Says Rep. Jim Weidner proposed a bill taking away health care for 80,000 of Oregon's children.
Forget taking candy away from children. Blue Oregon, a liberal political website, is accusing one Republican candidate of trying to take health care away from 80,000 of Oregons youth.In apostlooking for political contributions, Kari Chisholm of Blue Oregon describes the race in House District 24 as follows: Susan Sokol Blosser (the Democrat) is one of the founders of Oregon's world-renowned wine industry where shes a leader on environmental sustainability. Her opponent,Rep. JimWeidnerproposed a bill taking away health care for 80,000 of Oregon's children.Ouch. Not exactly the sort of thing that wins you votes.Naturally, PolitiFact Oregon wondered if Weidner, who has four kids himself, really has it out for Oregons children.The claim on Blue Oregon was in reference toHouse Bill 3603, a bill that Weidner sponsored during the February 2010 special session. The bill, according to the summary, repeals (the) health insurance premium assessment.That was nice and vague, so we did some more sleuthing and ended up with the staff measure summary forHouse Bill 2116. Why House Bill 2116? Well, that was the bill that, in part, instituted the health insurance premium assessment or, to put it comprehensible English, a 1 percent tax on health insurance premiums paid by the insurance companies but passed on to the customers.According to thestaff measure summary, that 1 percent tax would be used to provide funding for health care for 80,000 children during the 2009-2011 biennium through Oregon Healthy Kids. Those 80,000 were in addition to the the children already covered by the state-run plan.So, it seems, Weidner does want to eliminate a tax that is being used to provide health care to children. We checked in with Weidner to see if he could explain his position. As it turns out, hes not so much against health care for children as he is against the 1 percent tax. He says the tax disproportionately hurts small businesses. Weidner sponsored the bill, he says, because he wanted to bring attention to this and other issues. I knew the bill wasnt going to go anywhere.Before we settled on a ruling we wanted to check one other thing: Even if Weidners bill had gone through, are there really 80,000 children who would lose health insurance? We called Oregon Healthy Kids to find out.As it happens, since the bill passed, about 57,000 children have been enrolled in the program, according to Cathy Kaufmann, manager of the Healthy Kids Office. Thats as of August. Kaufmann expects that the full 80,000 will be enrolled before the end of the 2009-2011 biennium.So where does that leave us? Well, while were feeling pretty confident that Weidner isnt anti-health care for kids, he did, as the website alleges, propose a bill that would have eliminated the funding for health care for 80,000 children. Whether he thought it would pass or not doesnt much change things. And some context about how he was really targeting a tax would have been nice. Still, we rate this claim True.
The only way to make New Jersey a more affordable place to live is to have government spend less money, according to Gov. Chris Christie.The Republican governor offered that solution when a man called into a Jan. 22 radio program and expressed concerns about the cost of living in New Jersey. The caller wanted to know the plan for keeping people like him in the state.Christie told the man that property taxes have increased minimally in the last two years, because government spending has been capped. On the state level, spending is now lower than it was under Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine in fiscal year 2008, according to Christie.Now were making a difference. Because you know why? Were capping spending, Christie said on New Jersey 101.5s Ask the Governor program. Were saying youve got to spend less, and on the state level, we spend less today than Jon Corzine spent in fiscal year 2008, five years later.The governor, who is seeking re-election this year, repeated the state spending claim on Thursday during a campaign stop at Tops Diner in East Newark.Christie is right that state spending in the current fiscal year is lower than the spending level in fiscal year 2008, but the governors claim ignores the fact that spending has still increased with each new state budget since he took office.Lets break down the numbers:For fiscal year 2008, Corzine approved a spending plan of about $33.47 billion, according to state Department of the Treasury reports. Final state spending that year ended slightly higher, at $33.61 billion, according to department reports.In June 2012, Christie signed a budget for fiscal year 2013 that appropriates about $31.65 billion in state spending.So, the governors current budget marks a nearly $2 billion decrease in state spending as compared to fiscal year 2008.But just because state spending is lower than it was five years ago, doesnt mean it hasnt increased on Christies watch.In his first budget after taking office in January 2010, Christie approved a roughly $28.36 billion spending plan for fiscal year 2011. For the next budget year -- fiscal year 2012 -- the governor approved a roughly $29.69 billion budget.That means, in terms of the annual appropriations acts signed by Christie, state spending has increased by about $3.29 billion, or 11.6 percent, between fiscal years 2011 and 2013. In response to our findings about spending increases during Christie's tenure, Treasury spokesman Bill Quinn said the following in an e-mail: We think your original question has been conclusively answered in the Governors favor as unequivocally true. You are now posing an entirely different inquiry that is not based on what the Governor actually said on the air that led to your fact check.The increased spending since fiscal year 2011 is due in part to the governors policies boosting the states economy, leading to higher tax revenues, according to Quinn. He pointed out how two of the major areas of higher spending have been in education and pension contributions.Quinn added that the tough decisions needed to put the state budget on sound, responsible fiscal footing in fiscal years 10 and 11 allowed us to grow and make key investments in FY 12 and 13.Our rulingIn response to a caller during New Jersey 101.5s Ask the Governor program, Christie claimed that on the state level, we spend less today than Jon Corzine spent in fiscal year 2008, five years later.The governor is correct in that the fiscal year 2013 budget is nearly $2 billion less than the level of state spending under Corzine in fiscal year 2008. But Christies claim ignores the fact that state spending has still increased during his tenure.That means the governors statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. That meets our definition of Mostly True. To comment on this ruling, go toNJ.com. In April 2018 Utah Republican Mike Kennedy made national headlines as he faced off against Mitt Romney for a Senate seat in that state, prompting the circulation of a meme asserting that the Kennedy had once made a statement about access to hospitals and patient deaths: national headlines meme   Although the meme dated to at least 2015, its featured quote appeared in a 24 April 2018 Salt Lake Tribune article: "Who is that guy who beat Mitt Romney at the GOP convention?" which reported that: article At the top of the list is to repeal Obamacare. [Kennedy] told delegates, I oppose Obamacare and any scheme that puts the government between doctor and patient. Four years ago, Kennedy made national headlines when, during a legislative task force meeting, he said, Sometimes access to health care can be damaging and dangerous ... Ive heard from National Institutes of Health and otherwise that were killing up to a million, a million and a half people every year in our hospitals. And its access to hospitals thats killing those people. That piece referenced a report and video from Salt Lake station KSTU, but neither source provided complete context. Kennedy was quoted as arguing against Medicaid expansion, and as represented, his remarks were accurately transcribed: report Representative Mike Kennedy, a Republican from Alpine, made the comments in a Health Reform Task Force meeting, in reaction to a story from another doctor. Doctor Kyle Jones told the legislature's Health Reform Task Force about a neighbor who was in a car crash. That neighbor suffered a rare response to pain medicine called toxic encephalopathy. The condition has caused memory loss, seizures and depression, according to Jones. "Sometimes access actually can mean harm," said Representative Mike Kennedy, a family physician. The Republican from Alpine repeated the argument more than once: "Sometimes access to health care can be damaging and dangerous. And it's a perspective for the [Legislative] body to consider is that, I've heard from National Institutes of Health and otherwise that we're killing up to a million, a million and a half people every year in our hospitals. And it's access to hospitals that's killing those people."  We were unable to locate any information substantiating Kennedy's claim that access to hospitals killed between one and one-and-a-half million Americans per year. It's possible Kennedy was referencing an ongoing study of the effects of medical mistakes, a topic that was the subject of research published in The BMJ in May 2016, but those figures estimated only 250,000 deaths due to medical error per year at that time. medical mistakes published Kennedy may also have been referencing research published in September 2013, in which researchers extrapolated between 210,000 and 400,000 deaths per year "associated with preventable harm in hospitals." Authors of that study concluded that "engaging patients and their advocates during hospital care, systematically seeking the patients voice in identifying harms, transparent accountability for harm, and intentional correction of root causes of harm will be necessary" to reduce preventable hospital deaths but did not recommend restricting access to medical care as a preventive measure. Davidson, Lee.  "Who Is That Guy Who Beat Mitt Romney At The GOP Convention?"
  The Salt Lake Tribune.  23 April 2018. James, John T. PhD.  "A New, Evidence-Based Estimate Of Patient Harms Associated With Hospital Care."
  Journal of Patient Safety.  September 2013. Romboy, Dennis.  "Little-Known Mike Kennedy To Take On Mitt Romney In Utah GOP Primary."
  Deseret News.  23 April 2018. Roth, Max.  "State Representative To Legislature: Hospitals Can Be Dangerous."
  KSTU.  28 August 2014. Johns Hopkins Medicine.  "Study Suggests Medical Errors Now Third Leading Cause of Death In The U.S.."
  3 May 2016. CBS News.  "Mitt Romney 'Probably Not Too Worried' After Second Place Finish At Utah Convention, Reporter Says."
  26 April 2018. In December 2020, a viral meme was shared on social media that claimed a story about U.S. President-elect Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, was "front page news" in Australia. The article's headline read: "Biden 'Child Porn' Shock."  (Twitter screenshot) However, the meme's claim was false. The story appeared in a tabloid newspaper. Further, it did not appear on the front page of that publication, and the front page did not appear to tease or even mention the story in any way:   Also, any scandal surrounding Hunter Biden wasn't new news in December 2020. The story appeared in the Oct. 22, 2020, edition of the conservative Australian tabloid newspaper The Daily Telegraph. It claimed that Hunter Biden became "the hunted amid claims of underage pics on his laptop": appeared THE ongoing story of alleged corruption and foreign influence trading by the Biden family took a more sinister turn on Wednesday (AEDT). Speaking to the conservative American news outlet Newsmax, President Donald Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani said he had turned the hard drive reportedly left abandoned by Hunter Biden, son of Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden, at a Delaware repair shop over to state police due to contents which he said included inappropriate text messages and pictures of underage girls. Mr. Giuliani said there were "numerous" pictures which he described as being of underage girls. He also said there were text messages from Hunter to Joe saying that he had been accused of speaking naked to a 14-year-old girl on FaceTime. [...] The laptop has rocked the presidential race as it appears to provide direct evidence of cash-for-influence schemes involving Hunter and countries such as Ukraine and China. We previously reported on rumors surrounding Biden's son, which surfaced prior to the 2020 U.S. presidential election, as have The Associated Press, NBC News, and Fox News, among other news media outlets. We also debunked a false claim that said a photograph of Malia Obama's credit card was found on Hunter Biden's laptop, complete with lines of cocaine. reported on The Associated Press NBC News Fox News debunked Update [June 1, 2023]: Changed rating from False to Miscaptioned in accordance with current rating standards. After the police shooting of 20-year-old Latrell Allen in Chicago's Englewood community on the afternoon of Aug. 9, 2020, unrest in that city extended through that night and into the early morning hours of the following day, with looters hitting some stores in Chicagos wealthiest shopping district on North Michigan Avenue. Latrell Allen extended The following evening, members of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement held a solidarity rally in that city with some of the people who had been arrested for looting the night before. Shortly after those events, social media users began circulating a meme stemming from that event, quoting a "BLM leader & organizer" named Ariel Atkins as saying, "I don't care if someone decides to loot, because that makes sure that person eats or has clothes. Anything they want to take, they can, because these businesses have insurance":  That was an accurate quote, according to Chicago NBC affiliate WMAQ-TV, who reported on the Aug. 10 event: reported Members of Black Lives Matter held a solidarity rally on Monday night [August 10] with the more than 100 individuals who were arrested after a night of looting and unrest in Chicago. The rally was held at the South Loop police station where organizers say those individuals are currently being held in custody. I dont care if someone decides to loot a Gucci or a Macys or a Nike store, because that makes sure that person eats, Ariel Atkins, a BLM organizer, said. That makes sure that person has clothes. Black Lives Matter Chicago organized the rally after overnight unrest throughout the city, with police saying that more than 100 individuals were taken into custody for a variety of offenses, including looting. That is reparations, Atkins said. Anything they wanted to take, they can take it because these businesses have insurance. Atkins said essentially the same thing a few days later, when she was interviewed by Chicago NPR station WBEZ on the subject of "why she supports looting": interviewed A lot of people are really attacking our pages. Theyre like, Oh, you support the looters. And yeah, we do, 100%. Thats reparations. And like however people choose to protest, especially if it was definitely in line with what happened with the shooting, which would be powerful to see people reacting ... without organizers just being like, Were angry and this is what were gonna do. Were gonna take the power back. I feel like these stores, these Macys, these Guccis, the PNC Banks, theyre not here for us. The city puts way more money and investment into spending time and protecting their spaces and making sure that they exist. And yet our people are constantly being pushed out of the city ... Unemployment is incredibly high, like we are in an incredible situation, and the fact that anybody gives a s*** about these businesses over what is happening in this city right now and the pain that people are in and the suffering that is taking place, I dont care. I will support the looters till the end of the day. If thats what they need to do in order to eat, then thats what youve got to do to eat .... The whole idea of criminality is based on racism anyway, because criminality is punishing people for things that they have needed to do to survive or just the way that society has affected them with white supremacist B.S. So its like her deciding what is criminal and what isnt. WMAQ-TV [Chicago].  "Black Lives Matter Holds Rally Supporting Individuals Arrested in Chicago Looting Monday."
  10 August 2020. Black, Curtis. &nbps; "Latrell Allen Police Shooting Exposes Gaps in Body Camera and Foot Pursuit Policies."
  The Chicago Reporter.  14 August 2020. Yoon-Ji Kang, Esther.  "Officers Disrespected Englewood Residents Following Police Shooting, Activists Say."
  WBEZ [Chicago].  10 August 2020. Wildeboer, Rob and Chip Mitchell.  "Officers Disrespected Englewood Residents Following Police Shooting, Activists Say."
  WBEZ [Chicago].  12 August 2020. The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was underway in late February 2021 in Orlando, Florida, complete with a golden statue of former U.S. President Donald Trump. And it wasn't long before controversy unfolded. golden statue Eagle-eyed social media users claimed that the stage where Sen. Ted Cruz, Donald Trump Jr., and others made speeches looked eerily like a Nazi or white supremacist symbol.   Some even shared images comparing the stage to old uniforms from Nazi Germany. The image below could have been pulled from a Daily Mail article that claims to show a Nazi SS trooper. Daily Mail   We reviewed videos from CPAC and confirmed that the shape of the stage indeed reflects the images in the above tweets. The first three seconds of the following video show the full stage:  But was it truly a Nazi symbol? The shape of the stage, a diamond with two prongs extending on one end, is indeed similar to an early European Othala rune also known as the "Odal rune." According to the Anti-Defamation League this is a popular Neo-Nazi symbol, but as it is part of an ancient runic alphabet system, it has not solely been used as a hate symbol. It also appears in different forms, sometimes without the two prongs pointing upward. Anti-Defamation League It has, however, been used as the insignia of a number of Nazi divisions during the early 20th century. The rune was used as the logo of the Nazi 7th SS Mountain Division that fought in Croatia and the Balkans in the 1940s. One book "7th SS Mountain Division Prinz Eugen at War 1941-1945: A History of the Division," with photographs of Nazi soldiers collected by Ian Baxter, features the symbol prominently on its cover. Another historical account by Otto Kumm, a Nazi German commander of the SS during World War II, also features the symbol prominently on its cover. This edition, published in 1995, is available on Amazon. used book account Amazon   It was also described as a symbol popular with "skinheads" in a 2006 Edmonton Journal article: "In addition to the swastika, skinheads favor two ancient Nordic runes: the Odal rune which looks like a diamond with tails." described CPAC organizer, Matt Schlapp, responded to the theories surrounding the shape of the stage, calling them "outrageous" and "slanderous":   On March 2, in a statement to Jewish media outlet Forward, the company hired to set up the stage at CPAC took full responsibility for the stage design. Design Foundry said they "had no idea that the design resembled any symbol, nor was there any intention to create something that did." They added that the American Conservative Union had approved the stage design, which was "intended to provide the best use of space, given the constraints of the ballroom and social distancing requirements." statement The terms of the contract CPAC organizers signed with Design Foundry stated, "The designs, renderings, drawings, specifications, materials and other documents used or created as part of the proposal are owned by Design Foundry." Ian Walters, communications director for CPAC, told the Forward that the design firm "provided several options for us to choose from and what we ended up with was the most workable of the options they submitted [...] ACU and CPAC have no interest in promoting antisemitism from our stage, whether it's what happens on the stage or the design of the stage itself," he added. "It's clear that the company we retained designed a stage that has become an unwelcome distraction. As a result, we will not be using that company's services going forward at future events." told We reached out to CPAC organizers, and Design Foundry for details regarding the process of designing and selecting this stage. We will update this post as more information becomes available The shape of the Nazi symbol is eerily similar to the shape of the stage at CPAC. However, without documentation detailing the process of designing this stage, we are presently unable to confirm whether this was a deliberate choice made by the event organizers. At the moment, we rate this claim as "Mixture." Feb. 28, 2021: Update added with CPAC organizer's tweeted response. March 3, 2021: Updated added with stage design company and CPAC communications director's statement to Forward. March 3, 2021: Updated rating to "Mixture" and edited notes to "what's true" and "what's undetermined" sections. Updated rating overlay on image. Claim:  Food stamps can now be used to purchase alcohol and tobacco products.   Example:  [Collected via e-mail, December 2014] Is the following true? I am pretty sure it isn't, but can't find any other information other than this website. "President Obama signs SNAP Fairness Act of 2014 Into Law: Alcohol & Tobacco Products No Longer Prohibited from Food Stamps."   Origins:  On 7 December 2014, the Salty Badger web site published an article claiming President Obama had signed legislation called "The SNAP Fairness Act of 2014" into law, making it legal to purchase alcohol and tobacco (items that have long been excluded from the food stamps program) with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) electronic benefit (EBT) cards: article President Obama signed the "SNAP Fairness Act of 2014" into law today, 12/7/14, thirty-four days after both houses of Congress narrowly passed the controversial bill overcoming strong Republican resistance both in the Senate and House. All SNAP-eligible Americans will be enjoying a late Christmas present this year courtesy of Uncle Sam. Wrapped inside with a red, white and blue bow will be increased food stamp funds and the right to use their EBT card to buy alcohol and tobacco products.   Hakeem Jeffries of New York's 8th Congressional District stated, "For too long, American citizens have been discriminated against at the grocery store. There is no reason my constituents should be barred from purchasing a 6-pack of Coors Light with their EBT card to go along with their steak dinner, also purchased with their EBT card. To expect low-income hardworking Americans to go out of pocket for essentials such as cigarettes and beer is not only racist, but cruel. I am proud to stand with my president today in this historical signing for food stamp fairness." The article uses the names of real politicians, like President Obama and Hakeem Jeffries, but that's the only factual element of the story. The SNAP Fairness Act of 2014 does not exist, President Obama didn't sign any bills into law on 7 December 2014, and SNAP benefit cards cannot be used to purchase alcohol or tobacco products.  sign purchase The photo used to illustrate this fictitious article shows President Obama sitting at his desk in August 2013 signing the Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act, not the SNAP Fairness Act, into law.  August 2013 The Salty Badger may not be as well known as fake news sites such as Huzlers or World News Daily Report, but the web site's mission is the same: To spread misinformation. The Salty Badger, which prides itself on being "not always right, but always first," notes in their mission statement that: mission statement When the Salty Badger was conceived and born from two genius minds, literally minutes prior to writing this statement, we had three major goals in our minds: Bring our brand of comedy to the forefront, have beautiful women throwing themselves at us, and get Scrooge McDuck rich.  We will settle for any one of the three.  We will sneak our humor into the minds of the world one individual at a time     Last updated:  10 December 2014 While the debate over the compromise tax agreement proposed by President Barack Obama has focused mostly on Bush's income tax cuts and whether they ought to be extended to wealthy Americans, the issue of estate taxes has also become a sticking point for some legislators.Under the plan, the estate tax rate would be set at 35 percent, with an effective exemption of $5 million.Many Republicans had hoped to do away with the estate tax altogether, and Democrats last year had proposed a higher rate: 45 percent on the value of estates over $3.5 million.The compromise has ruffled feathers on both sides of the aisle. Sen. Jim DeMint, R.-S.C., for example, said he would not support the plan because he considered the estate tax compromise a tax increase. We ruled that claimBarely True.Meanwhile, Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont and a self-described democratic socialist, sent out amessage via Twitteron Dec. 13, 2010, saying that under the estate tax plan, 99.7% of American families will not pay 1 nickel in an estate tax. This is not a tax on the rich, this is a tax on the very, very, very rich.According to ananalysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Sanders is correct.The Tax Policy Center estimated that about 99.7 percent of estates were exempt from the estate tax in 2009 when the first $3.5 million of an estate was exempt. Even fewer people would be subject to the tax if the threshold is increased to $5 million, as proposed in the compromise tax plan.Under the compromise plan, less than 2/10 of 1 percent of estates would be subject to the estate tax next year, said Bob Williams of the Tax Policy Center. That means more than 99.8 percent would be completely exempt.The Tax Policy Center estimates that about 3,600 estates would be subject to the tax under the $5 million threshold. Those 3,600 estates would have to pay an estimated $11.4 billion in estate taxes under the compromise tax plan.Estate tax rates have fluctuated through modern history. In 2001, President George W. Bush signed a plan to gradually reduce the estate tax from 55 percent to 45 percent, while at the same time increasing the exemption value from $1 million in 2002 to $3.5 million in 2009. The estate tax disappeared altogether in 2010.But the Bush plan only had a 10-year window because Republicans didn't have the votes at the time to permanently abolish the estate tax. It passed the Senate under budget reconciliation, which requires only a simple majority of 51 votes but which also limited it to a 10-year shelf life. Barring a new tax agreement, the rate was set to revert next year to a 55 percent rate with an effective exemption of $1 million.Last year, Democrats proposed a plan to permanently set the estate tax rate at 2009 levels -- 45 percent on the value of estates over $3.5 million. But the plan never reached a vote in the Senate. Had that plan gone through, the Tax Policy Center estimates it would have subjected 6,460 estates to a tax (bring in an estimated $18.2 billion). If no tax plan passes, and the rate goes back to 55 percent on the value of estates over $1 million, an 43,540 estates would have to pay (bringing in an estimated $34.4 billion next year).Sanders was correct that in 2009, when the effective exemption was $3.5 million, about 99.7 percent of all estates were exempt and didn't pay anything. The compromise plan -- which would set effective exemption at $5 million -- would push the number of exempted estates even higher, so that more than 99.8 percent of estates would not pay anything. We rate Sanders' comment True. A reader questioned Sen. Ted Cruzs comparison of military spending to how much it costs Americans to get their taxes done. According to ablog poston txwinelover.com, Cruz toured Becker Vineyards in July 2014 before holding a roundtable with wine industry representatives during which he agreed the tax system should be simplified. Every year, Cruz elaborated, we spend roughly $500 billion on tax compliance. That is roughly the budget of our entire military, entirely wasted on tax compliance. I agree with you we should move to a simple flat tax where everyone can fill out their taxes on a postcard and that we should shut down the IRS. Cruz, a Texas lawyer elected to the U.S. Senate in 2012, has since declared his candidacy for president.But hed already calledfor a flat-rate income tax and abolishing the IRS. And was he right that about the same $500 billion a year getting spent on complying with tax laws and funding the military? Both figures need explaining. Military spending Per military spending, Cruz campaign spokesman  Rick Tyler said by email that Cruz drew ona chartposted byThe Washington Postin 2012 indicating that adjusted for inflation, defense spending has exceeded $500 billion a year since 2007 or so: SOURCE:Blog post,Defense spending in the U.S., in four charts,Wonkblog,The Washington Post, Aug. 28, 2012, chart citingCenter for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments(noted in an email from Rick Tyler, chief national spokesperson, Ted Cruz presidential campaign, May 5, 2015) ThePostrelied on the Washington, D.C.-basedCenter for Strategic and Budgetary Assessmentswhere by email, analyst Todd Harrison told us the militarys 2014 base budget, meaning the cost of maintaining a standing military in peacetime, totaled $496 billion. So far so good, except, Harrison advised, that figure did not reflect all military spending. Generally, he said, the base budget does not include the cost of using the military to fight a conflict, nor does it include legacy costs, such as unfunded pensions and veterans benefits, or military activities conducted outside of (the Department of Defense) such as the maintenance and upgrade of nuclear weapons. All of those things are extra, he said. If you count those other expenses, Harrison said, the U.S. spent $866 billion on the military in 2014. By email, Tyler stressed the militarys base budget doesnt include overseas contingencies. But its your rigged game, you make up any facts you want, Tyler said by email. Next, we turned to what it costs Americans to fulfill federal tax requirements. Tax compliance costs To get our arms around compliance costs, we reached out to certified public accountantConnie Weaver, a Texas A&M University professor, who guided us toJune 2011 testimonyon compliance costs by tax expert Michael Brostek of the investigative arm of Congress, the General Accountability Office. Broadly, Brostek said that complying with IRS regulations costs taxpayers time and money, at least $107 billion in 2005, the GAO estimated, with other studies estimating costs 1.5 times as large. Beyond compliance costs, Bostek noted even larger estimated economic efficiency costs, which are reductions in economic well-being caused by changes in behavior due to taxes. Previous fact checks Even before Cruz commented at the roundtable, the FactChecker atThe Washington Postawarded two Pinocchios toHouse Speaker John Boehners claim that it was costing Americans $500 billion a year to comply with federal tax demands. Cost estimates varied, thePostwrote, with the safest bet at the time being $163 billion as estimated by the IRSsTaxpayer Advocate Service, entrusted with helping taxpayers resolve problems and recommending changes.Adjusting for inflation,that cost would have been nearly $172 billion a year around the time Cruz spoke in 2014. More recently, the FactChecker weighed in again afternoticing Cruzmade his $500 billion military-tax compliance spending comparison at a May 2015 South Carolina stop. Like Boehner, Cruz drew a couple Pinocchios. Weaver told us that because Cruz didnt say what he meant by compliance costs  where hed draw the boundaries  an observer could explore three possibilities: a taxpayers basic liability as in how much he or she sends the government in taxes; the costs associated with pulling together information and submitting it to the government; or efficiency costs as in lost outputs, time taken from other productive activities or from missing out on other consumption activities. For an individual, she said, its easy to calculate compliance costs by gauging how long it takes to fill out the required forms and multiplying that by an hourly dollar figure for how the individual values their time. When you try to aggregate that nationally, she said, its very difficult. She said she wouldnt be comfortable specifying a national compliance-costs figure. But all in all, Weaver said, it looks like Cruzs figure was high. Cruz aide: Senator relied on two studies Tyler told us Cruz got his tax-compliance costs from anApril 2011 analysisby supply-side economist Arthur B. Laffer and others indicating $431.1 billion in combined annual costs incurred by taxpayers to pay federal taxes and aMay 2013 studyby researchers at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University stating the annual hidden costs of U.S. tax compliance ranged from $215 billion to $987 billion. Laffer study The Laffer-led study said researchers created a comprehensive estimate of the total administrative costs, time costs, and direct tax compliance costs created by the complex U.S. federal income tax code. The $431.1 billion in estimated annual spending, the report said, reflects money spent to comply with and administer the U.S. income tax system. * Its estimate, relying on 2010 figures, broke out to approximately $31.5 billion in direct outlays (paying a professional tax preparer or purchasing tax software), total IRS administrative costs of $12.4 billion; and nearly $378 billion for the  time value costs taxpayers must bear to pay their taxes, filling out and submitting forms. In 2011, thePosts FactChecker called the Laffer study dubious, noting it took a figure from the Internal Revenue Services Tax Advocate  that individuals and businesses spent 6.1 billion hours complying with tax filing requirements  and got to its cost estimate by multiplying it against an absurd hourly income of $68.42 on the theory that the wealthy pay most of the income taxes. Mercatus Center study The Mercatus Centers study, led byJason J. Fichtner, a senior research fellow, similarly noted the high wage costs applied in the Laffer study, stating that in the study, the average income used to monetize taxpayers time is significantly greater than the average income used in other estimates. For its part, the center suggested a range of hidden costs connected to paying taxes including time and money spent submitting tax forms, foregone economic growth, lobbying expenditures, and gaps in revenue collection though the authors said they couldnt pin a figure for lobbying by interests trying to reduce taxes paid. As far as compliance costs, what Cruz singled out, the center study estimated $67 billion to $378 billion a year in accounting costs associated with filing taxes, a range based on IRS information suggesting 60 percent of individual taxpayers and 71 percent of unincorporated business taxpayers pay someone--an accountant, lawyer or tax professional--to prepare their taxes, with 32 percent of individual taxpayers relying on software. Significantly, Fichtner told us, his paper, based on a review of relevant studies, was intended to cover far more than simple compliance costs. I chose to give a range based on the different methodologies that I found in the research literature. Its not that one method is better than anotheror right versus wrong, Fichtner said. All the measures have different assumptions for the time value of an hour of lost work/productivity as well as time spent. Heres a chart from the study summarizing a range of cost studies dating back to 2003:                  Other analyses Next, we asked the Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation about Cruzs figure. Spokesman Richard Borean said by email it had no analysis to confirm or refute the $500 billion figure. But he noted the Mercatus Center study and suggested we consider annual reports on tax compliance costs put out by the National Taxpayers Union, a non-partisan research and educational organizationthat saysits devoted to showing Americans how taxes, government spending and regulations affect them. The unions April 2014report, which would have been the the latest one available before Cruz spoke, noted the IRSs National Taxpayer Advocate had most recently estimated the annual paperwork burden generated by the federal personal and corporate tax system at 6.1 billion hours  the equivalent of about 3.05 million employees working 40-hour weeks year-round with two weeks off each. The group said: The value of the labor behind the 6.1 billion hours amounts to a jaw-dropping $192.6 billion, when calculated with the most recently reported average employer cost for non-federal civilian workers by the Bureau of Labor Statistics: $31.57 per hour. Add in the $31.7 billion spent on tax software and other out-of-pocket costs for individuals and the total is $224.3 billion a year. (The unionslatestlook at compliance costs, released in April 2015, said compliance with the federal income tax cost the economy $233.8 billion in productivity in 2014.) Our ruling Cruz said: Every year we spend roughly $500 billion on tax compliance. That is roughly the budget of our entire military, entirely wasted on tax compliance. This claim proved squishy at both ends. It looks like depending on how you value time, you can get to almost any total for what it costs Americans to prepare and file tax returns. However, most estimates run short of Cruzs figure. Meantime, military spending exceeded $800 billion when he spoke though the senators spokesman indicated he meant to not count spending on conflicts abroad and other items not in the militarys nearly $500 billion base budget. We rate the statement False. FALSE The statement is not accurate. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Jobs in manufacturing, especially in the auto industry, drew so much attention in recent political campaigns that one observer speculated every man, woman and child in Ohio must spend their days building cars.PolitiFact Ohio knew that was a joke, but the focus on factories increased our interest in comments by Gov. John Kasich when he addressed the 2012 meeting of the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation on Nov. 29, 2012. The Ohio Capital Blog recorded the event.Agriculture, Kasich said,  is the strongest industry in Ohio and the bedrock of the state of Ohio.We've heard similar comments from others: Sen. Sherrod Brown (the state's No. 1 industry), the state Department of Agriculture (Ohio's No. 1 industry) and the Farm Bureau itself (Ohio's top industry).It's a bipartisan claim.But PolitiFact Ohio wondered what measure makes agriculture No. 1. Employment? Dollars generated? Taxes levied? Square footage?So we called Kasich's office and the state Agriculture Department and asked for sources.Both referred us to OHFOOD, for Ohio food, which is an annually updated economic model developed by Thomas L. Sporleder, the much-cited professor of agribusiness at The Ohio State University.The model, by its own description, is designed to capture the inter-dependencies and linkages among various sectors and industries composing the complex economy of Ohio and specifically to provide estimates of the economic importance of the food and agriculture-related cluster, along with the general manufacturing and service sectors, of the Ohio economy.Agriculture Department spokeswoman Erica Pitchford Hawkins said the analysis is the most comprehensive study available of Ohio agribusiness, and we could find nothing comparable.The most recent, from June 2012, uses data from 2010 gathered primarily federal and county level agencies, Sporleder said.In 2010, the study found, the total food and agricultural cluster contributed 11.7 percent, or $105 billion, of Ohio's total economic output of $898.7 billion. The cluster's share of the gross state product of $477.7 billion was $51 billion, or almost 11 percent.Ohio's gross state product improved by 1.3 percent from 2008 to 2010, the study said, while the portion attributed to the agrifood cluster increased about 30 percent.The agrifood cluster accounts for 14 percent of Ohio employment, or about 1 of 7 jobs. It gained 1 percent from 2008 to 2010, a period when total employment declined about 3 percent.There are some points worth noting:In the OHFOOD study, the financial, legal and real estate cluster is listed as a larger private sector of the state economy than the agrifood cluster. Kasich's office, though, pointed out that the grouping of financial services, legal services and real estate activities is particular to the study. That grouping is not used by such agencies as the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.Sporleder told us the cluster is grouped because its all service related, but its not a supply chain in the way food and agriculture is.That leaves food and agriculture the biggest sector of the state economy.If youre only talking about commodities, thats not the case, Sporleder said, meaning the cluster is more than just farming. If youre talking wheat to flour to bread, you get the sector build-up. Its an interdependent supply chain.More than just farming, the agrifood or agribusiness cluster also encompasses processing, wholesaling and retailing, and food services. As a group, it accounts for $3 billion of the gross state product in the OHFOOD mode.Kasich described agriculture as the strongest industry in Ohio. Data shows that the agrifood sector is the largest sector of the states economy.His statement is accurate. On the Truth-O-Meter, it rates True. In mid-August 2020, Snopes readers inquired about a meme circulating on Facebook that claimed money given to AARP (formerly American Association of Retired Persons), an advocacy organization that lobbies on behalf of retired Americans, goes "directly" to the Democratic party.   It's unclear what exactly is meant by the phrase, "what you pay AARP." The organization has an estimated 38 million members, all of whom typically pay annual dues at $16 per year. As a 501(c)4 tax-exempt organization, it also accepts charitable donations. estimated dues at tax-exempt accepts Either way, any money paid to AARP through membership dues or donations does not go "directly" to the Democratic party. The AARP lobbies the government on behalf of causes that affect people aged 50 and older. Those activities may include taking a stand on health care and Social Security. stand Social Security In terms of candidates and political parties, however, AARP's official position is that it is non-partisan. The organization states it "does not support, endorse or contribute to political candidates or parties." states Instead, per AARP, the organization's role in terms of election politics is "connecting voters to information about where the candidates stand on issues most important to them including the future of Social Security and other critical issues related to financial security, health and well-being." We checked the AARP's federal campaign finance data using the website Open Secrets, a project operated by the government accountability organization The Center for Responsive Politics. We found no contributions to any political candidates or parties, Democratic or otherwise, from AARP, the organization. However, contributions from individuals who work for AARP is another matter. Open Secrets "AARP does not have any record of direct contributions to political parties or candidates based on my review of federal campaign finance and tax filings covering recent years, but AARPs officers [executives] and employees can still make political donations in a personal capacity, and contributions from donors listing AARP as their employer in Federal Election Commission records have primarily gone to Democratic candidates in recent years," said Anna Massoglia, a researcher for The Center for Responsive Politics. AARP policy prohibits employees or officers from engaging in any personal political activity using AARP resources or during work hours. policy According to campaign finance data tracked by Open Secrets, individual donors associated with AARP made a total of $96,381 in political contributions as of this writing in the 2020 federal election cycle, the majority (87.45%) of those donations going to Democratic candidates. total majority Massoglia said that as a 501(c)4 organization, the AARP is allowed under U.S. tax code to engage in some political campaign activity. But their activities have been issue-oriented and bipartisan. For example, a 2018 AARP ad praised U.S. President Donald Trump on drug pricing policy. The organization has also supported upholding the Affordable Care Act, the landmark health care law signed by Trump's Democratic predecessor, President Barack Obama. praised supported AARP spokesperson Jason Young told us by phone that the organization, as a 501(c)4 non-profit, is prohibited by law from making political contributions. "Not only does AARP not make donations of this sort, we never have and we don't have a PAC," Young added. Young said that although some AARP employees have made political contributions in a personal capacity, the sum of donations is relatively small. "It's fair to say we are largely absent form this type of political engagement, and that's because AARP as an organization is focused on policy, not politics," Young stated. Although it's true that individuals who work for AARP have donated primarily to Democratic candidates, individual donations are not the same as contributions by an organization. Because AARP as an organization has not contributed to the Democratic party or its candidates, we rate this claim,  Hahn, Steve.  "Voter and Candidate Reminder: AARP Is Strictly Non-Partisan."
  AARP.  26 August 2016. AARP.org. "How Much Does AARP Membership Cost?"
  Accessed 18 August 2020. AARP.org.  "IRS Definition."
  3 March 2011. AARP. org.  "AARP Policy on Personal Political Activity."
  Accessed 19 August 2020. Bunis, Dena."AARP Urges Federal Appeals Court to Preserve the ACA."
  1 April 2019. Updated to include comments from AARP spokesperson Jason Young.