Are US Election Results Required To Be Certified on Election Night?
Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here On Oct. 26, 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump posted a message on Twitter stating that we "must have final [vote] total" of the presidential election on Nov. 3, 2020. This tweet was subsequently flagged by Twitter for spreading content that could damage the integrity of the country's elections:  message This is not the first time that Trump has called for the winner of the election to be declared on Nov. 3. On Oct. 27, Trump said:  said "It would be very very proper and very nice if a winner were declared on November 3rd, instead of counting ballots for two weeks, which is totally inappropriate and I don't believe that that's by our laws. I don't believe that. So we'll see what happens." The laws of the United States do not say that the winner of a presidential election must be declared or certified on the same night as the election. In fact, the election process in the United States extends for several weeks after the final votes are cast on Nov. 3.  Ellen Weintraub, the commissioner of the Federal Election Commission, responded to the president's comments on Twitter, writing: writing An election is not a reality show with a big reveal at the end. All we get on Election Night are projections from TV networks. We *never* have official results on Election Night. Counting ballots  all of 'em  is the appropriate, proper, and very legal way to determine who won. While Americans may be used to seeing newscasters call the results of a presidential election on election night, states don't typically certify their election results for several days (and in some cases weeks) after the election. When a newscaster "calls" a race on election night, this is actually a "projection"  an estimate based on the amount of votes cast so far  and not a legally sanctioned election result. projection Here's an excerpt from an article published by Pew Research concerning American's skewed expectations for election night: Pew Research On Nov. 3, millions of Americans will trek to their local polling places to cast their ballots for the next president. That evening, after the polls close, theyll settle down in front of their televisions to watch the returns roll in from across the country. Sometime that night or early the next morning, the networks and wire services will call the race, and Americans will know whether President Donald Trump has won a second term or been ousted by former Vice President Joe Biden. Just about every statement in the previous paragraph is false, misleading or at best lacking important context. Over the years, Americans have gotten used to their election nights coming off like a well-produced game show, with the big reveal coming before bedtime (a few exceptions like the 2000 election notwithstanding). In truth, theyve never been quite as simple or straightforward as they appeared. And this year, which has already upended so much of what Americans took for granted, seems poised to expose some of the wheezy 18th- and 19th-century mechanisms that still shape the way a president is elected in the 21st century. While Nov. 3 marks the end of voting, it is far from the end of the election process. In the following days and weeks (it varies by states), all of the ballots will be counted and certified. This year, the process might take an especially long time due to an expected increase in voter turnout, as well as a surge in mail-in ballots due to the COVID-19 pandemic. expected increase in voter turnout, mail-in ballots Many states continue to receive and count mail-in ballots for several days after election day as long as those ballots were postmarked on or prior to Nov. 3. In Mississippi, for instance, absentee ballots will be accepted "five business days after Election Day if postmarked on or before Election Day." In Illinois, ballots that were postmarked on or before election day will be counted as long as they arrive within 14 days. In other words, we won't know the official total vote count on Nov. 3 because some states won't even be finished receiving ballots by this date.  receive and count mail-in ballots for several days And counting ballots is only part of the process.  The President of the United States is not elected by the popular vote. Rather, once each state counts and certifies all of its votes, governors prepare a "Certificate of Ascertainment" that lists the state's Electoral College electors. These electors cast their votes for president, which are then counted and certified by Congress.  not elected by the popular vote The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), an independent government agency tasked with preserving historical records, is responsible for transmitting the votes of the Electoral College to Congress. In NARA's guide to the 2020 election, they outline a timeline that stretches from June (when preparations begin) to Nov. 3 (when the election takes place) to mid-November (when governors prepare a "Certificate of Ascertainment" listing the state's electors) to Dec. 14 (when members of the Electoral College cast their votes) to Jan. 6 (when the vote is counted in Congress) to Jan. 20 (when a president is inaugurated). Review NARA's full timeline in this document. document In short, tallying the vote this year is expected to take longer than usual due to increased voter turnout and a surge in mail-in ballots. While it is possible that one candidate will win enough votes on election night that newscasters will be able to say with reasonable certainty who will win the election, these news reports are not the official legal method in which a presidential election is certified. States will spend days (or weeks) counting ballots in the days after the election, governors will then certify those results and list their electors, members of the electoral college will then cast their votes, and then Congress will certify those results.  Berman, Russell.  "The November Surprise."
  The Atlantic.  7 October 2020. CNN.  "How Does CNN Make Election Projections?."
  2008. Desilver, Drew.  "Mail-in Voting Became Much More Common in 2020 Primaries as COVID-19 Spread."
  Pew Research Center.  13 October 2020. Desilver, Drew.  "Election Night Marks the End of One Phase of Campaign 2020  and The Start of Another."
  Pew Research Center.  22 October 2020. United States House of Representatives.  "Electoral College Fast Facts."
  Retrieved 27 October 2020. Robertson, Helena, Kirk, Ashley, and Hulley-Jones, Frank.  "Electoral College Explained: How Biden Faces an Uphill Battle in the US Election."
  The Guardian.  27 October 2020.
An item about a collection of U.S. tax increases which were supposedly enacted as of 1 January 2016 due to the provisions of the Affordable Care Act (commonly known as "Obamacare") was circulated widely at the beginning of 2016, but it was merely an updated version of identical claims circulated in previous years that set 2014 or 2015 as the imposition date for those tax increases:  Although the tax increases listed in this item did come to pass, they took effect at the beginning of 2013 (not 2014 or 2015 or 2016), were completely unrelated to the Affordable Care Act, applied only to very high-income earners, and have been overstated in this list.  These tax hikes were enacted through the passage of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, a compromise bill pushed through Congress as a partial resolution to the then-looming "fiscal cliff" crisis.  Under the provisions of that bill: American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 fiscal cliff   The top marginal federal income tax rate increased from 35% to 39.6%  The top marginal tax rate on long-term capital gains increased from 15% to 20% (not 28%).  The top marginal tax rate on dividends increased from 15% to 20% (not 39.6%).  Estate taxes increased from 35% of an estate's value in excess of $5,120,000 (in 2012) to 40% of the value above $5,340,000 (in 2014). It's important to note that the increase in marginal tax rates for federal income tax, capital gains, and dividends affected only those persons with taxable incomes over a $400,000 (single)/$450,000 (married) threshold.  It's also important to note that the previous estate tax rate of 0% was a special rule that applied only to the estates of persons who died in 2010 (the estate tax has since been increased to 35% for those who died in 2011 and 40% for those who died in 2012 and thereafter), and even today an estate tax  filing is required only for estates with gross assets in excess of $5 million (indexed for inflation).   estate tax The tax rate for dividends has also not increased from 15% to 39.6%: it appears someone has confused qualified dividends with nonqualified dividends. Qualified dividend earnings are tax-free for those in the 10% and 15% brackets, taxed at a 15% rate for those in the 25% up to 35% tax brackets, and taxed at a 20% rate for higher income taxpayers whose income surpasses the 35% tax bracket.  Nonqualified dividends only are taxed as ordinary income.  (Theoretically, a taxpayer with nonqualified dividend earnings who reached the top marginal federal income tax rate would be paying 39.6% tax on those earnings, but that's a condition that only applies to persons earning over several hundred thousand dollars per year.) dividends The list's reference to an "income payroll tax" increase from 37.4% to 52.2% is something of a mystery, as this is not a standard term for any type of government income- or payroll-related tax.  The only adjustment to payroll-related taxes resulting from the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was that a two-year old cut to payroll taxes which had previously reduced the rate from 6.2% to 4.2% for 2011 and 2012 was not extended.  Additionally, this item's coda claiming that "not one Republican voted to do these taxes" is completely false.  The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 passed Congress by a margin of 89-8 in the Senate with 40 Republican votes in favor, and a margin of 257-167 in the House with 85 Republican votes in favor. (The original claim undoubtedly refers to the House or Representatives' voting in 2010 to pass the health-care reform bill without a single Republican vote in favor, but that association is moot because, as noted, the tax increases listed above had nothing to do with that bill.) 89-8 257-167 health-care reform bill When Susan Goodman Komen died of breast cancer at the age of 33 in 1980, her younger sister, Nancy Goodman Brinker promised she would do whatever she could to help end that disease.  Brinker fulfilled that promise by founding The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation (later known as Susan G. Komen for the Cure, then just Susan G. Komen) in 1982, a group that has since become the largest and most well known breast cancer organization in the United States: breast cancer Brinker fulfilled a promise to her sister that she would do everything she could to help eradicate the disease  a disease that Brinker also was diagnosed with and successfully fought. "At that time, there was a stigma and shame around breast cancer," Brinker said. "You didn't talk about it. There were no 800-numbers, no Internet. Our government didn't spend much on breast cancer research. There were few major cancer centers with expertise about breast cancer. That's the world we faced when Suzy was diagnosed. It's a world I watched her suffer in, and it's a world she wanted us to change." In 2012, Komen founder and CEO Nancy Brinker became the focus of controversy when she announced Komen would be pulling the grants the organization had been providing to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screenings, then quickly reversed that decision.  Several months later Brinker announced she would be stepping down as Komen's CEO, but the following year she was again the focus of controversy when news outlets reported that not only did she still hold her CEO position, but she had received a hefty raise to boot that brought her annual compensation up to $684,000 per year: In early 2012, Komen announced it was pulling its grants for breast-cancer screenings from Planned Parenthood, drawing an immediate backlash from Komen supporters and abortion rights advocates. Within days, Nancy Brinker, the groups founder and CEO, reversed the decision to defund the organization. Then, in August, Brinker announced that she would be stepping down. But 10 months later, Brinker still holds her position and tax documents reveal that she received a 64 percent raise and now makes $684,000 a year, according to the charitys latest available tax filing.  Komen says the raise came in November 2010, prior to last year's controversy. Ken Berger, president and CEO of Charity Navigator, which evaluates and rates charities, called Brinker's salary "extremely high." "This pay package is way outside the norm," he said. "It's about a quarter of a million dollars more than what we see for charities of this size. This is more than the head of the Red Cross is making, for an organization that is one-tenth the size of the Red Cross."  The American Red Cross had revenue of about $3.4 billion, while Komens was about $340 million last year.  Red Cross CEO Gail McGovern makes $500,000, according to the most recent financial documents available for the charity. Charity Navigator's last compensation figure for Nancy Brinker was $560,896 per year, which at the time put her below Komen president Elizabeth Thompson's reported annual compensation of $606,461.   In June 2013, Komen finally announced that Brinker would be stepping down as president and CEO of that organization and named Judith A. Salerno, M.D. as her successor.  In June 2015, Brinker reportedly resigned from her paid position to assume an unpaid role role as a top volunteer with Komen. Dr. Salerno's most recently reported compensation (in August 2017) was $479,858, while Nancy Brinker was still listed as a "founder" receiving a salary of $397,093. compensation announced unpaid In September 2017, Paula Schneider took over as president and CEO of Komen, with compensation of $137,155 reported as of the end of the fiscal year in March 2018. Paula Schneider The reference to Komen's applying only 20% of donated money to breast cancer research likely comes from a pie chart displayed in the "Use of Funds" section of Wikipedia's article about Susan G. Komen for the Cure, which showed Komen's 2009-2010 Expenses: Use of Funds  While it may have been true that breast cancer research comprised only a 21% share of Komen's program expenses (Charity Navigator puts the figure at 28.8% as of March 2018), citing that figure as a criticism of the organization reflects a common misbelief that groups dedicated to addressing particular diseases (e.g., the Muscular Dystrophy Association, the ALS Association) exist solely or primarily to fund and direct research into curing and/or preventing those diseases.  This perception is inaccurate: Komen and other groups like it have goals that include delivering a wide array of services to the communities they support beyond the funding of research, such as funding educational awareness and outreach programs, providing screening and diagnostic procedures, and arranging medical treatment and home care for persons currently living with those diseases.  A more relevant metric for assessing a charity's overall financial effectiveness is the percentage of the organization's budget that is actually spent on all the programs and services the charity delivers, and in this area the Charity Navigator charity evaluation site gives  Komen an 80.3 rating (as well as a 96.0 rating for Accountability & Transparency).  Charity Navigator does rank many other breast cancer charities higher than Susan G. Komen for the Cure, however. Komen breast cancer Regarding the seemingly excessively high level of CEO salaries at some charities, Charity Navigator advises that: advises While there are certainly some charities that overpay their leaders, Charity Navigator's data shows that those organizations are the minority. Among the charities we've evaluated (those being mid to large-sized charities), the typical CEO's annual compensation is in the low to mid six figures. Before you make any judgments about salaries higher or lower than that range, we encourage you to keep in mind that these charities are complex organizations, with multi-million dollar budgets, hundreds of employees, and thousands of constituents. These leaders could inevitably make much more running similarly sized for-profit firms. Furthermore, when making your decision it is important to consider that it takes a certain level of professionalism to effectively run a charity and charities must offer a competitive salary if they want to attract and retain that level of leadership. Newsbrokeon May 27, 2015 that an agreement was close on how to pay for a new $500 million arena for the Milwaukee Bucks, the basketball team that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar once led to glory. Some details of the proposed arrangement between the Bucks and state and local government officials were new. But the overallcost sharing was, more or less, what hadlong beenexpected: The Bucks owners would pay half and taxpayers would pay half. According to Tim Sheehy, president of the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce, such a split would be good for taxpayers. Here is whathe saidApril 10, 2015 on Here and Now, a Wisconsin Public Television show: If this comes out close to a 50-50 partnership, it will be much better -- in terms of the portion of the public financing -- than most of the other arena projects done around the country. In other words, Sheehy, who supports the new arena, is saying that taxpayers picking up half the tab for a new Milwaukee arena is relatively low, compared to how much taxpayers have contributed toward arenas for other National Basketball Association teams. The parties set a self-imposeddeadlineof May 29, 2015 to try and finalize the financing deal, which would have to be approved, likely within the next few weeks, as part of the 2015-17 state budget. So, lets take a look. The Bucks and their arenas The Bucksjoined the NBA in the 1968-69 season. Led byAbdul-Jabbarand another future Hall of Famer, Oscar Robertson, they won their only league championship in the 1970-71 season. That,according tothe team, meant the Bucks went further, faster, than any expansion team in the history of major professional sports. In recent years, however, the Bucks have struggled, and that is one reason there has been a drive to build a new arena. The teams current home -- the $90 millionBMO Harris Bradley Center, which was built through a donation by the late Milwaukee philanthropist Jane Bradley Pettit -- opened in 1988. The 18,600-seat arena is thethird-oldestand the third-smallest in the 30-team NBA. Momentum for a new arena picked up in April 2014, when the Bucks longtime owner, former U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl of Milwaukee,announcedhe was selling the team to New York hedge-fund investors Marc Lasry and Wesley Edens. Kohl and the new owners pledged to contribute $250 million toward a new arena. Coming up with the other $250 million has been the sticking point,leading to months of negotiations involvingGov. Scott Walker, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett and Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele. There is time pressure in that the NBA has said a new arena must be built by the fall of 2017, or Milwaukee would risk losing the team to another market. Other arena deals To see how other NBA arenas have been financed, we turned to two sources: The 2012 edition of Financing Economic Development in the 21st Century,  a textbook that includesa chapteron financing professional sports facilities. And a database,last updatedin August 2014, that is maintained by Marquette University Law Schools National Sports Law Institute. Weve listed the 15 NBA arenas -- comprising half the arenas in the league -- that have been built since 1999. We went back to 1999 because a wave of NBA arenas -- seven of them -- went up that year. As well see, there is some disagreement between the figures provided by the textbook and by Marquette. Holy Cross College sports economistVictor Matheson, who wrote the sports facilities chapter in the textbook, told us thats not surprising because there are different ways to define a public contribution and because stadium financing deals arent always transparent. Based on the two sources we checked, at least eight of the 15 NBA arenas built since 1999 were financed with more than 50 percent taxpayer support. Indeed, although there is some variation in the figures in the two sources, seven of the eight arenas were built with at least 82 percent public money (the total cost figures are according to the textbook). Arenas built with more than 50% public money NBA city Year arena built Total cost Portion paid by taxpayers per the texbook Portion paid by taxpayers per Marquette Orlando 2010 $480 million 90% 87.5% Charlotte 2005 $265 million 100% 100% Memphis 2004 $250 million 100% 83% Houston 2003 $235 million 82% 100% San Antonio 2002 $186 million 85% 84% Oklahoma City 2002 $89 million 100% 100% Miami 1999 $213 million 100% 59% New Orleans 1999 $114 million 100% 100%  Conversely, the textbook and Marquette agree that only four of the arenas were built with taxpayer contributions of 50 percent or less. Arenas built with 50% or less public money NBA city Year arena built Total cost Portion paid by taxpayers per the textbook Portion paid by taxpayers per Marquette Dallas 2001 $420 million 50% 30% Toronto 1999 $265 million 0% 0% Denver 1999 $160 million 22% 3% Los Angeles 1999 $375 million 16% 19%  There was not agreement between the between the two sources on the public portion paid for arenas in Brooklyn, Indianapolis and Atlanta: NBA city Year arena built Total cost Portion paid by taxpayers per the texbook Portion paid by taxpayers per Marquette Indianapolis 1999 $183 million 100% 43% Atlanta 1999 $214 million 29% 91% Brooklyn 2010 $637 million 24% N/A  Our rating Sheehy said a 50-50 public-private split for paying for a new Milwaukee Bucks arena would be much better in terms of the portion of the public financing than most of the other arena projects done around the country. Of the 15 NBA arenas -- comprising half the cities in the league -- built since 1999, at least eight were built with more than 50 percent of the money coming from taxpayers. Seven of those eight were built with at least 82 percent public money. We rate his statement True. In recent weeks, the national media has poked fun at John Kasich for chomping through Italian subs and pasta in the Bronx and eating pizza in Queens  with a knife and fork. Back home, Ohio Democrats talked about something else: the governors out-of-state travel, and what it costs taxpayers in the only state he has won. The Ohio Democratic Party posted a graphic on itsFacebookpage on April 8, 2016, to bolster its complaint. Kasichs costly campaign, the image says, entails 177 days spent out of state and a tab of $350,000 to taxpayers. How did they calculate the days and dollars? We decided to look into it. The partys communications director, Kirstin Alvanitakis, pointed us to aMarch 26Columbus Dispatchstoryreporting that Kasich has been out of state at least 177 days as he pursued the presidency. TheDispatchtally includes days he spent exploring the bid before his official announcement July 21, 2015. AnAssociated Press storycontains the $350,000 figure. By law, a special unit within the state department of public safety is assigned to protect the governor, and nine state troopers guard him 24/7. So when he goes to Mikes Deli, so do they. State funds from the public safety departments non-highway program, which includes the governors security detail, is likely paying for rental cars, hotel rooms, flights, fuel, per diems and overtime while Kasich criss-crosses the country chasing delegates. But theDispatchstory describes how cagey state agencies are being with these specifics. Information that was public in the years before Kasichs run is now shielded. On payroll records, the governors detail was previously listed as the executive protection unit. Officials told theDispatchthat that designation that has been dropped to shield the troopers identities. To ensure safety and security, we do not discuss any of the resources used as part of the executive security detail, is the response repeated by agency spokespersons and the governors campaign staff alike. The Associated Press used another tool to approximate the cost: an interactive, searchable checkbook of state spending hosted on the website of Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel, part of hisnationally recognizedtransparency initiative. We used the Ohio Checkbook to drill down into the data, which has been updated since the AP checked. Isolating the travel costs of the non-highway program, which is currently showing expenditures from July 1, 2015, through Feb. 2, 2016, the total now comes to $403,638. This chart shows how disproportionate the travel spending has been in 2016 so far, compared to prior years. Most of the transactions shown through the Ohio Checkbook lack details (General Travel Expenses is a recurring line item), but there are some expenditures that coincide with Kasichs campaign stops. Like a batch of hotel rooms booked over a series of days in December at the Wynn Las Vegas, the Renaissance Des Moines, the Doubletree Salt Lake City, and the Hampton Inn of Waterloo, all around the time period last December when Kasich bounced from a debate in Nevada, to a town hall in Iowa, to a fundraiser in Utah, and back to Iowa. Its not a staggering total, though some taxpayers might argue that $403,638 could be better spent on other state services. Kasich has poo-pooed any suggestions that he should drop out of the race before the Republican National Convention in July, which means the total taxpayer share from his campaign travel could continue to swell. (The average monthly spending from this fund in fiscal year 2016 is about $57,663. By comparison, $57,562 was the total spent in all of fiscal year 2014.) Other governors who ran for president have stuck taxpayers with tabs, too. Chris Christies security detail cost New Jersey taxpayers an estimated$614,000. Bobby Jindal racked up$400,000in Louisiana during his considerably shorter run through November 2015. Wisconsin taxpayers paid Scott Walkers security team$577,000in overtime alone before he dropped out in September 2015. Walker reimbursed about $260,000 to the state for expenses his campaign incurred. So far, the Kasich campaign has refused to disclose details about his security detail or its resources, or whether he similarly intends to give taxpayers a refund. We did not hear a response from Kasichs campaign, or spokesman Rob Nichols. Our ruling The Ohio Democratic Party said that in 177 days on the campaign trail, Kasichs security detail cost taxpayers $350,000. Our analysis confirmed that $350,000 is most likely a conservative estimate. At the current rate, the total could be twice that by the RNC in July. Since neither state officials nor Kasichs camp will confirm any details on the governors security, we have to rely on what we learned from the treasurers open records data. We rate this claim True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/f55505e5-5211-4178-9fd0-7d1b2854c596 The cost of health care is a huge issue for everyone.If you have health insurance, the chances are excellent that you've seen your costs, along with co-payments and deductibles, go up significantly.If you don't have health insurance, the bill you get from your doctor or hospital is strikingly higher than what people with health insurance are charged. That's because insurance companies negotiate deep discounts that uninsured people never see.And because people who don't have insurance areseven times more likelyto skip the care they need, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that typically makes your care more expensive when you do seek it. If, on top of everything else, you can't pay for that care and a hospital provides it for free, as a hospital is obligated to do, those costs are passed on to everyone else.So it caught our attention when Marie Ghazal, chief executive officer of theRhode Island Free Clinic, the Providence nonprofit organization that treats the uninsured, beganan opinion columnin The Providence Journal by asserting that Rhode Island has the highest percentage of uninsured adults of any state in New England.She stated that between 13.9 percent and 21.4 percent of residents are not insured, which translates to 139,000 to 214,000 Rhode Islanders.We wondered if our ranking was really that poor, and why the range was so large.When we contacted Ghazal, she said she got the information froma story in the Providence Business News. The article gives no specific numbers for Rhode Island or most other states. It wasbased on a mapdeveloped by the CDC that breaks the states into three categories: those having the highest proportion of people with health insurance, those having the lowest and those in between.Rhode Island -- like New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Virginia and most of the states in the Midwest -- is in the in-between category. Ghazal said our rate of uninsured adults was 13.9 percent to 21.4 percent because, as it turns out, that's how the CDC defined the in-between group.We asked if she had specific numbers. She said she didn't. So we went searching.When we contacted CDC, they directed us tostate-by-state numbers, as collected by Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a telephone survey that counts how many people are without health insurance at the time of the call.According to the BRFSS statistics, which served as the basis for the map cited by Ghazal, the 2009 telephone survey of4,318 Rhode Islands found that the percentage of uninsured adults in Rhode Island was 14.2 percent, below the national average of 16.9 percent. Thirty-two states had a lower rate of health insurance coverage than Rhode Island. The worst rate was in Texas, where 29.1 percent of the population was not covered. In 15 states, at least 20 percent of the adult population younger than 65 was without health insurance.But we found something else while digging into the numbers. The margin of error in the survey was plus or minus 1.9 percentage points.If you ignore the margin of error, it is true that Rhode Island had the highest rate of uninsured adults in New England. Maine, where 13.7 percent were uninsured, was closest to Rhode Island. But that's a difference of only 0.5 percentage points. Massachusetts, in contrast, had the lowest rate of uninsured -- 6.2 percent -- because the Bay State has mandatory health insurance.However, if you consider the margin of error in the poll, we could rank ahead of New Hampshire (where 13.1 were uninsured) and Maine.For additional context, we looked at thepercentages going back to 1995(excluding 2001 and 2002, two years when the survey results are not on the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention & Health Promotion website).It turns out that in 2004, the level of uninsured in Rhode Island was a bit higher -- 14.4 percent; 15 years ago it was at about 13 percent. The rate did dip to 11.7 percent in the 1998 survey but, in general, the numbers have stayed consistent.By any measure, that's still a lot of people walking around without health insurance.Ultimately, if you ignore the margin of error, Ghazal is correct about our ranking compared with other New England states. But if you take that into account, its possible that her statement could be inaccurate.More importantly, she's making a selective comparison. When you compare us with the rest of the country, we're better than average.Because of those omissions, we rate her statement Mostly True. Claim:   Photograph shows a tearful World War II veteran embracing a wounded Marine.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, December 2004] Picture worth a 1000 words...and, really, no words needed! We truly take a lot for granted. Forget the football "heroes"... and pass this on, please.    Origins:  This moving photograph of a World War II veteran overcome with emotion while embracing a wounded Marine is a cropped version of a photograph which originally appeared in newspapers in November 2004:  The occasion of this photograph was a Veterans Day Commemoration at Dallas City Hall on 11 November 2004.  The veteran pictured is Houston James, a survivor of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, and the Marine is Staff Sgt. Mark Graunke Jr., a member of an ordnance-disposal team who lost his left eye, his left hand, the thumb and index finger of his right hand, and his right leg as a result of injuries sustained while defusing a bomb in Iraq in July 2003. The Dallas Morning News revisited the subjects of this iconic photograph in 2011, reporting that: In the photograph, an elderly, jacketed survivor of Pearl Harbor embraces a decorated Marine, overcome with emotion as the younger serviceman returns the gesture with an artificial hand. The setting is the plaza in front of Dallas City Hall at the conclusion of the 2004 Veterans Day Parade. The powerful portrait, originally published in The Dallas Morning News, found its way around the world, beloved by many a veterans organization for the collective bond of service and sacrifice it illustrates Houston James is 87 now. He uses a walker to get around. His home is an assisted-living facility in Mesquite, and his wife, Marian, has been gone a long while. "I forgot all about that photo," he said. Military memorabilia populates his apartment  patches, decals, history books. A VHS copy of the Pearl Harbor film Tora! Tora! Tora! sits on a shelf. The picture, he said, was taken at a parade downtown. He doesn't recall the year.  He taps the photograph with a finger. "I was walking by," he said. "He was up on the reviewing stand. I spotted him." And then he saw the man's prosthesis. The Marine is retired Staff Sgt. Mark Graunke of Flower Mound, who, as part of an ordnance-disposal team in Iraq, lost his hand, leg and eye while attempting to defuse a bomb in 2003. His mission was to keep roads free of explosive devices. On July 2, as he worked on a piece of unexploded material, it went off in his left hand. Graunke, who now works for JPMorgan Chase in Coppell, had opted for ordnance-disposal duty after a stint as a Marine Security Guard. He did not respond to requests for an interview. But on his LinkedIn profile, he writes: "I wanted to do something that was going to challenge me both mentally and physically. That is just what I got." "I strive for perfection in everything I do and I have no regrets for anything I have done," Graunke goes on. "Life is full of ups and downs and it is how you deal with those situations that will define you as an individual." In July 2007, a Dallas builder named a city block in Staff Sgt. Graunke's honor and donated a portion of the proceeds from home sales to charities selected by him: A Dallas builder, Brandenburg Homes, will construct 16 homes on the block, now known as the Mark Graunke Jr. Addition. The builder will donate $3,000 for each home sold, divided equally between three charities Graunke selected  the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund, Fisher House and the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, all of which helped him recover from his injuries, he said. Last updated:  11 November 2013    Ramirez, Marc.  "Morning News Photograph United Two Servicemen Across Generations."   The Dallas Morning News.  10 November 2011.    Rogers, Rick.  "Thoughts of Iraq Ride in Parade of Veterans."   The San Diego Union-Tribune.  12 November 2004.    Unmuth, Katherine Leal.  "Homebuilder Donates Part of Proceeds to Honor Marine."   The Dallas Morning News.  27 July 2007. In December 2020, Twitter users enjoyed what appeared to be a delightfully weird coincidence when the author of an article debunking claims about alien life emerged as "Hugh Mann."  In a widely shared Dec. 14 tweet, @mmastrac included a screenshot of the article headlined, "There is No Secret Underground Base on Mars," along with the author's name highlighted in red. @mmastrac added the caption, "Nice try aliens": tweet     The screenshot was not digitally manipulated or faked and showed part of an article that appeared on the website Slate earlier in December 2020. However, the article itself was clearly intended to be humorous. All in all, the piece presented the author as an alien clumsily emphasizing their thoroughgoing "humanness" while desperately, and ineffectively, attempting to cover up evidence of alien life and operating under a blatantly fake pseudonym that sounds exactly like "human": Slate Like all humans, my light-sensing organs nearly popped out of their orbits when I heard that a retired Israeli military commander had given an interview claiming that space aliens made contact with Earths leaders years ago. According to Haim Eshed, who served as the head of Israels space security program for three decades, representatives of the Galactic Federation traveled to our solar system to conduct research into the fabric of the universe, and, with the help of a local political faction known as the United States of America, have constructed an underground base on Helios IV, which we humans call Mars. given an interview As a respected human journalist, I think I speak for our entire species of only-recently-sentient bipeds when I say, Thats ridiculous! Haim Esheds carbon-based neurological organ is simply malfunctioning as he nears the end of his pitifully short biological life cycle, and there is absolutely no reason to look into his story any further. The joke may have been obvious to many readers and Twitter users, but the screenshot shared by @mmastrac didn't include the body of the article itself, which would have made it clearer. Even with the benefit of the full text of the piece, some readers appear to have mistaken "Hugh Mann" for a real Slate contributor and responded to the article in earnest. On the website News Break, which republished the Slate article, commenters wrote, "There are numerous people who claim this that have served in the military just saying"; "Your [sic] a fucking reporter with no knowledge past the end of your pencil! its [sic] ignorant morons like you that keep the truth in the shadows"; and "This reporter is a [sic] asshat." republished wrote Recently, Hillary Clinton has been making the ultimate pocketbook argument for her candidacy: When theres a Democrat in the White House, she says, the economy does better. Earlier in this campaign season, she said thestock market does betterunder Democrats. In a speech to theNew Hampshire Democratic Party Conventionon Sept. 19, Clinton went even further. I know its inconvenient for our Republican friends, but the facts do speak for themselves, the former secretary of state said. Economic growth is stronger under Democratic presidents. Unemployment is lower. The stock market rises faster. Businesses do better, and deficits are smaller. And one of my favorite inconvenient facts is under Republicans, recessions happen four times as frequently as under Democrats. In this fact-check, we decided to focus the claim that recessions are four times as likely under Republicans as they are under Democrats. A look at the numbers The primary research on this question -- and the source cited by the Clinton campaign when we asked -- comes from apaperwritten by two Princeton University economists, Alan Blinder and Mark Watson. The paper, published in July 2014, found that the economy tends to do better under Democratic presidents by numerous measures. The authors looked at quarterly economic data from 1947 through mid 2013 and the National Bureau of Economic Researchsofficial list of recessionsand found that Clintons claim is pretty much on point. Since 1947, there have been 11 official recessions, totaling 49 recessionary quarters. Of those 49 quarters, just eight occurred under Democratic presidents, compared to 41 under Republicans. So, over the past 65 years, quarters in recession were about five times more common under a Republican president than under a Democratic president. Sec. Clinton is correct in her claim, Watson, one of the papers authors, told PolitiFact. Looking at how many recessionsstartedunder Republicans, the difference is even more stark, noted Blinder, the co-author. Of the 11 recessions since 1947, nine under Republicans, compared to just two under Democrats. The paper also looked further back in history to 1875 and found that the trend held, though it was less pronounced. But what does this mean? Economists emphasize, however, that Clintons claim needs some additional context. Clinton presumably wants listeners to believe that Republican policies dont work for the economy. But the research doesnt necessarily support this contention. There are far too many factors that contribute to the countrys economic health. Democrats would no doubt like to attribute the large (Democratic/Republican) growth gap to macroeconomic policy choices, but the data do not support such a claim, the Blinder-Watson paper says. In short, the paper found that half of the Democrats economic advantage is a result of factors outside the control of the White House, Congress or the Federal Reserve. The other half remains a mystery, Watson said. It seems we must look instead to several variables that are mostly good luck, with perhaps a touch of good policy, the report says. One section of the paper (its on page 14) gives an overview of booms and busts since World War II. It concludes that its difficult to draw a direct line from a presidents fiscal policy positions to economic cycles. For example, defense spending led to prosperity during the Korean War under Democratic President Harry Truman. His successor, Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, ended the war, and thus the prosperity turned into recession. Energy price shocks are another important factor, since they can produce economic downturns. Unfortunately for the Republicans, shocks hit during the presidencies of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George W. Bush, compared to just once under a Democrat, Jimmy Carter. The authors add that Democratic presidents have benefited from higher total factor productivity, which is essentially a measure of technological growth and dynamism. A clear example is the technology boom under Bill Clinton, which produced significant productivity gains. The authors acknowledge that its unclear why this has been the case under Democratic presidents. And sometimes the fiscal policy of a previous administration bleeds into the next one -- so just because a recession happened when one president was in office, the prior administration might bear some of the responsibility. While Democratic President Lyndon Johnson saw no recessions, for instance, his administration had to implement anti-inflation policies near the end of his tenure. Those policies contributed to a recession early on in Nixons term. Because of all the factors at play, assigning credit for economic results is tricky, said Tara Sinclair, a George Washington University professor and chief economist for the job site Indeed.com. In fact, its possible that causation actually runs the other way. It's possible that the public votes in response to economic conditions, she added, meaning political cycles can follow economic cycles. Our ruling Clinton said that under Republicans, recessions happen four times as frequently as under Democrats. The numbers back up Clintons claim since World War II: Of the 49 quarters in recession since 1947, eight occurred under Democrats, while 41 occurred under Republicans. Its important to note, however, that many factors contribute to general well-being of the economy, so one shouldnt treat Clintons implication -- that Democratic presidencies are better for the economy -- with irrational exuberance. Clinton is right on the numbers, but her claim needs additional information to put its implication into the proper context. We rate her claim Mostly True. 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.