Which political party is better at decreasing the number of abortions?
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 In September 2020, social media users began circulating a text meme charting the decrease in abortion rates in the U.S. during previous presidential administrations, attributing the greater drop in those rates during Democratic administrations to a difference in approach (i.e., making it illegal vs. making it unnecessary):     As we noted in an earlier article on a similar topic, following the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that protected a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction, the abortion rate rose immediately afterward until it peaked in the 1980s, and it has fairly consistently declined since that peak through presidential administrations of both parties: article Following nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, the total number, rate (number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 1544 years), and ratio (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) of reported abortions increased rapidly, reaching the highest levels in the 1980s before decreasing at a slow yet steady pace.     Although it is true that the abortion rate has experienced greater declines during Democratic administrations than Republican ones, we can't draw any definitive conclusion that, as the meme tries to suggest, this difference is primarily due to varying approaches by the two main political parties. The simple idea presented by the meme has a number of flaws, chief among them that political factors that might influence the abortion rate (e.g., policies, legislation, judicial appointments and rulings) do not neatly conform to presidential terms of office -- what takes place during one administration generally continues to have an effect throughout subsequent administrations. As well, events occurring at state and local levels (not necessarily directly tied to federal actions) can have a substantial impact on the availability and prevalence of abortions. More important, though, is that we cannot definitively determine to what extent political factors influence the abortion rate. As the Guttmacher Institute (a pro-abortion-rights research organization) observed, recent declines in the abortion rate appear to have been driven not primarily by abortion restrictions but by a broader decline in pregnancies: observed Abortion restrictions target either individuals ability to access the procedure (such as by imposing coercive waiting periods and counseling requirements) or providers ability to offer it (such as through unnecessary and intentionally burdensome regulations). Any one of these restrictions could result in some people being forced to continue pregnancies they were seeking to end; this could, in theory, lower the abortion rate. With the available evidence, it is impossible to pinpoint exactly which factors drove recent declines, and to what degree. However, previous Guttmacher analyses have documented that abortion restrictions, while incredibly harmful at an individual level, were not the main driver of national declines in the abortion rate ... Rather, the decline in abortions appears to be part of a broader decline in pregnancies, as evidenced by fewer births over the same period. What's driving that decline in pregnancies, then? We don't know that for sure, either, but likely a combination of social, cultural, economic, medical, and political factors: combination Experts say the decline isnt due to a single cause, but rather a combination of several factors, including changing economics, delays in childbirth by women pursuing jobs and education, the greater availability of contraception, and a decline in teen pregnancies. The trend seen in the United States is also seen in much of the developed world, including Western Europe, said Dr. John Rowe, a professor at Columbia Universitys Mailman School of Public Health. One important factor driving this is the changing roles of women in society, Rowe said. In general women are getting married later in life, he explained. They are leaving the home and launching their families later. [Dr. Helen Kim, an associate professor at Northwestern Universitys Feinberg School of Medicine] said the concept of the ideal family size may be changing. There are shifts where having smaller families is a trend, she added. I cant speak on this as a sociologist, but this is what Ive seen among my peers and colleagues. One of the biggest factors is the decline in teen pregnancies, Rowe said. Thats good news ... And that makes a huge difference to their lives. The Guttmacher Institute posited a similar mix of factors to explain the decline in the abortion rate: Because both abortions and births [have] declined, it is clear that there were fewer pregnancies overall in the United States ... The big question is why. One possible contributing factor is contraceptive access and use. Since 2011, contraception has become more accessible, as most private health insurance plans are now required by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to cover contraceptives without out-of-pocket costs. In addition, thanks to expansions in Medicaid and private insurance coverage under the ACA, the proportion of women aged 1544 nationwide who were uninsured dropped more than 40% between 2013 and 2017. There is evidence that use of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods -- specifically IUDs and implants -- increased through at least 2014, especially among women in their early 20s, a population that accounts for a significant proportion of all abortions Another possible contributing factor might be a decline in sexual activity. Findings from one national survey suggest a long-term increase in the number of people in the United States -- mostly younger men -- reporting not having sex in the past year. Yet another possibility is that infertility is increasing in the United States, thereby reducing the chances of getting pregnant and subsequently seeking to obtain an abortion. More generally, there are a host of other potential factors that could be driving declines in pregnancy rates, from individuals evolving desires about whether and when to become parents to peoples changing economic and social circumstances. Finally, it is possible that ... there could have been an increase in self-managed abortions happening outside of medical facilities, which the census would be unable to capture. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also offered a combination of potential explanations for lower abortion rates: combination Multiple factors influence the incidence of abortion including the availability of abortion providers; state regulations, such as mandatory waiting periods, parental involvement laws, and legal restrictions on abortion providers; increasing acceptance of nonmarital childbearing; shifts in the racial/ethnic composition of the U.S. population; and changes in the economy and the resulting impact on fertility preferences and access to health care services, including contraception. As we stated four years ago, "causation between the presidency and abortion rates [is] difficult to demonstrate in any case, because it is hard to draw a straight line between federal government policy (let alone presidential policy) and abortion procurement." That observation remains true today. Carroll, Linda and Shamard Charles, M.D.  "Americans Aren't Making Enough Babies to Replace Ourselves."
  NBC News.  13 January 2019. Nash, Elizabeth and Joerg Dreweke.  "The U.S. Abortion Rate Continues to Drop: Once Again, State Abortion Restrictions Are Not the Main Driver."
  Guttmacher Institute.  18 September 2019. Kasprak, Alex.  "Abortion Rates Fall During Democratic Administrations and Rise During Republican Ones."
  Snopes.com.  11 November 2016.
Dennis Kucinich became a lame-duck member of Congress after the 10th District he has represented since 1997 was redrawn out of existence and he lost a primary contest to another sitting Democrat, Marcy Kaptur, in the new Ohio 9th District.But Kucinich has not stopped working on the issues that have engaged him.He issued a news release and video on Nov. 2 supporting HR 4310, the bill he introduced to end the childhood obesity subsidy.Congress -- with your tax dollars -- subsidizes the marketing efforts of fast food and junk food companies by as much as $19 billion over 10 years, thereby subsidizing the childhood obesity epidemic, he said.Do fast food and junk food companies really enjoy an advertising subsidy? PolitiFact Ohio decided to dig in.Kucinich builds his case first by noting that childhood obesity -- which has more than tripled in the past 30 years, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention -- has been linked to the influence of targeted marketing, though partial blame does lie with a more sedentary lifestyle and a worsening diet.He cites several prominent studies in support, with the most recent study coming from the Institute of Medicine, the health arm of the National Academy of Sciences. It says: Aggressive marketing of high-calorie foods to children and adolescents has been identified as one of the major contributors to childhood obesity. (Others with the same conclusion included the American Heart Association, the American Journal of Public Health and the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University.) Kucinich's bill would prohibit any company from claiming a tax deduction for the expense of marketing that is directed at children to promote the consumption of food at fast food restaurants or of food of poor nutritional quality.Under current law, fast food marketers get the same break that other businesses do. The federal tax code allows companies to deduct reasonable and necessary expenses of marketing and advertising from their income taxes.How is that a subsidy?The way the federal funding system works, Kucinich said, is that if we give a tax break in one place, we need to replace that lost income from somewhere else, like with higher taxes from the rest of us. In other words, this tax break is a massive subsidy for the junk food and fast food industry.The question then is how much the deduction, or tax break, is worth.According to a report to Congress from the Federal Trade Commission, the most recent we could find, the fast food industry spent nearly $2 billion in 2006 on marketing and advertising specifically aimed at children. That would yield about $700 million in tax revenue at the top corporate tax rate of 35 percent.A report in the New England Journal of Medicine put the marketing budgets for kids' foods at $10 billion annually -- which would yield $3.5 billion in revenue.A study in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity said it It is unclear how much money is spent on food advertising specifically directed at children and adolescents, but put the total for advertising, youth-targeted promotions and public relations and packaging especially designed for children at $10.5 billion.The Economic Policy Institute estimated 10-year tax savings of $15 billion through legislation to end subsidies for junk and fast food advertising to children to promote health.Kucinich relied on Congress nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, which estimated on a very preliminary basis that his legislation could raise $15 billion to $19 billion in additional federal revenue over the 10-year budget period.That is as much as $19 billion, as Kucinich asserted, though the committee also noted that unsettled issues surrounding his bill would affect its impact and the revenue it would raise. Those issues primarily include defining fast food and determining what advertising is primarily directed at children.What's our take-home?PolitiFact examined Kucinich's legislation two years ago, when he made a statement about it that we found relied too firmly on a high-end estimate of its potential tax saving and implied a direct cash payout by taxpayers to the food industry. He chose his words more carefully this time.His assertion that the tax code provides a subsidy of as much as $19 billion needs additional information for clarification, but it is well supported.On the Truth-O-Meter, his claim rates Mostly True. On 14 March 2017, Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-VT) office posted an image on his Facebook page criticizing the lack of federally-funded family leave in the U.S. by highlighting how similar policies are implemented in three other countries: Facebook   Sanders, who ran for the Democratic Party's 2016 presidential nomination, expressed support for a federal family leave program in the U.S., as stated on his campaign website: stated In my view, every worker in America should be guaranteed at least twelve weeks of paid family and medical leave. Thats why I am a proud cosponsor of the FAMILY Act, introduced by Senator [Kirsten] Gillibrand, which does just that. Under this measure, every employee would receive twelve weeks of paid family and medical leave: to take care of a baby, to help a family member who has been diagnosed with cancer or another serious medical condition, or to care for themselves if they become seriously ill. This would be funded through an insurance program, like Social Security. Workers would pay into it with every paycheck, at the price of roughly one cup of coffee per week. There is no reason not to pass this bill now. His office's claim that the U.S. and Papua New Guinea are alone "out of 188 countries" in lacking federal family leave programs is based on a 2015 study by the International Labour Organization (ILO) reporting that statistic. Sanders' post was also accompanied by an image listing individual claims about parental leave policies in Canada, Germany, and Norway.  study Canada allows parents to take 35 weeks' worth of leave while still receiving up to 55 percent of their regular salaries. The country's paid leave benefits are applied as part of its employment insurance (EI) program, which states: program For most people, the basic rate for calculating EI benefits is 55% of your average insurable weekly earnings, up to a maximum amount. As of January 1, 2017, the maximum yearly insurable earnings amount is $51,300. This means that you can receive a maximum amount of $543 per week. While parents can divide the 35 weeks of leave between themselves, mothers can take an additional 15 weeks as part of the program:  EI maternity benefits can be paid for a maximum period of 15 weeks. You cannot receive EI maternity benefits beyond 17 weeks after the expected or actual week of childbirth, whichever of the two is later. EI parental benefits can be paid for a maximum period of 35 weeks. The payments must be made within 52 weeks of the week your child was born or the week your child was placed with you for adoption. Parents seeking to take the paid leave must also meet criteria regarding length of employment, and while parental benefits are open to "biological, adoptive, or legally recognized parents while they are caring for their newborn or newly adopted child," maternity benefits are only available to a child's biological mother: To be eligible for EI maternity benefits, you must have accumulated at least 600 hours of insurable employment in your qualifying period. If you are a self-employed fisher, you must have earned $3,760 from fishing during the 31-week qualifying period immediately before the start of your benefit period. To be eligible for EI parental benefits, each parent who applies for benefits must have accumulated at least 600 hours of insurable employment in his or her qualifying period. If you are a self-employed fisher, you must have earned $3,760 from fishing during the 31-week qualifying period immediately before the start of your benefit period. In Norway, as Sanders' office stated, parents may take 49 weeks of parental leave while receiving 100 percent of their pay. But the Norwegian government's web site also notes that parents have another option that provides lesser coverage for a longer period of time: notes When you apply for parental benefit, you must choose between 100 percent or 80 percent degree of coverage The total benefit period for parental benefit in the case of a birth, is 49 weeks at 100 percent coverage, and 59 weeks at 80 percent coverage. The parents must choose the same degree of coverage. Expectant mothers are also required to use three of their benefit weeks prior to their child's birth and can start using their benefits up to 12 weeks before the child's due date, though only nine of those weeks would be withdrawn from their accrued leave time.  Adoptive parents also have two options: take 46 weeks off while receiving 100 percent of their pay, or take 56 weeks off at 80 percent of their pay. In Germany, there are two ways to take parental leave, one of which is mentioned in the post by Sanders' office: parents can each take between two and 12 months off while receiving "two-thirds of [their] previous income." Benefits range from at least 300 Euros a month to a maximum of 1,800 Euros a month. (Unemployed parents are also eligible for the benefits program.) receiving Parents who are already employed are each protected from losing their jobs while utilizing their family leave. However, parents taking the time off together can extend their benefits period to 14 months. Additionally, parents who participate in the "ElterngeldPlus" program can also add four months to their leaves if they each work up to 30 hours a week during their benefit period.  Parents seeking to take part in Germany's parental leave program must submit applications to their employer (if applicable) at least seven weeks before they intend to start taking the time off. Additionally, as of 1 July 2015 parents are eligible for up to 24 months of parental leave if their children are between the ages of two and seven.   Government of Canada.  "Employment Insurance Maternity and Parental Benefits." 
  Accessed 16 March 2017. Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration.  "Parental Benefit." 
  19 July 2013. [Danish] Federal Office for Migration and Refugees.  "Parental Allowance and Parental Leave."
   Accessed 16 March 2017. International Labour Organization.  "Social Protection for Maternity: Key Policy Trends and Statistics." 
  2015.  Sanders, Bernie.  "Real Family Values." 
  berniesanders.com. In her new book,Going Rogue, Sarah Palin said President Barack Obama's support for a cap and trade plan was misguided. The president has already admitted that the policy he seeks will cause our electricity bills to 'skyrocket.' Sadly, those hit hardest will be those who are already struggling to make ends meet, she wrote. Here, we're looking at Obama's comments on electricity bills. First, though, here's a quick summary of cap and trade for those who aren't famliar with it: To slow climate change, the government would set a cap on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. To comply, companies such as electric utilities must either upgrade to cleaner technologies or buy credits  also known as allowances  to continue polluting. Companies can buy and sell the credits as necessary to conduct their business. We were familiar with Obama's original quote from his campaign for president. It came from a videotaped interview he did with theSan Francisco Chronicleeditorial board very early in the campaign in January 2008.Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket, Obama told theChronicle. Coal-powered plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.Obama also said the biggest challenge would be making sure voters understand why such a plan is necessary. The problem is, can you get the American people to say this is really important, Obama said. Obama was talking in general about cap and trade, but there is now a specific bill making its way through Congress, written by Reps. Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, Democrats from California and Massachusetts, respectively. Their goal is to lower carbon pollution by 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. Under their plan, most pollution permits initially would be given out for free. But eventually, companies would have to buy those permits from the government. The latest version of the bill includes a number of measures to offset higher utility bills for consumers. Revenue from the permits would be passed to consumers through rebates or expanded efficiency programs, and an additional 15 percent of the revenue would go directly to low-income consumers. Legislators have opted to give 85 percent of the polluting permits away for free instead of putting them up for sale, as Obama pledged to do on the campaign trail. In theory, this approach should reduce costs to consumers. So how much would rates go up for consumers? It's hard to say. There has been much debate about the costs, and it's been difficult to come up with a reliable number because the bills have been changing as they move through the House and the Senate. Republicans have cited numbers as high as $3,000 per year, a claim that when it was combined with a falsehood on health care, earned ourPants on Firerating. Recent estimates by the Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency are much lower  between $80 and $340 a year, depending on income. So the climate debate has changed substantially since Obama sat down with theChroniclenearly two years ago.Despite those potential cost cuts, there's still little disagreement that consumers will pay for cap-and-trade, whether it's $3,100 a year or $340. Because that hasn't changed since Obama first said that utility rates would necessarily skyrocket, and because Palin got Obama's words right, we give Palin a True. In the years 2007, 2008, and 2009, Al Gore made statements about the possibility of a complete lack of summer sea ice in the Arctic by as early as 2013. While Gore attributed these predictions to scientists, they stemmed from a selective reading of aggressive estimates regarding future melting. The comments became a popular talking point for human-cause climate change deniers in 2014 and onward when the predictions, which in some cases were overstated, did not pan out:  On 10 December 2007, in his Nobel prize acceptance speech, Gore said: acceptance speech Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years. Here, Gore referred to a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) announcement and two different climate studies, one of which became the source for his most aggressive statements. On 21 September 2007, NOAA did announce that sea ice had hit its lowest recorded point in history. The second, more aggressive estimate for when summer sea ice would disappear in the Arctic came from a conference talk at the 2007 American Geophysical Fall Meeting, which was undertaken by researchers associated with the Naval Postgraduate School and was presented later that week. The BBC reported that the study did make the prediction that Gore claimed: conference talk BBC Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice. Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years. Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss. The BBC article also noted that Maslowskis group, frequently cited by Gore, often made predictions that were more aggressive than their peers': "Professor Maslowski's group, which includes co-workers at NASA and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), is well known for producing modelled dates that are in advance of other teams." On 13 December 2008, Gore appeared to have made a similarly flawed statement while speaking at the opening of a German natural history museum. Although transcripts and clear audio are hard to find, one video of the event documented Gore's saying that "The entire North polar ice cap may well be completely gone in 5 years. Given the dates presented, it is likely that Gore was once again referring to Maslowskis data, and unless he preceded his statement with some qualification not captured by the video, Gore's statement either intentionally or accidentally neglected to mention that this prediction, aggressive as it was, concerned only summer sea ice. opening video On 14 December 2009, during a speech at the Copenhagen Climate Conference, Gore cited newer research from the same group, saying: "These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years." cited That statement put Gore in hot water when Maslowski told rhe Times of London that his data did not allow for such a prediction:   told Its unclear to me how this figure was arrived at, Dr Maslowski said. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this. Mr Gores office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a ballpark figure several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore. The claim that Gore predicted an ice-free Arctic in 2014 is a simplification of these events. However, Gore was definitely guilty in these cases of cherry-picking science or playing loose with the details of that science. Gores statements gained the most viral attention in 2014 and 2015, both because these were years in which Gores statements implied an ice-free summer in the Arctic and because those years had relatively more arctic sea ice than preceding years. relatively more From a broad perspective, however, summer sea ice in the Arctic has in fact been declining at faster rates relative to 20th century, and the year 2016 tied with the year 2007 (the year highlighted by Gore in his Nobel speech) for the second least Arctic summer sea ice on record (the lowest recorded sea ice extent occurred in 2012). declining tied While the disappearance of summer sea ice is difficult to predict, a 2013 review of different approaches (including Maslowskis) summarized the range of various predictions for the first ice-free summer in the Arctic: review We have investigated three approaches to predicting 21st century summer Arctic sea ice loss as represented by trendsetters, stochasters, and modelers [three quantitative approaches used to make predictions]. At present, it is not possible to completely choose one approach over another as all approaches have strengths and weaknesses ... Time horizons for summer sea ice loss of these three approaches turns out to be roughly 2020, 2030, and 2040 respectively for trendsetters, stochasters, and modelers ... It is reasonable to conclude that Arctic sea ice loss is very likely to occur in the rst rather than the second half of the 21st century, with a possibility of loss within a decade or two. Arctic sea ice is without question on a declining trend, but Gore definitely erred in his use of preliminary projections and misrepresentations of research. Because Gore himself did not claim to have made these predictions, however, and because his statements applied specifically to summer sea ice in the Arctic, we rate the claim that Gore "predicted the ice caps will melt by 2014" as a mixture. Gore, Al  "Al Gore - Nobel Lecture"
  Nobeprize.org.  10 December 2007 Whelan, J. et al.  "Understanding Recent Variability in the Arctic Sea Ice Thickness and Volume - Synthesis of Model Results and Observations."
  AGU Fall Meeting, 2007.  December 2007. Amos, Jonathan.  "Arctic Summers Ice-Free 'by 2013.'"
  BBC News.  December 2007. Rhein-Zeitung.  "Al Gore hlt Rede zur Erffnung des Gondwana-Park."
  13 December 2008. FORA TV.  "COP15: Gore and Stre Report on Arctic's Melting Ice."
  14 December 2009. Devlin, Hannah et al.  "Inconvenient Truth for Al Gore as His North Pole Sums Don't Add Up."
  The [London] Times.  15 December 2009. Starr, Cindy et al.  Annual Arctic Sea Ice Minimum 1979-2015 with Area Graph."
  NASA Scientific Visualization Studio.  10 March 2016. National Snow and Ice Data Center.  "2016 Ties With 2007 for Second Lowest Arctic Sea Ice Minimum."
  15 September 2016. Overland, James E. and Muyin Wang.  When Will the Summer Arctic Be Nearly Sea Ice Free?"
  Geophysical Research Letters.  21 May 2013. President-elect Donald Trump put General Motors on notice for tariff-free imports of vehicles from Mexico, warning of heavy taxes if vehicles are not instead manufactured in the United States. General Motors is sending Mexican made model of Chevy Cruze to U.S. car dealers-tax free across border, TrumptweetedJan. 3. Make in U.S.A. or pay big border tax! General Motors is sending Mexican made model of Chevy Cruze to U.S. car dealers-tax free across border. Make in U.S.A.or pay big border tax! Imposing hefty tariffson foreign goods was a staple of Trumps pro-manufacturing agenda. He suggested on day one of his campaign that ifFordchose to open a factory in Mexico and then tried to sell those vehicles in the United States, he would tell Fords CEO that were going to charge you a 35 percent tax. In the same speech, he bemoaned Chevys slight presence in foreign countries,particularly in Japan. We wanted to look at Trumps most recent beef with Chevy. The key to our review is that the president-elect singled out the Mexican-made model of the Chevy Cruze. The Cruze made in Mexico is a hatchback that does not sell widely in the United States. Chevy Cruze sedans are more popular in the United States  and they are produced in Ohio. Trump has a point, however, that the Mexican Cruze has made its way to the United States free of taxes, based on provisions under theNorth American Free Trade Agreement. General Motors: We make Cruzes in Ohio, too General Motors, whose portfolio includes Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick and GMC,saidin a brief statement that all Chevrolet Cruze sedans sold in the United States are built in the companys assembly plant in Lordstown, Ohio. In 2016, it sold 185,500 of this body type in the United States. But the company builds the Chevrolet Cruze hatchback for global markets in Mexico, with a small number sold in the U.S., the statementsaid. Production of the hatchback model began in mid 2016, said Patrick Morrissey, a General Motors spokesperson, in an email. Out of 29,000 hatchbacks made in Mexico in 2016 for global markets, 4,500 were sold in the United States, Morrissey said. (Chevy Cruze photos courtesy of General Motors) Free trade provisions under international agreement TheNorth American Free Trade Agreement, effective since January 1994, lifted trade tariffs and restrictions among Canada, the United States and Mexico. NAFTA has beenpraisedfor expanding and facilitating trade among the three countries, but Trump andlabor unionsfrom the United States havecriticizedthe deal for outsourcing jobs and lowering wages. Trump called it the worst trade deal ever, blaming it for the loss ofmanufacturing jobs. But nonpartisan research said NAFTA has had a more subtle effect on the U.S. economy. NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses feared by the critics or the large economic gains predicted by supporters, a 2015 Congressional Research Service reportsaid. The net overall effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to have been relatively modest, primarily because trade with Canada and Mexico accounts for a small percentage of U.S. GDP. NAFTA allows the tariffs-free import of autos, light trucks, engines and transmissions from Mexico as long as62.5 percentof their value is from North America, the 2015 report said. The rules of origin requirement for other vehicles and automotive parts is 60 percent, according to the report. The Chevy Cruze hatchback would be covered under NAFTAs duty-free provision, experts told PolitiFact. NAFTA allowed each participating country to specialize in different stages of production, said Caroline Freund, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Peterson Institute for International Economics. Parts can go back and forth in the production of a vehicle, so a car thats imported from Mexico can actually include components from companies in the United States, Freund said. As for the logistics of Trumps plan to impose high tariffs, trade experts introduced a number of concerns about it for ourJune analysis. They cited potential rising production costs and an increased cost burden on consumers, as well as a possible trade war and broken international agreements. Our ruling Trump tweeted, General Motors is sending Mexican made model of Chevy Cruze to U.S. car dealers-tax free across border. Thats accurate for 4,500 Chevy Cruze hatchbacks made in Mexico and sold in the United States in 2016. That was about 15 percent of all Cruze hatchbacks produced in Mexico last year for global markets. NAFTA provisions allow the tax-free imports of autos from Mexico. Its worth pointing out extra context that Chevy Cruze sedans sold in the United States are built in GMs assembly plant in Lordstown, Ohio. The sedan is more than 40 times as popular among American buyers as the hatchback. Trumps statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. We rate it Mostly True. After the Fact After publishing this check, readers reached out telling us some Chevy Cruze sedans have also been imported from Mexico to sell in the United States. We asked General Motors about it, since their statement in response to Trump's tweet said all Cruze sedans sold in the United States are built in General Motors' assembly plant in Lordstown, Ohio. In a follow-up email, a General Motors spokesperson said, In the fourth quarter of 2016 we built some sedans in Mexico (and shipped to the U.S) to help support the launch of the Lordstown plant with the new Cruze (that was announced and reported on last summer)  about 8,000 total. So some of those are still in inventory in the U.S., but the only Chevrolet Cruze models being built in Mexico now for the U.S. market are the hatchbacks. The approximate 8,000 sedans were sold to dealers in 2016 and most were probably sold to consumers, General Motors spokesperson Patrick Morrissey said. Reports about big bonuses for Wall Street executives have struck a nerve with people who wonder how the executives can justify large payments when their firms are in shaky condition or are seeking federal help. It's drawn the ire of President Obama, who called it the height of irresponsibility. It's shameful. On Feb. 4, 2009, he said top executives at firms receiving federal aid will have their compensation capped at $500,000 and that bonuses would have to come as stock that they can't receive until the government is reimbursed. The New York State Comptroller reported in late January that Wall Street firms in 2008 handed out $18.4 billion in cash bonuses to employees who live in New York City, the sixth-largest amount on record. Critics have said the employees don't deserve the rewards because the firms lost more than $35 billion in 2008 and the federal government is spending hundreds of billions of dollars bailing out many of them. Fred Smith, chief executive of FedEx and supporter of George W. Bush, John McCain and other Republicans, tried to cool down the heated discussion with a bit of perspective on ABC'sThis Weekon Feb. 1, 2009. Host George Stephanopoulos noted that Smith actually took a pay cut in December. You announced a 20 percent pay cut because of the performance of FedEx over the last year, because of the tough economic times. And I wonder ... what do you think of the bonus structure now on Wall Street? Smith replied that compensation on Wall Street is built on bonuses much more so than in the industrial sector. As I understand it, the average bonus in that $18 billion is about $100,000 a year. The bonuses on Wall Street are down about 44 percent. Smith was not far off when it came to the average cash bonus. It was $112,000 in 2008, according to New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli's Jan. 28, 2009, report. And indeed bonuses were down 44 percent in a sense: The total amount given out in bonuses, $18.4 billion, was a decline of 44 percent from the $32.9 billion handed out in 2007. But due to job losses on Wall Street, there were fewer employees to split the pie in 2008. So the average bonus was down a slightly more modest 37 percent from the previous year's average. Also, it might have been worth pointing out that while bonuses were well below the 2007 level, that average of $112,000 was still the fifth-highest since the comptroller's office started keeping records in 1985. And the total haul of $18.4 billion was the sixth highest on record. Both were around the same as 2004, a vastly better year for the securities industry and its investors. And although it's true that bonuses generally make up a substantial portion of the compensation on Wall Street, $112,000 is still more than twice the average salary in the United States. But Smith is free to use statistics selectively  and the statistics he chose were off by just $12,000 and a few percentage points. We find his statement Mostly True. 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:  Barack Obama filed a lawsuit to require banks to "make loans to poor people." false Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] In 1994, a class-action lawsuit was filed against CitiBank, demanding that loans be made to poor people, and others who could not show proof that they could pay the money back. The basis of the lawsuit was the 14th Amendment, which requires 'fair and equal' treatment for all citizens. The legal theory was that failing to loan money to poor/indigent/unemployed people was, on it's face, a discriminatory act by lending institutions. Thousands of loans were processed, and of course many went into default, in part explaining why we're in the financial mess we're in. Now, it's easy for some people to point the finger of blame at Pres. Geo. Bush for this crisis, because he's sitting in the hot seat. What many people don't know is the suit was filed during the Clinton Administration. The lawyer filing the suit was none other than: Barak Hussein Obama. Origins:  This item seeks to dump much of the blame for America's current economic woes on Barack Obama by claiming that as a young lawyer, Obama filed a lawsuit requiring financial institutions to lend money to"poor people" and "others who could not show proof that they could pay the money back."  Although there is a (very) vague element of fact underneath this politicking, the piece quoted above is woefully wrong in all its particulars. The 1994 case of Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank had nothing to do with requiring lenders to do business with people "who could not show proof that they could pay the money  Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank back."  The case was a class-action lawsuit against Citibank Federal Savings initiated by a black Chicago woman, Selma Buycks-Roberson, who claimed she was unfairly denied a mortgage based on her race.  The lawsuit sought to end the practice of redlining, a discriminatory practice by which banks, insurance companies, and other business institutions refuse or limit loans, mortgages, insurance, etc., based solely on the geographic area in which the applicant lives (a practice that commonly excludes minorities in inner-city neighborhoods, regardless of their income or ability to pay).  Specifically, the lawsuit charged that Citibank "rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories."  The case was eventually settled out of court, with some class members receiving cash payments and Citibank agreeing to help ease the way for low- and moderate-income people to apply for mortgages. redlining Although Barack Obama was involved with the Buycks-Roberson case, he did not file the lawsuit, nor was he the lead attorney in the matter.  He was a junior member of an eight-lawyer team that worked on the case: Obama admits he played a mostly behind-the-scenes role at his law firm, Miner Barnhill & Galland. He researched the law, drafted motions, prepared for depositions and did other less glamorous work during his three years full-time and eight years "of counsel" to the firm.  "He wrote lots of substantial memos, but he didn't try any cases," said Judson Miner, a partner in the firm who was Obama's boss. Obama represented Calvin Roberson in a 1994 lawsuit against Citibank, charging the bank systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighborhoods. "I don't recall him ever standing up and giving an impassioned speech  it was a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff," said Fay Clayton, the lead lawyer on the case. "He was the very junior lawyer in that case," said attorney Robert Kriss. "He had just graduated from law school. I don't recall him being in court at any time I was there. I was the lead lawyer for Citibank and he was not very visible to me." Kriss, Clayton and every other co-counsel and opposing counsel interviewed for this story praised Obama's legal ability, temperament and everything about his courtroom demeanor, even though, they agree, he didn't say much in the courtroom.  On Feb. 23, 1995, Obama billed 2 hours and 50 minutes for an appearance before Judge Ruben Castillo on behalf of his client, and also for reviewing some documents in advance of a deposition. That cost Citibank  which ultimately had to pay the winning side's fees  $467 at Obama's hourly rate of $165. Miner commanded the higher rate of $285 an hour. During his appearance before the judge, Obama said he would need more time to file a response to a motion, and the judge agreed. That was all Obama said during the half-hour hearing. His final bill on the case was 138 hours, or $23,000. Last updated:  5 September 2012    Associated Press.  "Some Cases Obama Worked on in His Career as an Attorney."   20 February 2007. In January 2020, Snopes readers inquired about a meme that had been circulating on Facebook since July 2019:   The meme presented three claims, which we unpack below: The above-displayed meme did not specify a specific state or branch of government, implying all Democrats were responsible for the actions in question; however, the first claim in the meme ("Democrats killed a bill for tuition assistance for children of veterans killed in battle") was similar to one we rated "True" in April 2019 as it pertained to New York state. "True" And regarding that bill, "killed," as the meme stated, is a strong word in this context, given that similar legislation was still listed as in committee and potentially set to take effect April 1, 2020, at the time of this writing. However, its true that in 2019 Democrats in a committee of the state New York Assembly voted to block a bill expanding the state's tuition aid program covering so-called "Gold Star" families, defined as immediate relatives of service members who "lost their lives while engaged in hostilities, as a result of an international terrorist attack, or under certain other circumstances." The bill proposed offering "free tuition" not just to Gold Star families but also to dependent family of service members who died while performing official military duties. listed defined To be clear: The blocked bill proposed expanding the states Military Enhanced Recognition Incentive and Tribute (MERIT) scholarship program to include family members of those killed or disabled in non-combat situations. The MERIT program already provides tuition and other assistance to family members of military personnel killed or disabled while engaged in (or training for) hostilities. MERIT In other words, the children of someone killed in battle, as the meme put it, would seem to qualify for the existing tuition-assistance program. The proposed extension of funding would have also covered family members who were killed or disabled while not in combat. It should be noted for what reason the Democrats stopped the bill. According to Newsday: Newsday Democrats said they did not support the Republican proposal because it was released after legislators passed the states $175 billion budget April 1, [2019], meaning it would have no source of funding even if it were signed into law. Democratic legislators said their college aid proposal would go into effect April 1, 2020, presumably giving lawmakers time to include additional spending for military family scholarships in next years budget. Not wanting to wait, Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, announced a plan on April 17, 2019, to immediately grant tuition assistance to family members of all New York service members who were killed while performing any official duties, effectively providing a stop-gap until the new legislation took effect in 2020. announced So while Democrats did indeed block a tuition-assistance bill for families of service members who were killed or disabled outside of combat, this applied only in New York state and tuition assistance remained available to families of service members who were killed or disabled while in service. The second claim ("... THEN APPROVE subsidizing the education and healthcare of Illegal Immigrants") was similar, in part, to one we rated as "Mixture" in February 2019. "Mixture"  As we previously reported, New Yorks DREAM Act (not to be confused with proposed federal legislation of the same name) allows undocumented high school students to qualify for in-state, college-tuition assistance to public universities and community colleges. proposed federal legislation allows Again, this legislation applied only to New York state. It is true that some Medicaid and Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP) benefits have been extended, with various conditions and exceptions, to immigrants of varying status in a few states, including New York. conditions and exceptions While the idea of promising health care to "undocumented" immigrants has certainly received support among Democratic presidential candidates leading up to the 2020 election, it is not a nationwide benefit, as the meme may suggest. support Finally, its worth noting that the order of events presented in the meme is misleading, as the New York state DREAM Act was passed before the tuition-assistance bill. Given the kernels of truth presented in this overall oversimplified and misleading presentation, we rate this claim as "Mixture." The New York State Senate.  "Senate Bill S5187."
  Accessed 03 February 2020. National Immigration Law Center.  "Medical Assistance Programs for Immigrants in Various States"
  Accessed 03 February 2020. Campbell, Joe.  New York to Make College Tuition Aid Available to DREAMers.'
  Democrat & Chronicle. 23 January 2019. Military One Source.  "Scholarship Opportunities for Surviving Family Members."
  Accessed 03 February 2020. Evans, Martin C.  "State Senate Dems Tout Bill to Aid Dependents of Fallen Vets Pay for College."
  Newsday.  15 April 2019. Pity the poor children of the United States  they, along with their parents, are already in hock to the federal government for thousands of dollars.Assemblywoman Caroline Casagrande (R-Monmouth) made that claim Oct. 26 during an interview with Michael Aron on NJTVs On The Record.Every American now is $51,000 in debt, Casagrande told Aron. Thats money I owe, thats money my children owe before they even go to kindergarten, thats their check to the federal government right now.Casagrandes number is solid, but she doesnt have to worry about whipping out her checkbook or debit card any time soon, some federal budget experts say.Lets start by reviewing the two commonly cited forms of national debt -- debt held by the public and total debt.Debt held by the public is money borrowed from investors outside of the federal government. The total debt represents debt held by the public as well as money the federal government owes itself, including for programs such as Social Security and Medicare.Now lets look at the numbers in Casagrandes claim.The U.S. Government Debt website on Nov. 6  the date we started looking into Casagrandes clam -- listed the national debt at $16,295,297,196,000. If thats divided by 314,719,484 -- the total U.S. population, according to the Census Bureau, each American owes the federal government $51,777.21.So, Casagrandes number is accurate. But should Americans actually expect to pay that bill? Not necessarily.Gary Burtless, a senior fellow of economic studies at the Brookings Institution who has worked as a government economist and served on federal advisory panels under presidents of both parties, explained that what the nation owes each year on the national debt is annual interest and principal payments.Do grandma and the grandkids have to pay off the national debt, as Assemblywoman Caroline Casagrande seems to suggest? No, they do not, Burtless wrote. Our grandkids great grandparents did not pay off the federal debt; neither did their parents or grandparents. There is no rule that the national debt has to be paid off in one generation, three generations, or even ten generations. Taxpayers do not face the possibility that they will receive a $51,000 bill in the mail anytime soon.An invoice might not be in the mail but Casagrandes statement is fair, according to spokespeople for the conservative Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute.Were not even going to pay off the debt, were going to pay down the interest, said Matt Jensen, a research associate in Economic Policy Studies at the AEI. Under no proposal that Ive seen is someone paying down the debt in real dollars. What were really talking about is paying the interest on the debt, forever. Youll pay the interest, your children will pay the interest.Our PolitiFact colleagues in Virginia and New Hampshire also looked into similar claims in their states and found that the amount of debt cited by their lawmakers was largely accurate.Virginia Rep. Randy Forbes in January said the national debt amounted to $48,700 for every American or $128,300 for every U.S. Household. Our colleagues rated the claim True.In August, PolitiFact New Hampshire rated Mostly True a claim by Rep. Frank Guinta that every child in the United States has a $50,000 share in the national debt. Guinta  received a Mostly True because that would mean each of the nations nearly 74 million children would owe $216,102. Guintas figure was accurate, however, when the debt was spread across the entire population.Our rulingCasagrande said in a television interview, Every American now is $51,000 in debt. Thats money I owe, thats money my children owe before they even go to kindergarten, thats their check to the federal government right now.A simple mathematical calculation confirms that every American technically owes the government $51,777.21 toward the national debt. But will youngsters have to suddenly start handing over their allowances to pay down the federal deficit? Not likely. We rate the statement Mostly True. To comment on this story, go toNJ.com.