Did Eric Trump Say His Father Would Cancel Taxes for Wealthy People?
On 16 April 2017 Politicalo.com published an article suggesting that the President's son Eric Trump claimed his father was going to discontinue taxation on wealthy Americans, thereby rendering debate over the elder Trump's tax returns irrelevant: Politicalo.com article As always, his son Eric was there to provide a helping hand in defending his father. During an brief phone interview with KYXL Radio based out of Orlando, Florida, President Trumps second son argued that his fathers tax return is irrelevant, largely because he knows all there is to know about following the letter of the law, especially when it comes to paying taxes. He said, When you come from a background like the one my father comes from, you have to know all there is about paying taxes and doing your part to make this country a better place. Eric continued, And while were on the subject, I kind of have to say, its funny how taxes work. They sort of punish the hardest working and most productive members of our society while taking nothing from those who would rather be lazy and beg on the streets. Thats kind of not fair. What he have here is a system that flat out punishes those who want to contribute and make their lives better and at the same time, rewards those who want to be nothing more than dead weight. The worst part is, Im not saying something thats revolutionary here; this system has been in place ever since the country was established. My father, regardless of the fact that hes president, is just one person out of millions of those who are capable enough to be successful but are simultaneously struck down by our tax system. Thats a catastrophe ... At the end of the day, its irrelevant whether my father choses to disclose his tax return or not. It wont matter soon anyway Although Newslo (and its sibling sites Religionlo, Politicops, and Politicalo) are often identified as fake news by social media users, the claim was picked up by the hyper-partisan web site Democratic Moms and spread with fewer obvious red flags. Newslo and related sites normally start each article with a paragraph of factual information followed by the embellishments featured in its headlines. Newslos "hybrid" fake news sites include a clickable feature enabling readers to "show facts" or "hide facts." When a reader clicks "show facts," the factual portions of the article are highlighted. However, by default, all articles first appear in "hide facts" mode: Newslo Religionlo Politicops Politicalo Democratic Moms fake news   As the article indicated, President Trump tweeted about his tax returns and currency manipulation on 16 April 2017: Why would I call China a currency manipulator when they are working with us on the North Korean problem? We will see what happens!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 16, 2017 April 16, 2017  I did what was an almost an impossible thing to do for a Republican-easily won the Electoral College! Now Tax Returns are brought up again?  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 16, 2017 April 16, 2017  But as the "Show Facts" button demonstrated when activated, the Eric Trump's purported statements on taxation and wealth were fabricated:
After the police shooting of 20-year-old Latrell Allen in Chicago's Englewood community on the afternoon of Aug. 9, 2020, unrest in that city extended through that night and into the early morning hours of the following day, with looters hitting some stores in Chicagos wealthiest shopping district on North Michigan Avenue. Latrell Allen extended The following evening, members of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement held a solidarity rally in that city with some of the people who had been arrested for looting the night before. Shortly after those events, social media users began circulating a meme stemming from that event, quoting a "BLM leader & organizer" named Ariel Atkins as saying, "I don't care if someone decides to loot, because that makes sure that person eats or has clothes. Anything they want to take, they can, because these businesses have insurance":  That was an accurate quote, according to Chicago NBC affiliate WMAQ-TV, who reported on the Aug. 10 event: reported Members of Black Lives Matter held a solidarity rally on Monday night [August 10] with the more than 100 individuals who were arrested after a night of looting and unrest in Chicago. The rally was held at the South Loop police station where organizers say those individuals are currently being held in custody. I dont care if someone decides to loot a Gucci or a Macys or a Nike store, because that makes sure that person eats, Ariel Atkins, a BLM organizer, said. That makes sure that person has clothes. Black Lives Matter Chicago organized the rally after overnight unrest throughout the city, with police saying that more than 100 individuals were taken into custody for a variety of offenses, including looting. That is reparations, Atkins said. Anything they wanted to take, they can take it because these businesses have insurance. Atkins said essentially the same thing a few days later, when she was interviewed by Chicago NPR station WBEZ on the subject of "why she supports looting": interviewed A lot of people are really attacking our pages. Theyre like, Oh, you support the looters. And yeah, we do, 100%. Thats reparations. And like however people choose to protest, especially if it was definitely in line with what happened with the shooting, which would be powerful to see people reacting ... without organizers just being like, Were angry and this is what were gonna do. Were gonna take the power back. I feel like these stores, these Macys, these Guccis, the PNC Banks, theyre not here for us. The city puts way more money and investment into spending time and protecting their spaces and making sure that they exist. And yet our people are constantly being pushed out of the city ... Unemployment is incredibly high, like we are in an incredible situation, and the fact that anybody gives a s*** about these businesses over what is happening in this city right now and the pain that people are in and the suffering that is taking place, I dont care. I will support the looters till the end of the day. If thats what they need to do in order to eat, then thats what youve got to do to eat .... The whole idea of criminality is based on racism anyway, because criminality is punishing people for things that they have needed to do to survive or just the way that society has affected them with white supremacist B.S. So its like her deciding what is criminal and what isnt. WMAQ-TV [Chicago].  "Black Lives Matter Holds Rally Supporting Individuals Arrested in Chicago Looting Monday."
  10 August 2020. Black, Curtis. &nbps; "Latrell Allen Police Shooting Exposes Gaps in Body Camera and Foot Pursuit Policies."
  The Chicago Reporter.  14 August 2020. Yoon-Ji Kang, Esther.  "Officers Disrespected Englewood Residents Following Police Shooting, Activists Say."
  WBEZ [Chicago].  10 August 2020. Wildeboer, Rob and Chip Mitchell.  "Officers Disrespected Englewood Residents Following Police Shooting, Activists Say."
  WBEZ [Chicago].  12 August 2020. During budget debates in the Ohio House, Democrats portrayed themselves as the defenders of middle-income Ohioans, announcing a plan they called their Targeted Middle Class Tax Cut. The plan, which majority Republicans did not include in the budget, was the brainchild of Reps. Mike Foley of Cleveland and John Patrick Carney of Columbus. The two Democrats announced their plan in the wake of new job figures which they said showed that Republican Gov. John Kasichs economic policies aren't working. In a news release posted to his House webpages, Foley cited the job figures and claimed that Ohio lost more than 20,400 jobs in March, and that those losses were the largest of any state in the nation. PolitiFact Ohio decided to check his claim. We asked Foleys staff to support his statement, and also checked ourselves with the U.S. Department of Labors Bureau of Labor Statistics, home of a vast array of jobs data. Foleys staff provided a news article from The Plain Dealer that relied on data from BLS and the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. In March, according to BLS estimates, the seasonally adjusted estimate for the total number of non-farm jobs in Ohio was 5,176,900 jobs. That represents a loss of about 20,400 from the previous month, just as Foley said. You have to go back to June 2009, the month the recession officially ended, to find a greater monthly figure. That month about 33,000 jobs were lost. In April 2009, Ohio lost more than 44,000 jobs, the worst monthly performance so farin this century. But the March 2013 figure also is small enough that it did not change the unemployment rate. That remained 7.1 percent, just as it was in February, according to the state Department of Job and Family Services. So how did Ohio stack up against the rest of the nation? Foleys claim cites a raw number (rather than a percentage), which means Ohios size could come into play. The Buckeye State is the seventh most populous in the nation. But did it lead the nation in job losses? After all, California, with more than three times Ohios population, has a much larger economy. Texas has more than double the people. And New York and Florida, Nos. 3 and 4, each have populations more than 60 percent greater than Ohio. BLS figures show Ohio did indeed lose the most jobs. Nonfarm employment decreased in 26 states and the District of Columbia. It increased in 23 states. New Mexico was unchanged. The largest increases were in Florida, which added 32,700 jobs, and California, which gained. 25,500. The largest decreases were in Ohio (-20,400) and Illinois (-17,800). In Ohio, the industries posting big losses in March included leisure and hospitality (down 6,000 jobs), professional and business services (down 4,300 jobs) and construction (down 3,300 jobs),according to Job and Family Services.Even the category including health services posted a 2,500 decline. That is extremely unusual. That has been our best growth sector for decades, economic research analyst George Zeller told The Plain Dealer. A bright spot was manufacturing, which has fueled the recovery in Ohio and gained 1,800 jobs. It is also worth noting that the March job losses were preceded by three months in a row of job gains. And so far this year, the state still is showing a net job gain.The state lost jobs during four months of 2012, but nothing on the scale of Marchs decline. Foley, in his news release, said that Ohio lost 20,400 jobs in March and that it led the nation in jobs lost. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics confirms both the number of jobs lost, albeit an estimate, and that Ohio lost more than any other state. Foleys statement is accurate, although he is focusing on a month in which the number of job losses is unusually high. With that point of clarification, on the Truth-O-Meter, his claim rates Mostly True. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here On Oct. 20, 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump's son Eric Trump posted an image to social media that supposedly showed musicians Ice Cube and Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson wearing "Trump 2020" hats: posted   This is not a genuine photograph of 50 Cent and Ice Cube wearing "Trump 2020" hats. This is a doctored image that was created from a photograph of Ice Cube and 50 Cent at a BIG3 basketball game in Las Vegas, Nevada, in 2017. In the original image, Ice Cube is wearing a hat with the BIG3 logo on it and 50 Cent is wearing a hat with a New York Yankees logo.  Ice Cube shared the original photograph to his Twitter page in July 2020 along with a birthday message for his friend 50 Cent:  Getty Images has archived a few other photographs taken at this event. The image at the top of this article, for example, carries the caption: caption LAS VEGAS, NV - AUGUST 26: BIG3 founder and recording artist Ice Cube and Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson attend the BIG3 three on three basketball league championship game on August 26, 2017 in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Photo by Sean M. Haffey/BIG3/Getty Images) Ice Cube confirmed that the image was fake in a message posted to Twitter and Trump has since deleted his tweet. Twitter Although this image is fake, both of these musicians have truly aligned themselves, at least in part, with the Trump administration. While Ice Cube has not endorsed Trump for 2020, he did work with the president's administration to create a "Contract With Black America." Ice Cube said that he would "advise anyone on the planet who has the power to help Black Americans close the enormous wealth gap." work with said 50 Cent's support for Trump was more explicit. On Oct. 19, 50 Cent took to Instagram and shared a message endorsing Trump along with a screenshot from CNBC's "Power Lunch" concerning a report that Biden's tax plan would raise the tax rate to as much as 62% on Americans who make more than $400,000 a year: Instagram WHAT THE FUCK! (VOTE For TRUMP) IM OUT. FUCK NEW YORK The KNICKS never win anyway. I dont care Trump doesnt like Black people 62% are you out of ya fucking mind."   This screenshot comes from a segment of "Power Lunch" that aired on Oct. 19. During this segment, CNBC's Robert Frank explained how people earning more than $400,000 a year could pay income taxes at rate of more than 62%. Here's a video of Frank on another CNBC show, "Squawk Box," talking about Biden's tax plan: aired explained  Interestingly, Ice Cube and 50 Cent appear to be aligning themselves with Trump for polar opposite reasons. Ice Cube, for instance, said that he was willing to work with either presidential campaign in order to improve the lives of Black Americans and to "close the enormous wealth gap." 50 Cent, on the other hand, said he didn't care that "Trump doesnt like Black" and that he was endorsing the incumbent because his opponent's tax plan would increase taxes on wealthy Americans. Asmelash, Leah.  "From N.W.A. to MAGA: Ice Cube Takes Some Heat For Working With the Trump Administration."
  CNN.  16 October 2020. Reilly, Nick.  "50 Cent Endorses Donald Trump for President Even Though He 'Doesnt Like Black People."
  NME.  20 October 2020. CNBC.  "Bidens Tax Plan Could Lead to Combined Rate of 62% For High Earners."
  15 October 2020. Frank, Robert.  "Biden Tax Plan Gives $620 Tax Cut to Middle Class, New Study Says."
  CNBC.  15 October 2020. After Dan Patrick popped a statistic to back his contention that Texas state government spends plenty on education, a reader asked us to check the Republican lieutenant governors accuracy. Patrick, in a June 2017commentary, extolled the state budget then about to besigned into law by Gov. Greg Abbott, specifying: Texas spends $60 billion on schools in our two-year budget, including both federal and state funds. Of that, $41 billion is state funding. That is on top of the estimated $28 billion to $30 billion annually paid by local property taxpayers. When colleges and universities are added, Patrick said, education spending is the biggest item in the state budget  about 52 percent of all state dollars. Health care is second, accounting for most of the remaining dollars. It is disingenuous to suggest that we are, somehow, holding back funding that we could spend on schools. Our review of budget documents posted by the Legislative Budget Board led us to find Patricks figure solid though the percentage also proved historic in a low-end way not stated by Patrick. Patrick cites state budget summary Up front, Patrick spokesman Alejandro Garcia responded by email to our inquiry about the basis of Patricks 52 percent by pointing out a chart in the2018-19 state budget, which takes effect Sept. 1, 2017. The chart shows that the budget puts $55.9 billion in general revenue toward public and higher education out of $106.7 billion in all such revenue  which breaks out to 52.4 percent of such spending. Next highest: Nearly $34 billion budgeted for health and human services accounts for 31 percent of state spending in the budget. SOURCE: Document,Summary of Conference Committee Report for Senate Bill 1, Appropriations for the 2018-19 Biennium,Legislative Budget Board, May 2017 (accessed June 14, 2017) Some context: The chart shows that the nearly $41 billion in public school aid appropriated by the 2017 Legislature trailed $635.6 million, or 1.5 percent, behind what lawmakers budgeted for public schools the previous two years. On the other hand, the new budget increases state spending on higher education by $195.2 million, 1.1 percent, from the 2016-17 budget, according to the chart. We asked the Legislative Budget Board about Patricks percentage. By email, staff spokesman R.J. DeSilva responded by pointing out the same chart offered by Patrick. Separately to our emailed inquiries, Austin school-finance expert Joe Wisnoski, who works for a firm that represents school districts, and Tom Canby of the Texas Association of School Business Officials didnt quibble with Patricks calculation. Wisnoski added, though, that the 52 percent conclusion may not be the whole story. He alsopointed outthat from all funding sources--including federal aid--lawmakers devoted $80 billion to education, which represented 37 percent of the full $217 billion state budget. Alternate calculation For our part, we noticed one other way of gauging the share of state revenue budgeted for education. Another chart in the budget shows that lawmakers budgeted nearly $58.8 billion for public schools and higher education in state general revenue plus the smaller pot of money consisting of state revenue dedicated to particular expenditures. The combined amount, we found, also breaks out to 52 percent of the full budgets $113.1 billion in state revenue and dedicated state revenue:  SOURCE: Document,Summary of Conference Committee Report for Senate Bill 1, Appropriations for the 2018-19 Biennium,Legislative Budget Board, May 2017 (accessed June 14, 2017) Other state funds? When we asked about Patrick's claim, Dominic Giarratani of the Texas Association of School Boards agreed its fair to focus on state general revenue to evaluate budgeted spending on education. By email, though, he also provided a calculation suggesting that public plus higher education accounts for 48 percent of non-federal spending in the budget. Thats correct, it looked to us, though its worth noting the additional spending captured by this alternate analysis folds in chunks of money not easily controlled by lawmakers--including $1.8 billion of earnings on the endowment that benefits institutions in the University of Texas and Texas A&M University systems; nearly $4.6 billion in local tax revenue  projected to be provided by property-rich school districts, including the Austin district, to support the states school finance system; and nearly $3.6 billion in payments driven by a 2006 state-mandated reduction in school property taxes. Historic low? Next, we wondered how the 52 percent cited by Patrick for 2018-19 compares to the share of state GR devoted to education in previous budgets. To get a fix on that, we checked spending on education from non-dedicated GR in the previous 10 budgets. Such funds comprise the bulk of each budget and are most directly controlled by legislative decisions. Our finding: In the budgets, which encompass 20 years, no Legislature devoted less than 53 percent of general revenue to education. On average, educations share of state spending through the budgets was 58 percent. State Revenue Budgeted for Education, Texas, 1998-99 through 2018-19 (By Percentage) BUDGET YEARS SHARE OF REVENUE* BUDGETED FOR PUBLIC AND HIGHER EDUCATION 1998-99 61 % 2000-01 63 2002-03 59 2004-05 59 2006-07 56 2008-09 59 2010-11 61 2012-13 57 2014-15 53 2016-17 53 2018-19 52 *State general revenue, excluding revenue constitutionally dedicated to particular purposes. SOURCE: PolitiFact Texas calculations drawing on state budgets adopted by Texas Legislature, 1997-2017as posted bythe Legislative Budget Board (accessed June 14-15, 2017) Our ruling Patrick, saying its disingenuous to suggest lawmakers held back on education aid, said 52 percent of state spending in the 2018-19 state budget was appropriated to public plus higher education. Thats an accurate percentage. Unclarified: Education also accounts for the smallest share of budgeted state spending in at least 20 years, which is as far back as we checked. We rate the 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. One claim that has often been repeated by U.S. President Donald Trump is that he rebuilt a military that was "totally depleted" by his predecessor, Barack Obama. Trump's grievance is based on a grain of truth  military spending was reduced during Obama's second term  but Trump's statements on the matter have combined distorted facts with outright falsehoods. The way Trump tells it, the United States military was in a complete shambles when he took office. Over the years, Trump has made a variety of statements in order to perpetuate this notion.  In one oft-repeated story, Trump illustrated his claim that Obama depleted the military by saying that the armed forces had "no ammunition" when he took office. In October 2019, for instance, Trump said: "When I took over our military, we did not have ammunition." said This is not true. The military did not run out of ammunition during the Obama administration (or during any other administration, as far as we can tell). not true In addition, Trump falsely claimed in August 2018, as he was signing the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2019, that the military had not received any money for years and years. Trump said: "Weve been trying to get money. They never gave us money for the military for years and years. And it was depleted." This, again, is false. In fact, approximately $600 billion was spent on the military in the year before Trump took office.  President Trump has also mischaracterized his own military spending. On May 22, 2020, during a speech at the "Rolling to Remember Ceremony: Honoring our Nations Veterans and POW/MIA," Trump claimed that he spent trillions on equipment: speech "Weve invested the $2.5 trillion in all of the greatest equipment in the world, and its all made here, right in the USA.  This is not true. The $2.5 trillion figure refers to the total Department of Defense (DOD) budget that was passed under Trump -- comparatively speaking, Obama's budget during was about $3.3. trillion during his first term and $2.7 trillion during his second term -- but only of a portion of the DOD budget is spent on equipment. The amount spent on procurement, or the act of obtaining military equipment and supplies, varies from year to year, but it generally made up about 15% of Trump's total military budget.  not true While Trump has told several falsehoods about how Obama supposedly "totally depleted" the military, there is some general truth to the idea, as overall military spending was reduced during the Obama administration. However, there is a bit more nuance to this issue than is often heard on the campaign trail.  While the military was leaner during the Obama years, the Obama administration still spent trillions on national defense.  Calculating an exact dollar figure for how much the U.S. spends on the military (and what administration is responsible for that spending) is a complicated proposition. The military budget covers a wide range of expenses across five military branches: the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and Space Force. One could also factor in money spent on the Department of Veterans Affairs, on overseas contingency operations, and on other security agencies, such as Homeland Security. Military contracts and budgetary plans also often overlap presidential terms, meaning that spending authorized under one president may end up getting spent under another. Furthermore, each president is faced with different domestic and global threats, which require different approaches and therefore different spending. Lastly, no president has sole discretion over military spending. For instance, sequestration, a provision of the 2011 Budget Control Act that passed congress with bipartisan support, limited the amount that could be spent on the military. military budget covers sequestration The "green book," an annual budgetary analysis put out by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, shows that military spending greatly increased following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks during the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush. Spending continued to increase after Obama took office. In 2010, there was a slight decrease in military spending, and that trend continued until 2015. Spending increased again during Obama's final year in office and then continued to increase during Trump's administration.  green book The following chart from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) takes a look at the United States' budget stretching back to the 1980s. The green line at the top of this chart is the United States budget for National Defense.  Center for Strategic and International Studies   Trump's military budget for his first four years (approximately $2.9 trillion) was more robust than Obama's budget during his last four years (approximately $2.7 trillion). However, it was smaller than Obama's budget during his first four years (approximately $3.3 trillion). The Marine Corps Times writes: writes The military the president inherited from Obama was not depleted or facing a massive readiness crisis, which resulted from massive underfunding in the Obama years. In fact, according to Gen. David Petraeus ,who commanded our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan and also headed the CIA, and Michael OHanlon, there was no readiness crisis and in 2016, the year Trump was elected, the state of our military was awesome. Nor was the defense budget seriously underfunded in the Obama years. If one controls for inflation, in FY2021 dollars Obama spent $3.3 trillion in his first term compared with the $2.9 trillion under Trump. Moreover, while defense spending did decline slightly in Obamas second term, it still amounted to $2.7 trillion, about $200 million, or 7 percent less, than Trumps first-term budget. However, this decline was a result of the Budget Control Act or sequestration (BCA,) which was instituted by his current chief of staff, Mark Meadows, who was then a congressman from South Carolina. While the military certainly had ammunition during the Obama administration, and while the Obama administration certainly spent a few trillion dollars more than nothing on national defenses, several aspects of the military were truly reduced during Obama's administration. Todd Harrison, the director of Defense Budget Analysis for CSIS, examined Obama's budget for fiscal year 2017, the budget that would be in place when Trump took office, and found that "nearly every measure of force structure  the number of brigades, aircraft, ships and subs, marine battalions, and end strength  [was] smaller than when the [post 9/11] buildup began." However, this "smaller force consumes a budget more than 50 percent larger in real terms than before 9/11. The military is spending more for a smaller force."  examined Obama's budget Though it is certainly not accurate to say that the military did not receive any funding during the Obama administration, there was truly a reduction in spending. Two major factors resulted in reduced spending. First, congress placed restrictions on military spending in 2011 in an attempt to reduce the national deficit. And second, the Obama administration started to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and Iraq.  Here's how The New York Times explained the impact of the congressional sequester on military spending: explained In 2011, in response to a debt ceiling crisis, lawmakers reached a bipartisan agreement to reduce deficits by at least $2.1 trillion over the next decade. In addition to limits on domestic spending, limits were placed on the Pentagons base budget, but not its wartime spending. Congress increased spending caps by $32 billion in 2013 and $40 billion in 2015, referred to by budget watchers as partial sequester relief. In February, the cap was blown off entirely, when Mr. Trump signed a budget deal that raised it by $165 billion over two years. Effectively, that ended the sequester without repealing the original law. From 2012 to 2017, the Pentagons annual budget had decreased as a percent of the economy. But it still hovered around $600 billion  a far cry from no money at all. Qiu, Linda.  "Trump Goes for Broke on Claim Military Received No Money Before His Watch. (Hes Still Wrong.)."
  The New York Times.  13 August 2018. Plinkington, Ed.  "Barack Obama Sets Out Plans for Leaner Military in Historic Strategy Shift." 
 The Guardian.  5 January 2012. Ewing, Philip.  "Fact Check: Has President Obama 'Depleted' The Military?"
  NPR.  29 August 2016. Korb, Lawrence.  "Trumps Misleading Claims on Military Readiness and Veteran Care."
  Marine Corps Times.  14 September 2020. Harrison, Todd.  "Analysis of the FY 2017 Defense Budget."
  Center for Strategic and International Studies.  April 2016. Robertson, Lori.  "Trumps False Military Equipment Claim.'"
  FactCheck.org.  2 July 2020. Claim:  An employer issued a missive to his employees stating that any additional taxes on his business would result in his shutting the company down. LEGEND Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2008] To All My Valued Employees, There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn't pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country. Of course, as your employer, I am forbidden to tell you whom to vote for - it is against the law to discriminate based on political affiliation, race, creed, religion, etc. Please vote who you think will serve your interests the best. However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help you decide what is in your best interest. First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a back story. This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You've seen my big home at last years Christmas party. I'm sure all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about my life. However, what you don't see is the back story. I started this company 12 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living space was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you. My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission. I didn't have time to date. Often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business  hard work, discipline, and sacrifice. Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting the Nordstrom's for the latest hot fashion item, I was trolling through the Goodwill store extracting any clothing item that didn't look like it was birthed in the 70's. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had. So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5pm, I don't. There is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, ****, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to my hip like a 1 year old special-needs child. You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden  the nice house, the Mercedes, the vacations... you never realize the back story and the sacrifices I've made. Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to bail-out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for. Yes, business ownership has is benefits but the price I've paid is steep and without wounds. Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell you why: I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don't pay enough.  I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. Government mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my time. On Oct 15th, I wrote a check to the US Treasury for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my "stimulus" check was? Zero. Nada. Zilch. The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check? Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country. The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? That's nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy. Here is what many of you don't understand ... to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government mandated to me that I didn't need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now. When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don't defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington believe the mud of America are the essential drivers of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change you can keep. So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I fire you. I fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child'sfuture. Frankly, it isn't my problem anymore. Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire. You see, I'm done. I'm done with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship. While tax cuts to 95% of America sounds great on paper, don't forget the back story: If there is no job, there is no income to tax. A tax cut on zero dollars is zero. So, when you make decision to vote, ask yourself, who understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of saving your job. While the media wants to tell you "It's the economy stupid" I'm telling you it isn't. If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country, steamrolled the constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever. If that happens, you can find me in South Caribbean sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about. Signed,Your boss  Origins:  In the ramp-up towards the 2008 Presidential election and in its wake, a number of anonymous "Here's how you, the ones who voted for him, will directly suffer from a Barack Obama presidency" missives landed in inboxes everywhere. One such was putatively from a hard-working and generous grandfather telling his beloved liberal granddaughter that her support for Obama meant Grandpa was no longer going to be in a position to help her financially. Another was supposedly penned by CEO to his 140 employees informing them that thanks to the new taxes now surely headed his way, he'd have to lay off a few of them, so he was starting with those whose cars sported Obama bumper stickers." lay off The "To All My Valued Employees" letter quoted above is another of such ilk. In it, a boss threatens to shut down his company (thus wiping out the livelihoods of the 14 people who work there) if any more taxes are levied upon him, an outcome he views a virtual  certainty under an Obama presidency.  The piece is perhaps best viewed as an attempt to put into real-world terms the possible consequences to average folks if business is interfered with to the point of no longer being able to operate rather than as an actual letter sent by a real boss to his employees.  Although our earliest sighting of this item dates to 3 November 2008, textual clues within the missive (such as"Please vote who you think will serve your interests the best" and "So, when you make decision to vote") indicate it was likely penned sooner than just the day before the 2008 presidential election. The original author of this piece is unknown to us. While some versions are merely signed "Your Boss," others are attributed to Michael A. Crowley of Wake Forest, North Carolina, via inclusion of his signature block at the end of the piece. Crowley himself denies authorship, saying: In reference to the "To all my valued employees" letter currently circulating the internet:  This letter was forwarded to me by a colleague. While the letter may indeed be authentic, I was not the author and I do not know the identity of the original author. I forwarded it to the "John McCain Joe the Plumbers" email group prior to the election. Someone moved my contact information into the body of the message making it appear that I was the author of the letter. I would appreciate your removing my contact information prior to forwarding this message.  Michael A. Crowley, PE While sometimes people looking to distance themselves from soapbox pieces they've penned subsequently claim they found such contentious items elsewhere on the Internet and merely forwarded them to others, that is not the case here. More than just Crowley's own words of denial support his claim of non-authorship, with the key to that proof lying in the very signature block that has worked to convince so many of his being the real "boss" behind the letter. That signature block identifies his firm as Crowley, Crisp & Associates, Inc., a now defunct business entity that (according to North Carolina's Secretary of State) was formed in May 2007.  The missive so widely laid at Crowley's feet states "I started this company 12 years ago." Twelve years prior to 2008 was 1996. (His current firm, Crowley & Associates, Inc., was formed in October 2000.) Were Crowley the actual author, that line about when he began his company would have read "last year" or "8 years ago."  The response to the missive falsely attributed to him prompted Michael Crowley to pen his own letter on the plight of the small business owner, which can be read here. here In October 2012, David Siegel, the founder and CEO of Westgate Resorts, sent a modified version of this letter to all of his employees. He based his missive on that much-circulated 2008 piece, saying of his offering: "I did use the letter that had circulated before as a guideline, but I changed it [to fit my circumstances]. It speaks the truth and it gives [employees] something to think about when they go to the polls."  sent Last updated:  9 October 2012 Claim:  Canadian Richard Brunt penned an open letter about America's midterm elections. On 7 November 2014, shortly after midterm elections in the U.S., the Detroit Free Press published Canadian Richard Brunt's open letter to American voters, a missive that quickly went viral on the Internet: published  A Canadian perspective on the #GOPtakeover. pic.twitter.com/NmBaPjnqju #GOPtakeover pic.twitter.com/NmBaPjnqju  Rick Strandlof (@RickStrandlof) November 9, 2014 November 9, 2014  Brunt wrote in his letter, titled "You Americans have no idea just how good you have it with Obama," that his fellow Canadians were confused about the results of the midterm elections. For Brunt, the Republican gains in those elections did not make sense to him when things were seemingly going so well in the U.S.:  Many of us Canadians are confused by the U.S. midterm elections. Consider, right now in America, corporate profits are at record highs, the country's adding 200,000 jobs per month, unemployment is below 6%, U.S. gross national product growth is the best of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. The dollar is at its strongest levels in years, the stock market is near record highs, gasoline prices are falling, there's no inflation, interest rates are the lowest in 30 years, U.S. oil imports are declining, U.S. oil production is rapidly increasing, the deficit is rapidly declining, and the wealthy are still making astonishing amounts of money. America is leading the world once again and respected internationally  in sharp contrast to the Bush years. Obama brought soldiers home from Iraq and killed Osama bin Laden. So, Americans vote for the party that got you into the mess that Obama just dug you out of? This defies reason. When you are done with Obama, could you send him our way? Richard Brunt Victoria, British Columbia The letter was soon shared thousands of times on Facebook and Twitter by both Republicans and Democrats, although their reasons for sharing the message were very different:  Hey Richard Brunt, of Victoria, British Columbia... if you want our Obama, you can have our Obama.  Frank Miani (@FJM2425) November 11, 2014 November 11, 2014  Richard Brunt from British Columbia, telling it like it is... pic.twitter.com/OKm0Rkfu5x pic.twitter.com/OKm0Rkfu5x  Baumer Kid (@bostonsboy87) November 11, 2014 November 11, 2014  Richard Brunt's letter represented one man's opinion, but it wasn't the first such expression of admiration from fans of President Obama up north. In a 2009 article titled "Canada's Love Affair with Barack Obama," for example, author Charlie Gillis wrote: Charlie Gillis We love him, with an asterisk. The broad-band smile, the Lincolnesque bearing, the sense of the man as an avatar of multiculturalism  it all makes Barack Obama the perfect U.S. president in the eyes of Canadians. Heaven knows we've been waiting. When the motorcade rolls down Wellington Street, or pulls up to Rideau Hall, you can expect dewy-eyed kids to line barricades with paper flags, no matter how foul the Ottawa weather. Eighty-two per cent of us say we approve of Obama, the polls indicate, and the number requires a moment to digest. Never mind American politicians. Who's the last American we can say that about?   Last updated:  11 November 2014 Claim:  Article chronicles aspects of Senator Ted Kennedy's life and career. true Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2009] The Last of The Kennedy Dynasty As soon as his cancer was detected, I noticed the immediate attempt at the "canonization" of old Teddy Kennedy by the mainstream media. They are saying what a "great American" he is. I say, let's get a couple things clear & not twist the facts to change the real history. 1. He was caught cheating at Harvard when he attended it. He was expelled twice, once for cheating on a test, and once for paying aclassmate to cheat for him. 2. While expelled, Kennedy enlisted in the Army, but mistakenly signed up for four years instead of two. Oops! The man can't count to four! His father, Joseph P. Kennedy, former U.S. Ambassador to England (a step up from bootlegging liquor into the US from Canada during prohibition), pulled the necessary strings to have his enlistment shortened to two years, and to ensure that he served in Europe, not Korea, where a war was raging. No preferential treatment for him!  3. Kennedy was assigned to Paris, never advanced beyond the rank of Private, and returned to Harvard upon being discharged. Imagine a person of his "education" NEVER advancing past the rank of Private! 4. While attending law school at the University of Virginia, he was cited for reckless driving four times, including once when he was clocked driving 90 miles per hour in a residential neighborhood with his headlights off after dark. Yet his Virginia driver's license was never revoked. Coincidentally, he passed the bar exam in 1959. Amazing! 5. In 1964, he was seriously injured in a plane crash, and hospitalized for several months. Test results done by the hospital at the time he was admitted had shown he was legally intoxicated. The results of those tests remained a "state secret" until in the 1980's when the report was unsealed. Didn't hear about that from the unbiased media, did we? 6. On July 19, 1969, Kennedy attended a party on Chappaquiddick Island in Massachusetts. At about 11:00 PM, he borrowed his chauffeur's keys to his Oldsmobile limousine, and offered to give a ride home to Mary Jo Kopechne, a campaign worker. Leaving the island via an unlit bridge with no guard rail, Kennedy steered the car off the bridge, flipped, and into Poucha Pond. 7. He swam to shore and walked back to the party, passing several houses and a fire station. Two friends then returned with him to the scene of the accident. According to their later testimony, they told him what he already knew  that he was required by law to immediately report the accident to the authorities. Instead Kennedy made his way to his hotel, called his lawyer, and went to sleep. Kennedy called the police the next morning and by then the wreck had already been discovered. Before dying, Kopechne had scratched at the upholstered floor above her head in the upside-down car. The Kennedy family began "calling in favors", ensuring that any inquiry would be contained. Her corpse was whisked out-of-state to her family, before an autopsy could be conducted. Further details are uncertain, but after the accident Kennedy says he repeatedly dove under the water trying to rescue Kopechne and he didn't call police because he was in a state of shock. It is widely assumed Kennedy was drunk, and he held off calling police in hopes that his family could fix the problem overnight. Since the accident, Kennedy's "political enemies" have referred to him as the distinguished Senator from Chappaquiddick. He pled guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, and was given a SUSPENDED SENTENCE OF TWO MONTHS. Kopechne's family received a small payout from the Kennedy's insurance policy, and never sued. There was later an effort to have her body exhumed and autopsied, but her family successfully fought against this in court, and Kennedy's family paid their attorney's bills ... a "token of friendship"? 8. Kennedy has held his Senate seat for more than forty years, but considering his longevity, his accomplishments seem scant. He authored or argued for legislation that ensured a variety of civil rights, increased the minimum wage in 1981, made access to health care easier for the indigent, and funded Meals on Wheels for fixed-income seniors and is widely held as the "standard-bearer for liberalism". In his very first Senate roll, he was the floor manager for the bill that turned U.S. immigration policy upside down and opened the floodgate for immigrants from third world countries. 9. Since that time, he has been the prime instigator and author of every expansion of an increase in immigration, up to and including the latest attempt to grant amnesty to illegal aliens. 10. He is known around Washington as a public drunk, loud, boisterous and very disrespectful to ladies. Origins:  It's probably impossible for a politician such as Edward M. ("Ted") Kennedy  the youngest child in a family that included a U.S. President (John) and a U.S. Attorney General and Senator (Robert)  to have served as long as he did without acquiring a good many admirers and detractors.  When Ted Kennedy died of cancer in August 2009, after a career spanning more than 46 years as a U.S. Senator, both groups offered their observations, laudatory and critical, on his life and career.   The much-circulated example cited above, of the critical variety, is true in its broad outlines (although some of its subjective observations are questionable): 1)  Ted Kennedy did get expelled from Harvard for cheating (but not twice: a single incident has erroneously been represented as two different events in the example reproduced above).  At the end of his freshman year at Harvard College, in 1951, Kennedy arranged for a classmate to take a Spanish exam in his place: As it had been at Milton [Academy], Spanish was the course that gave Teddy the most difficulty at Harvard. For the others, he would muddle through with C's, he thought, but as the final examination approached, he felt in danger of failing both the test and the course, which would render him ineligible for varsity football in the fall, an intolerable prospect. Knowing he could not pass the examination himself, he arranged to have a friend [Bill Frate], much more proficient in the language, take it for him, signing Teddy's name to the booklet. As it happened, however, the graduate student assigned as proctor for the Spanish examination that day was personally acquainted with the student whom Teddy had recruited as his stand-in. When the stand-in, who did exceedingly well on the test, handed in the booklet, the proctor saw that he'd signed it "Edward M. Kennedy." Perhaps no more than an hour later, [Kennedy and Frate] were both called to the dean's office and expelled. They were told they could apply for readmission in a year or two if they behaved themselves. That was not the most severe punishment Harvard imposed, but it was typical in serious cases. [The preponderance of sources suggest that Frate agreed to take Kennedy's exam for him out of friendship, not because he was paid for his efforts.] 2. With Kennedy's expulsion from Harvard in 1951, he was ineligible for a student deferment and therefore subject to the draft (which had been re-initiated after the Korean War broke out in mid-1950).  In June 1951, he enlisted in the U.S. Army for four years, a term which his father's intervention shortened to two years: On the morning Ted enlisted for four years, the newspapers reported truce proposals [in Korea] but also severe Communist attacks, along with twenty-eight New England casualties.  Joe Kennedy, having lost one son to war, was furious, asking Ted, "Don't you ever look at what you're signing?" In those days, most young men understood the laws about military service, even if they had a student deferment. But Ted did not know that he had the option of volunteering for induction, in effect getting drafted when he chose and for the draft's two years. After Joe intervened, Ted got the shorter term. 3.  Also due largely to his father's influence, Ted Kennedy spent the bulk of his military service stationed in Paris:  Joe had no intention of letting Teddy get anywhere near the war in Korea. Instead, Teddy was inducted at Fort Dix, New Jersey, sent to Fort Gordon, Georgia, for basic training, and then shipped to Paris, where his father had arranged for his assignment to a military police honor guard detachment which had the wholly ceremonial task of standing watch over the NATO headquarters office located there. Kennedy was discharged from the Army in March 1953 with the rank of private first class, returned to Cambridge (where he took two summer school courses), and was readmitted to Harvard for the fall 1953 term.   The comment about a "person of his 'education'" only having attained the rank of private is something of an anachronism, as at the time Kennedy enlisted in the military he had little more than a high school education (having been expelled from Harvard at the end of his freshman year).  The bulk of his education (his final three years at Harvard and an additional four years of law school) did not take place until after his discharge from the Army. 4.  Ted Kennedy was known for driving wildly and accumulating speeding tickets while attending the University of Virginia (UVa) law school, prompting his UVa alumnus brother Robert to quip (during a talk at the school) that their mother had asked him to find out "what side of the court my brother is going to appear on when he gets out of law school, attorney or defendant." After the most serious incident (involving a police chase at speeds up to 90 MPH), Kennedy was arrested and charged with reckless driving and driving without a license (he possessed a valid license but had left it at home), an arrest which his father managed to keep out of the news for several weeks.   There does not appear to be a record of his driver's license having been revoked (but standards for mandatory revocation may have been quite different fifty years ago).   We're unsure what "amazing coincidence" supposedly connects Kennedy's having been arrested for reckless driving in Virginia in March 1958 and his having passed the Massachusetts bar exam in August 1959. 5.  On the evening of 19 June 1964, after a late vote in the U.S. Senate on a civil rights bill, Senator Ted Kennedy boarded a six-seat private plane to fly to the Massachusetts Democratic Party convention in West Springfield.  The plane crashed on approach to Barnes Municipal Airport in conditions of marginal visibility; the  pilot and a Kennedy aide were killed; Kennedy himself suffered crushed and fractured vertebrae, a collapsed lung, and several broken ribs, injuries which required several months of hospitalization and rehabilitation. The mention of Kennedy's supposedly having been "legally intoxicated" at the time of the accident is a red herring  he was a passenger in the plane, not the pilot, and was not responsible for the crash.  (The Civil Aeronautics Board found the probable cause to be "an improperly executed instrument approach in which improper altitude control resulted in a descent below obstructed terrain.") 6.-7.  The July 1969 "Chappaquiddick incident," in which Mary Jo Kopechne (a former campaign worker for Robert F. Kennedy) drowned after Ted Kennedy drove the car in which he and Mary Jo were riding off the side of a bridge late one evening, is well known and too complex a subject for us to adequately summarize in a paragraph or two, so interested readers might wish to peruse Wikipedia's entry on that topic.   entry It's fair to say that, at the very least, Kennedy's actions after the Chappaquiddick accident (particularly his failure to report it to authorities until well into the following morning) were both questionable and inexcusable. As Kennedy biographer Adam Clymer wrote of the Chappaquiddick controversy: No other automobile accident in history has stirred as much suspicion and speculation. There is no question that the authorities, simultaneously sympathetic, in awe, and in fear of a messy case involving a hugely popular Senator, did a terrible job of investigating the accident. The Kennedy camp did not help, but in legal terms, it did nothing to obstruct, either. Absent different evidence, it is almost impossible to see how the authorities could have proved a more serious crime [than leaving the scene of an accident]. The accident itself is consistent with the fact that Kennedy was a terrible, easily distracted driver. Moreover, even if he had only the two drinks he reported, liquor probably mattered. He was almost certainly not legally drunk in 1969, when the blood alcohol standard was 0.15 percent. He might not even have been over the current Massachusetts standard, which is 0.08.  But any alcohol consumption diminishes driving ability.  There is no direct evidence that Kennedy dove to the wrecked car. Some critics have dismissed his account, claiming that his bad back and the tides made this impossible. But since childhood, Kennedy had taken physical risks. After he broke his back, he was skiing on difficult slopes again the next year. Adrenaline would have boosted his energy. There is no reason to doubt that he tried as hard as he could to rescue Mary Jo immediately. Just as there was no good excuse for Kennedy's not knocking on doors until he found a house with a telephone, there was no excuse at all for [Kennedy friend and former U.S. Attorney Paul] Markham and [Kennedy cousin Joe] Gargan's failing to summon help. Each was a lawyer, and [unlike Kennedy] neither had a concussion. Their instinct, and perhaps Kennedy's too, appears to have been to prevent disclosure of his having been in the car with a pretty young woman under circumstances that invited suspicion. Nevertheless, it is very unlikely that faster action to summon help would in fact have saved her life. Considering that it took more than an hour to get her body out the next morning, when everyone involved was already awake and dressed and visibility was good, Lange and Dewitt [authors of Chappaquiddick: The Real Story] argue convincingly that she had to have died before help would have arrived in the middle of the night. But Markham, Gargan, and Kennedy didn't know that. They should not have worried about how it would look and should have called the police without delay. 8.  How one evaluates the accomplishments and achievements of Ted Kennedy's 46-year tenure as a U.S. Senator is a subjective issue, but no even-handed evaluation could fairly describe them as "scant."  Wikipedia, for example, observes that: Wikipedia Since his presidential bid [in 1980], Kennedy became one of the most recognizable and influential members of the party, and was sometimes called a "Democratic icon" as well as "The Lion of the Senate". Kennedy and his Senate staff had written about 2,500 bills, of which more than 300 were enacted into law. Kennedy had co-sponsored another 550 bills that became law since 1973.  Kennedy was known for his effectiveness in dealing with Republican senators and administrations, sometimes to the irritation of Democrats. During the 101st Congress under President George H. W. Bush, fully half of the successful proposals put forward by the Senate Democratic policy makers came out of Kennedy's Labor and Human Resources Committee. During the 2000s, almost every bipartisan bill signed during the George W. Bush administration had significant involvement from Kennedy. A late 2000s survey of Republican senators ranked Kennedy first among Democrats in bipartisanship. Kennedy strongly believed in the principle "never let the perfect be the enemy of the good," and would agree to pass legislation he viewed as incomplete or imperfect with the goal of improving it down the road. In April 2006, Kennedy was selected by Time as one of "America's 10 Best Senators"; the magazine noted that he had "amassed a titanic record of legislation affecting the lives of virtually every man, woman and child in the country" and that "by the late 1990s, the liberal icon had become such a prodigious cross-aisle dealer that Republican leaders began pressuring party colleagues not to sponsor bills with him". (A [partisan] list of Kennedy's accomplishments published on his portion of the U.S. Senate web site can be viewed here.) here Ted Kennedy was a strong advocate for the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, a bill that abolished U.S. national-origin immigration quotas which had been in place since 1924  quotas that apportioned immigration visas according to the demographic breakdown of the U.S. as recorded by the 1920 census and thereby placed few limits on immigrants from Western and Northern Europe but strict limits on immigrants from the rest of the world. Although Kennedy argued during debate on the bill that "Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [this bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think," the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 did have a significant impact on immigration patterns: President Kennedy proposed a new immigration structure that would no longer be based on national origins. After Kennedy's assassination, his brother Ted took up the fight, pushing the Johnson administration to go even further than it wanted in evening the playing field. Though Lyndon Johnson, in signing the bill, tried to reassure opponents that it wouldn't do much to change the balance of immigration, its impact was dramatic. In the 1950s, 53 percent of all immigrants were Europeans and just 6 percent were Asians; by the 1990s, just 16 percent were Europeans and 31 percent were Asians. The percentages of Latino and African immigrants also jumped significantly. In 1965, the U.S. was around 85 percent white, according to various estimates. Today, a third of the country is minority, and nonwhites are on track to become the majority sometime in the 2040s. Minority populations have grown by leaps and bounds because of high birth rates among those first generations of immigrants and a steady flow from Latin America, Asia and Africa since. 9.  During his long career in the U.S. Senate, Ted Kennedy was certainly a consistent advocate of immigration policy reform: Historians and immigrant advocates are remembering the senator  perhaps more than any other  as championing legislation that directly benefited immigrants, their children and their grandchildren. The 1965 law that he sponsored fundamentally changed the demographics of the country and transformed many urban enclaves into majority-minority cities. But they say Kennedy also remained a "point man" in the Senate for immigrant advocates and minorities throughout his career, even supporting recent proposals to overhaul immigration laws aimed at undocumented workers. Kennedy advocated for the children of immigrants and minorities by pushing legislation on voting rights and health care for uninsured children. The list of accomplishments on Kennedy's web site describes his efforts in this area thusly: Senator Kennedy had long been convinced that legal immigration is good for our country. As such, he had been at the forefront of efforts to improve U.S. immigration policy by sponsoring beneficial legislation and opposing initiatives that are harmful to immigrants and refugees. In 1986, Senator Kennedy worked to obtain legal status for undocumented workers and address the potential for increased employment discrimination against immigrant workers as a result of the employer sanction provisions. He was the lead sponsor of the Immigration Act of 1990, which increased the quotas for family immigration, established a diversity visa program, and created a temporary safe haven program for persons fleeing oppressive governments. He was also an original sponsor of the 1994 Violence Against Women Act and its re-authorization in 2000, which allows battered immigrant women and children to apply for permanent residence without the cooperation of their abusive spouses or parents. He strongly opposed the harsh 1996 immigration laws, which divided families, returned refugees to the hands of their persecutors, and denied immigrants their day in court, as well as the 1996 welfare law that turned immigrants into second class citizens, and he continues to work to eliminate the harshest provisions of these laws. His goal was to preserve families, assure fairness and due process, and maintain the integrity of our immigration laws. Senator Kennedy believed that immigrants deserve the same due process protections available to U.S. citizens, and that it is contrary to basic principles of fairness and justice to take immigrants from their U.S. citizen families, without even an opportunity to have their day in court.  He also helped lead the way in efforts to restore fairness and justice to immigrants and refugees. Senator Kennedy's support was instrumental in restoring public benefits, such as Food Stamps, Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid, to countless elderly, disabled, and legal immigrants. He continues to push for the further restoration of benefits to all legal immigrants. 10.   No one could deny that Ted Kennedy was known as a drinker and a womanizer, particularly in the earlier years of his life.  As the Miami Herald noted of his passing: For his many critics, the flaws in Kennedy's character and his mistakes  above all, Chappaquiddick  overshadow his good works. He paid for that by losing the campaign to unseat President Carter in 1980 and later suffered humiliations over his drinking and womanizing. Ultimately, he turned his energies to Congress and forged one of the great Senate careers. Last updated:  30 August 2009    Canellos, Peter S.  "Obama Victory Took Root in Kennedy-Inspired Immigration Act."   The Boston Globe.  11 November 2008.    Canellos, Peter S.  Last Lion: The Fall and Rise of Ted Kennedy.   New York: Simon & Schuster, 2009.  ISBN 1-4391-4873-2.    Clymer, Adam.  Edward M. Kennedy: A Biography.   New York: William Morrow, 1999.  ISBN 0-688-14285-0.    Contreras, Russell.  "For Immigrants, Kennedy Remained Tireless Advocate."   Associated Press.  29 August 2009.    McGinniss, Joe.  The Last Brother: The Rise and Fall of Teddy Kennedy.   New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993.  ISBN 0-671-67945-7.    Miami Herald.  "Ted Kennedy: The Lion Sleeps."   27 August 2009. Infrastructure is one of Gov. Mike Parsons top priorities in the 100th legislative session, and some representatives have followed suit. House Budget Chairman Rep. Cody Smith, R-Carthage, presented a budget plan to fund road and bridge improvements throughout the state. Smith said his plan would fund the infrastructure improvements without raising taxes or accruing new debt. Smith wanted to do this by appropriating funds from general revenue to state infrastructure instead of taking out more bonds. Our state transportation department already has a heavy debt load and has paid more than $700 million in debt payments in just the last two years, Smith wrote in a Capitol report sent by his office. Has the Missouri Department of Transportation really paid more than $700 million in debt payments in the last two years? Lets take a look at the numbers Documents from MoDOTshow that his numbers are on point. MoDOTs 2018 Financial Snapshot shows the department paid a little more than that, totaling $702 million in 2017 and 2018. My preference is to avoid debt when possible, Smith said. But, the debt paid doesnt tell the whole story. The department paid $412 million in debt in 2017. The departments average payment since 2004 is about $242 million a year. The number was higher in 2017 than past years because the agency paid off some of its debt early. In 2017, $117.8 million of bonds were paid off early, saving future interest costs of $29.4 million, said Sally Oxenhandler, MoDOT interim spokeswoman. This helped inflate Smiths point when he said MoDOTs debt reached more than $700 million in just two years. This graph of MoDOTs borrowed funds and annual payments helps visualize the amount of debt MoDOT paid in 2017, compared to debt payments in the past. (Look for the mountain peak.) Graph courtesy of MoDOTs Financial Snapshot, November 2018 Compared to other state transportation departments, Missouri does not have a lot of debt, said Todd Grosvener, MoDOT assistant financial services director. Still, Smith wants to limit the state department accruing any more debt. Keeping our road funds stable over the coming years is of the utmost importance, Smith said. When MoDOT takes on more debt, it has fewer dollars to improve our roads and bridges. What is the borrowed money used for? The borrowed funds were and are still being used for hundreds of road and bridge projects throughout Missouri, the agency said. The department borrowed the most money in 2010 when it took on an additional $100 million to replace the Mississippi River Bridge in St. Louis. In 2010, the department also borrowed $685 million for theSafe and Sound Bridge Improvement Program. This three-and-a-half-year project replaced or rehabilitated more than 800 bridges across the state. On behalf of the House of Representatives, Ill be keeping a close eye on the amount of debt the state takes on to improve and maintain our transportation infrastructure, Smith said. Smith said, Our state transportation department already has a heavy debt load and has paid more than $700 million in debt payments in just the last two years. His numbers match MoDOTs records. They need clarification, however, because MoDOT paid off a big chunk of debt early, in order to avoid more interest accumulation. Because the statement is accurate and needs clarification, we rate the statement Mostly True. During theJuly 31, 2011, edition of NBCsMeet the Press, Jennifer Granholm -- a Democrat who served as governor of Michigan from 2003 to 2011 -- was asked to bring her own experience to bear on the debate over the federal debt ceiling.Clearly the entitlement question has to be addressed, Granholm said, referring to the rising cost of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which is a major contributor to the growing federal debt.However, Granholm told host David Gregory that she was skeptical about whether such cuts would be a boon for the economy at large.I can tell you, David, I cut more as a percentage out of government than any state in the country this past decade, Granholm said. And where is Michigan in terms of its economic growth? Cutting did not result in economic growth. What results in growth is making sure you've got a good business climate for businesses to grow and prosper. And so we've got to cut where we can in order to invest where we must in order to grow the economy. And it's that investment side that I worry that those who are affiliated with the tea party or who are on the far right don't realize that other countries are co-investing with businesses in order to create jobs in their countries.If we do nothing more than just cut, she continued, that will continue to accelerate the lack of growth in (gross domestic product). So we've got to realize that the strategy here must be very specific. Yes, you've got to reform entitlements, but you've got reform entitlements and invest in order to grow because the quickest way to take down your deficit is through growth.We wondered about three elements of Granholms comments: whether she cut more as a percentage out of government than any state in the country this past decade, how poor Michigans economic growth has been over the same period and whether spending cuts to state government hampered economic growth. (Separately, were looking at a comment from the same show by Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, in which he accused Granholm of supporting the highest tax increases in the history of Michigan, which helped push unemployment from 6.8 percent to 15.3 percent. )Well take up the three claims in order.Did Michigan cut more from its government than any state in the country?To answer this question, we turned toThe Fiscal Survey of States, a twice-annual publication of the National Association of State Budget Officers that offers fiscal data for the 50 states going back to 1979.We determined that the most appropriate data to use were figures for annual expenditures from the 50 states general funds. Well acknowledge up front that this is not the only measure that could be used to compare how much state governments have been cut. In fact, Michigans state revenues flow into two accounts, the general fund and the school-aid fund, and the numbers we looked at only take into account the general fund. However, fiscal experts told us that the general fund offers a reasonable yardstick for state spending, and it also turned out to be the same measurement Granholm used, according to a spokeswoman. (Then theres the eternal statisticians lament: When comparing all 50 states across a period of nearly a decade, you take the statistics you can get. )We calculated the change in general fund expenditures for all 50 states between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2010 -- the closest approximation we could get to the start and end dates of Granholms tenure.And by this measure, Granholm is right. Every state but two saw their general-fund expenditures increase over that period (without taking inflation into account). The two that didnt? Georgia, which saw its general fund expenditures fall by $54 million over that period, and Michigan, which saw its general fund expenditures fall by more than $1 billion. If theyd been adjusted for inflation, the decrease would be even more severe.Using another measure, Carole Polan, a spokeswoman for Granholm, added that from 2000 to 2008, the number of state employees fell by about 11,000 -- a 17 percent decline. That was a more rapid decline than in private employment, which fell in the state by 12 percent over the same period, Polan said.Well address the causes of these declines in a moment, but for now, we can say that by this measure, Granholm is right that spending on government declined faster in Michigan than in any other state between 2003 and 2010.How poor was Michigans economic growth during Granholms tenure?To answer this question, we looked at gross domestic product data for Michigan as published by the U.S. Commerce Departments Bureau of Economic Analysis. (Just as the bureau calculates the national gross domestic product, it does the same for individual states.) Once again, we compared Michigans GDP for 2003 and 2010.By this measure too, Michigan performed worst in the nation. Its gross domestic product rose by 6 percent over that period (again, not adjusted for inflation). That may sound okay, but its not. Its only about one-third the rate of the next worst-performing state -- Ohio, at 17 percent growth. And its less than one-fifth of the increase of the nation as a whole, which was 31 percent.So where economic growth is concerned, Granholm is right again: Michigans performance during her tenure was uniquely poor among the 50 states.Did spending cuts to state government hamper Michigans economic growth?The cuts to government almost certainly hampered Michigans economy. But experts say that they werent the primary cause of the states poor economic performance.Long-term troubles in the automotive industry, the national recession and raising taxes on businesses and individuals were all partially to blame, said Patrick L. Anderson, an economic analyst in East Lansing, Mich., who wrote a report released by Granholm's successor elected in 2010, Republican Rick Snyder.Charles Ballard, an economist at Michigan State University and author ofMichigan's Economic Future: A New Look, added that even before the national economic crisis of 2008, the auto industry limped along for much of the decade, with General Motors, Ford and Chrysler losing market share steadily. In Michigan, we dont have Honda plants -- we have GM, Ford and Chrysler plants. Two of those companies went into bankruptcy. For better or for worse, we are home to the portions of the industry that did the worst.Meanwhile, Ballard added that Michigans tax structure -- which doesnt tax most services or Internet sales and mail-order -- exacerbated the fiscal impact of these economic problems.If the sectors that arent taxed are growing faster than those that are, the sales tax applies to an ever-shrinking portion of the economy, Ballard said. So if you put the tax law on autopilot, the portion of your economy going to tax revenues shrinks every year.In fact, Michigans revenues peaked in 2000 and are not projected to return to peak until 2020, said Arturo Perez, a state budget analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures. No other state has had a similar revenue situation.Given this backdrop, a more appropriate way of thinking about it is that a poor economy in Michigan caused a drop in state tax revenue, which in turn forced Granholm to cut government services -- not the other way around. Declining tax revenue is a much more urgent factor for state governments than for the federal government, since most states are constrained from using deficit spending. (Michigan is one, though unavoidable deficits may be resolved in the next fiscal year.) This means that tax revenues play a more direct role in determining spending levels than they do at the federal level.The plain fact is that state economic growth rates are in the short run linked to the demand for products that are produced in the state -- products like autos in Michigan, oil in Texas, sunny vacations in Florida and gambling holidays in Nevada, said Gary Burtless, an economist with the centrist-to-liberal Brookings Institution. Demand for these products can have booms and busts that are completely unrelated to a states typical tax rate or spending level. In the short run, when demand for a states products plummets, its state tax revenues fall, forcing the state to trim state spending or increase state tax rates. Our ruling Theres strong evidence supporting two of Granholms statistical claims -- that government spending has fallen faster in Michigan than in any other state, and that the states economic performance has been especially poor compared to other states.However, in theMeet the Pressinterview, Granholm was trying to use her experience as a governor to make a larger point about how cutting government did not result in economic growth. She's probably correct that government cuts hampered her state's recovery, at least in the short term, but Michigans experience over the last decade suggests that the reverse is an even bigger factor -- that is, poor economic growth hurts tax revenues and, in turn, forces government cuts. This doesnt mean that Granholms point is inaccurate, but in trying to apply a state lesson to a federal problem, shes ignored a key factor in how state fiscal policy works. On balance, we rate her statement Mostly True.