Since 2001, higher education in the state has been cut or allowed to erode ... by 35 or 40 percent.
As Attorney General Chris Koster eyes the 2016 race for Missouri governor, hes pushing to share the ballot with a political twofer: a ballot proposal that would increase Missouris lowest-in-the-nation tobacco tax, which would pay for a boost in the states higher education spending. Speaking Aug. 20 at the Missouri State Fair, Koster, a Democrat, reiterated his support for the increasing the cigarette tax,telling the Columbia Daily Tribune: Since 2001, higher education in the state has been cut or allowed to erode  by 35 or 40 percent. Do those numbers add up? It takes a bit of college-boy math. The top line About three-quarters of the states higher education budget comes from the general revenue fund. The rest of the money mostly comes from the 1 cent education sales tax and other state funds. (The federal government also chips in some money  this year it was a little under $3.7 million, or 0.2 percent, of the total higher education budget.) The average annual inflation rate between 2001 and 2015, according to the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank, was 1.918 percent for Missouri and Illinois. Inflation rates vary across the country, and the Federal Reserve calculates the inflation rate by region rather than by state. In fiscal year 2002, higher education was allotted $1,153,954,522. After adjusting for inflation  which compounds year over year  thats equivalent to $1,505,546,464 today. In the most recent budget, for fiscal year 2016,$1,266,819,566is set for higher education in Missouri. Thats a 15.9 percent decrease, short of what Koster said. The bottom line If you only look at dollars, though, you miss the effect of Missouris surging college enrollment, Koster spokesman Andrew Whalen told PolitiFact Missouri. In fall of 2001, Missouris public colleges and universities enrolled143,656 full-time equivalent students. By 2014, enrollment had risen to 184,305 students. Thats a 28.3 percent increase in students. (This years totals arent in yet, but enrollment peaked in 2013, when Missouri counted 185,514 full-time equivalent students in its public institutions of higher education.) Its hard to say exactly how much money is spent on each student across the state because each school receives money directly from the General Assembly. That money is counted in the appropriations for the Department of Higher Education  but since the department doesnt dictate how that money is used, the department doesnt track how much of it each institution spends, spokeswoman Liz Coleman said. But we can still get a rough per-student funding estimate by dividing the departments budget by the number of full-time-equivalent students. Heres the math: In 2001, Missouri spent $10,480.21 per student, adjusting for inflation. Assuming this years enrollment totals track near 2014s (and theresanecdotal evidencesuggesting its not too far off), that would mean the state now spends closer to $6,873 per student. Thats a 34.4 percent decrease in higher education funding per student. There are a few caveats here: Students arent directly impacted by every dollar spent by the Department of Higher Education. For instance, the department also operates the Missouri State Historical Society, and some money also goes towards operating expenses for the department itself. The department funds scholarships, some of which go to students at private schools. And schools also draw funding from outside the appropriations process, from sources such as tuition, donations and endowments. So, the exact amount of money spent on each college student is a squishy number. But we can still confidently track how much the state contributes  which, in the context of raising the tobacco tax, is the essence of Kosters statement. Our ruling Koster said that since 2001, higher education funding has been cut or eroded by 35 percent to 40 percent. The legislature hasnt technically cut higher education funding over this time; nominally, the state has actually spent $100 million more on it. But thats not enough to keep pace with inflation. And when you factor in skyrocketing enrollment numbers, the amount of money the General Assembly has budgeted to spend on a per student basis has indeed eroded by about as much as Koster says it has. Even though Kosters statement is pretty close, it needs additional information and clarification. We rate it Mostly True.
Responding to an ad blitz in which Texas Gov. Rick Perry urged Missouri businesses to move to the booming Lone Star State, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon suggested that taxes are lower in his state and that students fare better. Nixon, a Democrat, also singled out credit worthiness in the radio spotwe noticed onlineAug. 27, 2013. Unlike Texas, Nixon said, Missouri has a perfect AAA credit rating. Three days earlier, heposted a similar claimon a Twitter list of ways he ranks the Show-Me State as #betterthantx. His credit claim snagged our attention. Achart posted onlineby the California state treasurer lists state general-obligation bond ratings by three rating agencies. We noticed that Missouri and Texas both earned the highest, AAA rating from both Fitch Ratings and Moodys Investors Service. But Standard & Poors gave Missouri a  AAA rating and Texas a rating of AA+, which is its rating immediately below AAA. Via emails from spokespersons for each of those rating services, we confirmed those ratings for both states--and we inquired into the differences. By phone, New York-based Moodys spokesman David Jacobson told us that both states have long been stable borrowers, though Missouri has had its Moodys AAA rating longer--since at least 1972, Jacobson said. In contrast, he said, Moodys lowered its rating for Texas general obligation debt from AAA to AA in 1987. That year, Texas faced a recession that drove down state revenues. In 2010, Jacobson said, Moodys recalibrated its methodology for rating state debt; Texas regained a AAA rating. A Standard & Poors spokesman, Olayinka Fadahunsi, emailed us a Nov. 20, 2012, report by the firm stating it had assigned its AA+ rating to general-obligation bonds issued by the Texas Transportation Commission. The report credited the Texas economy with being diverse and strong and likely to continue to generate additional jobs. Also, it said, state government had strong cash-management practices and low overall debt and retirement liabilities. On the other hand, it expressed concern at the states budgetary pressures, which are primarily related to the growing proportion of school revenues Texas is required to fund, as well as insufficient new sources of recurring dedicated tax revenues to support the increased funding. The report also cited increasing spending pressure from public assistance payments, including Medicaid, plus uncertainty about how the Obamacare law might affect the states health-care expenditures. Based on the analytic factors we evaluate for states, on a four-point scale in which '1' is the strongest, we have assigned Texas an overall score of '1.8, the report said. We asked Fadahunsi to discuss the distinction between the firms AA+ and AAA ratings. By email, he said that there is no one precise financial distinction. The firms general debt ratings methodology, as published Jan. 3, 2011, states that it develops a states credit rating by judging conditions across factors including the governments framework; financial management; economy; budgetary performance; and debt/liability profile. We assess each of these factors utilizing various metrics that we score on a scale from 1 (strongest) to 4 (weakest), the methodology states. For each metric there may be several indicators we evaluate to develop the metric score. We score each indicator individually on the same scale and average the indicators' scores to develop the overall score for the metric. We average the metrics for each factor to develop a composite score for each. The scores for the five factors are combined and averaged with equal weighting to arrive at an overall score which is then translated to an indicative credit level. The report says an overall score of 1 to 1.5 is needed to draw the AAA rating. Separately, R.J. DeSilva, spokesman for the Texas state comptrollers office, pointed us to a December 2012,reportby the Texas Bond Review Board which includes a chart indicating that as of August 2012, Missouri was among seven states with AAA GO debt ratings from the three major rating services. The other perfects were: Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, Utah and Virginia. Finally we asked Robert Coalter, executive director of theTexas Public Finance Authority, which issues bonds for the acquisition or construction of state buildings, to speak to any financial costs to Texas from not having Missouris three AAA ratings. Coalter said by phone that the effect is minimal, adding that any entity that issues bonds--including state agencies--sometimes obtain ratings from only one or two of the rating services. Also, he said, investment firms conduct their own research before committing to bonds. Coalter said the ratings of Texas debt are outstanding. Our debt is considered to be top quality. Put another way, might the Missouri governors statement be real-world meaningless? I do not believe its significant, Coalter replied. He said the claim sounded like comparing one student scoring 100 on a test with another scoring 99. Our ruling Nixon said that unlike Texas, Missouri has a perfect AAA credit rating. Thats correct, though Texas is close; two major services rate the bigger states GO debt AAA, one rates it AA+, which is its next-highest rating. We rate this claim as True. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Breathless e-mailed warnings about the (usually false) latest ways in which thieves are purported to be getting motorists to pull over so they can be preyed upon are nothing new: a few we've previously documented include claims that gangs of robbers were placing tire-puncturing spikes in shopping mall parking lots, or affixing plastic baskets to the undersides of targeted vehicles (thereby prompting drivers to stop to investigate the noise), pouring sugar into gas tanks, festooning cars' windshields with flyers, and even acting drunk or as if they'd been struck by other cars.  spikes baskets sugar flyers drunk Our first sightings of a warning about eggs being thrown at windshields came in October 2009: Please take this seriously! If you are driving at night and are attacked with eggs, do not operate the wiper and  spray and water. Because eggs mixed with water become milky and block your vision up to 92.5% Then you are forced to stop at the road side and become a victim of robbers. This is a new technique used by robbers in Johor Bahru. Please inform your friends and relatives!!  If you are driving at night and eggs are thrown at your windshield. Do not operate the wiper and spray any water because eggs mixed with water become milky and block your vision up to 92.5% so you are forced to stop at the roadside and become a victim of robbers.  This is a new technique used by robbers.  Please inform your friends and relatives. This also happens on interstates near exits. That earlier version, while it also asserted the claim of water mixed with raw egg's obscuring a windshield and bruited the (absurdly precise) 92.5% figure, differed from what has become the canonical form of the warning in that it stated motorists so attacked would become prey to "robbers/carnappers" and recommended those so assaulted instead drive to "a well lit place w/ many people or nearest police station" rather than stop. Later forms of the e-mail added further flourishes, such as "used by robbers" morphing into "used by robbers in Johor Bahru" (the capital city of Johor in southern Malaysia), the addition of the claim that these attacks "happens on interstates near exits," and most commonly the inclusion of a new paragraph that blamed matters on a flagging economy: "Folks are becoming more and more cruel daily. But this is just the beginning of pangs of distress. With the decline in economy and job losses, we can expect anything. Just can't be too careful these days." Though we've queried our police contacts and scoured news reports looking for accounts of robberies and carjackings effected by disabling target  vehicles by pelting them with raw eggs, we haven't been able to document any such occurrences in the U.S.  (In all the years we've been tracking this legend, the most we've turned up is a single unverified account.)Rather, we did locate news stories about police cars so pelted, with the officers retaliating by giving chase to the miscreants who'd thrown eggs at them. In various news accounts we found, officers not only were able to see well enough through their poultrified windows to go after the bad guys, they also succeeded in running them to ground and bringing them to justice. Most tellingly, such accounts made no mention of the officers' experiencing difficulty in seeing well enough through their egged windshields to give chase. unverified While a mixture of raw egg and water vigorously stirred together in a glass will produce a somewhat milky-looking liquid (which might be the source of this tale), there's nothing about the interaction of egg and water that renders the resulting combination into a substance guaranteed to completely block a driver's vision. Egg alone or egg-and-water solutions are thin liquids and so are relatively easy to see through, with the vehicle's wipers generally sweeping away the worst of the mess fairly easily, as demonstrated in the following video: It would take a number of extremely well-placed eggs (a hen's typical offerings aren't that big) to splat a windshield so thoroughly as to completely impair the driver's view and force him to stop immediately. Unless the visibility conditions were already poor, a motorist with a splattered windshield would generally still be able to see well enough to continue driving out of range of the egg-throwing hooligans to a safe stopping place. Certainly miscreants have long engaged in the practice of launching objects (rocks, eggs, firecrackers, paintballs) at moving cars in order to startle motorists into stopping and getting out of their automobiles (typically as a prank, but sometimes as a means of setting up the theft of a vehicle and/or the driver's possessions), but that information is neither new nor shocking. <!--<FONT COLOR=>Variations:  A March 2010 version combined the "eggs baby  A November 2012 version included a photograph of a car's windshield that had some sort of white spatter upon it that looked to us to be white paint: Fernandez, Lisa.  "Off-Duty San Jose Cop Stops Three Men for Vandalizing His Car in Fremont."
  San Jose Mercury News.  1 November 2007.
 Hoober, John.  "Egg Tossed at Cruiser Leads to Chase, Crash."
  Lancaster New Era.  3 December 2008  (p. A1). FACT CHECK: Did Macy's refuse to hire an applicant because she was a veteran who had served in Afghanistan?      Claim: Macy's refused to hire an applicant because she was a veteran who had served in Afghanistan.    Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2015] I just saw a post on Facebook stating that a veteran had applied to Macy's for a sales position and was told that because of her experience as a veteran she would not be hired. Origins:  On 6 August 2015, the Facebook page of "Joe the Plumber" published the following status update and photograph: status update Someone at Macy's needs an attitude adjustment... Like if you agree. Share if you have more respect for our vets than Macy's does. No additional information was supplied by that Facebook page about the woman pictured (such as the specific Macy's involved, the date of the purported interview, or any other corroboration of the claim). Furthermore, the claim's appearance in August 2015 led people to believe that the individual depicted had been recently considered and presumably denied employment by the Macy's department store chain. This item was one of several "shunned serviceman" rumors that circulated in mid-2015, but it was over a year old at that point. A March 2014 article identified the woman as Army Specialist Kayla Reyes (then 21), and the Macy's location as one in Fresno, California, and according to the article, Reyes merely speculated on Instagram that her history of military service had adversely impacted her employment prospects, a claim she later appeared to downplay: shunned serviceman circulated article She says she interviewed for a sales associate position on Feb. 20. Reyes says once she told the hiring manager about her service overseas, the questions came back to Reyes's time at war. "Being that you've been over there, you wouldn't really know how to approach people," Reyes says that's what the manager told her. She continues, "Once a customer's in your face, you wouldn't know how to do it. You wouldn't know how to react." Reyes says she left the interview wondering if her military service did her a disservice when applying for a civilian job. A spokesperson for Macy's provided a comment for the March 2014 article (published less than a month after Reyes' Instagram post initially circulated) indicating that Reyes' application was still under active consideration at that time. By that point, Reyes maintained that she had accepted an alternate offer with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. After the claim recirculated in August 2015, the Facebook page of Macy's was deluged in angry comments from users over the more than year-old allegation. In response to one of those comments, a representative for Macy's stated that Reyes had in fact been offered (but declined) the position for which she interviewed: stated Thank you for reaching out to Macy's and giving us the chance to hear from us directly. Macy's commitment to our veterans is sincere and strong. As a company that stands for inclusion in the workplace and our stores, we do not tolerate discrimination of any kind. We proudly employ thousands of veterans within our organization, as we know that veterans possess leadership skills that are an asset in a dynamic department store environment. As with any prospective employee, we actively looked for appropriate and available positions that would be best suited for Ms. Reyes' skills and experience level, and, in fact, identified and offered her a job at our store. We were disappointed when she declined. At Macy's, we have created a special Military Executive Development Program where we train veterans for key executive roles, giving them the tools and industry training to position them for success. In addition, Macy's has partnered with the Got Your 6 organization for a campaign in our stores to raise funds and awareness to assist veterans as they return to civilian life. Last year, we raised over $3.4 million with our customers and look forward to raising more funds this year. Thank you. -Carlos at Macy's Last updated:  6August 2015 Originally published: 6August 2015 Claim:  In 1969, comic Red Skelton lamented on his weekly television show that the Pledge of Allegiance might someday be considered a "prayer" and eliminated from public schools.    . Example:  [Skelton, 1969] The Pledge of Allegiance: I: Me, an individual, a committee of one.  PLEDGE: Dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without self pity.  ALLEGIANCE: My love and my devotion.  TO THE FLAG: Our standard, Old Glory, a symbol of freedom. Wherever she waves, there's respect because your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts freedom is everybody's job.  UNITED: That means that we have all come together.  STATES: Individual communities that have united into 48 great states. Forty-eight individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose; all divided with imaginary boundaries yet united to a common purpose, and that's love for country.  AND TO THE REPUBLIC: A state in which sovereign power is invested in representatives chosen by the people to govern. And government is the people, and it's from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people.  FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION: One nation, meaning "so blessed by God."  INDIVISIBLE: Incapable of being divided.  WITH LIBERTY: Which is freedom, the right of power to live one's own life without threats, fear, or some sort of retaliation.  AND JUSTICE: The principle or quality of dealing fairly with others.  FOR ALL: For all, which means, boys and girls, it's as much your country as it is mine.  And now, boys and girls, let me hear you recite the Pledge of Allegiance:  "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."  Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country, and two words have been added to the Pledge of Allegiance: "under God." Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer, and that would be eliminated from schools too? Origins:  Red Skelton, a veteran comic who successfully plied his trade as a sentimental clown figure in vaudeville and radio, delighted television audiences for twenty years playing characters he had perfected   on radio  Clem Kadiddlehopper, Freddie the Freeloader, and the Mean Widdle Kid  on his weekly variety television program, "The Red Skelton Show." The Red Skelton Show On 14 January 1969, Skelton offered his television audience his reminiscence of an incident from his schoolboy days in Indiana.  Mr. Lasswell, Skelton's teacher, felt his students had come to regard the Pledge of Allegiance as a daily drudgery to be recited by rote; they had lost any sense of the meaning of the words they were speaking. As Skelton related the story, Mr. Lasswell told his class: "I've been listening to you boys and girls recite the Pledge of Allegiance all semester and it seems as though it's becoming monotonous to you. If I may, may I recite it and try to explain to you the meaning of each word?" Skelton then delivered to his audience (accompanied by a background of string music) a stirring version of the explanation provided to his school class by their teacher so many years earlier (and a recitation of the pledge itself), as quoted above.  Skelton's explication and rendition of the Pledge of Allegiance proved to be quite popular and widely acclaimed, and in response to public demand it was issued in print and pressed into  records.  But in 1969, the Supreme Court decisions that eliminated compulsory prayer and Bible reading in public schools as unconstitutional, Abington School District v. Schempp and Murray v. Curlett, were still fairly recent (having been handed down in 1963), and protests over American military involvement in Vietnam had rendered the American flag as much a symbol of divisiveness as of unity.  Skelton, a soft-spoken, sentimental personality who ended every program with the invocation "Good night, and may God bless," added a coda to Mr. Lasswell's explanation, a lamentation of the thought that the 1954 insertion of the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance might someday cause it to be considered a "prayer" (and thereby eliminated from public schools as well), and given the recent appeals court ruling that teacher-led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional, Red Skelton's words now strike many as remarkably prescient (and perhaps more prophetic than even he imagined).  Abington School District v. Schempp Murray v. Curlett unconstitutional Skelton performed a similar explication of the Canadian national anthem, "O Canada," during a visit to that country in 1990: "O Canada": I see mountains and valleys and rivers and trees; it is truly Mother Nature's warehouse.  "Our home and native land": A place where families live with dignity on rich soil that shares food and beauty. " patriot":  Patriotism, a pride, a privilege to say, I, me, an individual, a committee of one, and dedicate all my worldly goods, to give without self-pity. "love in all thy sons command":  That powerful youth that gives all their love and devotion, holding the standard with the Maple Leaf high in the air; for it is a symbol of courage and wherever she waves, she shouts "Freedom is everybody's job." "With glowing hearts we see thee rise": A warmth that incubates incentive; wisdom that feeds beyond superstition and ignorance. "the true north strong": She is that compass needle that points to inspiring reality, and the courage to struggle on, to find a dream and make it come true. "and free": That right of power for one to live his own life without fear or stress or any sort of retaliation. "And stand on guard, O Canada": Not that we want to flaunt our strength, but to be capable of facing the strongest should that enemy appear. "We stand on guard for thee": we protect all doctrines and share thy spirit of logic and reasoning. "O Canada, glorious and free!":  That means justice, the principle and qualities of dealing fairly with others. "O Canada , we stand on guard for thee": So we can stand proud and say to our neighbor, "This is as much my country as it is yours." Both of these items are reminiscent of a Christmas segment from the "Amos 'n' Andy" radio program, one which first aired in 1930 and was repeated annually (and was filmed for the 1952 Christmas Day episode of the short-lived "Amos 'n' Andy" television series).  As Amos' daughter Arbadella lies in her bed on Christmas Eve, her father tenderly explains the meaning of the Lord's Prayer to her: ARABDELLA: I've been saying the Lord's Prayer with Mommie. What does the Lord's Prayer mean, Daddy? AMOS: The Lord's Prayer? Well, darlin', I'll 'splain it to you. It means an awful lot, and with the world like it is today, it seems to have bigger meaning than ever before. ARABDELLA: But what does the Lord's Prayer really mean, Daddy? AMOS: Now, you lay down, and you listen. The first line of the Lord's Prayer is this: "Our Father which art in Heaven"  that means Father of all that is good  where no wrong can dwell. Then it says  "Hallow'd be Thy name"  that means, darlin', that we should love an' respect all that is good. Then it says  "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven"  that means, darlin', as we clean our hearts with love, the good, the true, and the beautiful, then Earth where we are now will be like Heaven. ARABDELLA: That would be wonderful, Daddy. AMOS: Then it says  "Give us this day our daily bread"  that means to feed our hearts an' minds with kindness, with love an' courage, which will make us strong for our daily task. Then after that, the line of the Lord's Prayer is  "An' forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors"  you 'member the Golden Rule? ARABDELLA: Yes, Daddy. AMOS: Well, that means we mus' keep the Golden Rule and do unto others as we would want them to do unto us. And then it says  "and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil"  that means, my darlin', to ask God to help us do, an' see, an' think right, so that we will neither be led nor tempted by anything that is bad. "For thine is the Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory forever. Amen." That means, darlin', that all the world an' everything that's in it, belongs to God's kingdom  everything  Mommie, your Daddy, your little brother and sister, your gran'ma  you an' everybody  and, as we know that, an' act as if we know it, that, my darlin' daughter, is the real spirit of Christmas. Additional information:       The Pledge of Allegiance   ((The Red Skelton Show  14 January 1969))   Last updated:  9 March 2007    Sources:  Andrews, Bart.   Holy Mackeral!  The Amos 'n' Andy Story.  New York: E.P. Dutton, 1986.  ISBN 0-525-24354-2  (pp. 97-98). Healthcare reform has been a perennial political project in American politics, from the presidencies of Franklin D. Roosevelt and those of Richard Nixon through Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and now Donald Trump. Both those for and against the concept of the United States' adopting a universal health care system often use comparisons between the U.S. and other countries to advocate for their positions, as exemplified by a 20 April 2018 post on the "U.S. Democratic Socialists" Facebook page featuring a widely-shared meme purportedly outlining the main features of the Japanese healthcare system: meme   We examine this meme point-by-point below: 1. 100 percent of Japanese have health insurance. This is basically true. Japan has universal health care, which means that everyone who lives there (except undocumented immigrants and short-term visitors) can access affordable care and is required by law to be covered by some form of insurance. For the most part, residents do this through two kinds of insurance, which are administered by the government: employment-based health insurance, and National Health Insurance (known as "Kokumin Kenko Hoken"). care Kokumin Kenko Hoken However, Japan's aging population, low birth rate, and economic stagnation have placed a burden on the country's universal health care system, so reforms to that system are under way. reforms 2. Costs are half of what is spent for healthcare in the United States. By the two most commonly-used metrics, this is about right. A country's health spending is most often measured in a couple of ways: the percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) spent on healthcare, and healthcare spending per capita (the total amount spent on health care divided by the number of people living in the country). According to 2016 data published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the United States spends 17.2 percent of its GDP on healthcare, by far the highest proportion among developed countries. Japan spends 10.9 percent of its GDP, about two-thirds the relative amount the United States does. data In 2016, total healthcare spending in the United States worked out to be $9,892 per person per year, again by far the highest level in the developed world. In Japan that figure was $4,519 per person, which is less than half than the United States spends. 3. Japanese can choose their own doctors and see them twice as often as Americans Japan has what is known as a "free access" system, which means  as the meme correctly states  that for the most part patients can use whichever doctors and hospitals they choose.  According to the Health and Global Policy Institute, patients should get a referral letter before presenting at larger hospitals. This is partly because the free access system can sometimes mean individuals with only minor ailments present at hospital emergency rooms, creating a backlog for patients in more urgent need of care.  referral letter backlog Japanese people visit doctors even more than twice as often Americans do, at least according to OECD data. Figures from 2011 (the most recent year for which a direct comparison is possible) show that United States residents averaged four doctors' consultations per person that year in the United States, while in Japan the figure was more than three times higher, at 13 doctors' consultations per person that year. (In 2014, that figure was 12.7 doctors' visits per person per year in Japan.) Figures 4. Japanese have the world's longest life expectancy and the second lowest infant mortality.  This is true. According to United Nations data, a Japanese person born in 2014 could expect to live, on average, until the age of 83.6, the highest life expectancy figure of more than 200 countries. (Children born in Hong Kong can expect to live to 84, but Hong Kong is a territory of China, not a sovereign nation.) data Research has shown that the relatively healthy diet and lifestyle of Japanese people, as well as good healthcare, plays a significant role in their longevity. Research United Nations data also show that in 2013, the most recent year for which data are available, Japan had the joint second-lowest rate of infant mortality in the world, defined as the number of children who died under the age of one for every 1,000 live births. With 2.1 infant deaths per 1,000 live births, Japan was ranked second, along with Finland and just behind Iceland and Luxembourg. data 5. 95 percent of Japanese healthcare is not-for-profit. It's not clear what this claim means, so we can't really evaluate its accuracy. Does this mean 95 percent of healthcare providers operate on a not-for-profit basis? That 95 percent of procedures are performed on a non-profit basis? That 95 percent of all health care expenditures relates to not-for-profit providers? We do know that by law, hospitals in Japan cannot operate for profit, with the exception of large for-profit companies who build hospitals for their own employees. According to an analysis by Ryozo Matsuda, a health policy expert at Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto, 80 percent of hospitals are privately run. Facilities that provide care for elderly and disabled people (e.g., nursing home care, respite care, home care) can operate for profit, and according to Matsuda, most do.  analysis 6. The government sets all fees for medical services and drugs. That's true. More specifically, the fees are set by a government-appointed body called the Central Social Insurance Medical Council. A 2016 study in the journal Risk Management and Healthcare Policy described the system as "a uniform fee schedule at national level," noting that "All providers, no matter whether private or public, share the same prices for their medicines, devices, and services under this nationwide fee schedule." body study Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (Japan).  "Overview of Medical Service Regime in Japan."
  Accessed 25 April 2018. Reich, Michael R. and Kenji Shibuya.  "The Future of Japan's Health System -- Sustaining Good Health with Equity at Low Cost."
  The New England Journal of Medicine.  5 November 2015. Otake, Tomoko.  "April 1 Marks Start of Japan's New Medical Fees and Processes."
  Japan Times.  13 February 2018. Dum, Bel.  "Unlocking the Secrets of Longevity in Japan."
  Scientific American.  12 July 2016. Matsuda, Ryozo.  "The Japanese Health Care System."
  The Commonwealth Fund.  October 2016. Zhang, Xing and Tatsuo Oyama.  "Investigating the Health Care Delivery System in Japan and Reviewing the Local Public Hospital Reform."
  Risk Management and Healthcare Policy. 18 March 2016. If former Gov. Ted Strickland had used a theme song in his unsuccessful re-election bid, it might have been I've Been Working on the Railroad.Jobs were the biggest issue of the fall campaign, and Strickland said that thousands would be created by his plan for a 3C Corridor passenger rail system linking Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati. He described Gov.-elect John Kasichs intention to kill the plan and return a $400 million federal grant as tragic and a job-killer.Critics of the plan claimed that its employment potential was exaggerated, its ridership forecasts were too optimistic and its cost projections too low.Ultimately, Plain Dealer columnist and former editorial director Brent Larkin wrote: Voters never warmed to the idea of spending hundreds of millions on a passenger rail project that would have taken riders from Cleveland to Cincinnati over a period an hour and 15 minutes longer than it would have taken on a New York Central train in 1935.We dont usually look at remarks from columnists, but that comment stopped PolitiFact Ohio in its tracks.We knew that the 3C Corridor was not a high-speed rail plan. We had not realized it was more like a trip back in time.So PolitiFact Ohio asked Larkin where he got his figures.He referred us first to a year-old feasibility report on the proposed Cleveland-to-Columbus-to- Cincinnati Amtrak service.This is the schedule Amtrak said it would run, and the schedule Ohio included as part of its application to the feds for the $400 million, Larkin said. No other schedule was ever formally provided to the feds.The proposed schedule shows a 255-mile Cleveland to Cincinnati trip taking 6-1/2 hours. The first daily train would leave Cleveland at 6:30 a.m. and arrive in Cincinnati at 1 p.m.Larkin then shared a railroad timetable from New York Central Lines, effective Feb 3, 1935. It showed a departure time of 3:10 p.m. from Cincinnati and an arrival in Cleveland of 8:20 p.m., for a travel time of 5 hours 10 minutes -- an hour and 20 minutes faster than the 3C line.Criticism of the 3C as snail rail with an average speed of 39 mph started as soon as the project was proposed.The Ohio Department of Transportation responded in September with a new average estimate of 50 mph and speed up to 79. It shortened the Cleveland-to-Cincinnati trip to 5 hours 12 minutes.But, not so fast.As an October story in the Columbus Dispatch noted, ODOT itself had said a year earlier that the trip couldn't be made in less than 5 hours 20 minutes -- even if the trains didn't stop. ODOTs revised schedule hadn't even been seen by the three freight lines that own the tracks the 3C passenger trains would use, putting its feasibility in serious doubt.And, no matter how weak or strong its support, the optimistic revision still comes up longer than the best rail time of 1935.The schedules speak for themselves, Larkin said.We rate his statement as True. On 12 July 2016, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders formally endorsed rival Hillary Clinton at a New Hampshire event, causing consternation among supporters who were confident he still planned to take his candidacy for the nomination to the convention in Philadelphia later that month. A number of interlinked rumors appeared on social media following the Clinton/Sanders event, roughly outlining a larger general claim. According to many social media users, Sanders' pre-convention endorsement was a requirement under Democratic National Committee (DNC) rules as a condition of bringing his delegates to the convention, just as Franklin Delano Roosevelt had similarly been forced to endorse an opponent before going on to win at a contested convention: The afternoon of the endorsement, a Sanders delegate (later identified as Ashley Wolthuis of Utah) made comments suggesting Sanders was forced to publicly endorse Clinton under threat of punitive platform changes: identified I have contacts within both campaigns. Heres what I was told yesterday and today. Clintons campaign threatened to vote down every concession made to Bernie on the platform if he did not endorse her prior to the convention. Knowing that Superdelegates were not going to switch to his side without something major happening, the best he could do was hold on to the progressive concessions he won for US on the platform. He could not, in good consciousness let the GOP and Trump win, especially when we have a potential half of the Supreme Court Justices that will be replaced within the next 4-8 years. He was looking out for the future of our movement and our nation in this very hard decision he made. This post is not to tell you to vote for Hillary, or to not leave the Democratic Party, etc. this was just to throw a little light on why Bernie did what he felt he HAD to do, rather than what he wanted to do. A sign of a great leader is someone who makes the hard decision to sacrifice themselves for the people and movement behind him. He is counting on us to continue the fight. Contacted later in the day by phone, Wolthuis clarified her comments about the use of force and Sanders' endorsement of Clinton: [A]fter reaching out to many of the people who had either posted or tweeted this statement, I tracked down the original source, Ashley Wolthuis, a Sanders delegate from Utah, who was kind enough to return my "cold call" to her cell phone. Here is what she told me. The basic thrust of the post shown above is accurate, she said, but the use of the term that Bernie was "threatened" she explained was overblown. She did indeed have conversations with various delegates associated with both campaigns, and she said it was "common knowledge" among most delegates that the Clinton campaign was insisting on Bernie making an endorsement prior to the convention if the more progressive parts of the platform would be retained. The talk among her the those with whom she associated, both Clinton and Sanders supporters, was that Bernie understood Hillary needed Sanders' supporters and that was the only reason she made any concessions at all regarding the positions on the DNC platform for which the Sanders campaign fought. Wolthuis also referenced a Washington Post article published after Sanders' 12 July 2016 comments, surmising that Sanders in part intended to tack Clinton to promises of a progressive platform: article The speech today was, ostensibly, an endorsement of Clinton's presidential campaign ... But, really, it wasn't. Yes, I know that's how it was billed by the Clinton and Sanders camps. And, yes, he did say this: "I have come here to make it as clear as possible as to why I am endorsing Hillary Clinton and why she must become our next president." (It was the only time that Sanders used the words "endorse" or "endorsing" in a speech that ran 2,161 words. You can read the whole thing here.) But, surely, Sanders was simply touting his successes as a way of winding up to the big moment when he acknowledged  even subtly  that Clinton's more moderate, cautious and pragmatic definition of "Democrat" had trumped (ahem) his more liberal, populist one? ... Nope! Not really. What followed in the speech was a laundry list of Sanders's talking points and policies supplemented with the phrases "Hillary believes" or "Hillary understands" or "Hillary knows" stuck in front of them ... On and on it went, Sanders touting a much-beloved policy of his and then noting that Clinton agreed with it. We reviewed the oft-cited DNC 2016 rules [PDF] but were unable to locate any specific verbiage mandating that any candidate endorse any other candidate in order to fully participate in the convention. It is possible (but not necessarily likely) that the endorsement was an agreed upon concession made outside formal rules or quietly between the campaigns. Confusion over the meaning of Sanders' endorsement was exacerbated following the release of the contents of a conference call he held with his nearly 1,900 pledged delegates hours after his public appearance alongside Clinton: PDF   During the 38-minute long call, Sanders maintained the campaign won 22 states and lost several more "by a hair," stating that a majority of voters under 45 from all demographics overwhelmingly voted for him in primaries and caucuses. Sanders held that the "superdelegate issue" impeded his campaign, noting that Clinton earned 2,205 pledged delegates to his 1,845 and that she received "a hell of a lot" more superdelegate support:  In a portion of the call regarding his endorsement of Clinton, Sanders did not say that doing so was a condition of bringing his delegates to the convention. He did, however, discuss ongoing negotiations between the campaigns to ensure that planks of Sanders' campaign were adopted and Clinton was "on record" making such agreements. Compromises cited by Sanders included the candidates' differing plans on college tuition and single payer healthcare (including dental and mental health coverage) expansions for millions of Americans. In a significant portion of the call Sanders addressed questions about delegates' traveling to Philadelphia for the convention, asserting the campaign "[needs its delegates] to vote for Bernie Sanders for President, and [his] hope is we can get 1,900 votes on the first ballot." Sanders addressed rumors of challenges to credentials without further detail, presumably referencing concerns that Sanders delegates would face opposition at the convention. The senator stated he didn't believe the rumors had merit, adding that the campaign would arrive with "a bunch of lawyers" in Philadelphia and "make sure every [delegate takes their] seat." Sanders also addressed questions about whether he had been offered a "significant role" in a potential Clinton administration, to which he said "no." Towards the end of the call, Sanders stated that his campaign was not suspended, but that he expected Clinton to emerge as the nominee following the convention. Overall, the conference call represented the most in-depth look regarding Sanders' motivation in endorsing Clinton prior to the convention. No portion of the call hinted or suggested that his endorsement was due to tacit threats or coercion with respect to negotiated agreements between the campaigns. A second portion of the rumor held that Sanders was heading into a contested convention having endorsed his rival, just like FDR before him. Rumors to that effect didn't specify when or under which circumstances Roosevelt made such an endorsement before going on to win the nomination (if a year was cited for this occurrence, it was typically 1932). A 2007 New York Times article about FDR's 1932 convention win did demonstrate many parallels to the contest between Clinton and Sanders: article In 1932, the leadership of the Democratic National Committee was firmly in the hands of Al Smith loyalists. Convention rules required a two-thirds majority for nomination, and the partys last three presidential candidates  James Cox of Ohio, the Wall Street lawyer John W. Davis and Al Smith  in addition to House Speaker John Garner and Senate minority leader Joe Robinson, were on record supporting the stand-aside economic policies of the Hoover administration and the ill-conceived and exorbitant Smoot-Hawley tariffs on imported goods. Roosevelt was an outsider. Serving his second term as governor of New York, he could not even count on the solid support of the Empire States delegation at the convention ... all of F.D.R.s rivals were from the pro-business, hard-money, establishment wing of the Democratic Party and decried the possibility of government intervention to revive the economy. Let natural forces take their course, as free and untrammeled as possible, said Governor Ritchie. Modern society, acting through its government, said F.D.R., owes the definite obligation to prevent the starvation or dire want of any of its fellow men and women who try to maintain themselves but cannot. The conservative wing of the Democratic party was aghast. I will take off my coat and fight to the end against any candidate who persists in any demagogic appeal ... setting class against class and rich against poor, rasped Al Smith. However, a substantial difference existed between Roosevelt in 1932 and Sanders in 2016. In addition to facing a three-way runoff requiring a two-thirds majority, Roosevelt (unlike Sanders) went into the convention with a majority of delegates (but no superdelegates, as that concept was not introduced until 1984): superdelegates 1984 When the convention opened on June 27, Roosevelt held a clear majority of delegates but was still 100 votes shy of the two-thirds required for nomination. If the establishment forces could deny F.D.R. a first-ballot victory, they might deadlock the convention and force a compromise choice. The Democratic partys two-thirds rule was the nemesis of presidential front-runners, and in the eyes of the partys old guard, Roosevelt was ripe for a fall. Nevertheless, F.D.R.s majority gave him control of the convention. His candidate for presiding officer, Sen. Thomas Walsh of Montana, was elected, and the credentials of three pro-Roosevelt delegations (Louisiana, Minnesota and the Virgin Islands) were accepted. No portion of that article mentioned Roosevelt "endorsing" his rival, merely tensions between "establishment" Democrats and an "outsider" candidate. Another article described aspects of the nominating process with which Clinton had more in common with Roosevelt than Sanders did: The vote was split enough to guarantee a brokered convention; FDRs camp arrived in Chicago with a majority of delegates but not enough to guarantee him the nomination. Given FDR's majority of delegates and votes, it was exceedingly unlikely he at any point endorsed either of his rival candidates (of whom there were two). Moreover, journalism and political news operated far differently in 1932 than 2016, making an "endorsement" tendered by FDR for a rival far less relevant than in the era of social media. It was true Sanders in some respects evoked Roosevelt's position at the contested convention of 1932, but the material difference between Sanders in 2016 and FDR in 1932 boiled down to a majority of delegates. (We contacted archivists at the FDR Presidential Library & Museum for confirmation that Roosevelt did or did not endorse a candidate in 1932 prior to winning what was a hotly contested convention. An individual with whom we spoke indicated that detailed information was not to hand, adding that an archivist would look into the claim and respond to our query.) In short, it isn't precisely clear why Sanders opted to endorse Clinton weeks before the convention without suspending his campaign. Many Sanders supporters maintained that the DNC or Clinton campaign threatened to rescind platform promises had Sanders not endorsed, but the senator made no such claim himself in a 12 July 2016 delegate conference call. During that call, Sanders did urge all delegates to appear in Philadelphia and vote for him on the first ballot. As for claims that Sanders (like FDR before him) was heading into a contested convention after endorsing a rival, there was scant truth to that claim. FDR headed into the convention with a majority of pledged delegates, prior to the advent of superdelegates. While FDR needed a hard-won two-thirds majority to seize his nomination, he also started with more delegates than his competitors. And the process of formally endorsing a rival didn't appear to be exceptionally relevant (if at all common) in the 1932 presidential nominating process.  Cillizza, Chris.  "Heres What Bernie Sanderss Hillary Clinton Endorsement Is Really About."
  Washington Post.  12 July 2016. Onion, Rebecca.  "The Art of The New Deal."
  Slate.  31 March 2016. Smith, Jean Edward.  "F.D.R.s Rough Road to Nomination."
  The New York Times.  14 May 2007. Caucus99Percent.  "Last Night I Spoke to Ashley Wolthuis, Bernie Delegate Behind Claim Sanders Was Coerced to Endorse Hillary."
  13 July 2016. In January 2022, a number of trucks participated in a convoy across Canada in protest of the country's requirement for cross-border truckers to be vaccinated for COVID-19. As videos of the so-called "freedom convoy" spread on social media, so did a number of claims concerning just how many trucks were participating in this event. These claims ranged from a few hundred to more than 50,000. Some even claimed that the freedom convoy had set a Guinness World Record for the world's largest truck convoy.  country's requirement for cross-border truckers to be vaccinated for COVID-19   As of this writing, the freedom convoy has not earned a place in the Guinness World Records book. Furthermore, the claim that this convoy involved 50,000 trucks appears to be a gross exaggeration that goes against all available evidence.  The largest truck convoy on record was set in November 2020 in Cairo, Egypt. That convoy involved 480 trucks and stretched 7.5 km (4.6 miles). Guinness writes: Guinness writes The largest parade of trucks consisted of 480 trucks and is achieved by Tahya Misr Fund (Egypt), in Cairo, Egypt, on 20 November 2020. With a length of 7.5 km, Tahya Misr Fund was able to organize a parade of 480 trucks, amid the harsh weather and heavy rain, breaking the Guinness World Records title for the largest parade of trucks, which was achieved 16 years ago in the Netherlands with a parade size of 416 trucks, thus the Tahya Misr Fund became the ne record holder. This Guinness World Records entry provides a data point that makes us skeptical of the 50,000 truck claim. If a 500 truck convoy stretched 7.5 km, a 50,000 truck convoy would stretch 750 km (about 460 miles). We have seen no evidence to support the idea that the freedom convoy is anywhere near 460 miles long.  So just how many trucks participated in this freedom convoy? There's no official count for the number of trucks participating in this convoy. Estimates are also difficult because this big rig convoy also includes a number of cars and other smaller vehicles. Furthermore, the "freedom convoy" has been a multiple-day event and some trucks may only be participating for a portion of the journey.  These variables make it difficult to estimate just how many trucks are participating. We reached out to the Canadian Trucking Alliance for more information and we will update this article if more information is made available.  Many Canadian news outlets have used the word "hundreds" to quantify the number of trucks in this convoy. The CBC, for example, reported: "Hundreds of truckers set off from British Columbia to Ottawa on Sunday to protest a federal vaccine mandate despite the urging of the country's largest trucking federation to comply." reported Adrian Ghobrial, a reporter for the Toronto news outlet City News, said that while thousands of people have come out to watch and support the truckers as they drive by, he was skeptical that the convoy consisted of more than 100 trucks:  David Akin, the chief global correspondent with Global News, cited a report from the Ontario Provincial Police that 113 trucks (as well as 276 personal vehicles) were recorded coming into Thunder Bay from Winnipeg.   On social media, the estimate of trucks involved in this convoy has grown by the tweet. A post from Fox News host Sean Hannity, for example, claimed that the freedom convoy consisted of 10,000 trucks. Others claimed that this number was in excess of 50,000 trucks.  freedom convoy consisted of 10,000 trucks   The claim that 50,000 trucks are participating in this convoy appears to have originated with one of the protest's organizers. The organizers may not be the most reliable source for this figure, however, as they have reason to inflate these numbers.  originated with one of the protest's organizers The number also seems implausible due to what we know about the trucking industry in Canada.  According to the Canadian Trucking Alliance, the cross-border vaccine mandate would impact about 15% (or about 16,000) of the country's truckers. If the 50,000 truck claim is to be believed, that would mean that not only would every one of those 16,000 truckers have to participate in the event, but they'd also need to be joined by 34,000 additional trucks who weren't impacted by the mandate.  Canadian Trucking Alliance The Canadian Trucking Alliance said in a statement that the "the vast majority of the Canadian trucking industry is vaccinated with the overall industry vaccination rate among truck drivers closely mirroring that of the general public. Accordingly, most of our nations hard-working truck drivers are continuing to move cross-border and domestic freight to ensure our economy continues to function." statement   Canada Police Fear Violence at Trucker Vaccine Protest. ABC News, https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/canada-police-fear-violence-trucker-vaccine-protest-82497084. Accessed 27 Jan. 2022. Canadian Trucking Alliance Statement to Those Engaged in Road/Border Protests - Canadian Trucking Alliance. https://cantruck.ca/canadian-trucking-alliance-statement-to-those-engaged-in-road-border-protests/. Accessed 27 Jan. 2022. Hundreds of Truckers Headed to Ottawa in Freedom Rally Convoy against Vaccine Mandate | CBC News. CBC, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/freedom-rally-bc-jan-23-1.6324942. Accessed 27 Jan. 2022. Largest Parade of Trucks. Guinness World Records, https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/largest-truck-convoy. Accessed 27 Jan. 2022. Republican State Assemblyman Jim Patterson of Fresno recently claimed California would soon have the highest gas tax in the nation. He made the claim in a press release days after the California Legislaturepassed a 12 cent per gallon gasoline tax hike, part of a funding package to raise billions of dollars for state road repairs. The $52 billion tax will also put Californians in a special, yet unenviable category  drivers who pay the highest gas tax in the nation, Patterson said in the release issued April 10, 2017. With Democratic Gov. Jerry Browns signature the bill will go into effect in November. The Golden States per gallon gas tax is already high. We set out to fact-check whether it really will be the highest in the country. Our research Asked for evidence, Pattersons spokeswoman pointed us to a map showing state-by-state gasoline tax ratesproduced in March 2016by the nonprofit Tax Foundation. That map and its numbers, however, are outdated. A mapproduced in January 2017by the foundation includes the most current state-by-state gas tax rates. Those rates are calculated by adding up state and local gas taxes and fees. It shows Pennsylvania has the highest per gallon tax rate in the nation at more than 58 cents. Californias current per gallon tax is about 38 cents per gallon, the seventh highest in the nation. Do the arithmetic: Even with the 12-cent increase, Californias tax will trail Pennsylvanias by 8 cents per gallon. You wont be No. 1, thats for sure, said John Buhl, a spokesman for the Washington D.C.-based Tax Foundation. Pennsylvania will still be the highest. Achart produced in January 2017by the American Petroleum Institute, a trade association, confirms the tax foundations figures, though it adds in the 18.4 cents per gallon federal gas tax for each state. Based on current rates, Californias increase will likely result in the second highest state gas tax in the nation, ahead of Washington and Hawaii. This second highest tax ranking could leave California with the highest overall gas prices at the pump, according to energy analysts. We looked at that topic in arecent article. As of this week, Californias average price was $2.99 per gallon. It trailed only Hawaiis $3.04, for a margin of about 5 cents per gallon. The 12 cent per gallon increase could cause California to leap-frog Hawaii, analysts said. Joe Henchman, a vice president with the Tax Foundation, noted that California also adds a 2.25 percent sales tax on gasoline. This sales tax is not counted by the foundation or the petroleum institute as part of the states gas tax. But based on the current price of gasoline in the state, it represents about 6 or 7 cents per gallon in tax, which would not entirely close the gap with Pennsylvania, Henchman said. Five other states charge a sales tax on gasoline: Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana and Illinois. Pennsylvania does not. Our ruling Republican State Assemblyman Jim Patterson claimed Californias recent gas tax increase, once approved by Gov. Jerry Brown as expected, would result in the highest gas tax in the nation. Patterson relied on outdated gas tax rates. Current figuresfrom the Tax Foundation show Californias per gallon gas tax will still trail Pennsylvanias rate by more than 6 cents, even after the tax hike goes into effect in November. California would likely move from seventh highest to second in the nation. These figures are alsoconfirmedby the American Petroleum Institute. In the end, we rate Pattersons claim False. UPDATE:This fact-check has been updated with comments from Joe Henchman of the Tax Foundation about the sales tax California charges on gasoline. The foundation provided us a second update later in April 2017 that accounted for an additional and less-publicized gas tax increase under Californias new legislation. It concluded Pennsylvania will still be highest, but by a narrower margin. This latest update factors inan additional 7.5 cent per gallon gas tax increasethat would start in July 2019. This is on top of the 12 cent per gallon hike that would go into effect in November. The states full gas tax increase would amount to 19.5 cents per gallon by this time. Californias overall gas tax would climb to 58.3 cents per gallon under the foundations latest calculations. We continue to rate Patterson's claim as False as the foundation concluded this higher California gas tax, even in 2019, would  be just behind Pennsylvania's highest-in-the-nation 59.3 (cents-per-gallon) tax. FALSEThe statement is not accurate. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Like many California Democrats, Assemblyman Phil Ting is no fan of the Republican tax plan signed by President Donald Trump. He has likened it to a tax giveaway for big corporations. The San Francisco lawmaker hasproposed a surchargeon large companies in California, to claw back some of the billions of tax dollars that would be lost to the state under the plan. Such a bill, Ting said, would help blunt the impact of the federal tax plan on everyday Californians. We wondered, however, whether Ting accurately described the GOP tax plan in thestatementhe provided to theSan Francisco Chronicleon Jan. 21, 2018. Trumps tax reform plan was nothing more than a middle-class tax increase, Ting, who formerly served as San Francisco's Assessor-Recorder, said in the statement. It is unconscionable to force working families to pay the price for tax breaks and loopholes benefiting corporations and wealthy individuals. We decided to check the facts, with a focus on the first part of Tings claim that the tax plan was nothing more than a middle-class tax increase. His words could be considered a burst of political rhetoric, but they also make an assertion about how millions of Americans would be impacted by the GOP plan. Our research We spoke with experts at the centrist Tax Policy Center and conservative-leaning Tax Foundation to assess Tings claim. Both said it was off the mark. What we found is most taxpayers would be getting a tax cut,Frank Sammartino, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, told us. That includes most middle-income taxpayers, at least in the short-run, he said. The Tax Policy Center center estimates 91 percent of those who earn between $50,000 and $85,000 would receive a tax cut averaging about $900 in 2018, Sammartino said. Seven percent in this group would see their taxes go up, he said, while the rest would see their taxes remain the same. Additionally, 93 percent of Americans who earn between $85,000 and $150,000 would experience a tax cut in 2018, an amount averaging $1,800. Were just not seeing that in the data, Sammartino said of Tings statement that the plan results in nothing more than middle class tax increase. Were not seeing that its a tax increase for most people. A fairly substantial tax cut for the middle class Scott Greenbergis a senior analyst at the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation. He described the GOP tax plan as a fairly substantial tax cut for the middle class in the short term. And in the long-term, after many of the provisions in the bill expire (at the end of 2025), the net effect of the tax bill on middle income households will be more or less zero. The Tax Foundation concluded it will amount to tax cut of about1.7 percentof ones after-tax income, on average, for the middle quintile of taxpayers, Greenberg said. Meanwhile, the Tax Policy Center found it will amount to nearly the same amount, a tax cut of about1.6 percentof ones after-tax income for middle income earners. Greenberg said the plan accomplishes this by lowering rates for several tax brackets, expanding the standard deduction and the child tax credit. Assemblyman Phil Ting / Capital Public Radio file photo Response from Ting When asked about the statement, Tings spokeswoman Jessica Duong pointed to newsarticlesthat show some in the middle class will see higher taxes under the GOP bill. She did not counter the estimate that most would see a tax cut. The quote was intended to counter Trumps claim that this is going to be one of the great gifts to the middle income people of this country that theyve ever gotten for Christmas  it is being sold as a middle-class tax cut but the benefits for such families will expire in 2025 while the corporate tax cuts are permanent, the spokeswoman told us in an email. Assemblymember Tings use of nothing more is intended to counter that misleading billing and highlight the fact that the plan currently and purposefully relies on the middle class paying for future tax cut deficits, she added. Little if anything We also examined the California Budget and Policy Centers assessment of the tax plan. The group, considered more liberal leaning, painted a dire picture of the plans impact on most taxpayers. It warned in a recentpostthe plan would do little if anything for middle- and low-income families across the nation, andespecially in California. By scaling back the federal income tax deduction for state and local taxes, known as the SALT deduction, the plan would harm many middle-income families. It added that the plan is clearly tilted to wealthy households and major corporations, while providing very little if any benefit for most middle- and low-income families. National tax experts dont dispute the wealthy would see larger tax cuts. The top one percent of households by income, for example, would see a tax cut of 3.4 percent, according to the Tax Policy Center. Thats about twice the rate of savings compared with middle class households. The plan cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent. California hardships? In California, which has high state and local taxes, the GOP plan is expected to create more financial hardships compared with lower-tax states because it caps state and local income tax deductions. Heres how Forbes.comexplainedthe changes: Under the old tax law all property taxes paid to state and local governments could be claimed as an itemized deduction. It was also possible to deduct state and local income or sales taxes. The new law bundles all these so-called SALT taxes together and limits the deduction, in total, to $10,000 for both individuals and married couples. For some homeowners in high-tax areas such as California, $10,000 does not come close to covering their combined property and income tax bills. Theres also a change that affects mortgage interest deductions for homeowners. Under the previous law, homeowners could write off any interest they pay on mortgages up to $1 million. The new law will limit these deductions to mortgages of $750,000 or less. Given the Golden States high housing costs, some Californians will be impacted by the new cap. The change, however, impacts new mortgages, not existing ones. Sammartino of the Tax Policy Center told us those factors will would hurt some Californians. Even so, he said, the vast majority of middle class taxpayers in the state will still see a tax cut. The overall tax cuts might be a little bit less, Sammartino said. But in general, probably upwards of 85 percent of the middle class or so should see a tax cut in California, for 2018. What happens when the tax cuts expire? While the plans corporate tax cuts are permanent, the individual reductions are temporary. The national PolitiFact took a closer look at who would be paying more once the individual tax cuts expire. It found all filers who make $75,000 or less annually will see a tax increase. Some of those are middle-class households. Only those income ranges above $75,000 still see a cut by 2027, according to thePolitiFact analysis. Thats a significantly different pattern than in 2019, when every group saves, on average. Republicans hope a future Congress will extend the individual provisions. Experts believe thats likely, though its not guaranteed. Our ruling Democratic Assemblyman Phil Ting recently claimed the GOP tax plan is nothing more than a middle class tax increase. That doesnt match up with estimates from the centrist Tax Policy Center and conservative leaning Tax Foundation. They project the plan will result in a tax cut for about 90 percent of middle-income households nationwide in 2018. Those cuts would range from about $900 to $1,800. The remaining middle-income households would see their taxes stay the same or go up. The California Budget and Policy Center, a liberal leaning group, warns the plan will provide little if any help to middle- and low-income earners in high-tax California, given new limits placed on state and local tax deductions. But even with those new caps, plus a change to the mortgage interest deduction, national tax experts told us the vast majority of middle-class Californians -- up to 85 percent -- will still experience a tax cut in the plans first year. That could change by 2027 after the individual tax cuts expire, when households who make $75,000 or less are expected to see a tax hike. Congress could extend those cuts, though nothing is guaranteed. There might have been some truth to Tings statement had he said the plan was nothing more than a middle class tax increase by 2027, after the cuts expire. But his statement ignores the fact that the vast majority in Americas, and Californias, middle class are expected to get a tax break between now and then. We rate Tings claim False. FALSEThe statement is not accurate. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.