); and for the new Medicare prescription drug benefitcreated in 2003.All were big-ticket items.But Obama goes a step further to assert that all were unpaid for. Thats Washington parlance for bills not offset by corresponding spending cuts or tax increases elsewhere in the federal budget.Budget experts we consulted and the historical record confirm there were no direct offsets built into those bills.Obamas claim on the prescription drug bill was slightly different -- that it wasnt paid for and cost as much as my health care bill.Lets break this into two parts.Obama appears to refer to the gross outlays needed for the two landmark bills.For the Medicare prescription drug bill, passed in 2003 and effective in 2006, we found a range of cost estimates for 10 years: $395 billion to $720 billion. Theofficial Congressional Budget Officeestimatewas the low end.That was at the time. Now, government estimates show the original cost projections were too high, perhaps by as much as 40 percent, said Jon Gabel, senior fellow in health care research at the National Opinion Research Center.Obamas health reform bill -- thePatient Protection and Affordable Care Act-- was pricier, with estimates in the$800 billion to $1.4 trillion range. Ryan and Republicans opposed the bill.But the two measures were passed seven years apart, so inflation may be a factor.Paul Van de Water, a former Congressional Budget Office official who is now a senior fellow with the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, did an inflation-adjusted comparison and found the Medicare bill is probably two-thirds or three-quarters the cost of the Obama health care measure.That is, Obamas health care bill is still hundreds of millions of dollars more costly than the Medicare drug bill.So the president was off in equating the gross cost of the bills.On the offset question, the Medicare prescription drug bill, however, indisputably added to the federal deficit. It was not offset by new revenue or other spending cuts.In contrast, theofficial governmentestimateof the 2010 health care laws impact said it would actually reduce the deficit, in part because of the new taxes it enacts to help offset the cost of expanding health coverage.The source for that is the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.TheCBOs estimate is hardly undisputed-- Ryan, other Republican leaders and various budget analysts haveargued that the CBOs report was skewed by questionableassumptionsgiven to it by the Obama administration. They contend the law would actually add to the deficit.Nevertheless, we -- and Congress -- have used CBO estimates as the gold standard on such matters. So Obama has a pretty firm leg to stand on in saying his health bill was paid for while the Medicare bill was not.That covers the details behind the presidents remarks. In this case, its important to put them into their proper context. We consulted several experts and sought Ryans take.Ryan was asked in arecentinterviewabout Obamas citing the Medicare drug program, the two wars and the Bush tax cuts as major drivers of the deficit.He disagreed: We still had these enormous, building, unfunded liabilities, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security -- I mean, the big drivers of our debt.His office sent us a defense of his votes on war funding, quotinghis budget plan: Like all categories of government spending, defense spending should be executed with greater efficiency and accountability. But responsible budgeting must never lose sight of the fact that the first responsibility of the federal government is to provide for the defense of the nation.On the Bush tax cuts, Ryan aides said the congressman believes that we have deficits because Washington spends too much, not because Americans are taxed too little. He says the tax cuts helped fuel economic growth and bring in more tax revenue.Indeed, in December, Obama himself backeda compromise with Republicans, including Ryan,that extended the Bush tax cuts.Bottom line: Ryan has voted for massive new spending and so has the president, said Tad DeHaven, a budget analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute.Iraq war costs have topped $1 trillion, said Scott Lilly, former staff director for the House Appropriations Committee and now a research fellow at the left-leaning Center for American Progress. Neither Bushs war effort in Afghanistan nor Obamas escalation there has been paid for, both analysts noted.In April, bothObamaandRyanunveiled long-term deficit reduction plans in the neighborhood of $4 trillion over a decade or more.So where does this leave us?The president cherry-picked a handful of votes in an effort to show that Ryan is not pristine on the subject of the deficit.Obama got it right on Ryans support for the big-ticket bills, including war funding, Medicare prescription drugs and the Bush tax cuts. He was also on target in saying that none was offset or paid for by spending cuts or tax increases. Thats the main part of his claim.He was off the mark in asserting that one of the bills -- Medicare prescription drugs -- was as costly as his 2010 health care reform bill.That puts him at Mostly True. A handout urging voter support for aproposed $1.05 billion Austin school district bond issueon the November 2017 ballot singles out the need to repair and renovate schools averaging 40 years of age plus a desire to modernize or build 16 schools. Moreover, the handout from the Committee of Austins Children PAC says: Did you know? AISD Prop. 1 bonds will require no tax rate increase, a claim the group also makes onits website. Is that rate statement accurate? To rehash, the handout saysthe sought bondswont require a rate increase. Its silent on whether district residents will pay more in taxes if the proposition passes--which struck Austin lawyer Bill Aleshire, formerly Travis Countys elected judge, as misleading. Aleshire, who brought the handout to our attention, said by email: No one in their right mind should believe AISD can borrow $1 billion plus interest and not have a property tax increase as a result. When we asked, David Butts, a consultant to the PAC, told us by phone the group based its rate claim on district presentations. Butts said: Weve never said that you wouldnt pay higher taxes, in that barring an economic recession, escalating local property values stand to drive up how much the district reaps--without the district needing a rate bump. Property taxes are tied to assessed property values which in Austin (like other prosperous cities) lately spiral nearly every year. In this fact-check, well share assumptions behind the no-hike scenario and unpack estimates of how much money the proposed bonds would likely cost homeowners in increased tax bills. Its also worth noting the speculative quality of tax predictions. To our inquiry, Roger Falk of theTravis County Taxpayers Union, which opposes the proposition, questioned anyones ability to fact-check rate-related claims because, he said by phone, tax effects depend on unknowns including whether and how much total appraised property values change and if the districts intended debt repayment schedules and interest rates bear out. You cannot assume its a sunny day every day, Falk said. Its going to rain sometime. Austin districts assumptions District leaders have said that presuming total assessed property values continue to increase and also that the district repays more than half the proposed debt within a decade, the school board will be spared from considering an increase in the districts total tax rate of $1.192 per $100 valuation--the bulk of which covers day-to-day maintenance and operations. A September 2017Austin American-Statesmannews storyelaborated: The district points to its last bond election $392 million approved by voters in 2013 as an example of how it can tamp down the impact on property tax bills. Those bonds were expected to raise the tax rate by 3 cents, or about $38.40 a year to the property tax bill for a $200,000 home. But instead, the story said, the district, buoyed by increasing property values, lowered the tax rate by 5 cents per $100 of a homes assessed value. Homeowners are still paying more, of course, because property values in Austin have shot up 12 percent a year, on average, for the past five years. Tiffany Young, a district spokeswoman, emailed us the districts August 2017tax capacity analysisof the proposed bond costs, which included a summary of annual changes--of late 11-percent-plus annual increases--in total assessed property valuations in the district from 2008 through 2017:           SOURCE:Document showing tax capacity analysis of proposed bond debt, Austin Independent School District, Aug. 10, 2017 (received by email from Tiffany Young, senior communication specialist, AISD, Sept. 26, 2017) That news story noted that the districts payback plan for the proposed bond package assumes an annual increase in total assessed property values of 7 percent in the first two years and 1.5 percent for each subsequent year. Property values actually have a 10-year average growth rate of nearly 8 percent, the story said. School leaders advised that if theres a flattening in property-value increases, the district could tap $46 million in reserves, or savings, to make up for lost revenue. Also, the story quoted Ellen Wood, who chairs the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerces board of directors, calling district assumptions behind no tax-rate hike prediction conservative and appropriate. By phone, Wood told us chamber members based that judgment on talks with the districts chief financial officer, Nicole Conley Johnson, and a firm advising the district on the proposed issuance. To our inquiries, Conley Johnson reaffirmed the districts conclusion that the proposed bonds can be paid off without a tax-rate hike. In fact, Conley Johnson said by phone, she expects the district to land interest rates perhaps 2 percentage points less than the 5 percent rate assumed in its modeling, a decrease that would reduce repayment costs. Noting increased assessed property valuations in recent years, Conley Johnson also said its reasonable to expect assessed values to surge more each year than the 1.5 percent rate assumed in the modeling past the first couple years. If the proposition fails at the polls, Conley Johnson confirmed,the school board could reduce the debt portionof the district tax rate in 2021-22 by $0.0297 per $100 valuation to $0.0833 with additional reductions doable most subsequent years through 2039-40--though that scenario depends, perhaps improbably, on no additional costs accumulating in the intervening years. If the proposition passes, Conley Johnson said, in 2022, the district will need some $35.5 million to pay incremental costs on the proposed bonds. An estimated $35.5 million would be raised by from that $0.0297 per $100 valuation in tax rate, the district projects. Worst-case scenarios? We separately asked Conley Johnson andChris Allenof First Southwest, the firm hired by the district as financial advisers on the proposition, to lay out a worst-case scenario that might cause district officials to recommend a rate increase after all. Youd have to have a major economic downturn, Allen said by phone. Youd have to have the housing market plummet. Allen, referring to the districts assumed 7 percent increases in total assessed valuations in both 2019 and 2020, said: I think the 7 percent is conservative. If you look around, there are cranes everywhere. The housing and commercial market is on fire. Conley Johnson said by email: We estimate that if total assessed valuation growth stayed flat for the next 8 years or there was a cumulative decline in AV of 20%, we would need to consider increasing the tax rate. Of course. she said, these events would buck historical trends of the last 10 years where there was only year that AV declined, in 2011 due to the national recession--arguably the worst in history. Even still, there was subsequent growth thereafter and the decline was made-up after two years and growth doubled after that. Falk, the proposition foe, questioned the assumption that the district can repay the bonds at a 5 percent interest rate past this next year. Theres no science--no way to know--past one year, Falk said. Falk called the assumed annual increases in total property valuations a best guess. We also askedCharles Gilliland, a land-market expert at Texas A&M University, to evaluate the no-rate-increase claim. Gilliland said by phone the districts post-2020 assumption that total assessed property values will increase 1.5 percent annually seems pretty conservative. The rest of the story is its not going to be a nice steady increase, Gilliland said. There are going to be ups and downs. Generally, Gilliland said by email: Without exhaustive historical studies of the parameters of their model and an examination of the operating conditions of the district, I have no evidence to cast doubt on the assumptions underlying the districts analysis. Costs to taxpayers Falk called the tax-rate claim by itself a head fake intended to dupe voters into overlooking that each taxpayer would be paying more dollars to cover bond repayments. He also emailed us thetaxpayer groups analysis, which provides estimated effects on property tax bills by assuming that  total assessed valuations within district boundaries wont go up or down. Then again, the district has acknowledged that property owners will pay more in taxes to pay debt service on the bonds, if approved. A June 2017American-Statesmannews storyon school board members voting to place the proposition before voters initially noted that district officials said the tax rate would remain flat at $1.192 per $100 of assessed property value, with $1.079 designated for operations and $0.113 of the rate going toward repaying debt issued to fund capital improvements. Still: For the owner of the districts average taxable value home of $355,947, the school tax bills would total nearly $4,243. As properties increase in value, the story said, that same tax rate would lead to increasingly higher tax bills. District web pages devoted to the proposition similarly indicate property owners will likely face increases in what the district bills. We initially spotted no estimates of how much more, but estimates were provided when we asked. Lets cover those web posts, then turn to what the district gave us. Heres a question on the districts main FAQ section about the proposition: I've heard AISD say this bond will not raise my property tax rate. How is that possible? The 202-word reply stresses the districts plan not to issue the sought debt all at once plus plans to draw on other funds; it doesnt concede additional direct-to-taxpayer bond costs. We saw this question on a separate districtFinance FAQ web pageabout the proposition: So does this mean that I wont have an increase in my tax bill? The districts reply opens, No. That reply otherwise says higher taxes depend on the appraised value of taxable property, which is determined by the Travis Central Appraisal District, not AISD. An increase or decrease in taxable property value, even with no change in the tax rate, would result in an increase or decrease in the actual amount of taxes paid. The reply goes on to note that residents who qualify for Travis Countys over-65 homestead exemption wouldnt pay more in school taxes. Moreover, the reply continues, other governing entities levy property taxes including the city of Austin, Travis County, the Austin Community College District and the Travis County Health Care District. The rates for each entity are set annually by the elected or governing officials, the district says. The rate for each of the taxing entities is then applied to your home value, it says. We also noticed the last, 18th question on the districts main FAQ page for the proposition: What's the bottom line, the one thing you want voters to know? The districts reply: AISD needs to address facility deficiencies and is committed to creating 21st-century learning spaces for our students. We can do so without a tax rate increase. Conley Johnson told us that in 2021-22 (the third year of the district starting to sell and repay the bond debt being presented to voters), the cost to taxpayers of the new debt would range from $29.70 for the owner of a property with an assessed value of $100,000 up to $297 for the owner of a property with an assessed value of $1 million.See the districts full chart here. According to what Conley Johnson described as the districts worst-case modeling of the proposed bonds effect on taxes, the owner of an Austin homestead at theaverage 2017-18 assessed value($332,103) would see the debt portion of her or his district tax bill increase from $375 in 2017-18 to $484 in 2027-28--driven by expected bumps in assessed property values. Absent the sought bonds or other approved debt, this modeling indicates, the 2027-28 costs to such a homeowner for district debt would total $250.57. An owner of a homestead at the 2017-18median value($262,282) would face $382.75 in district debt-tied taxes in 2027-28--up from $296 in 2017-18 and greater than the $197.89 in such taxes the homeowner would face if the district doesnt issue additional debt. Theres more: As we made our inquiries, the district posted adocumentestimating each homesteading homeowners future tax payments to the district related to paying off the proposed bonds. Upshot: Starting in 2022, some $0.0297 per $100 valuation of the districts tax rate would generate sufficient revenue to pay debt service on the sought bonds, the document says. The share of the districts tax rate needed to pay that debt service will escalate in subsequent years, the document says, with that share reaching its maximum of $0.0530 per $100 valuation as of 2029. According to the document, the district estimates the dollar costs in annual taxes on the median-value homestead in the district--which in 2017 had an appraised value of $287,282--to be $77.90 in 2022 and $139.01 in 2029. At the upper end, the estimated annual dollar costs due to debt service on the proposed bonds to a homestead appraised at $1 million in 2017 is shown as $289.58 in 2022, $516.75 in 2029. Our ruling The PAC said the proposed Austin school district bonds will require no tax rate increase. Missing from this claim: Individual homeowners are expected to pay more in property taxes even if the tax rate remains the same, which looks likely thanks to rising property valuations in a hot real-estate market. We rate this statement, which lacks the important clarification that only the tax rate isnt expected to rise, Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUEThe statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.