Florida has the third most-regressive tax structure.
When it comes to taxes, Democratic candidate for governor Nan Rich wants to make things more fair for the little guy in Florida. Rich, a former state senator from Weston, faced a question about whether Floridas tax system should be changed during a Florida Press Association event July 11 at the swanky Biltmore Hotel in Coral Gables. I think it's a regressive tax base, and when you look at some of the studies saying its the third most-regressive tax base -- I don't want you to quote me on that because PolitiFact may get me, I'm not sure if its (No.) three -- but I think there are things we need to do to make a more equitable and fair tax structure. At PolitiFact Florida, our ears perk up when we hear rankings that put Florida near the top or bottom. As for her request for us not to PolitiFact her, well, we couldnt help but take that as a friendly challenge. Studies about regressive taxes Rich told PolitiFact Florida in an interview, dont hold me to third regressive. .... I did not say third definitively. ... We are one of the most regressive. Rich cited a 2013reportby The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, which partners withCitizens for Tax Justice, a group that advocates for fair taxation of middle- and low-income families. The report concluded that all states have regressive tax systems. It means that state taxes come more from the poor and middle class than from the rich. Virtually every states tax system is fundamentally unfair, taking a much greater share of income from middle- and low-income families than from wealthy families, the report says. The absence of a graduated personal income tax and the over reliance on consumption taxes exacerbate this problem in many states. The report measures property, sales and excise taxes on gasoline and cigarettes paid by different income groups in each state in 2013 and concludes Florida isNo. 2 of the terrible 10-- the second most-regressive tax system in the country. (No. 1 wasWashington state.) The No. 1 and No. 2 predictor of a very unfair tax system is not having a personal income tax of any kind and an above-average sales tax, and Florida has both of those things, said Matt Gardner, the institutes executive director. The report found that for non-elderly taxpayers, the bottom 20 percent pay 13.2 percent of their income toward state and local taxes. Meanwhile, the top 1 percent of earners only pay about 2.3 percent of their income toward state and local taxes. The report gives a nod to one progressive feature of Floridas taxes: We dont have sales taxes on groceries. We were unable to find any other entity that included Florida in a state-by-state comparison of regressivity and taxes. The Tax Foundation, a business-backed group that analyzes tax policy, wrote areportcriticizing the institutes study, but their points were not specifically about the states rankings. Instead, they criticized the report for promoting income taxes. The foundation does its own ranking of states in terms ofbusiness climate-- Florida placed fifth. We interviewed a few experts on taxes, and they were not surprised by Floridas ranking when it comes to regressive taxes. Not that many states dont have an income tax, so that puts us in a small group that looks more regressive, said University of Central Florida economist Sean Snaith. However, he said,  regressive and burdensome are separate issues. The tax burden in Florida is still very low, despite being regressive. Aaron Twait, research director at the Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence, said there are only two taxes that are progressive: the income tax and the estate tax. States that dont have the income tax -- they just dont have that lever to pull, he said. Sales taxes, property taxes, and excise taxes run from moderately regressive to really regressive. Our ruling Rich said that there is evidence that Florida has the third most-regressive tax base, though she acknowledged when she spoke she wasnt certain if she had the number right. She was close: A study placed Florida No. 2 in terms of its regressive tax base. Florida has a regressive tax base because we lack a state income tax. Though the Tax Foundation criticized the report, it didnt dispute the states rankings, and other experts we interviewed also had no qualms about Floridas placement. Richs number of third place was just a smidgen low, so we rate this claim Mostly True.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., falsely claimed that when Hillary Clinton was running for president against former President Donald Trump, Ukraine was her top donor. Greenes remarks came before a rally for a congressional candidate in Texas, where she toggled between attacks on Democrats and critiques of the media. They would rather talk about Russia, Russia, Russia, and Ukraine, and talk about possible war, than talk about the real truth that Ukraine  dont forget this  Ukraine was the No. 1 donor to Hillary Clinton when she was running for president, Greenesaid Feb. 19in comments captured by Right Side Broadcasting Network, a right-wing website known for streaming Trumps events. Thats not the real truth. The claim about Clinton was part of a torrent of falsehoods from Greene that also included inaccurate claims that the southern U.S. border iswide open; that President Joe Biden has dementia; and that Clinton and her campaign hackedinto the White House andspied on the presidentof the United States. Clinton did notreportreceiving any campaign donations from the Ukrainian government or Ukrainian nationals during her bid for president in 2016, said Anna Massoglia, the editorial and investigations manager at OpenSecrets, a nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. Such contributions are illegal under federal law, said Rick Hasen, a professor of law and political science at the University of California, Irvine. Thelawprohibitscontributions, donations, expenditures and disbursements from foreign nationals in connection with any U.S. election. OpenSecrets website shows the actualtop donationsmade to Clintons campaign, as well as a breakdown of donationsby geographic location. The breakdown shows that all the locations are in the U.S.  Former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks at a rally Sept. 8, 2016, in Charlotte, North Carolina. (AP) In an emailed response to PolitiFacts inquiry, Greene spokesperson Nick Dyer did not cite any donations that Ukraines government or Ukrainian nationals made to Clintons campaign. Instead, he cited a2015 chartfrom The Wall Street Journal that dealt with donations to the Clinton Foundation, the nonprofit organization founded by former President Bill Clinton. But the donations listed in that chart were not from the Ukrainian government, and they did not happen while Hillary Clinton was running for president against Trump. The chart was part of an article examining large donors to the Clinton Foundation in the years after Hillary Clinton became former President Barack Obamas secretary of state in 2009. The graphic mapped individual contributions of more than $50,000 that foreign donors sent to the Clinton Foundation between 1999 and 2014, grouped by nationality. It showed people of Ukrainian nationality contributing at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, more than any other nationality. Helping push Ukraine to the top of that list were donations between 2009 and 2013 from a foundation created by Victor Pinchuk, a Ukrainian steel mogul and former parliamentarian. Those contributions accounted for at least $8.6 million, the Journal reported at the time. But misinterpretations of the graphic inspired a flurry of misinformation in 2019 and again in 2020, as Trump was impeached in the House for conduct related to Ukraine. Conservative websites and social media posts wrongly claimed that the Ukrainian government threw millions of dollars at the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton worked in the Obama administration. AsFactCheck.org,SnopesandPolitiFactreported, The Wall Street Journal chart ranked the top donations by nationality  not by foreign governments. A false meme from 2019 asserted that the Clinton Foundation received $10 million from the government of Ukraine, the Clinton Foundation press office told PolitiFact for this fact-check. The Clinton Foundation has never received any funding from the government of Ukraine. The time span covered in the chart also ended the year before Clintonannouncedthe launch of her 2016 presidential campaign on April 12, 2015. So the chart Greenes spokesperson cited doesnt support her claim about donations while Clinton was running for president. Greene said, Ukraine was the No. 1 donor to Hillary Clinton when she was running for president. Clintons 2016 presidential campaign did not report any donations from Ukraine or Ukrainian nationals  a move that would have broken the law. Asked for evidence to support Greenes claim, the congresswomans spokesperson did not cite any campaign donations. He pointed instead to a Wall Street Journal chart that mapped large individual donations between 1999 and 2014 to the Clinton Foundation, a nonprofit organization. The chart was a ranking of the top foreign donors by nationality, not contributions from foreign governments. The Clinton Foundation said it has never received any funding from the Ukrainian government. We rate Greenes statement False. In April 2021, American readers may have been intrigued to see a curious article about Denzel Washington and Netflix. The headline from the We Got This Covered website read, "An Underrated Denzel Washington Movie Has Been Dominating Netflix All Week."  Mysterious and sometimes misleading content might be what a lot of Google Discover users are shown these days.  Some readers may have noticed the article in their Google Discover feed. For those unfamiliar with Google Discover, it's a free and personalized news feed that displays content that Google thinks each user might find interesting and relevant. The headline likely led American readers to believe that the "underrated" film was available to stream in the U.S. After all, Netflix's headquarters are located in Los Gatos, California. This was all somewhat misleading. The source referenced by the We Got This Covered article did not show that the movie in question, "The Equalizer 2," was "dominating" Netflix. Instead, FlixPatrol.com indicated that the film barely made the top 10 worldwide movies on Netflix during week 16 of 2021. week 16 of 2021 Further, not included in the Google Discover card for the story was one important tidbit: "The Equalizer 2" was not available to be streamed by Netflix users in the U.S. According to an unofficial website that tracks Netflix availability by country, "The Equalizer 2" was only available on the streaming service in Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Japan, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia. unofficial website This was not the first time that the We Got This Covered website published a misleading article about a famous actor and Netflix. In February 2021, the same website also claimed: "Tom Hanks New Movie Has Been Dominating Netflix All Week." The film in question was the 2020 flick "News of the World." claimed As with "The Equalizer 2," "News of the World" wasn't exactly "dominating Netflix," nor was it available for streaming in the U.S. "The Equalizer 2" was originally released in 2018. It received a 51% critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a score of 50 out of 100 on Metacritic. 51% critic rating a score of 50  The film reunited director Antoine Fuqua with Washington after they had previously worked together on 2001's "Training Day," a film that is available on Netflix in the U.S. The synopsis for "The Equalizer 2" read: "Denzel Washington returns to one of his signature roles in the first sequel of his career. Robert McCall serves an unflinching justice for the exploited and oppressed  but how far will he go when that is someone he loves?" As of April 2021, no plans had been announced by Netflix to bring "The Equalizer 2" to American audiences. However, it's available to rent for $3.99 on YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, and a number of other streaming services. YouTube Amazon Prime Video In sum, a movie starring the actor was not "dominating Netflix," nor was it even available in the U.S. With the advent of electronic voting systems  and public unease with casting ballots that are not tangible physical objects  every election cycle brings rumors that some individual or group with a heavy investment in the outcome of the election owns or controls the machines that record and count votes  and those parties will use their powers to "rig" the voting systems they control to ensure the election outcome conforms to their preferred results. individual group Billionaire business magnate George Soros was tagged in such rumors in 2012, and he was back in 2016 as the subject of articles by disreputable web sites such as the Daily Caller falsely claiming that Soros' ties to the Smartmatic company, purportedly the manufacturer of voting machines used in 16 states, put him in a position to "rig" the election in Hillary Clinton's favor: tagged Daily Caller HILLARY IS RIGGING THE ELECTION! Surprised? You shouldnt be. Weve just learned that Hillary is tied to the one company that has the power to sway this entire election  Smartmatic. Smartmatic manufactures the voting machines that will be used this November. The Chairman of Smartmatic, Mark Malloch-Brown, is on the board of George Soros Open Society Foundation. Yes, George Soros, the billionaire CROOK who is one of Hillarys biggest donors. SMARTMATICS VOTING MACHINES WILL BE USED IN THESE 16 CRUCIAL STATES: ArizonaCaliforniaColoradoDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaIllinoisLouisianaMichiganMissouriNew JerseyNevadaOregonPennsylvaniaVirginiaWashingtonWisconsin HILLARY IS TRYING TO RIG THIS ELECTION BECAUSE SHE KNOWS ITS THE ONLY CHANCE SHE HAS! George Soros has no hand in the management or ownership of Smartmatic. As is typical of such claims, this one is based on nothing more than the most tenuous of connections  namely that among the number of non-profit boards on which Smartmatic Chairman Lord Mark Malloch-Brown sits is the Global Board of the Open Society Foundation, an international grantmaking network founded by George Soros. That fact that one of the many people on one of the many boards of one of the many organizations with which George Soros (a large Clinton donor) is involved also happens to chair an electronic voting company is taken as proof enough by conspirators that George Soros has the means, motive, and intent to commit a massive act of voting fraud. And, despite being the multinational billionaire business magnate that he is, Soros utterly lacks the common sense not to rig an election through a confederate so obviously connected to him. Global Board donor As is also typical of such claims, those who propagate them mistakenly assume that every company in the business of providing electronic voting services is producing machines that record and count votes, which isn't the case  such services can include anything from providing streamlined systems for reporting election results to the press to automating the process of voter authentication. In this case the assertion that "Smartmatic's voting machines will be used in 16 crucial states" is a false one, apparently a misinterpretation of a statement on Smartmatic's web site touting that the company had previously offered unspecified "technology and support services to the Electoral Commissions of 307 counties in 16 States"  a statement that didn't say that Smartmatic supplied voting machines used in all if those states, or that Smartmatic was even currently working with any of those states in any capacity. Indeed, the Case Studies section Smartmatic's web site chronicles their primarily dealing in providing equipment and services for foreign elections  there's no mention of Smartmatic's being involved in U.S. elections beyond providing a voting system for a Utah state Republican caucus in March of 2016 and pilot testing an ePen for capturing provisional envelopes and vote-by-mail ballots in parts of Los Angeles County. Case Studies In fact, a search using Verified Voting shows that not a single one of the listed 16 states is using voting machines provided by Smartmatic in the upcoming election  Smartmatic isn't even listed as a vendor of any voting machines being used in any state. Verified Voting Nonetheless, the false rumor has grown so prevalent that Smartmatic has addressed it themselves on their web site, in a page that includes a statement confirming that no Smartmatic technology is being used in any state during the 2016 U.S. presidential election: addressed  Smartmatic is 100% privately owned. Smartmatic has no ties to political parties or groups in any country and abide by a stringent code of ethics that forbids the company to ever donate to any political campaigns of any kind.  The companys headquarters were based in Florida for many years, but have since moved to London to service its global client base.  George Soros does not have and has never had any ownership stake in Smartmatic.  It is no secret that our Chairman Lord Mark Malloch-Brown is a member of a number of non-profit boards addressing global issues from poverty reduction to conflict resolution, including the Global Board of the Open Society Foundation. This is stated clearly in his official biography. Lord Malloch-Brown is a highly respected global figure whose credentials include former Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations and former Vice-Chairman of the World Economic Forum. He also served in the British Cabinet, as Minister of State in the Foreign Office.  Smartmatic will not be deploying its technology in any U.S. county for the upcoming 2016 U.S. Presidential elections.   Our election technology has handled more than 3.7 billion votes over the past 12 years in election projects on five continents, without a single discrepancy.  As a technology provider, Smartmatic is only responsible for, and concerned with, the technical aspects of the vote. Smartmatic does not comment on specific candidates or outcomes.  Smartmatics voting technology has never been compromised. George Soros' philanthropic organization comprises 22 different boards, but Smartmatic's chairman sits on only one of them. Soros himself has never worked for, or held an ownership share in, Smartmatic. boards <!-- As such, the claim was false and contained numerous inaccuracies in its ancillary detail. The chair of Smartmatic was not currently affiliated with any group of George Soros, the included chart involved voting machines unrelated to Smartmatic, and while Smartmatic touted providing services to counties in the 16 listed states, not one of those states used Smartmatic voting machines. A near identical rumor involving Soros and President Barack Obama circulated in 2012, and similarly had no truth to it.  2012 a pilot test with Smartmatic to streamline and expedite election reports during the California Primary Presidential Elections of June 7. Smartmatic provided its ePen solution in Malibu, Littlerock and Downey to enable the fast capture of the provisional envelopes and vote-by-mail ballots from reporting precincts. The item went on to claim the 2016 Democratic primary was similarly rigged in Clinton's favor, using a chart from a mid-2016 viral paper examining the integrity of primary results in contests between Clinton and Sanders: Clinton and Sanders Just take a look at this chart detailing some of the primary results between Hillary and Bernie. Look how much better Hillary did in states that used HER voting machines:   That chart (published in July 2016) had nothing to do with Smartmatic or "HER voting machines"; it pertained to the paper's authors' assessment of purported variations in results between states with and states without "paper trails" on electronic voting machines: published We found that while the polls were quite successful at predicting Clintons numbers in states with paper trails (just a statistically inconsequential 1% difference), Clinton over-performed by an average of 9% in the states that use electronic voting machines but fail to provide paper evidence of this vote: Thus, pollsters were quite accurate in predicting the outcome, but only in states where fraud is hardest to hide. This situation is completely flipped in the states where the placed vote cannot be verified, as the vote only ever existed in the machines. An interesting point of deviation between the two separate election fraud claims was that the initial paper focused in part on potential impropriety involving voting machines. But in that earlier claim, Smartmatic (the vendor purportedly in control of 16 states) was not mentioned: Interestingly, much information has recently come to light about the Clinton candidacy. Notably, the hacker Guccifer 2.0 released documents which he took from the computer network of the Democratic National Committee. Among these files, one tabulated a list of big-money donors to the Clinton Foundation. One fact has gone unreported in the media: Two of the three companies that control the electronic voting market, namely Dominion Voting and H.I.G. Capital (i.e. Hart Intercivic), are in this list of big-money donors. In conclusion, the data suggests that Clinton won in counties and in states where Clinton Foundation donors are responsible for the voting machines. Thus, we strongly believe that the risk posed by unverifiable electronic voting should not be taken. Our country should go back to verifiable voting. An honest election is more important than a day of labor. Off the bat, a discrepancy arose vis a vis the chart. In July 2016, vote skeptics eyed links between two voting vendors and the Democratic National Committee (DNC); neither of those vendors was Smartmatic. In October 2016, the same chart was used to claim Smartmatic had already rigged the primary for Clinton, and would do so for her again in her face-off against Donald Trump on 8 November 2016. Given the source material for the chart named entirely different equipment vendors, its inclusion in claims about Smartmatic was suspect.  Missing from the later claim was any information about how the 16 states and their use of Smartmatic machines to ostensible exclusion was obtained. The claim was simply stated as fact with no citation, along with assertions that George Soros (a Hungarian-American mogul and political activist) was heading up Smartmatic. We contacted Smartmatic via phone and e-mail to ask about the states and the rumor, but did not receive a response. However, Smartmatic (like most companies) heralded their own work and achievements on their web site, and voting machines were not a primary highlight: heralded highlight   It appeared the list of 16 states came verbatim from the unreferenced Smartmatic web site, where the company explained that in its tenure it had worked with 307 counties in 16 states (not that it supplied all voting machines to all 16, or even currently worked in any capacity with any of the states): In the US, Smartmatic has offered technology and support services to the Electoral Commissions of 307 counties in 16 States. By contrast, the circulating articles used slightly different framing: SMARTMATICS VOTING MACHINES WILL BE USED IN THESE 16 CRUCIAL STATES[.] The "Soros connection" was also described openly on Smartmatic's web site, via a biography and professional history for company chairman Lord Mark Malloch-Brown. Although the articles claimed Malloch-Brown "sat on the board" of George Soros Open Society Foundation, his resume suggested that any work with Soros was not current: openly Mark Malloch-Brown is a former number two in the United Nations as well as having served in the British Cabinet and Foreign Office. He now sits in the House of Lords and is active both in business and in the non-profit world. He also remains deeply involved in international affairs. Mark served as Deputy Secretary-General and Chief of Staff of the UN under Kofi Annan ... Other positions have included vice-chairman of George Soross Investment Funds, as well as his Open Society Institute, a Vice-President at the World Bank and the lead international partner at Sawyer Miller, a political consulting firm.  Thus far the rumor amounted to Smartmatic's potential and possibly prior involvement in "offer[ing] technology and support services" to 307 counties in 16 states, a misrepresented chart of alleged election irregularities involving other voting equipment vendors, and a company chair who once worked for Soros' Investment Funds and Open Society Institute. As for the level of Smartmatic's specific involvement in the vote in those 16 states, most state election officials provided information about their voting methods up to and including vendors that supplied equipment used on Election Day. Ballotpedia hosted a color-coded map of the U.S. with information about voting methods by state, and not all the 16 states voted identically: color-coded map   Going by color-coding alone, it was clear the states' election equipment and processes varied tremendously. The oft-included chart (which evolved to identify "HER voting machines") in actuality referenced states that employed Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) without a paper trail. But several of the 16 states with a paper trail included Arizona, California, Illinois, Missouri, Nevada, and Wisconsin -- they were not included in tabulations from states without. Of the 16, only Louisiana and New Jersey employed the DRE without paper trail method of voting, and the balance of states used either paper ballots, a combination of DRE and paper ballots, or mail-in voting -- none of which could be easily corrupted by Hillary Clinton or George Soros. As of 2014, the District of Columbia offered both paper and DRE voting with receipts. offered As Smartmatic stated, "support" and "technology" was provided to the 16 states mentioned; extant information indicated that the states were not equipped identically with specific machines; some used paper or mail-in ballots, some employed DRE with a paper trail, and two used DRE without any "receipts." Arizona (the first state listed) made information about voting machine manufacturers available on its web site [PDF]; only Maricopa county used Sequoia technologies, bought and later sold by Smartmatic in 2006. California relied on a a variety of vendors for DRE voting, including Sequoia, Election Systems and Software (ES&S), Hart InterCivic, InkaVote, and Premier; Smartmatic was not listed on California's election web site as a current or prior vendor of voting machines (but as evidenced above, the company did provide electronic pens for some primary election functions). Illinois also did not list Smartmatic as a vendor, Colorado used Diebold equipment before switching to vote by mail (a vendor also used by Missouri), and Florida listed several vendors (none Smartmatic) for their machines.  PDF 2006 Sequoia ES&S Hart InterCivic InkaVote Premier Illinois Diebold Missouri vendors In fact, in a search using Verified Voting, not a single one of the 16 states was listed as using voting machines provided by Smartmatic -- Smartmatic was not even listed as a vendor of any voting machine in any state. As such, the claim was false and contained numerous inaccuracies in its ancillary detail. The chair of Smartmatic was not currently affiliated with any group of George Soros, the included chart involved voting machines unrelated to Smartmatic, and while Smartmatic touted providing services to counties in the 16 listed states, not one of those states used Smartmatic voting machines. A near identical rumor involving Soros and President Barack Obama circulated in 2012, and similarly had no truth to it. --> Verified Voting 2012 Barragan, Rodolfo Cortes.  "Study Shows Voting Irregularities Linked to Companies That Donated to the Clinton Foundation."
  The Bern Report.  7 July 2016. Cohen, Zach C.  "How D.C. Votes: Paper or Scantron?"
  The Washington Post.  2 April 2014. McCord, Susan.  "Augusta Getting 100 Used Voting Machines from Colorado County."
  The Augusta Chronicle.  2 August 2016. In late June 2021, social media users shared a meme misinforming viewers that Walmart and other large businesses were taking customers' point-of-sale charitable donations and writing them off on their taxes. Readers have been asking Snopes about this meme since at least August 2020. The meme addresses a phenomenon called "checkout charity," in which many large businesses ask customers to donate a small amount to a charitable cause upon checkout:   according to What happens to the money you donate at the cash register? This is where you round up your bill to give to a charity designated by the retailer, and the donation amount appears on your receipt. The store serves only as a collection agent for your gift. Assuming the business is following the law, it will not include your donation as part of its business receipts, or income, nor will it claim the charitable gift as an expense. In other words, your gift has zero impact on the stores income taxes. Keep in mind that the store chooses the receiving charity, so make sure it is one you can support. As a customer, the donation will appear on your receipt and you can claim it as a charitable deduction when you file your income tax return. But you probably wont. A whopping nine out of ten customers don't write those donations off, even with a receipt, according to the Tax Policy Center, which estimates only 9% of households claim deductions for charitable donations. according to The Tampa Bay Times reported that the practice is gaining in popularity because both charities and businesses benefit from it: reported "Checkout charity, as it's sometimes called, has become big business for nonprofits and retailers. Charities love it because it raises money from the masses at little cost. Companies love it because it makes them look caring and generous, even if it comes on the backs of customers." Not long after Donald Trump's victory in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, an image began circulating online claiming that a Mexican supermarket chain was collecting "donations" toward his proposed border wall between the two countries. On 10 November 2016, a YouTube video claimed to show a picture of a receipt from a Soriana Hiper market in Monterrey, Nuevo Leon that included a 10-peso charge for an "additional donation [for] Trump wall." The image then spread online, with one version containing the caption: a YouTube video online, Look what Soriana is doing. Save the picture and share it before it's deleted. Soriana, which operates more than 800 stores around Mexico, refuted the picture in a statement released on 15 November 2016, saying the photo in question was false and "tendentiously manipulated":   The translation reads, in part: We reaffirm our position and commitment with our country as a 100% Mexican company, as one of the biggest job-generators in the country and with an important business platform for our suppliers and commercial partners. Our commitment has always been and will always be with our country, particularly with the Mexican family economy. The "Trump wall" receipt was based off of another fake photo that circulated in 2013, accusing the company of charging customers for a "additional donation" to the Teletn, the annual national fundraiser for childrens' healthcare: 2013 Teletn,   One of Trump's campaign promises was that his administration would not only build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, but make the latter country pay for it. That statement is still on his campaign website. He has since stated:  website. stated It could be some fencing. However, it should be noted that an unmistakable wall already exists along much of the border between Mexico and the United States. wall "Muro de trump esta siendo cobrado en soriana." De Todo Un Poco Consejos Practicos. YouTube. 10 November 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2D1ROTY1SA La Rancherita del Aire, S.A. de C.V. "Circula en redes sociales supuesto ticket de compra con cobro extra por muro de Trump." rancherita.com.mx. 11 November 2016. sdpnoticias.com. "Cobran indebidamente Teletn en tickets de compra." www.tolucanoticias.com. 6 November 2013. Stahl, Lesley. "President-elect Trump speaks to a divided country on 60 Minutes." CBS News. 13 November 2016. Delano, James Whitlow. "This Is What the U.S.-Mexico Border Wall Actually Looks Like." National Geographic. 4 March 2016. Quarterly GDP numbers arent the sexiest item in political news, but when the latest state-level updates were released Thursday  for the third quarter of 2015, which ended Sept. 30  Gov. Pat McCrory trumpeted them on both his official and campaign websites and social media pages. McCrory has dubbed his re-election campaign the Carolina Comeback, trying to focus on good economic news. He said these numbers show North Carolina is squarely on the upswing. A states GDP, or gross domestic product, is the total of all goods and services it produces. And McCrory said that since he took office, no state has increased its gross domestic product faster than North Carolina. He credited the states cuts to the income tax rate and unemployment benefits, and the outsourcing of economic development efforts. He also clarified that he was talking about the numbers since January 2013. We have delivered $4.4 billion in tax relief, fixed our broken unemployment insurance system and reformed our economic development strategy to strengthen North Carolinas economy and put more people back to work, McCrory said in a statement. These efforts have positioned North Carolina as one of the fastest growing populations as well as (the) fastest growing economy in the country. Economies are subject to a number of influences. For this fact check, we wont attempt to say what has or hasnt been responsible for the states economic growth. Instead, we will look just at whether its true that North Carolina has one of the fastest growing populations as well as fastest growing economy in the country, as McCrory claimed. Population growth Between July 1, 2013  shortly after McCrory took office  and July 1, 2015, North Carolina added about 194,000 people for a total population of 10,043,000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Thats close to a 2 percent growth rate and slightly better than the national average over that period. From 2013 to 2014 and from 2014 to 2015, five states added more people than North Carolina. Both years, North Carolina was the ninth largest state. North Carolina isnt adding people at the countrys fastest rate, or by the largest amounts. But it has a better-than-average growth rate, and its on pace tocontinue closing the gapwith larger states. McCrory is correct that North Carolina has one of the fastest growing populations. Economic growth This question is a little trickier. Has North Carolina had the fastest-growing economy in the country under Pat McCrorys administration? There are many ways to measure economic strength, and North Carolina is not the best in every measure, according to the U.S. Department of Commerces Bureau of Economic Analysis. For instance, in 2015, the state was 13th in total income and 39th in per-capita income. From 2013 to 2015 North Carolina also had the 19th-fastest growth in per-capita income and the 11th-fastest growth in total income. North Carolinas unemployment and underemployment rates are also both above the national average, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But McCrory specifically referenced GDP growth. For that reason, and because GDP is generally considered the most comprehensive measure of an economys strength, well look only at GDP growth for the sake of this fact check. And on that, McCrory is right that North Carolina is No. 1. Between the first quarter of 2013 and the third quarter of 2015 (the most recent data we have), no states economic output grew as fast as North Carolinas 13.4 percent rate. Florida and California came close, at 13.3 and 13.2 percent GDP growth, respectively. The average for both the Southeast and the United States as a whole was 9.9 percent. Because economists love to do math, there are other ways of defining the same data over the same period. That 13.4 percent rate specifically refers to current (non-inflation-adjusted) dollars. The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis also measures GDPs compound growth rate in current dollars and chained dollars. Chaining is a process that adjusts for inflation, but by using different methods from the more common Consumer Price Index. In that measure, North Carolina tied for first in current dollar amounts and tied for seventh in chained dollar amounts. Its also worth noting that right now were partway through the second quarter of 2016, so the data are lagging behind real time by nearly six months. So while we don't know who currently has the fastest-growing economy, the data does show that North Carolinas growth hasnt been as dominant recently. Looking just from Jan. 1 to Sept. 30, 2015  the most recent numbers available  North Carolinas GDP grew by 2.8 percent. Thats lower than 10 other states and tied with another seven. Its good, but not the best. Our ruling McCrory is right that North Carolina has one of the fastest growing populations. As for the economy, North Carolina did have the fastest-growing GDP in the country between the first quarter of 2013, when McCrory took office, and the third quarter of 2015. The pace has slowed recently, but that doesn't change the truth of the statement. We rate this claim True. Tax day has come around again, and with it a startling claim about the amount of time Americans spend doing their taxes each year. According to U.S. Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., it takes United States taxpayers a total of 6.1 billion hours to file their taxes. That adds up to more than 695,000 years. 6.1 Billion hours a year, just to figure out how much money the government is going to take, she said ina post on Twitter. We had to check to see if this number could possibly be accurate. According to Foxxs office, the number comes from the Taxpayer Advocate Services 2013 report to Congress, which tackled the issue of the complexity of the U.S. tax code. In 2012, the National Taxpayer Advocate has designated the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) as one of the most serious problems facing taxpayers, the report reads. The existing code, by our count, has reached nearly four million words and imposes unconscionable burden on taxpayers. Our analysis of IRS data indicates that individuals and businesses spend about 6.1 billion hours a year complying with tax-filing requirements. Its important to note that the report comes to the number by calculating the estimated combined time businesses and individuals spend filing taxes, not just that of private citizens. The Taxpayer Advocate Service is an independent group within the Internal Revenue Service that is tasked with helping taxpayers resolve problems with the IRS and recommend changes that will prevent the problems. The number was calculated by multiplying the number of times each type of tax form was filed in 2010 by the amount of time the IRS estimates it takes to complete each form, according to Ken Drexler, a media relations officer at the Taxpayer Advocate Service. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires federal agencies to estimate the amount of time it takes to fill out a given piece of paperwork. Its the best number you can come up with, but its not necessarily a number you would take to the bank, Drexler said, noting it would take longer for someone unfamiliar with a form to complete it than someone who has done so many times before. Accountants and tax professionals, for example, could fill out the forms faster than an average filer. In other words, the estimate might have flaws, but it is the best guess as to the time it takes for businesses and individuals to fill out tax paperwork. In a2011 report, the Laffer Center for Supply Side Economics further broke down the 6.1 billion hour figure, finding that individuals spend 3.16 billion of those hours filling out tax forms, while businesses clock in at 2.94 billion hours. The estimate has remained the same since 2010. In 2009, the Taxpayer Advocate Service concluded Americans spent a whopping 7.6 billion hours completing the forms. Our ruling Foxx said, 6.1 billion hours a year, just to figure out how much money the government is going to take. The number came from the Taxpayer Advocate Services 2013 report to Congress, which stated that  individuals and businesses spent 6.1 billion hours preparing their taxes. Its important to note that the figure is an estimate. It comes from taking the number of tax forms filed in the last year and multiplying it by the IRSs estimate of the time it takes to prepare the forms. Foxxs larger point, that it takes a very long time for Americans to comply with filing their federal taxes, is accurate. The number is an estimate, but its from a credible, independent report. We rate this statement True. With the fire of a Baptist preacher, Georgias newest presidential prospect warned a crowd of thousands that the country has gone astray under President Barack Obama.We have become a nation of crises, Republican Herman Cain shouted during his Saturday announcement at Centennial Olympic Park that hes running for president.Look at the facts. Dont listen to the rhetoric, he said. High gas prices. A rising national debt. High unemployment.Forty-seven million people on food stamps, Cain said. Thats 14 million more than when the current occupant of the White House took over.Food stamps? your PolitiFact Georgia scribes wondered. Whats with Georgia Republicans and food stamps lately?Last week, the states other presidential contender, Newt Gingrich, said Obama deserves to be called the most successful food stamp president in American history because 47 million Americans are on food stamps.We ruled Gingrichs statement Half True. For the most part, Gingrich got his facts straight but oversimplified who was to blame.Cain, a former radio talk show host and Godfathers Pizza CEO, urged the crowd at his rally to look at the facts. PolitiFact Georgia is all to happy to oblige him.Food stamps, officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, give certain low-income Americans vouchers to buy groceries.The most recent data show roughly 44.2 million people received SNAP benefits in February, the most recent data available.Cains numbers arent quite accurate, but hes close. The number of recipients has topped 44 million since December, which means his estimate is about 7 percent too high.The number of beneficiaries has climbed every single month since Obama took office, despite signs of an improving economy. According to historical data, Februarys count appears to be the highest in any month since the program was established in 1969.Obama took office in January 2009. That month, nearly 32 million people received SNAP benefits. That means the number of food stamp recipients has increased by about 12.2 million since the start of his administration.Cain placed the increase at 14 million, which is about 15 percent too high. Again, hes close, but not quite right.Whether Obama deserves the blame for the increase is far less clear.The rise in food stamps is a direct consequence of the Great Recession, which started more than a year before Obama took office. Conservatives and liberals agree that Obama inherited a troubled economy. Whether SNAP usage would have been lower if Republicans won the presidency is impossible to tell.The number of food stamp beneficiaries ticked upward under President George W. Bush because of policies that broadened eligibility for the program and more aggressive efforts to get eligible Americans to apply for benefits. These policies remained in place under Obama.Another reason assigning blame is tough is that there is typically a lag between when the broader economy begins to recover and when SNAP usage declines. The monthly growth has slowed for the past three months, and it could start declining in a month or two.Cains accusation against Obama was not as barbed as Gingrichs, but he did lay the blame for food stamp usage at the presidents feet. We therefore give the presidential candidate a Mostly True. A story from 1995 resurfaced around Veterans Day 2019, reporting that then-private citizen and real estate mogul Donald Trump had "saved" the Veterans Day parade that year in New York City when organizers ran out of money. On Nov. 6, 2019, for example, the Daily Caller News Foundation website published a story bearing the headline, "The 1995 NYC Veterans Day Parade Had $1.21 In The Bank. Then Donald Trump Stepped In." A meme circulating on Facebook similarly described Trump's intervention:This claim apparently originated with Trump himself, or at least it was touted on his campaign website in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election. The website at the time stated: headline  campaign website Mr. Trump has long been a devoted supporter of veteran causes. In 1995, the fiftieth anniversary of World War II, only 100 spectators watched New York Citys Veteran Day Parade. It was an insult to all veterans. Approached by Mayor Rudy Giuliani and the chief of New York Citys FBI office, Mr. Trump agreed to lead as Grand Marshall a second parade later that year. Mr. Trump made a $1 million matching donation to finance the Nations Day Parade. On Saturday, November 11th, over 1.4 million watched as Mr. Trump marched down Fifth Avenue with more than 25,000 veterans, some dressed in their vintage uniforms. A month later, Mr. Trump was honored in the Pentagon during a lunch with the Secretary of Defense and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff. First off, Trump's website contained some confusing pieces of misinformation: The Veterans Day parade in New York City went by the name the "Nation's Parade." The poorly attended parade "with only 100 spectators" occurred in 1994, not 1995 (The New York Times reported police did not give a crowd estimate). Only one Veteran's Day parade took place in the city in 1995  the Nation's Parade on Nov. 11. That event was slated by the U.S. Defense Department as representing "the official close of the 50th anniversary of World War II." reported We contacted the United War Veterans of New York (UWNY), which organized the Nation's Parade in 1995, to ask about claims that Trump's intervention saved the event from cancellation, and we were referred by spokesman Pat Smith to a Nov. 10, 1995, New York Times article about the event. Smith told us that Trump did make a financial contribution toward the parade, but also said UWNY is a small, volunteer-staffed group that doesn't keep records that could answer questions in detail about an event that occurred more than two decades ago. article  The 1995 Times article reported that Trump did make a financial contribution, but that he tried to make it in exchange for being named the parade's grand marshal even though he is not a veteran. The Times reported Trump gave $200,000, not $1 million: By mid-August, organizers had a bank account of exactly $1.21. A request to airlines to donate blankets for aging veterans was turned down because logos might not be visible on television. Then Donald Trump, a nonveteran, agreed to throw in $200,000 as well as raise money from his friends, in exchange for being named grand marshal. Since then, money has come in, though not enough to meet the original budget, which was reduced from $2.9 million to $2.4 million. Fireworks were just one of many cuts. In May 2016, CNN spoke to Vincent McGowan, the president emeritus of UWNY who organized the parade in 1995. McGowan said that Trump's contribution was "somewhere between $325,000 and $375,000," but McGowan also said Trump's donation did save the event. McGowan also said Trump was never the grand marshal because that honor was only given to military veterans. CNN In a follow-up story, the Times in 1995 reported that organizers had agreed to make Trump the parade's grand marshal, a move that had angered some veterans, while others expressed appreciation for his "crucial" financial assistance: reported Also in the reviewing stand was the developer Donald Trump, who provided the only note of controversy in an otherwise positive day. Many veterans were angry that organizers had agreed to name Mr. Trump, who is not a veteran, as grand marshal in exchange for his contribution of $200,000 and help in raising additional funds. Another story, dated Nov. 11, 1995, from the news service UPI, reported that Trump contributed $200,000 and raised another $300,000 for the parade, which was viewed by parade Director Tom Fox as having been key: UPI Police estimated 500,000 people attended the largest military parade ever held in New York. Organizers, who placed the turnout at closer to a million, said the parade would not have been a success if it hadn't been for real estate developer Donald Trump, who contributed $200,000 and raised another $300,000. "Donald Trump saved the parade," said parade director Tom Fox, himself a Vietnam veteran. "We had asked for donations from 200 corporations, and none of them came through," he said. "This donation is the single most important thing I've ever done," said a beaming Trump. "This is more important than all of my buildings and my casinos. This is my way of saying thank you to all the men and women in the armed services who have made it possible for me to become a success. Without them freedom and liberty would be gone." In sum, we are rating this claim "True" because two individuals involved with the planning of the 1995 parade stated on two separate occasions that Trump's efforts and donation did indeed enable the event to take place. Still unclear are the origins of other sources of funding. Martin, Douglas."Veterans Day Parade Tries for a Comeback."
The New York Times.10 November 1995. Fitzpatrick, David and Curt Devine."Trump Will Give $1 Million to Marine Charity, but There Are Other Discrepancies."
CNN.25 May 2016. McFadden, Robert D. "On Parade To the Beat of History."
The New York Times.12 November 1995. UPI."More Than 500,000 Watch Nation's Parade."
11 November 1995. In October 2017, what appears to be a legitimate news article appeared on Facebook, claiming that Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe legalized recreational and medicinal marijuana in the state of Virginia:   An error-laden article automatically displayed the date on which it was opened, misleading readers into thinking it represented a brand-new development: article Govenor Terry McAuliffe passed a law legalizing the use of recreational and medicinal marijuana for the state of VirginiaAs of November, first 2017 marijuana will be legalOverall support for legalize marijuana has hit 64 30 states in the district of Columbia currently have laws broadly legalizing marijuanaI knew Gallup poll released earlier this month shows that a record high percentage of Americans now support legalizing marijuana For the first time immaturity of Republicans are in favor of legalizing marijuana as well Update coming soon The claim is completely false, originating with prank-generating fake news site React365. Although the ostensible purpose of the site is to allow people to "prank" one another with phony articles, overly broad general interest topics such as statewide marijuana legalization often rapidly spreads outside its creator's circle of Facebook followers.  prank-generating fake news React365