Pizza Hut 58th Anniversary Freebie Scam
In October 2017, multiple versions of a dubious post titled "Pizza Hut is giving 3 FREE Large Pizza Coupon on their 58th Anniversary" circulated on Facebook. The link lead to suspicious domains including pizzahutfree.us, pizzahut.com-freezones.us, pizzahut.com-freezones.us, and massiveoffers.xyz/p/, none of which followed the proper formatting for a pizzahut.com subdomain, which is "link.pizzahut.com." Those who clicked through found a page that looked somewhat legitimate, but showed signs of being a very common survey scam. Users were first asked a series of questions: page very survey scam   The page followed a common scammer template of appropriating Pizza Hut's logo and Facebook's visual interface, but sloppily boasted that entrants had "a chance to get [a] Papa [John's] Coupon." Any interaction with the prompts (again mentioning Papa John's 58th anniversary, not Pizza Hut's) led to a screen encouraging potential victims to spread the scam further on Facebook:   Underneath the "Congratulations" interface was a series of what appeared to be comments from real Facebook users who'd successfully redeemed the purported coupon. All of the profiles featured were for individuals with jobs displayed as "MD, at the Hospital":   Pizza Hut addressed a previous flood of customer queries on their Facebook wall during a similar scam in May 2016: Facebook users continue to regularly encounter survey scams (quite often the "anniversary" version) on the social network. A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau advised users how not to fall prey: anniversary article Dont believe what you see. Its easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure theres a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organizations real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward thats too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. Patterson, Emily.  Customer Survey Scam Lures Victims with Gift Card. 
 Better Business Bureau.  4 July 2014.
New Jersey doesnt just need a lot of federal aid to rebuild a coastline ravaged by Hurricane Sandy, the state also deserves it, according to Gov. Chris Christie.NBC Nightly News host Brian Williams asked Christie recently if its fair for people who have no interests in the Jersey Shore to ask, Why the money? Why the effort, if this is the new normal?Well, listen, it's fair to ask it but I have the answer, Christie said during the Oct. 30 interview. The answer is that for New Jersey, which gives so much to this country -- by the way, 50th in return of our federal tax dollars. So New Jerseyans send more than any other state in America in federal taxes, getting back less. When that's done and you see that our state is a state that needs this to contribute to our economy and also to the soul and the vibrancy of our state, I think we have very good answers and arguments to make. And you count on one thing: you're looking at the guy who is going to make those arguments.With Christie building part of his case for federal assistance around the states return on federal tax dollars, PolitiFact New Jersey wondered whether his premise is true.Add Donor State to the list of New Jerseys monikers.Depending on the year -- and whether adjustments are made to federal data -- New Jersey ranks at or near the bottom nationwide in this category.The Tax Foundation, a business-backed group, tracked how much the federal government collected through taxes and returned through expenditures to states every year from 1981 to 2005.The Washington, D.C.-based foundation calculated the federal tax burden -- a measurement meant to account for taxes that are assessed in one state, but impact taxpayers elsewhere -- to conduct its analysis.In 17 of those 25 years, New Jersey came in last place, receiving 70 cents or less for every dollar it sent to the federal government.In 2005 -- the most recent year analyzed by the Tax Foundation -- the federal government gave New Jersey 61 cents for every dollar it took. That was the smallest return of any state.But that was seven years ago. Though the Tax Foundation hasnt updated its findings, other studies show New Jersey still ranks near the bottom.The Northeast-Midwest Institute, a research organization based in Washington, D.C., that promotes 18 states in the region, released a May 2011 report on federal spending and taxation patterns that focused on New Jersey.New Jersey ranked 48th in the nation. Only Minnesota and Delaware received smaller returns on their federal tax dollars in 2009, according to the report, which relied on raw, unadjusted data.PolitiFact New Jerseys analysis of federal data from 2010 also put New Jersey in 48th place. So even the raw data put New Jersey near the bottom in this category.But Colleen Cain, a senior policy analyst with the Northeast-Midwest Institute who prepared the 2011 report, said in an e-mail, that the news behind this is not all bad.In the report, Cain attributes the low ranking to New Jerseys relatively high income levels and greater-than-average business income tax contribution, coupled with a relatively low need for federal aid.It does, however, underscore the importance of states like New Jersey in supporting the fiscal health of the nation generally.Our rulingChristie said that New Jersey is 50th in return of our federal tax dollars.The Tax Foundations analysis of 2005 data, which was adjusted to reflect each states overall federal tax burden, ranked New Jersey 50th in the nation in this category.The state received 61 cents for every dollar it sent to Washington, D.C. that year.Though that research is outdated, more recent analysis of raw data shows New Jersey still ranks near the bottom.On the Truth-O-Meter, Christies statement registers as Mostly True. To comment on this ruling, go toNJ.com. Urging Texans to find out how public schools are spending their money, Michael Quinn Sullivan, president of the conservative-leaning Empower Texans, which advocates for limited government, suggests that maybe too many non-teachers are soaking up taxpayer dollars that could be spent on classroom instruction. Everyone says public schools in Texas are underfunded, but are they? Sullivan says in the May 14 Web video, pointing out that more than half of the public school system's funding is spent on expenses outside the classroom. You might say there's a little overhead. There are 321,092 public school teachers in Texas. There are 313,850 non-teachers in our public schools, he continues. Do we really need one non-teacher for every teacher on the public school payroll? We're not weighing in on the value of non-teachers in the schools, but we wondered if Sullivan got his ratio right. He pointed us to the Texas Education Agency website, which has annual snapshots of public education in Texas both statewide and by district. The reports cover 90 statistics including student demographics, average college admission test scores and how many people each district employs broken down by job type. According to the most recent snapshot, 634,942 full-time employees worked in the public education system (not including charter schools) in 2008-09. Of those, 321,092 were full-time teachers and 313,850 staff members held other jobs. Who are all these non-teachers? According to the snapshot, teachers accounted for 51 percent of the schools' workforce in 2008-09. Auxiliary staff  such as security, public information officers and grant writers, according to TEA  were the next biggest grouping, 28 percent, followed by educational, at 10 percent, professional support staff, 8 percent, and administrative staff, 4 percent. This adds to more than 100 percent, the agency said, because some full-time employees divide time between positions. Sullivan said Empower Texans isn't suggesting that all 'non-teachers' are bad  clearly many are needed, but that the one-to-one teacher to non-teacher ratio seems a bit high. In the Web ad, Sullivan sounds a critical note, saying: Hey, we've got bureaucrats to pay. If you think our classrooms are underfunded  and they probably are  the money should be pretty easy to find. Just walk down to your nearest administrative complex. There's a counterpoint. Debbie Ratcliffe, the TEA's communications director, said: It takes a village to run a school district. There naturally are going to be a lot of people on school payrolls that aren't teachers, Ratcliffe said. Just think of the number of bus drivers and custodians and all those kinds of folks. Could you make a school run without them? Yeah, but it sure is a lot harder. Ratcliffe shared a more recent standard report that breaks down the full-time school employees for 2009-10 in detail. As of March 2010, the report says, statewide school district personnel totaled 661,285. Teachers made up about half of that, accounting for 333,090 full-time staff. Almost all the employees that fall under teaching staff are pre-kindergarten through 12th grade teachers. About 400 are labeled not applicable, which Ratcliffe said includes tutors and study hall monitors. The 2010 count puts the number of administrative staff at 25,525, or 3.9 percent of all workers. So who are the other 302,670 employees  the bulk of the non-teachers in Sullivan's claim? About 5,136 are librarians, 11,082 are counselors, 5,916 are nurses and 3,924 are speech therapists, among others. Some 178,140 are classified as auxiliary staff, a category that includes security personnel, public information officers and grant writers. How does Texas stack up nationally? On par, according to the the National Center for Education Statistics' most recent data. In 2007, teachers accounted for 51 percent of all elementary and secondary public school employees. In 20 states, teachers accounted for less than 50 percent of total staff, including Virgina (35 percent). In 30 states, teachers made up 50 percent or more of all staff, including South Carolina (72 percent). According to another report, released in November, instructional aides accounted for about 12 percent of all full-time public school staff nationwide, instructional coordinators and supervisors made up 1 percent, guidance counselors (2 percent), librarians (1 percent), student and support staff (23 percent), school administrators (3 percent), school district administrators (1 percent) and administrative support staff (7 percent). Where does all this leave Sullivan's statement? He correctly cites the number of teachers and non-teachers, per the education agency's latest snapshot report. More recent data available from the agency shows both have increased; still, the ratio of teachers to non-teachers is about the same. But Sullivan's online call to action doesn't do justice to the state's actual mix of school workers. The majority of non-teachers aren't administrators or paper shufflers; they're people who work directly with students including counselors, librarians, therapists and bus drivers. We rate Sullivan's statement as Mostly True. This story was updated to correct the total number of public school employees to 634,942. On 21 August 2018, President Donald Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to eight criminal charges, including multiple counts of tax evasion and violations of federal campaign finance laws. Cohen also appeared to implicate his former client in possible criminal wrongdoing, alleging that Trump, while a candidate, directed Cohen to pay hush money to two women who claimed to have had affairs with the future president. guilty Those bombshell revelations came on the same afternoon that a jury in Virginia convicted President Trump's former 2016 presidential campaign chairman Paul Manafort on eight counts of banking fraud and filing false tax returns, while failing to agree on a verdict for ten other charges. convicted Both the Manafort and Cohen cases came about due to investigative work undertaken as part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe into potential Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election  and the possibility of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Understandably, much of the news media in the United States gave these major developments extensive coverage that day, in print, online, and on the major television news networks. Some observers accused the conservative-leaning Fox News of downplaying the Cohen and Manafort stories, or of deliberately focusing on other issues of lesser import. Elements of this criticism were accurate and proportionate in pointing out the striking differences between how most TV news networks reported on the developments and how Fox News covered them. differences However, one viral Twitter post appeared to contain a screen shot of Fox News contributor Tomi Lahren discussing the 'War on Christmas,' while other networks covered Cohen's guilty pleas. The chyron in the image read "TOMI: OBAMA CREATED FESTIVUS TO DESTROY CHRISTMAS." War on Christmas (Festivus is an unofficial holiday which acts as an alternative to Christmas, and originated in an episode of the sitcom "Seinfeld.")  CNN: Michael Cohen to plead guilty.ABC: Michael Cohen to plead guilty.NBC: Michael Cohen to plead guilty.FOX News: pic.twitter.com/JR4uAnyCQn pic.twitter.com/JR4uAnyCQn  Diane N. Sevenay (@Diane_7A) August 21, 2018 August 21, 2018   That tweet was then reposted on Facebook by the left-wing page "The Other 98%": The image is fake, and is an old meme which first appeared in December 2017. appeared Congrats, @BarackObama, on apparently creating Seinfeld pic.twitter.com/5g2t7eYDHj @BarackObama pic.twitter.com/5g2t7eYDHj  jordan (@JordanUhl) December 24, 2017 December 24, 2017  Lahren herself publicly dismissed the meme: Does it not bother you to circulate a photoshopped piece of FAKE NEWS? Classy. https://t.co/hvwdgwPkd2 https://t.co/hvwdgwPkd2  Tomi Lahren (@TomiLahren) December 24, 2017 December 24, 2017  The meme does indeed consist of a screenshot of a real Fox News appearance which Lahren made in August 2017, but with the original chyron digitally edited and replaced with something different and non-relevant: .@TomiLahren: "How about when the mainstream media stops covering Russia day in and day out, maybe we can drop the Hillary email scandal." pic.twitter.com/OwfYWfuhDD @TomiLahren pic.twitter.com/OwfYWfuhDD  Fox News (@FoxNews) August 31, 2017 August 31, 2017  It's not clear whether those who posted the edited image in the context of Cohen and Manafort's legal travails in August 2018 intended to engage in satire, or to trick other internet users into believing Lahren really discussed Festivus on that day. Diane Sevenay, whose viral tweet was re-posted by "The Other 98%", is a comedy writer. writer As reported by Mashable, a satirical Fox/Cohen news coverage meme emerged on 21 August, with Twitter users taking turns to parody Fox News' content on the day of Cohen's guilty pleas: Mashable CNN - Cohen plea dealMSNBC - Cohen plea dealFox News - Are cats becoming too tall?  Fred Delicious (@Fred_Delicious) August 21, 2018 August 21, 2018  CNN: Manafort guilty on 8 countsNYT: Manafort guilty of fraudAP: Cohen pleads guiltyFox News: Were the lobsters on the Titanic happy that it sank?  #1 Rachel (@rachel) August 21, 2018 August 21, 2018  Another widely-shared screenshot purported to show Fox News reframing the conviction of Manafort by only mentioning, in a mobile news alert, the fact that a mistrial was declared on ten of the charges against him, while other news organizations reported his being found guilty on eight charges:   The image, posted to Facebook by the "Angry Americans" page, is authentic but very misleading. Another screenshot shows that Fox News first sent out an alert which read "Jury finds Manafort guilty on eight counts in fraud trial" before following up with a second one about the mistrial on the ten other charges: page Same topic. Different perspectives. ?? #Manafort pic.twitter.com/r2ZUgFSxDS #Manafort pic.twitter.com/r2ZUgFSxDS  Push the Push (@pushthepush) August 21, 2018 August 21, 2018  Neumeister, Larry and Tom Hays.  "Cohen Pleads Guilty, Implicates Trump in Hush-Money Scheme."
  Associated Press.  22 August 2018. Barakat, Matthew et al.  "Ex-Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort Guilty of 8 Charges."
  Associated Press.  22 August 2018. Stanley-Becker, Isaac.  "In Trump's Right-Wing Media Universe, It Was a Day Like Any Other."
  The Washington Post.  22 August 2018. Sung, Morgan.  "What Was Fox News Covering While Manafort and Cohen Were in Court? This Hilarious Meme Has Some Answers."
  Mashable.  21 August 2018. Michael Wolff's bombshell bookFire and Fury: Inside the Trump White Houseis full of salacious stories from President Donald Trump's first year in office. As media outlets published excerpts from the book in early January 2018, Twitter user PixelatedBoat took advantage of the frenzy to share a fake passage in which White House aides purportedly confessed that they had created a "Gorilla Channel" in order to placate a furious Trump: book share  (@pixelatedboat/Twitter) This fake excerpt ended up getting mixed in with real excerpts from the book, effectively fooling some readers into believing (in not such an unlikely turn of events, given how improbable much of 2016 and 2017 were) that the White House had actually created a "Gorilla Channel" to entertain the President of the United States. Twitter user @PixelatedBoat is best known for creating the internet phrase"Milkshake Duck," which refers to a beloved entity that the Internet quickly turns on and devours after damaging information about it is revealed; they frequently post humorous and obviously satirically content on their feed. After the Gorilla Channel joke was mistaken for a genuine excerpt, they changed their handle to "the gorilla channel thing is a joke" and posted a message expressing remorse: @PixelatedBoat phrase Milkshake Duck tfw you parody a guy making up shit about Trump but people believe it so you become part of the problem PixelatedBoat's "Gorilla Channel" joke is reminiscent of the fake transcripts between President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Tony Blair that were created by comedian Michael Spicer. In case you were curious, Bill Clinton never said that he punchesslabs of ham to work through his frustrations. punches A four-line poem, also known as a quatrain, allegedly written by 16th-century philosopher Michel de Nostradamus described predictions of a future plague that would fall upon the world. (Some assumed that this so-called plague referred to the COVID-19 pandemic, which Snopes has previously debunked here.) here The alleged quatrain went on to describe a feeble man who was set to rule the western world with a jezebel after the plague. According to Snopes readers, renditions of this poem appeared to suggest that this man and jezebel either referred to U.S. President Donald Trump or President-elect Joe Biden, depending on the person sharing the poem. In the end, this fool ruler will cause the great eagle  presumably the United States  to suffer and fall. The below meme circulated in early 2021:   It is unclear where this quatrain originated from or who the original poster was. Nostradamus, who was also a French physician, first published Les Prophties in 1555. It is thought that his collection of poems, which are compiled in 10 sets of verses of 100 quatrains each, contain mythological and astrological predictions for the future world. In the centuries that followed his original publication, he has remained prominent in modern popular culture, often among internet users who share fabricated predictions falsely attributed to him. Les Prophties remained prominent Nostradamus is credited with accurately predicting many historical events, according to Rare Books Digest. And though many of his poems are largely vague and could apply to a number of events, some of his predictions do come eerily close to actual events. Rare Books Digest eerily close But the meme in question does not appear to make that list. A look through The Compleat Works of Nostradamus did not reveal any mention of a jezebel or a feeble man. And though the word plague was mentioned more than 30 times in the Nostradamus text, there is no instance where it occurs alongside the same wording as in the meme. look The Compleat Works of Nostradamus reveal Furthermore, it is also important to note that the quatrains written by Nostradamus do not follow chronological order. So, while they may be broken down into what the author considered to be centuries, these do not directly translate to the century in which any prediction was anticipated to occur. High-speed rail has wedged itself into the 2018 campaign for California governor, splitting the current top two Democrats in the race. Former Los Angeles MayorAntonio Villaraigosarecently claimed Lt. Gov.Gavin Newsomthe frontrunner in the racehas essentially flip-flopped in his support for the states controversial and costly rail project. Heres what Villaraigosa told theSacramento Beeon Sept. 20, 2017: Newsom was for it, before hes against it, and then hes for it again. He added that Newsom was revising his positions when the winds blow in his direction. Given the key decisions Californias next governor will need to make on high-speed rail, we wanted to know whether Newsom has really shifted this much in his support for the massive project. We hopped aboard for a fact-check. Background on the bullet train In 2008, California voters approved a nearly $10 billion bond to jump-start the development of a high-speed rail network. Plans called for trains to zip across the state at 200 miles per hour, initially connecting San Francisco to Los Angeles and eventually extending the system to Sacramento and San Diego. Cost estimates for the project, however, have see-sawed from an initial $33 billion to $98 billion to $64 billion. The project has also fallen far behind schedule with construction limited to a small segment in the Central Valley. We asked Villaraigosas campaign for evidence of Newsoms shifting positions. As examples of his initial support, it pointed to news articles showing Newsom backing the 2008 bond measure. The campaign then cited a2014 radio interviewthat it says proves Newsom opposed the project. Finally, it cited articles from October 2016 in which the lieutenant governor again pledged his support. We absolutely need this, Newsom said of high-speed rail in a2007Mercury-Newsarticle. In February 2014, however, Newsom was asked by conservative radio host Ben Shapiro:Are you pro or against the train, especially now that the California public, which approved the train in the first place, has reneged and no longer likes the train? Newsom responded:I think Im where the public was and is. Apoll in September 2013found 52 percent of Californians wanted the rail project stopped and 51 percent felt it was a waste of money. Newsom went on to tell Shapiro:We dont have the federal dollars we were hoping for ... the private sector hasnt stepped up. Shapiro then asked:If you had your druthers, Gavin, would you kill the thing? Newsom responded:I would take the dollars and redirect it to other, more pressing infrastructure needs. I am not the only Democrat that feels this way. I gotta tell you, I am one of the few that just said it publicly. Most are now saying it privately. This exchange gave many the impression Newsom had backed away from the project. Newsom did not clarify in the interview what kind of funds should be redirected. In October 2016, Newsom told the Sacramento Press Club that he would 100 percent seek a solid funding source for the train project if he's elected governor in 2018. TheAssociated Presstook that to mean he again supported the project. AMarch 2017 pollfound Californians remain divided over high-speed rail, with 48 percent favoring the project and 46 percent opposed. The survey added that 66 percent say they would favor high-speed rail if it cost less than the current estimate of $64 billion over the next 20 years. In this Feb. 26, 2016, file photo, the supports for a 1,600-foot-viaduct to carry high-speed rail trains across the Fresno River are seen under construction near Madera, Calif. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli, File) Newsoms response Dan Newman, Newsoms campaign spokesman, described Villaraigosas claim about shifting positions this way: The statement is extremely misleading at best, he said in an email. Villaraigosa is simply trying to score political points with a disingenuous cheap shot, by blithely ignoring the fact that the project being discussed today is significantly different than what voters supported in 2008. The spokesman said Newsom has never opposed high-speed rail. Instead, Newsom publicly scrutinized the projects business plan when cost estimates ballooned to nearly $100 billion and questioned Gov. Jerry Browns plans to use cap and trade funds for it, the spokesman said. Scrutinizing the business plan is very different from opposing (high-speed rail), Newman added. He said Newsoms comment in the 2014 radio interview about redirecting money away from the project was referring to redirecting cap and trade money away from it, not the state bond money passed by voters. He said a statement from Newsoms office in March 2014 clarifies Newsoms consistent support even as he questioned the projects finances: The lieutenant governor has long supported high speed rail and still does, but this project in its current form gives him pause, Newsoms spokeswoman Andrea Koskey, told Buzzfeed News for anarticleon March 27, 2014. He added that Newsoms statements of support in more recent years are also consistent with previous comments. Experts we spoke with were split on the claim. Sacramento State Political Science ProfessorWesley Husseysaid Villaraigosas claim about Newsom vacillating on the project isnt right. I don't think it's a fair assessment, the professor said in an email.Newsom came out several years ago with serious doubts about the high speed rail, but I don't think he's ever said definitely he would stop the program if he became governor. Maybe he fluctuates from lukewarm to a soft no, but that's not the same as consistently changing his opinion. Key to our assessment, however, was the 2014 radio interview and Newsoms own admission that he agreed with the growing public sentiment that opposed the train at that time. We spoke with one more expert. Lou Thompson is chairman of theCalifornia High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group, an independent oversight group that issues reports to the Legislature on the project. He declined to comment about whether he believed Newsom had definitely switched his stance on high speed rail. Thompson said, however, that redirecting cap and trade money away from the project in 2014, as Newsom suggested doing, would have made the projects future a lot more difficult. Asked whether such a move would have effectively killed the project, Thompson said: I dont know what other source of money they would have found. He described cap and trade money as the key revenue source for the project both then and now, given the restrictions on other sources, including the bond funds. Our rating Villaraigosa claimed Newsom has essentially flip-flopped in his support for Californias high-speed rail, saying he was for it, before hes against it, and then hes for it again. Villaraigosas campaign cited articles showing Newsom strongly backed the project a decade ago. It also pointed to aradio interview in 2014in which Newsom admitted that he shared the publics growing opposition to high-speed rail. He also suggested redirecting funds away from the project, a move that the head of the projects oversight panel said would have made building high-speed rail a lot more difficult. A spokesman for Newsoms campaign defended the candidates stance, saying Newsom has scrutinized project costs as they have soared beyond initial estimates. He said, however, that Newsom has never turned his back on high-speed rail. We found Villaraigosa pointed to key evidence, particularly the 2014 radio interview, that shows Newsoms stance had shifted, at least for that moment in time. In fairness to Newsom, hes consistently expressed concern that the project no longer represents what voters supported in 2008 and that his main worry was its cost. Villaraigosas statement could have used this additional information. We rate his claim 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. In April 2018, the right-leaning Turning Point USA posted a Facebook meme which attacked Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders for once supporting a proposal to "dump nuclear waste" in a "poor Latino community in Texas": meme In the 90's, Trump supported a bill to dump nuclear waste in Sierra Blanca, a poor Latino community in Texas where the average yearly income was $8,000. When asked if he would visit the site, he said "Absolutely not."  Oh wait! Never mind, that was Bernie Sanders! And he actually co-sponsored the bill! The meme was re-posted by the "Capitalism" Facebook page: re-posted   In 1997 and 1998, Sanders did indeed support a measure that gave Congressional approval to an arrangement that would have allowed the states of Maine and Vermont to transport and dispose of nuclear waste at a proposed site in the sparsely populated town of Sierra Blanca in Hudspeth County, close to the Mexican border in West Texas. As the meme suggests, Sierra Blanca was (and is) a predominantly Latino community. U.S. Census Bureau records show that in 2000, two years after the proposal, 73 percent of the town's 533 residents identified as Hispanic or Latino, and almost all of those as Mexican. In 2016, some 69 percent of Sierra Blanca's 557 residents identified as Hispanic or Latino.  records In 1999, the annual per capita income of Sierra Blanca residents was $10,768, which was 45 percent lower than that of Texans at large ($19,617). In 2016, the median household income in Sierra Blanca was estimated to be $41,875 as compared to $54,727 in the state of Texas.  income income As an Independent member of the U.S. House of Representatives for Vermont, Sanders was one of 23 co-sponsors of House Resolution 629, which called for Congress to give its consent to the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact  an agreement between the states of Texas, Maine, and Vermont.  629 Speaking on the floor of the house in October 1997, Sanders said he was in "strong support" of the resolution for environmental reasons, and stressed that he personally was opposed to the use of nuclear power, but that the waste it produces had to be disposed of as safely as possible. It is worth reading a relatively extensive excerpt from his remarks in order to get a good sense of Sanders' stated reasoning: remarks Let me touch, for a moment, upon the environmental aspects of this issue. And let me address it from the perspective of someone who is an opponent of nuclear power, opposes the construction of nuclear power plants and if he had his way, would shut down the existing nuclear power plants as quickly and as safely as we could.  One of the reasons that many of us oppose nuclear power plants is that when this technology was developed, there was not a lot of thought given as to how we dispose of the nuclear waste. But...the reality, as others have already pointed out, is that the waste is here. We can't wish it away. It exists in power plants in Maine and Vermont, it exists in hospitals, it is here...So the real environmental issue here is not to wish it away, but to make the judgement, the important environmental judgement as to what is the safest way of disposing of the nuclear waste that has been created.  ...Leaving the radioactive waste at the site where it was produced -- despite the fact that that site might be extremely unsafe in terms of long-term isolation of the waste, and was never intended to be a long-term depository of low-level waste -- is horrendous environmental policy...No reputable scientist of environmentalist believes that the geology of Vermont or Maine would be a good place for this waste. In the humid climate of Vermont and Maine, it is more likely that ground water will come in contact with that waste and carry off radioactive elements to the accessible environment.  There is widespread scientific evidence to suggest, on the other hand, that locations in Texas -- some of which receive less than 12 inches of rainfall a year, a region where the groundwater table is more than 700 feet below the surface -- is a far better location for this waste. This is not a political assertion, it is a geological and environmental reality.  A video clip of his comments can be viewed here. here Congress passed the resolution comfortably by 305 votes to 117, as did the Senate, by 78 votes to 15. passed Senate The proposal had much stronger support among Republicans than among Democrats. GOP members of the House voted 197-26 in favor, while Democrats were more evenly split, voting 107-91 in favor. In the Senate, not a single Republican opposed H.R. 629, while 51 of them voted for it. Fifteen Democratic Senators opposed the bill, while 27 of them voted in support. At that time, five out six Senators from Texas, Vermont, and Maine were Republicans. All five of them voted in favor of the proposal. Both of Maine's Representatives voted for the disposal site, as did 10 out of the 13 Republican Congress members from Texas. In the House, the proposal had 23 co-sponsors. Eleven were Republicans, eleven were Democrats, and one was Sanders himself, an Independent. The author of the resolution was Joe Barton, a Republican from Texas.  Despite Congressional approval for the agreement, authorities in Texas ultimately rejected the proposal to establish a disposal site at Sierra Blanca. In October 1998, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission voted 3-0 against issuing a permit for the construction of a nuclear waste dump there. According to the Associated Press, commission chairman Barry McBee said the disposal site could have provided a much-needed economic boost to the area, but commission members were sufficiently concerned about safety issues to deny the permit.  Associated Press According to a September 1998 article in the Texas Observer, a group of activists opposed to the Sierra Blanca waste site approached Sanders at an anti-nuclear weapons rally in Vermont that year:  article Sanders left the stage, which surprised no one in the small Texas delegation. Earlier, he had told them, "My position is unchanged, and you're not gonna like it." When they asked if they would visit the site in Sierra Blanca, he said, "Absolutely not. I'm gonna be running for re-election in the state of Vermont." We contacted Bill Addison, a leading opponent of the Sierra Blanca proposal, who was identified in the Texas Tribune article as having attended that Springfield rally. He confirmed that he was present and corroborated the article's account of the activists' interaction with Sanders. We asked a spokesperson for Sanders whether he agrees that this exchange took place, but we did not receive a response to that specific question. Instead, the spokesperson offered a broader explanation and defense of the Senator's support of H.R. 629: The only reason Senator Sanders was ever involved is because the constitution requires Congress to approve interstate compacts. Texas Representative Joe Barton introduced such legislation in 1998, and twenty-three members of the Vermont, Texas and Maine congressional delegations cosponsored it.  The bill did not endorse a specific site  in fact, it did not mention Sierra Blanca at all. Nor did the bill override the local and state approval process. In the end, the Texas agency in charge of permitting ruled against the Sierra Blanca site, choosing another site in Texas instead. So, the process worked. The compact, much less the site selection were never Sen. Sanders idea. He disagrees with the very premise of the 1980 law that led to the Texas-Vermont-Maine compact, since it put the burden of disposing of low-level waste on the states, rather the nuclear energy companies that produced much of the waste. In fact, he has long been an opponent of nuclear power precisely it produces waste for which we still have no solution (the Texas site is just for low-level contamination  there is still no plan for all of the high-level nuclear waste all across the country).  Sanders' spokesperson is right to point out that the text of H.R. 629 did not mention Sierra Blanca, but the town was widely known and discussed as the proposed location of the disposal site throughout the time that Sanders and others supported the bill. For example, in April 1998 (three months before Sanders and others in the House voted in favor of H.R. 629) the late Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone condemned the proposed Sierra Blanca site from the floor of the Senate: condemned What has troubled me from the very beginning is that this legislation would result in the dumping of low-level radioactive waste in a small, poor, majority-Latino community in rural West Texas  a town called Sierra Blanca. The Texas legislation in 1991 identified the area where the dump will be located. The Texas Waste Authority designated the site near Sierra Blanca in 1992. A draft license was issued in 1996. Whether we like it or not, this knowledge makes us responsible for what happens to Sierra Blanca.  The Turning Point USA meme is accurate in claiming that Sanders supported and co-sponsored a proposal that would have seen nuclear waste from Maine, Vermont and (principally) Texas disposed of at a site in Sierra Blanca, and that Sierra Blanca was (and still is) a predominately Latino and relatively poor community. The meme leaves out important and relevant context by failing to mention the key role that Republicans played in crafting and passing that proposal; instead, it singles out Sanders and does not offer the reader any inkling of his environmentalist rationale. Sanders stood to gain politically from supporting a plan that would remove nuclear waste from his constituency, but this does not necessarily mean he wasn't motivated by a sincere desire to dispose of the waste in a manner and location that he genuinely believed to be safer. However, whether or not you believe his stated rationale was sincere, no proper analysis of a particular politician's policy position or Congressional vote should leave out the reasons put forward by that politician. Finally, we were not able to corroborate the "Absolutely not" quotation attributed to Sanders, and his spokesperson did not address our question about it.  Hershey, Olive. "Sanders to Sierra Blanca: 'Drop Dead!'"
 The Texas Observer. 11 September 1998. Barton, Joe. "House Resolution 629 -- Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Consent Act."
 U.S. House of Representatives/Congressional Record. 20 September 1998 U.S. House of Representatives. "Debate Transcript --Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Consent Act."
 Congressional Record. 7 October 1997. Associated Press. "Texas Agency Denies Permit for Waste Site."
 New York Times/Associated Press. 23 October 1998. U.S. Senate. "Debate Transcript --The Texas/Maine/Vermont Compact."
 Congressional Record. 3 April 1998. Updated [16 June 2018]: Added comment from Bill Addison. Claim:   Two Idaho pastors were threatened with legal action and arrests for refusing to perform gay weddings.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] Facebook has a Fox News Radio article about a couple, Don and Evelyn Knapp, that own an Idaho wedding chapel and are supposedly facing arrest if they don't perform same sex marriages. Is this for real?  Are officials in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, forcing Christian ministers to perform same sex marriage against their religious beliefs?  What has happened to "separation of church and state"?  Does it now only apply to churches preaching against  orruption in government?  Has the First Amendment been rewritten so that the state can now dictate religious beliefs and practices? Origins:  On 18 October 2014, the Christian legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) announced in a press release that they were filing a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order on behalf of pastors Donald and Evelyn Knapp of Couer d'Alene, Idaho. According to the announcement, the move was to prevent the city of Couer d'Alene from "forcing [the] two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples." The ADF's release stated that Donald and Evelyn Knapp faced the threat of jail or exorbitant fines if they refused to officiate gay weddings: City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its "non-discrimination" ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho's voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman. "The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. "Many have denied that pastors would ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith, but that's what is happening here  and it's happened this quickly. The city is on seriously flawed legal ground, and our lawsuit intends to ensure that this couple's freedom to adhere to their own faith as pastors is protected just as the First Amendment intended." On 14 October 2014, three days prior to the ADF's press release, the Idaho state government had announced that they would no longer oppose the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, prompting a number of same-sex couples to obtain licenses and marry in the days immediately following the state's announcement:  The marriages came a day after Gov. Butch Otter and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, Republicans who had fought to maintain the state's ban on gay marriage, ended their opposition to a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that ordered the state to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. The localized battle in Idaho received national attention on 20 October 2014, when Fox News opinion columnist Todd Starnes published an article about the ADF's lawsuit on behalf of the Knapps: According to the lawsuit, the wedding chapel is registered with the state as a "religious corporation" limited to performing "one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible." But the chapel is also registered as a for-profit A Couer dAlene deputy city attorney reportedly said on local television that for-profit wedding chapels could not legally turn away a gay couple without risking a misdemeanor citation, and that the Hitching Post "would probably be considered a place of public accommodation that would be subject to the ordinance." The Knapps maintain that the City Attorneys office made the same assertion in telephone conversations with them, while the city claims they never threatened to take any legal action against the couple.  The difference between churches and businesses is at the heart of the Couer d'Alene ministers' legal dispute, and one eagle-eyed blogger made a compelling discovery in respect to that delineation, noticing that a cached version of theKnapp's "Hitching Post" web site described their services as follows: discovery cached The Hitching Post specializes in small, short, intimate, and private weddings for couples who desire a traditional Christian wedding ceremony. We also perform wedding ceremonies of other faiths as well as civil weddings. We believe that every wedding is special and realize how important this day is to those who walk through our doors.  At some point in time around Idaho's issuance of same-sex wedding licenses on 15 October and the ADF's press release on 18 October 2014, the Knapps altered the copy on their web site. As of 20 October 2014, the "About" description on the site no longer included references to the civil and non-denominational services that it had displayed just a few days earlier: description The Hitching Post specializes in small, short, intimate, and private weddings for couples who desire a traditional Christian wedding ceremony. We believe that every wedding is special and realize how important this day is to those who walk through our doors. The ordinance under which the Knapps maintained their religious freedoms were restricted [PDF], issued by the city of Couer d'Alene on 4 June 2014, exempted "religious corporations" from its provisions: PDF Notwithstanding any other provision herein, nothing in this Chapter is intended to alter or abridge other rights, protections, or privileges secured under state and/or federal law. This ordinance shall be construed and applied in a manner consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence regarding the freedom of speech and exercise of religion. This chapter does not apply to: Religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies. Although the City of Couer d'Alene agreed that the Hitching Post was exempted from the anti-discrimination ordinance, the Knapps nonetheless forged ahead with a lawsuit against the jurisdiction. In March 2015, Couer d'Alene television station KXLY reported that the Knapps were maintaining that the city ordinance had cost them money, despite the fact that they had closed their business' doors by choice: reported The Hitching Post wants the city to pay them for wages lost during the time they thought the city was going to force them to perform weddings. The Hitching Post made their stance on gay marriage very clear last year when the initial ban was overturned. Last May they said they would close their doors if they were forced to perform same sex marriages. The Hitching Post now wants the city to pay them for the days the chapel shut down even though they did so by choice. The business also says it lost customers and received hate mail because of media attention. However, the city said they have made it clear the Hitching Post is classified as a "religious organization" and is exempt, whether it's for profit or not. City spokesperson Keith Erickson wrote in a statement that the city "never threatened any legal action against the Hitching Post, nor does it intend to do so." A  2 April 2015 news article added that the chapel closures cited by the Knapps in their suit against the city included days on which same-sex marriage had not yet been legalized in Idaho:  Boise-based attorney Kirtlan Naylor wrote in the city's legal response, that while the Knapps claim they lost income when they closed the Hitching Post because they would be in violation of the ordinance, they never allege "that they had any weddings scheduled on those dates, or that anybody came to their business requesting a wedding on those dates." "More so, same-sex marriage was not legal in Idaho on Oct. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14," the motion states. "Additionally, on Oct. 15, 2014, when same-sex marriage became legal, Plaintiffs would not have been subject to the ordinance because they were exempt. Therefore, they were under no legitimate threat of prosecution which would require them to close their business on that date." According to the Hitching Post owners' complaint, the Knapps closed their business due to "a constant state of fear that they would be arrested and prosecuted if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony." However, the article referenced above also reiterated a city spokesman's statement that officials "have never threatened to jail them, or take legal action of any kind" against them. Last updated:  7 July 2015    Starnes, Todd.   "City Threatens to Arrest Ministers Who Refuse to Perform Same-Sex Weddings."   Fox News.  20 October 2014. Editor's note: As of April 20, 2023, Twitter had droppedall "state-affiliated" and "government-funded" labels on the accounts of government officials and media outlets, including the CBC. dropped On April 17, 2023, several social media posts surfaced claiming that Twitter, under Elon Musk's leadership, had labeled the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) as "69% Government-funded Media." The claim was true. several social media posts  As of this writing on April 18, CBC's Twitter profile indeed included the label "69% Government-funded Media" above its bio reading, "The official CBC Twitter. Bringing you the best of Canada." CBC's Twitter profile Initially, the figure was reportedly 70%, according to a screenshot shared by Musk. It was unclear when, exactly, the social media platform decreased the number by 1% in what some observers took to be an allusion to a sex joke.Sharing a screenshot depicting the "69%" figure, Musktweetedin the early hours of April 18: "Canadian Broadcasting Corp said they're 'less than 70% government-funded', so we corrected the label." screenshot shared by Musk allusion to a sex joke tweeted The "government-funded media" label wasattachedafter the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, Pierre Poilievre, posted a message on social mediaasking for it. "I believe that Twitter should apply the Government-funded Media label to the CBC's various news-related accounts, including @CBC, @CBCNew and @CBCAlerts," wrote Poilievre, who is challenging Justin Trudeau as prime minister, in theletter. CBC's new "government-funded" designation also followed Twitter'smove to label Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Media (NPR) "government-funded media," and those media outlets' subsequent decision to go silent on the platform. As far as we can determine, no other accounts labeled as government-funded media had a percentage attached to the label. posted a message letter For the purposes of this fact check, we are not attempting to confirm, nor deny, whether the label was appropriate or accurate considering CBC's budget composition. Rather, we are focusing whether such a designation was actually made. That was true. The CBC receives some funding through Canadian Parliament appropriations. (According toCBC's annual financial report,the media outlet received $1.24 billion (in Canadian dollars) in public funding through parliamentary appropriations in 2021-2022. That accounts to roughly 66% of that year's revenue.)However,the "69%" figure was not seemingly based on the factual makeup of CBC's budget. Rather, it appeared to be an instance of Musk thumbing his nose at the CBC (and possibly making a joke about a sex position, which would not have been out of character for Musk). CBC's annual financial report would not have been out of character When we asked Twitter's communications team how, or why, it picked the number to supposedly depict the proportion of CBC's budget that is government funding, we got a poop emoji autoreply. (Musk instituted that autoreply to all questions from journalists on March 19.) autoreply We asked CBC spokesperson Leon Mar  about Twitter's recent labeling of the media outlet's Twitter profile, and the spokesperson said, "With regard to the latest from Elon Musk,this is not a serious response. Journalistic independence is not a game." this The CBC official said the real issue was that "Twitter's definition of 'Government-funded Media' means [that account is] open to editorial interference by government," or that it takes editorial direction from government officials. The spokesperson shared a statement from CBC Editor-in-Chief Brodie Fenlon'sin which the top editor said, "[The] government has no  zero involvement in our editorial content or journalism." Twitter's definition statement Considering the government money that helps fund CBC's operations, Michael Geist, who is a Canada Research Chair in internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa, said "publicly-funded media" would be a more accurate designation on the media outlet's Twitter profile, rather than "government-funded media." The former group, according to Geist'sinterpretation of Twitter's policies, "includes media organizations with public financing and does not reference government involvement in editorial content." according to Geist'sinterpretation On April 20, Twitter removed all "government-funded" and "state-affiliated" profile labels, including those on CBC accounts. removed Goswami, Rohan. "Twitter Drops Labels for President Joe Biden, State-Affiliated and Government-Funded Media."CNBC, 21 Apr. 2023, https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/21/twitter-drops-government-related-account-labels.html.
Government and Media Account Labels on Twitter. https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/government-media-labels. Accessed 18 Apr. 2023. Https://Cbc.Radio-Canada.ca/En/Impact-and-Accountability/Finances/Annual-Reports/Ar-2021-2022/Highlights/Financial-Highlights. https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/impact-and-accountability/finances/annual-reports/ar-2021-2022/highlights/financial-highlights. Accessed 18 Apr. 2023. Https://Cbc.Radio-Canada.ca/En/Media-Centre/Cbc-Radio-Canada-Is-Not-Governement-Funded-Media. https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/media-centre/cbc-radio-canada-is-not-governement-funded-media. Accessed 18 Apr. 2023. Https://Cbc.Radio-Canada.ca/En/Media-Centre/Statement-Regarding-Twitter-Labelling-Cbc-Radio-Canada-as-Government-Funded-Media. https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/media-centre/statement-regarding-twitter-labelling-cbc-radio-canada-as-government-funded-media. Accessed 18 Apr. 2023. News , Brodie Fenlon . CBC. "Why We Have Paused Our CBC News Twitter Accounts | CBC News." CBC, 18 Apr. 2023, https://www.cbc.ca/news/editorsblog/cbc-twitter-news-1.6813747. 'Twitter Labels CBC Account as "Government-Funded Media"'.Thestar.Com, 16 Apr. 2023, https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2023/04/16/twitter-labels-cbc-account-as-government-funded-media.html. Update [April 21, 2023]: Noted that Twitter removed all "government-funded" and "state-affiliated" labels throughout the platform as of April 20. Ted Cruzs tax plan, envisioningtax returns that fit on postcards, would whack businesses twice over, Marco Rubio says. We wondered about that. In the Jan. 14, 2016, Fox Business Network Republican presidential debate in North Charleston, S.C., Sen. Rubio of Florida said that under the plan advocated by Sen. Cruz of Texas, businesses basically will have to pay a tax, both on the money they make, but they also have to pay taxes on the money that they pay their employees. A moment later, Rubio said Cruzs plan does not eliminate the corporate (income) tax or the payroll tax. Businesses will now have to pay 16 percent on the money they make. They will also have to pay 16 percent on the money they pay their employees. Cruz disputed that characterization, saying in part that a critical piece that Marco seems to be missing is that this 16 percent business flat tax enables us to eliminate the corporate income tax. It goes away. Cruzs plan replaces the corporate income tax, the payroll tax and others with a flat tax. Does it also make businesses pay 16 percent on profits and payroll, as Rubio said? Cruzs plan outlined After emailing Rubios campaign about how he reached his 16 percent conclusions, we turned to Cruzs tax plan asoutlined by his campaign. Under the Simple Flat Tax, Cruz says on a campaign webpage, the current seven rates of personal income tax will collapse into a single low rate of 10 percent. For a family of four, the first $36,000 will be tax-free. The Child Tax Credit will remain in place, Cruz proposes, and the plan revamps the earned-income tax credit while preserving deductions for charitable contributions and mortgage interest payments. Heres the flat-tax postcard as envisioned by Cruz:  SOURCE:Web page,The Simple Tax Plan,Ted Cruz presidential campaign (viewed Jan. 20, 2016) Next up: the 16 percent element. On Cruzs website, we spotted no direct indication the 16 percent would apply to payroll spending. For businesses, Cruz says there, the corporate income tax will be eliminated. It will be replaced by a simple Business Flat Tax at a single 16 percent rate. The current payroll tax system will be abolished, while maintaining full funding for Social Security and Medicare. Cruz further says the business flat tax will be based on revenues minus expenses such as equipment, computers, and other business investments. In general, Cruz says, his proposed tax overhaul will deliver a tremendous economic boost, according to the well-respected Tax Foundation, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit thatdescribes itselfas a leading independent tax policy research organization. Independent breakdowns We fetched the foundationsOctober 2015 analysisof Cruzs plan which, the foundation said, would replace the corporate income tax and all payroll taxes with a 16 percent Business Transfer Tax, or subtraction method value-added tax. In addition, his plan would repeal a number of complex features of the current tax code. Farther along, the analysis spelled out a payroll aspect. Specifically, the foundation said, Cruzs plan: Enacts a broad-based, 16 percent Business Transfer Tax or value-added tax. This tax is levied on all business profits, less capital investment. This would include the payroll of business, government, and nonprofit institutions, as well as net imports. The tax would exempt from taxation the purchase of health insurance. A business transfer tax is also often known as a subtraction-method value-added tax. While its base is identical in economic terms to that of the credit-invoice VAT seen in many OECD countries, it is calculated from corporate accounts, not on individual transactions. The foundation also said: Under current law, some taxes on labor are explicitly levied on nominal wages, reducing take-home pay, while others are implicitly passed on to workers through lower nominal wages. The business transfer tax would also fall substantially on payrolls, but it would do so entirely through implicit reductions in nominal wages rather than explicit reductions in take-home pay. Thats a bit gobbledy-gooky for us. A foundation official, Kyle Pomerleau, told us by phone and email that what Rubio said largely holds up, though it would be wrong to conclude businesses under Cruzs plan would pay 16 percent on the same money twice. That is, Pomerleau elaborated, Cruzs plan eliminates the existing payroll tax, which is 15.3 percent of wages (half of that paid by employers, the other half by employees), but the plan counts payroll expenditures as part of net business profits, which are taxed at 16 percent. Even though his plan gets rid of the payroll tax, Pomerleau emailed, his new Business Flat Tax will end up taxing that payroll by disallowing its deduction at the business level. Another authority, Joe Rosenberg of theUrban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, told us by phone that Rubio was accurate about Cruzs plan presuming he meant what most people define as profit by his phrase what you make. Rosenberg walked us through how he sees Cruzs plan working: Say a business buys something for 50 cents at wholesale and has to pay its employees 50 cents, accumulating $1 in costs. Then the business sells the something for $1.10, drawing a 10-cent profit. Under the Cruz plan, Rosenberg said, the business pays the flat tax solely on the 60-cent difference between the $1.10 in sales and the 50 cents spent on the wholesale purchase. And, Rosenberg noted, theres another way to pin what Cruzs plan subjects to the 16 percent tax -- by isolating what the business makes, the 10 cents, and then adding the 50 cents in employee payroll. Its very fair to interpret what Sen. Rubio said as correct, Rosenberg said, though its also worth mention (again) that Cruzs plan eliminates existing payroll and income taxes. Broadly, Rosenberg didnt agree that Cruzs plan whipsaws businesses, saying: Its a change in the way theyre taxed. Its not taxing something twice. We didnt hear back from Rubios camp about his claim nor did Cruz aides engage. Footnote: A Jan. 14, 2016,foundation postby economist Alan Cole says Cruz and Rubio arent proposing entirely distinct tax approaches. In fact, Cole wrote, if you put together two taxes from Rubios plan (and fiddle with the rates), you can actually synthetically construct the business flat tax from Cruzs plan! Our ruling Rubio said that under Cruzs tax plan, businesses will now have to pay 16 percent on the money they make. They will also have to pay 16 percent on the money they pay their employees. Under Cruzs plan, that rate applies both to net income and payroll expenditures though the way this description was phrased by Rubio merits clarification. That is, the 16 percent would not be applied to what a business makes and separately applied again to money paid to employees. Also unsaid: The proposed tax would replace taxes including payroll and income taxes. We rate this claim 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.