Did ODNI Photoshop the Cover of a Diversity Report?
Did ODNI Photoshop the Cover of a Diversity Report? One lesson that organizations should have learned by now is not to make groups appear to more diverse than they really are by digitally editing photographs since that type of manipulation is too easy to catch: digitally editing photographs https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/uw-booklet-student-added/ Unfortunately, that was one lesson the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) hadn't learned by mid-2021, when that office published their annual demographic report on Hiring and Retention of Minorities, Women, and Persons with Disabilities in the United States Intelligence Community." ODNI annual demographic report The cover to that report featured a photograph of a group of smiling, well-dressed professionals, including a woman in a wheelchair and a (presumably) visually impaired man wearing sunglasses and holding the leash to a guide dog:   A press release about the report quoted the director of National Intelligence as stating the following: press release The Intelligence Community should reflect the diverse makeup of America and demonstrate that we are fostering an environment where every professional can succeed, said Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines. Promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion is fundamental to our democratic values and critical to meeting the ICs mission. This takes work every single day. We are committed to doing more to address this critical issue and accelerate our progress. There's one problem, though. The image used on the ODNI report cover was a stock photograph from the Shutterstock service, titled as representing "Portrait of Multi-Cultural Office Staff Standing in Lobby." Although the Shutterstock photo may have included women and minorities among the pictured group, it but it didn't include any persons with obvious disabilities: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/portrait-multicultural-office-staff-standing-lobby-174469094 As multiple social media users pointed out, rather than finding a more representative cover graphic to utilize for the report, someone at ODNI apparently utilized an altered version of the stock photo  a version into which the figures of the woman in the wheelchair and the visually impaired man had been clumsily added via Adobe Photoshop (or some other digital editing program) to create the requisite appearance of diversity:  The ODNI had not responded to our request for comment on the altered image at publication time, but we will update this story if we hear back.
One of the lines of defense in the current Internal Revenue Service controversy is that the agency stumbled under a heavy workload of applications from groups seeking tax-exempt status. Steven Miller, the former acting IRS commissioner, made this point in a piece he wrote forUSA Today,describing a sharp increase in applications. The day after an audit critical of the agency went public on May 14, 2013, the IRS posted on aquestion-and-answer pagethat the number of applications has more than doubled in recent years. The agency connected that directly to the singling out of tea party groups, writing this inappropriate criterion was used as a shortcut to centralize similar cases. Rep. Tim Griffin, R-Ark., took issue with that argument. At a House Ways and Means Committee hearing on Tuesday, he spoke about myths being thrown around. There was no surge in 501(c)(4) applications in 2010, Griffin said. Its possible to check whether a flood of paperwork was a contributing factor in the IRS missteps and we can see if Griffin is on solid ground. The IRS keeps track of its workload and according to the inspector generals audit, IRS staff was on the lookout for tea party-type groups at least six months before we see a jump in the number of applications. In fact, the data tell us that the volume of applications had dropped a bit from the year before the screening began. Heres how the activity breaks down for 501(c)(4) applications, the sort of tax-exempt group where political activity is allowed: 2009:    1,751 2010:    1,735 2011:    2,265 2012:    3,357 The inspector generals report saidthese figurescame from the IRS Exempt Organizations office and were for the fiscal year. As a reminder, the governments fiscal year starts in October, so FY 2010 begins on Oct. 1, 2009, and runs through the end of September 2010. The inspector generals report also providesa detailed timelinethat tracks when the tea party screening began. On about March 1, 2010, a manager asked a staffer to tally the number of tea party-related applications. According to the report, the staffer used Tea Party, Patriots, and 9/12 as part of the criteria for these searches. The earliest that there might have been a jump in applications would have been in October 2010. That is well after the IRS began its effort to give selective treatment to tea party groups. The IRS is correct in saying that the number of applications doubled, but that happened later -- from 2011 to 2012. We contacted the IRS and nothing we learned changes the numbers or the sequence of events. Reporters for theChronicle of Philanthropyand theWashington Posthave sifted the facts, too, and reached the same conclusion: The rise in applications for 501(c)(4) status came after the IRS began treating tea party-type groups differently. Our ruling Griffin said there was no surge in 501(c)(4) applications in 2010, and the numbers from the IRS back him up. The timeline in the Inspector Generals audit shows that the selective treatment of groups based on their ties to the tea party movement began before any rise in the IRS workload. We rate the statement True. One of the more unusual political memes we've come across presented four different cases of tax-related financial improprieties to suggest that tax-evasion prosecutions were somehow influenced by racial bias against non-blacks:  However, the "Tax Racism" meme offered examples  not all of which were actual cases of tax evasion  so widely spaced in time and so differing in circumstances as to be non-useful in making any point at all about either tax fraud or race. Martha Stewart, the entrepreneur who rose to prominence as the author of books on cooking, entertaining, and decorating, was not charged with, or imprisoned for, non-payment of income taxes. Stewart was found guilty in March 2004 of felony charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators in a case related to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation into insider trading activity: investigation Washington, D.C., June 4, 2003 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission today filed securities fraud charges against Martha Stewart and her former stockbroker, Peter Bacanovic. The complaint, filed in federal court in Manhattan, alleges that Stewart committed illegal insider trading when she sold stock in a biopharmaceutical company, ImClone Systems, Inc., on Dec. 27, 2001, after receiving an unlawful tip from Bacanovic, at the time a broker with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated. The Commission further alleges that Stewart and Bacanovic subsequently created an alibi for Stewart's ImClone sales and concealed important facts during SEC and criminal investigations into her trades. In a separate action, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York has obtained an indictment charging Stewart and Bacanovic criminally for their false statements concerning Stewart's ImClone trades. Stewart was sentenced to 5 months in prison and also settled a civil suit with the SEC by paying a $195,000 fine (a penalty that reflected four times the amount of stock value loss she avoided by taking advantage of inside information, plus interest). settled Stewart did engage in a dispute with the state of New York in 2002 over unpaid property taxes that she contended she didn't owe because she hardly spent any time in that state, and she was eventually ordered by a judge to pay $220,000 in back taxes plus penalties. But contrary to the false impression created by this meme, she was not prosecuted or jailed over that issue  the time she spent in prison was solely related to a later insider-trading case, not to tax evasion. dispute By the mid-1920s, notorious Chicago mobster Alphonse Gabriel Capone was reportedly taking in nearly $60 million annually ($878 million in 2018 dollars) from a variety of illegal activities, primarily Prohibition-era bootlegging. Capone was dubbed "Public Enemy No. 1" after the 1929 Saint Valentine's Day Massacre in which gunmen allegedly hired by him posed as police officers to murder seven members of a rival gang, leading to increased public pressure on the government to rein Capone in. Federal authorities had difficulty gathering sufficient hard evidence to convict Capone on any substantial criminal charges, however, so they took what was then a novel tack: Even if they couldn't prove Capone was making his millions illegally, they could prove he wasn't paying income tax on his ill-gotten gains. Despite his obviously lavish lifestyle, Capone never filed a federal income tax return and claimed he had no taxable income, reportedly boasting at one point that, They can't collect legal taxes from illegal money. He was proved wrong. IRS and Treasury agents gathered evidence that Capone had made millions of dollars in untaxed income, and the mobster was eventually indicted on 22 counts of federal income tax evasion. After conviction he was sentenced in 1931 to 11 years in prison, fined $50,000, and ordered to pay back taxes in the amount of $215,000. Capone was released from prison in 1939 with time off for good behavior and retired to Florida, where he died in 1947 at the relatively young age of 48. conviction In a literal sense Capone was indeed jailed for non-payment of income taxes, but the tax evasion charges were essentially a proxy for prosecuting the mobster over the multitude of vastly worse and violent crimes with which he was connected (and the immense profits he derived from those criminal activities). Capone was by no means an otherwise upright and law-abiding citizen who was thrown in prison simply because he didn't pay his income taxes. At this point in our narrative we need to distinguish between different forms of tax evasion. At one end of the spectrum are those who haven't engaged in any fraudulent behavior but simply didn't or can't pay their taxes for any number of reasons  maybe they didn't plan or withhold prudently, they received poor financial advisement, they had legitimate confusion or dispute over what constituted taxable income, or they simply overspent and ended up in debt. Although non-payment of taxes is a crime, the IRS will not usually seek prosecution in these types of case and will instead work with offenders in order to facilitate payment of their back debts (rather than making repayment difficult or impossible by incarcerating them). prosecution At the other end of the spectrum are those who actively engage in fraud in order to evade the full payment of taxes: They fail to disclose their full income, hide financial transactions, claim deductions to which they are not entitled, disguise monies earned as something other than income, or otherwise file falsified tax returns. The IRS will, at their discretion, seek prosecution in egregious cases of these forms of tax evasion. Leona Helmsley, derisively known by the nickname as the "Queen of Mean," was a billionaire who  along with her husband, real estate investor and broker Harry Helmsley  owned a vast portfolio of real estate and other assets, including a chain of hotels and the iconic Empire State Building. portfolio Leona Helmsley, who once reportedly asserted that We dont pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes, fell into the latter class of tax evader, falsely manipulating her personal finances, business expenses, and dealings with third parties in order to avoid paying immense sums of taxes: tax evader Some of [Helmsley's] luster was tarnished in 1986 when court documents and law enforcement officials said she had failed to pay sales taxes in New York on hundreds of thousands of dollars of jewelry she purchased at Van Cleef & Arpels, the exclusive Manhattan store. Two senior store officers were indicted on charges that they operated a scheme by which customers with out-of-state addresses could have their purchases recorded as being mailed to them, thus avoiding city and state taxes. In 1987 a series of adverse articles in The New York Post about the Helmsleys, set off by one of their disgruntled employees, led to a broad investigation. The following year Harry and Leona Helmsley were indicted by federal and state authorities on charges that they had evaded more than $4 million in income taxes by fraudulently claiming as business expenses luxuries they purchased for Dunnellen Hall in Greenwich, Conn, a 28-room Jacobean mansion on 26 acres with a sweeping view of Long Island Sound that they bought in 1983. In 235 counts in state and federal indictments brought by Robert Abrams, then the New York State attorney general, and Rudolph W. Giuliani, then the United States attorney and later mayor of New York, the Helmsleys were accused of draining their hotel and real estate empire to provide themselves with such extravagances at Dunnellen Hall as a $1 million marble dance floor above a swimming pool, a $45,000 silver clock, a $210,000 mahogany card table, a $130,000 stereo system, and $500,000 worth of jade art objects. Nothing was too small or personal to be billed to their businesses, from Mrs. Helmsleys bras to a white lace and pink satin dress and jacket and a white chiffon skirt  the dress and skirt were entered in the Park Lane Hotel records as uniforms for the staff. Mrs. Helmsley was also charged with defrauding Helmsley stockholders by receiving $83,333 a month in secret consulting fees. She was convicted of 33 felony counts related to her evasion of $1.2 million in federal income taxes. She was sentenced to 16 years in prison (reduced to four years on appeal), fined $7.1 million for tax fraud, and ordered to pay some $1.7 million in back federal and state taxes. She began serving her sentence in 1992 and was released from federal prison in Connecticut in 1994 after having served less than half her sentence. Where along the tax-evader spectrum between "legitimate dispute" and "willful tax fraud" civil rights activist Al Sharpton might fall is a difficult to determine. Claims were made in the press in 2014 that Sharpton owed some $4.5 million in unpaid taxes, but the accuracy of that number and how much of the monies owed might already have been repaid by Sharpton were unclear, and his tax-troubles narrative involved a muddied mixture of personal, business, and non-profit finances as well liabilities for federal taxes, state taxes, payroll taxes, and personal income taxes. Much of the dispute over the "why" and "how much" of Sharpton's unpaid tax bill stemmed from the operations of the National Action Network, a not-for-profit, civil rights organization founded by Sharpton in 1991. Sharpton contended in a 2014 New York Times account that he incurred an unexpected tax liability because he was taxed personally for income he had given to the non-profit organization, and that he was up to date on repayment plans. Officials contested that the amount he was in arrears for in unpaid taxes had actually grown larger, though: contended Today, Mr. Sharpton still faces personal federal tax liens of more than $3 million, and state tax liens of $777,657, according to records. Mr. Sharpton said the federal liens resulted from a demand by the I.R.S. that he pay taxes on earnings from speaking engagements that he had turned over to National Action Network. He said he was up to date on payment plans for both the federal and state liens, so, he said, the outstanding balance was much lower than records showed. But according to state officials, his balance on the state liens is actually $220,000 greater now than when they were first filed during the years 2008 through 2010. A spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said state law did not allow him to provide any further details. Sharpton then contested that news account, asserting that it referenced "old taxes" and insisting again his tax liens had been paid down below the $4.5 million debt claimed in the New York Times report that stated Sharpton's unpaid tax debt had nonetheless grown larger, not smaller: contested During a news conference at the headquarters of his National Action Network in Harlem, Mr. Sharpton sought to refute the assertion that there were $4.5 million in state and federal tax liens outstanding against him and the for-profit businesses he controls. He said that the liens had been paid down, although he declined to say by how much, and that he was current on all taxes he was obligated to pay under settlement agreements with tax authorities. Were talking about old taxes, he said, adding: Were not talking about anything new. So all of this, as if Im not paying taxes while Im doing whatever Im doing, it reads all right, but it just is not true. The accuracy of Mr. Sharptons assertion that the amount he owes the federal government is much lower than the $3.6 million shown in records could not be verified. A spokesman for the Internal Revenue Service said federal law prohibited the agency from divulging any details about individual taxpayers. As for the state tax liens, Mr. Sharptons assertion that he had paid them down conflicts with information provided by state officials. State authorities filed tax liens against Mr. Sharpton in 2008 and 2009, and again in 2010 against a for-profit business he controls, Revals Communications, all totaling $695,000. But a spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said the amount due had actually increased, to $916,000. Regardless of the numbers, Sharpton wasn't put in prison because tax officials did not deem his case to be an exceptional one of scofflaw tax fraud or evasion that merited prosecution, instead working with him to facilitate his paying down the debt. The conclusion here is a simple one: Cherry-picking four very disparate cases of financial wrongdoings spanning several decades, while ignoring the many other instances of tax evasion successfully prosecuted by the U.S. government, documents nothing about any purported racial bias in such prosecutions. tax evasion Buettner, Russ.  "Al Sharpton Criticizes New York Times Report on Unpaid Taxes."
  The New York Times.  19 November 2014. Buettner, Russ.  "As Sharpton Rose, So Did His Unpaid Taxes."
  The New York Times.  18 November 2014. Nemyaug, Enid.  "Leona Helmsley, Hotel Queen, Dies at 87."
  The New York Times.  20 August 2007. Erb, Kelly Phillips.  "Al Capone Sentenced to Prison for Tax Evasion on This Day in 1931."
  Forbes.com.  17 October 2018. Wood, Robert W.  "10 Notorious Tax Cheats: Queen of Mean Leona Helmsley Proved Little People Can Put You in Jail."
  Forbes.com.  17 April 2015. Wood, Robert W.  "Lessons From Rev. Al Sharpton's $4.5 Million Tax Bill."
  Forbes.com.  19 November 2014. Department of Justice -- Office of Public Affairs.  "Tax Crime Does Not Pay."
  10 April 2018. Johnson, Carrie.  "Stewart to Pay $195,000 in Settlement of Civil Suit."
  The Washington Post.  8 August 2006. Kratsas, Gabrielle.  "13 Infamous Tax Cheaters."
  USA Today.  28 February 2014. Claim:  Colonel Sanders left instructions requiring KFC to donate money to the Ku Klux Klan or feed the homeless for free.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, 2000] I heard today that Colonel Sanders' will devotes 10% of KFC's yearly profits to the Ku Klux Klan. Since it's a legal document this is unbreakable!  [Collected via e-mail, 2000] My brother swears that Colonel Sanders of KFC fame, bequested in his will over a million dollars to the KKK.  [Collected via e-mail, 2005] I heard that the name [of Kentucky Fried Chicken] was changed because KFC didn't want to give out a free meal to a hungry person seeking some help. Supposedly, somewhere back in time, the Colonel had put a preposition in his business statement that Kentucky Fried chicken would supply any broke hungry person with a meal free of charge per day if they asked. Someone had read or heard this and demanded it, and sued them. Once word had gotten out, they would be subject to the masses doing the same thing, so they changed their name to KFC  that's the way I heard it ...  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] I heard a rumor that the Colonel from Kentucky Fried Chicken had a policy to serve any homeless person that entered his restaurants who was hungry and had no money. Once he passed away the new executives allegedly changed the name to "KFC" so they could do away with that policy. Origins:  One of the curiosities of urban legendry is that nearly every founder of a fast food chain who is publicly identifiable by virtue of having appeared in his company's advertisements has become the subject of rumors associating him (and his company) with some of the most publicly vilified groups society has to offer, such as satan worshippers and the KKK.  Such rumors have dogged, at   one time or another, Ray Kroc of McDonald's, Carl Karcher of Carl's Jr., Dave Thomas of Wendy's, and Harland Sanders of Kentucky Fried Chicken.    Why this class of legend has been so assiduously linked to the fast food industry is something we haven't yet fathomed: fast food founders don't seem to be, as a group, of any particular religious, geographic, or political affiliation.  And the specific linking of Kentucky Fried Chicken's founder, Harland Sanders, with the Ku Klux Klan doesn't seem to have any basis in fact, other than a vague, naive assumption that a businessman who epitomized the popular image of a 19th century Southern gentleman  a distinguished, elderly man with white hair, moustache, and goatee who wore white suits and black ties, posed with a cane, and affected the honorary  title of "Colonel"  must be a Klan sympathizer. What rumors such as the claim that "Colonel Sanders' will devotes 10% of KFC's yearly profits to the Ku Klux Klan" reflect is the misperception that Harland David Sanders owned KFC until the day he died.  In fact, Sanders sold his interest in Kentucky Fried Chicken long before his death,  agreeing in 1964 to a $2 million buyout of his U.S. operations by a group of investors (who took the company public a few years later) and turning his entire holdings in the company's Canadian franchises over to charity in 1965, so even if Sanders' will had contained a "KKK donation" bequest (which it didn't), it wouldn't have been legally enforceable.  Sanders did continue to serve as KFC's spokesperson and appear in their advertising for many years after the 1964 sale, a participation that undoubtedly led many consumers to believe that he was active in the chain's ownership and management until he finally passed away in 1980. Ditto for the claim that Kentucky Fried Chicken was legally required to provide free meals to the homeless until it cleverly ducked the responsibility by changing its name to "KFC."  Although Sanders did give away a good deal of money during his lifetime and may occasionally have taken pity on some down-and-out types and offered them food at no charge, he neither left any mandate obligating the Kentucky Fried Chicken company to engage in the practice nor had any standing to do so.  And, in any case, the company couldn't have evaded that imperative simply by changing its name.  (Imagine what a shambles the business world would be if people and businesses could discharge debts and other legal obligations merely by filing some change of name documents!)  As we document in another KFC-related article, Kentucky Fried Chicken changed its corporate name to KFC in 1991 for several reasons, foremost among them that increasingly health-conscious consumers were becoming wary of foods advertised as "fried." article Upon his death in 1980, Harland Sanders left behind an estate that was smaller than expected and a will that contained no unusual provisions: The late Col. Harland Sanders, the founder of Kentucky Fried Chicken who donated millions to charity, left an estate of less than $1.5 million, according to his will. Most of the estate will go into a trust, with Citizens Fidelity Bank and Trust Co. as executor and trustee, according to documents filed in Shelby County District Court. Sanders, who died Dec. 16 [1980] at 90, made four individual bequests in addition to the money he put in trust, [Kentucky Fried Chicken spokesman John] Cox said. He left a watch to one grandson and a Masonic ring to another grandson. He left $2,000 to Louis Broadus of Richmond, Ky., a Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise holder and friend, Cox said, and $5,000 to Harland Williams of Nashville, the son of a longtime friend. Cox said Sanders' estate may be far less than $1.5 million, since $1,187,557 is an estimate of "property of unknown value" such as notes and accounts receivable. Last updated:  26 December 2010    Darden, Robert.  Secret Recipe: Why KFC Is Still Cookin' After 50 Years.   Irving, TX: Tapestry Press, 2002.  ISBN 1-930819-12-9  (p. 86). Secret Recipe: Why KFC Is Still Cookin' After 50 Years    de Vos, Gail.  Tales, Rumors and Gossip.   Englewood: Libraries Unlimited, 1996.  ISBN 1-56308-190-3  (p. 140). Tales, Rumors and Gossip    Turner, Patricia.  I Heard It Through the Grapevine.   Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California, 1993.   ISBN 0-520-08185-4  (pp. 99-101, 167, 171). I Heard It Through the Grapevine    Associated Press.  "Sanders Will Under $1.5 Million."   Daytona Beach Morning Journal.  31 December 2010  (p. A2). In December 2016, rumors flew about Donald Trump's personal beliefs and connections as he continued to announce picks for his incoming administration. One such rumor was a meme with a quote that purported to be from the President-elect, painting him as a flat-earther: flat-earther   mocked up Speaking to reporters in Baltimore on Monday, following the 138th conference for the National Guard Association of the United States, the Republican Partys presidential nominee revealed that he is a member of a growing population known generally as flat earth truthers. I fly a lot, and I mean a lot. No one flies more than me. Listen, I own a jet. I own a 757, beautiful plane, its the best plane! If the world were round, believe me, I would know! The comments came in response to a question from AP reporter, Charles Darr, regarding the future role of the National Guard, as private companies proliferate space travel. Mr. Trump, if elected, are you willing to increase taxes in order to meet the growing budget demands of the National Guard, as existential threats from our enemies grow along with the advancement of space travel technology? Darr asked. The presidential hopeful replied that such a future is nonsense, adding that the round earth people, and you know who they are, these people have an agenda. CNN.com.de (like many pages of its ilk) is not affiliated with the legitimate news organization CNN. The site uses a web address similar to CNN.com's in order to trick readers into believe that they are reading genuine news items. However, this web site does not publish factual stories. publish While there is no disclaimer on the web site that specifically states its content is fictional, it does provide several hints that its stories are hoaxes. For instance, the provided contact number of (785) 273-0325 does not lead to CNN's, but that of the Westboro Baptist Church.  (785) 273-0325 Claim: A Facebook coupon offering 50% off at Target stores is real.  Example: [Collected via Facebook, November2015]I saw this on Facebook this afternoon. Similar to the Kohl's hoax coupon going around in the last week or so.   Origins: InNovember 2015, a survey scam began circulating on Facebook which promised users 50% off at Target stores in exchange for liking, commenting, and sharing the scam with their friends:    The scam circulated via a variety of images and directed people toseveral different URLs (such as holidayschristmas.com and Coupon-Christmas.com), none of which were associated with Target stores:   Once users commented, shared and liked the coupon  ensuring that the scam reached a wider audience  they were directed to a survey site where they were required to provide personal information, fill out surveys, and make a purchase before they could retrieve their coupons. Even then, however, a 50% off Target coupon was unlikely to materialize, as this promotion wasnotconnected with the store: not   These survey scams are quite popular on Facebook. The customers of Target (previously)Costco,Home Depot, Lowe's, Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, and Walmarthave all been targeted by similar scams. Costco Home Depot Lowe's Kroger Best Buy Macy's Olive Garden Publix Walmart These ruses are so prevalent that theBetter Business Bureauissued a warning about them in 2014:Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Better Business Bureau Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions.    Last updated: 25 November 2015 Originally published: 25 November 2015 Numbers are flying around state Capitol this week as legislators try to hammer out a budget agreement and adjourn their 2011 session on Saturday.The Democratic-controlled Senate and the Republican-run House of Delegates have sharply different ideas on how dollars should should be spent. Each chamber is trying to win public sentiment for its proposals. In a Feb. 10 press release, the Senate Democratic Caucus said the Senate had introduced a balanced budget restoring funding cuts to education, public safety and health care, while saying the House introduced a budget that cuts $50 million from education, and reduces funding from other core areas.We checked the $50 million claim.Keiana Page, communications director for the Senate Democratic Caucus, said the number comes from a Feb. 17 article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch. The story indeed said the House budget would cut K-12 spending by $50 million. Thats the roughly the amount the House wants to reduce an education budget recommended by Gov. Bob McDonnell in December.We reviewed the numbers and found the House pared overall public education spending by $50.8 million. But that didnt make the caucus' claim a slam dunk.Almost all of the reduction -- $43.2 million -- stems from lowered estimates of the number of students who will be enrolled in Virginia schools during the coming fiscal year. The remainder of the savings is coming from higher than expected sales tax revenue. When localities reap more money from their portion of the sales tax, the state pays less to support schools.Del. M. Kirkland Cox, R-Colonial Heights and vice chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said there are 8,000 to 9,000 fewer students attending Virginia schools than originally projected, with a total enrollment this school year of just over 1.2 million. Cox, a high school teacher, maintains the cuts are technical, not changes to policies.The House plan would hold per-pupil spending roughly flat. The current budget provides state spending of $5,166 per pupil, according to Robert Vaughn, staff director of the Appropriations Committee. The proposed House changes would lead to per-pupil spending of $5,161 next school year. The Senate wants to spend $5,242 per pupil next year.Despite the lower-than-expected student numbers, the Senate bill would increase current spending levels, using the new money mainly for textbooks, English proficiency programs and remedial summer school classes.The House has one other key proposal that would alter education spending. It wants to shift $89.8 million largely invested in instruction to the Virginia Retirement System for teachers pensions. The money would help make up for past shortfalls in retirement funding and lay the groundwork for the higher contributions that will be needed in future budget cycles.The cash would come from $55.4 million in promised payments to 97 localities that lost money last year when the state rejiggered its allocation formula to school systems. The rest of the pension payment comes from $34.4 million currently funding resource teachers in middle schools. Vaughn said the state currently pays for resource teachers in grades K-7, while state law only requires funding those teachers up through fifth grade.Under current rules, state contributions into the pension system are matched by school districts. Vaughn said the House decided not to require matching payments on the $89.8 million because localities had not planned for these payments when building their budgets.House budget writers say that since the money is going towards teacher pensions, its an education expense. But critics argue the pension payment would consume money that could otherwise have gone into classrooms.Jim Regimbal, a former Senate Finance Committee staffer who now runs consulting company Fiscal Analytics, said the extra pension payments mean less on-the-ground spending for teaching kids.To review, the Senate Democratic Caucus says the House of Delegates is pushing a budget that cuts $50 million from education. They are basing this on the overall dollar figures proposed by the governor and largely adopted by the House of Delegates.Much of the reduction in funding is due to student population being lower than expected. Spending on a per-pupil basis would remain relatively constant. But the House budget also removes $55.4 million in education funds that localities could use at their discretion and invests it in teacher pensions. That would likely result in less money going into classrooms, which sounds like a cut to us.We rate the claim True. Correction:This statement was originally attributed to the Democratic Party of Virginia. It was in fact published by the Virginia Senate Democratic Caucus. First introduced in Congress in 2001 and last revisited in 2017, the so-called DREAM Act (which stands for the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act) was aimed at providing a path to permanent residency in the United States for children of undocumented immigrants. Every attempt to pass the legislation has failed to date, as politicians continue to kick the can down the road to the next administration. DREAM Act However, in June 2012, the DREAM Act begat DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), an executive action signed by President Obama that allowed qualified undocumented minors to apply for work permits and protection from deportation. To be eligible, applicants had to be under the age of 31, must have arrived in the U.S. before turning 16, lived in the country continuously since 2007, be enrolled in school or possess the equivalent of a high school diploma, and never been convicted of a serious crime. DACA By the time the Trump administration rescinded the program in September 2017 (on the spurious grounds that it was an abuse of executive power), an estimated 800,000 people  most of them under the age of 25  had applied for DACA protection. In honor of the ill-fated DREAM Act, and to reflect that they have a dream of someday becoming citizens, they have come to be known as "Dreamers." rescinded 800,000 With DACA gone, the Dreamers' future once again rests with Congress. Members of both parties have vowed to pass legislation granting them protections comparable to DACA's, an idea supported by the majority of the American people. Even President Trump backs the effort, having suggested to the New York Times that Dreamers be given a path to citizenship: supported suggested Over a period of 10 to 12 years, somebody does a great job, they work hard, that gives incentive to do a great job. Whatever they're doing, if they do a great job, I think it's a nice thing to have the incentive of, after a period of years, being able to become a citizen.  A vocal minority opposes that idea, however, and some of its detractors have taken to social media to spread anti-Dreamer (and other anti-immigrant) propaganda. One example making the rounds on Facebook consists of a list of so-called "fun facts" intended to persuade readers that Dreamers are bad people and any government efforts to help them amount to a "scam":   These two groups differ not only in size, but also in attributes such as how well educated their members are and how many have criminal records. This is because DACA imposed strict requirements in those areas. For purposes of this fact check, we're defining "Dreamers" as those who actually enrolled in the DACA program between 2012 and 2017. We've chosen this route for two reasons: one, it has been, to date, the working definition used by major news and polling organizations such as the New York Times, Associated Press, and the Pew Research Center; and two, in the single instance where we determined that the "Dreamers fun facts" meme reported a statistic accurately (the military participation of Dreamers), it pertained (and only makes sense if it pertains) to the group of actual DACA enrollees, not the larger DACA-eligible group. (Barring a change in regulations, non-DACA undocumented immigrants cannot enlist in the military.) Associated Press CLAIM: "792,000 Dreamers (88 percent) are over 25 years old." STATUS: False. Only about 280,000 (35 percent) of the 800,000 Dreamers who were active DACA recipients as of September 2017 were over 25 years old. None are older than 36 because of the age-of-entry requirements imposed by DACA. The average age of Dreamers is 24. [Source: Pew Research Center] Pew Research Center CLAIM: "900 Dreamers (less than 1 percent) serve in our military." STATUS: True.  Generally speaking, undocumented immigrants aren't allowed to join the U.S. military, so this statistic can only apply to DACA enrollees, who were granted special permission to enlist in 2014. granted As of September 2017, there were close to 900 Dreamers serving in the military thanks to that program, according to the Pentagon. That is less than .1 percent of all DACA recipients. For comparison, according to a USA Today report .4 percent of the general population currently serves in the military. [Sources: USA Today; Pew Research Center] USA Today Pew Research Center CLAIM: "743,000 Dreamers (83 percent) do not have a college degree." STATUS: False. In a 2017 survey of approximately 3,000 Dreamers, the portion of those aged 25 or older who said they hold a four-year college degree (or higher) was close to 35 percent. That means 65 percent (approximately 520,000) do not yet have a college degree. Comparing that to the larger U.S. population, 2015 census figures say that roughly 32 percent of Americans 25 or older have a least a four-year college degree (meaning 68 percent do not). [Sources: T. Wong DACA Survey; U.S. Census Bureau] survey T. Wong DACA Survey U.S. Census Bureau CLAIM: "189,000 Dreamers dropped out of high school early (That is roughly 21 percent)." STATUS: False. The only statistic we were able to find comparable to this applied not to Dreamers, but to the larger population of potentially DACA-eligible immigrants. According to a 2014 study, roughly 20 percent of those aged 19 or older had not completed high school or the equivalent (as compared to a 5.9 percent high school dropout rate for the entire U.S. population). We found no such statistic for DACA enrollees, who in any case would have been required under government guidelines to be "currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general education development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States." [Sources: Migration Policy Institute; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; National Center for Education Statistics] Migration Policy Institute U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services National Center for Education Statistics CLAIM: "9,000 Dreamers (1 percent) are incarcerated." STATUS: False We were unable to find any sources documenting the claim that 9,000 Dreamers are (or were) incarcerated. It may be that the 1 percent figure was loosely derived from a Cato Institute policy brief which said that the incarceration rate among the 1.1 to 1.9 million immigrants who were otherwise DACA-eligible in 2015 was .98 percent. (What's most interesting about that figure is that it's actually a lower incarceration rate than that of the native-born population, according to the Cato Institute). brief The closest comparable statistic we found for actual DACA enrollees came from an accounting by USCIS of the number of those whose "deferred action" status was terminated between 2012 and 2017 due to criminal convictions or arrests: 2,030 (or approximately .25 percent of the entire Dreamer population). [Sources: Cato Institute; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] Cato Institute CLAIM: "657,000 Dreamers (73 percent) receive some form of welfare." STATUS: False. By law, undocumented immigrants (including DACA recipients) are not eligible for means-tested welfare benefits such as cash assistance, food stamps, or Medicaid. Under a provision of DACA, enrollees who reached retirement age after having worked and paid taxes in the United States for at least 10 years could have qualified for Social Security and Medicare benefits. [Source: National Immigration Law Center] law National Immigration Law Center It is important in policymaking matters to carefully weigh the facts and how populations will be affected. One can only hope that those same legislators do not govern by meme. Bier, David. "Five Myths About DACA."
The Washington Post. 7 September 2017. Broder, Tanya, Moussavian, Avideh, and Blazer Jonathan. "Overview of Immigrant Eligibility for Federal Programs."
National Immigration Law Center. December 2015. Chishti, Muzaffar and Bolter, Jessica. "Trump Administration Rescinds DACA, Fueling Renewed Push in Congress and the Courts to Protect Dreamers."
 Migration Policy Institute. 15 September 2017. Dickerson, Caitlin. "What Is DACA? Who Are the Dreamers? Here Are the Basics."
The New York Times. 23 January 2018. Gonzalez, Roberto, et al. "Taking Giant Leaps Forward."
Center for American Progress. 22 June 2017. Greenwood, Max. "Poll: Nearly 9 in 10 Want DACA Recipients to Stay in U.S."
The Hill. 18 January 2018. Haberman, Maggie, Rogers, Katie, and Shear, Michael. "Trump Says He Is Open to a Path to Citizenship for 'Dreamers.'"
The New York Times. 24 January 2018. Horton, Alex. "The Military Looked to 'Dreamers' to Use Their Vital Skills. Now the U.S. Might Deport Them."
The Washington Post. 7 September 2017. Kessler, Glenn. "The Debate Over DACA: A Guide to the Numbers Used by Politicians."
The Washington Post. 23 January 2018. Korte, Gregory, Gomez, Alan, and Johnson, Kevin. "Trump Administration Struggles With Fate of 900 Dreamers Serving in the Military."
USA Today. 7 September 2017. Krogstad, Jens Manuel. "DACA Has Shielded Nearly 790,000 Young Unauthorized Immigrants From Deportation."
Pew Research Center. 1 September 2017. Landgrave, Michelangelo and Nowraster, Alex. "The Dreamer Incarceration Rate."
Cato Institute. 30 August 2017. Lopez, Gustavo and Krogstad, Jens Manuel. "Key Facts About Unauthorized Immigrants Enrolled in DACA."
Pew Research Center. 25 September 2017. McHugh, Margie. "Diploma, Please: Promoting Educational Attainment for DACA- and Potential DREAM Act-Eligible Youth."
Migration Policy Institute. September 2014. Ryan, Camille L. and Bauman, Kurt. "Educational Attainment in the United States: 2015."
U.S. Census Bureau. March 2016. Siskin, Alison. "Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Assistance: An Overview."
Congressional Research Service. 12 December 2016. Wong, Tom K. "New Study of DACA Beneficiaries Shows Positive Economic and Educational Outcomes."
Center for American Progress. 18 October 2016. Wong, Tom K., et al. "DACA Recipients' Economic and Educational Gains Continue to Grow."
Center for American Progress. 28 August 2017. Zong, Jie, et al. "A Profile of Current DACA Recipients by Education, Industry, and Occupation."
Migration Policy Institute. November 2017. National Center for Education Statistics. "Dropout Rates."
Accessed 25 January 2018. National Immigration Law Center. "DACA and DAPA Access to Federal Health and Economic Support Programs."
30 January 2015. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. "DACA Terminations Related to Criminal and Gang Activity by Fiscal Year."
2017. Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907. "In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American ... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag ... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." Theodore Roosevelt 1907 Theodore Roosevelt was about to finish his first two-year term as governor of the state of New York when the Republican Party chose him as its candidate for vice president in the 1900 national election. The Republicans were victorious at the ballot box that year, but Roosevelt held the vice-presidency for less than a year before he was elevated to the White House upon the assassination of President William McKinley on 14 September 1901, thereby becoming the youngest person ever to hold the office of President of the United States. Roosevelt was elected to a full term as president in 1904, and among his many notable achievements was his selection as a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate for his part in the negotiations leading to the Treaty of Portsmouth that ended the Russo-Japanese War in 1905. Treaty of Portsmouth Although Roosevelt did not hold public office again after leaving the presidency in 1909 (his efforts to regain the White House as a third party candidate in 1912 proving unsuccessful), he remained active in the public political sphere. In the waning years of his life, as World War I raged in Europe and America entered the conflict on the side of the Allies, he frequently spoke of his belief that immigrants taking up residence in the U.S. should assimilate into American society as quickly as possible, learn the English language, eschew hyphenated national identities (e.g., "Italian-American") and declare their primary national allegiance to the United States of America. On 1 February 1916, for example, Roosevelt advocated measures for strengthening and ensuring the "loyalty" of American immigrants: Theodore Roosevelt, speaking at a luncheon given yesterday by Mrs. Vincent Astor for the National Americanization Committee in the Astor Court Building, declared that one of the reasons why many German-Americans have shown greater love for their native land that for their adopted country is that the German system demands greater loyalty than is demanded in this country, and a greater contribution to the common welfare. "And all of you know I am free from a taint of neutrality," he added, "so I can say this without suspicion." The encouragement of better housing conditions and a compulsion to learn the English language, Colonel Roosevelt said, would help the process of Americanization. "We cannot make the Americanization movement a success," Colonel Roosevelt said, "unless we approach it from the economic standpoint. It is true that governmentally Germany is an autocracy. But there has been a great deal more industrial freedom there than many of our old industrial communities. The German Government says we expect you to work out good results, to get together with the laborer, and yourselves decide what you are going to pay to the doctors who are to pass upon the health of the employes, and the amount of damages any employe merits. The Government insists upon a great amount of self-government by the people themselves. "I feel that by insistence upon proper housing conditions we shall indirectly approach this. I want to see the immigrant know that he has got to spend a certain amount of his money in decent housing; that he will not be allowed to live on $2.50 per month board basis. "Let us say to the immigrant not that we hope he will learn English, but that he has got to learn it. Let the immigrant who does not learn it go back. He has got to consider the interest of the United States or he should not stay here. He must be made to see that his opportunities in this country depend upon his knowing English and observing American standards. The employer cannot be permitted to regard him only as an industrial asset. "We must in every way possible encourage the immigrant to rise, help him up, give him a chance to help himself. If we try to carry him he may well prove not well worth carrying. We must in turn insist upon his showing the same standard of fealty to this country and to join with us in raising the level of our common American citizenship. "If I could I would have the kind of restriction which would not allow any immigrant to come here unless I was content that his grandchildren would be fellow-citizens of my grandchildren. They will not be so if he lives in a boarding house at $2.50 per month with ten other boarders and contracts tuberculosis and contributes to the next generation a body of citizens inferior not only morally and spiritually but also physically."1 A few months later, Roosevelt expanded on this theme in a series of Memorial Day speeches he delivered in St. Louis: Moral treason to the United States was charged by Mr. Roosevelt, in an address delivered before the City Club, against German-Americans who seek to make their governmental representatives act in the interests of Germany rather than this country. He characterized the German-American Alliance as "an anti-American alliance," but added that he believed that its members "not only do not represent but scandalously misrepresent" the great majority of real Americans of German origin. Using the motto "America for Americans" for all Americans, whether they were born here or abroad, the former President declared that "the salvation of our people lies in having a nationalized and unified America, ready for the tremendous tasks of both war and peace." "I appeal to all our citizens," the colonel said, "no matter from what land their forefathers came, to keep this ever in mind, and to shun with scorn and contempt the sinister intriguers and mischiefmakers who would seek to divide them along lines of creed, or birthplace or of national origin." Col. Roosevelt said he came to St. Louis to speak on Americanism  to speak of and condemn the use of the hyphen "whenever it represents an effort to form political parties along racial lines or to bring pressure to bear on parties and politicians, not for American purposes, but in the interest of some group of voters of a certain national origin or of the country from which they or their fathers came." He was equally against the native American of the wrong kind and for the immigrant of the right kind, the former President declared, but the immigrant who did not become in good faith an American "is out of place" in the United States. He said each nation should be judged by its conduct and that the United States should oppose encroachment on its own rights, whether Germany, England, France or Russia be guilty of misconduct. "The effort to keep our citizenship divided against itself," the colonel continued, "by the use of the hyphen and along the lines of national origin is certain to a breed of spirit of bitterness and prejudice and dislike between great bodies of our citizens. If some citizens band together as German-Americans or Irish-Americans, then after a while others are certain to band together as English-Americans or Scandinavian-Americans, and every such banding together, every attempt to make for political purposes a German-American alliance or a Scandinavian-American alliance, means down at the bottom an effort against the interest of straight-out American citizenship, an effort to bring into our nation the bitter Old World rivalries amd jealousies and hatreds."2 In a Fourth of July speech in 1917, Roosevelt urged the adoption of linguistic uniformity, including a requirement that all foreign-language newspapers published in the U.S. should also include English translations: Touching on the matter of language, Col. Roosevelt declared that "We must have in this country but one flag, and for the speech of the people but one language, the English language. During the present war all newspapers published in German, or in the speech of any of our foes, should be required to publish, side by side with the foreign text, columns in English containing the exact translation of everything said in the foreign language. Ultimately this should be done with all newspapers published in foreign languages in this country."3 Likewise, on 27 May 1918, Roosevelt urged in a speech at Des Moines, Iowa, that English be the sole language of instruction used in American schools: English as the sole language for schools, newspapers and other usage in this country was urged by Theodore Roosevelt in an address here tonight under the direction of the National Security League ... In voicing his approval of the recent proclamation by Gov. Harding, ordering that English be the only medium of instruction in public or private schools in Iowa, Col. Roosevelt said: "This is a nation  not a polyglot boarding house. There is not room in the country for any 50-50 American, nor can there be but one loyalty  to the Stars and Stripes."4  The comments quoted at this head of the page are more in the same vein; excerpts not from (as claimed in the accompanying text) a statement made by Theodore Roosevelt in 1907 (while he was still President), but from a letter written shortly before his death in January 1919, just a few months after the armistice that ended the fighting in World War I: NEW YORK, Jan. 6.  What was the last public statement by Col. Roosevelt was read last night at an "All-American concert" here under the auspices of the American Defense society, of which he was honorary president. "I cannot be with you and so all I can do is to wish you Godspeed," it read. "There may be no sagging back in the fight for Americanism merely because the war is over. "There are plenty of persons who have already made the assertion that they believe the American people have a short memory and that they intend to revive all the foreign associations which more directly interfere with the complete Americanization of our people. Our principle in this matter should be absolutely simple. "In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with every one else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birthplace or origin. But this is predicated upon the mans becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American. "If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn't doing his part as an American. "We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile. We have room for but one language here and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, and American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house; and we have room for but one soul [sic] loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people."5 A copy of this letter, obtained from the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress, can be viewed here. here 3.  Boston Daily Globe.  "'Moral Treason' to Attack Allies."
  5 July 1917  (p. 10). 5.  The Chicago Daily Tribune.  "Abolish Hyphen Roosevelt's Last Words to Public."
  7 January 1919  (p. 4). 1.  The New York Times.  "A Roosevelt Idea Made in Germany."
  2 February 1916  (p. 5). 2.  The Washington Post.  "T.R. Assails Wilson."
  1 June 1916  (p. 1). 4.  The Washington Post.  "Use Only English, Roosevelt Urges."
  28 May 1918  (p. 2). North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper called for more money to renovate the states aging public schools during hisState of the State addresson Feb. 25. Right now, four in 10 public schools in our state are at least 50 years old, Cooper said. That means theyre still using the schools you and I went to. We wondered whether the states public schools are actually that old, so we decided to check out Coopers numbers ourselves. As it turns out, the data is not so easy to come by. We started with Jamal Little, the governors spokesman, who told us that the information about the ages of public schools came from the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, which collected that data in 2016 while compiling itsmost recent surveyon school facility needs. Little gave us a table that said 949 of 2,306 public schools that reported construction dates were at least 50 years old (325 schools did not report their dates). He said the table came from the Department of Public Instruction but was not publicly available online. According to the table, about 41 percent of the schools that reported construction dates are more than 50 years old. But Drew Elliot, communications director for the Department of Public Instruction, said he could not confirm the table came from his department. He said he believes his office could get those numbers or something very close to it but could not validate them without a weeks time. We have no reason to think that his numbers are off, he said. Nothing in there looks anomalous to what we know about the age of school buildings in North Carolina. We wanted more definitive evidence, so we asked Elliot for the data the state did have. He sent us a copy of thedepartments list of construction datesso we could crunch the numbers for ourselves. That wasnt easy. The list assigns multiple construction dates to each school, and its not immediately clear what each date refers to. But Elliot said the dates correspond to construction of separate structures and that the earliest date listed for each school would offer the best approximation of the schools age. So, we did our best to sort through the raw numbers. It turns out that the number of old schools may actually be larger than Cooper claimed. Out of 2,631 total schools, we counted 2,299 that had construction dates listed beside them. And judging by the earliest dates listed for each, 1,118 of those 2,299 schools were built during or before 1969, making them at least 50 years old. That means that, by our calculations, nearly half the public schools are greater than 50 years old. But because the dates on the list were not labeled, even our calculations may be imperfect. Also, the totals could change with more information about the schools that did not report their ages for the 2016 survey. And theres potentially a big caveat because some schools have been renovated since their original construction, making them newer than their age suggests. Cooper said, Right now, four in 10 public schools in our state are at least 50 years old. The raw numbers from the department  the best information available  put Coopers statement in the right ballpark and showed it may even be an underestimate. But there are some uncertainties. So we rate this statement Mostly True. This story was produced by the North Carolina Fact-Checking Project, a partnership of McClatchy Carolinas, the Duke University Reporters Lab and PolitiFact. The NC Local News Lab Fund and the International Center for Journalists provide support for the project, which shares fact-checks with newsrooms statewide. To offer ideas for fact checks, email[email protected]. Stephen Colbert has intervieweda slew ofpresidential candidates in the first weeks of his new job hosting CBSThe Late Show, including Jeb Bush, Donald Trump, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. His time with Cruz on Sept. 21 stood out for a fact-filled back and forth about a major Republican role model, President Ronald Reagan. Colbert asked Cruz if he could agree with Reagans support of amnesty for undocumented immigrants and record of raising taxes amid budget shortfalls. Cruz said of course not before pivoting to Reagans most conservative accomplishments, one being that he signed the largest tax cut in history and spurred economic growth. You know, when Reagan came in, from 1978 to 1982, economic growth averaged less than 1 percent a year. Theres only one other four-year period where thats true. Thats true from 2008 to 2012, Cruz said. Colbert jumped in, saying But when conditions changed in the country, he reversed his worlds largest tax cut and raised taxes when revenues did not match the expectations. So its a matter of compromising. PolitiFact explored Cruzs point about economic growth inanother fact-check. We wondered if Colberts retort was on the money or overstated. (Its our first fact-check ofColbertin his new role  and the first one in five years, period.) Did Reagan really shift course on tax cuts when the growth stopped? A CBS press contact did not return an email for comment. Reagans tax cut As Cruz said, the Gipper really did cut taxes  with the help of Congress  in his first year as president. The largest tax cut in history that Cruz mentioned is in reference to the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, a $38 billion phased-in cut ($99 billion in 2015 dollars). Put in the way that economists prefer to discuss tax cuts, it represented 1.91 percent of the countrys gross domestic product. This law included across-the-board cuts of about 30 percent to statutory income tax rates. As Colbert said, Reagan raised taxes, too. Two laws, one in 1982 and another in 1984, were especially dramatic. These laws generally raised taxes by removing tax loopholes, not by raising the tax rate, said Dean Baker, a liberal economist and co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Still, Baker said, the loopholes were big ones. Reagans tax increases 1982:The most significant tax increase Reagan signed was also the first. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (yes, another law with a very sexy name) increased taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP. The 1982 tax increase was probably the largest peacetime tax increase in American history, said economist Bruce Bartlett, who advised Reagan on domestic policy and then worked as Treasury deputy assistant secretary for economic policy in the George H.W. Bush administration. (An analysis by Jerry Tempalski, an analyst in the Office of Tax Analysis with the U.S. Department of the Treasury,agrees.) This law was driven by pressure to attack the federal budget deficit, as well as the impression that Reagans tax-cutting was partially responsible for lower-than-expected tax revenues. Bartlett, who reviewed Reagans tax record forTax Notesin 2011, cited aTreasury estimatethat the 1982 law raised taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP, or about $150 billion in modern dollars. Specifically, it rolled back some but not all of the 1981 tax cut for writing off equipment, and it repealed 1981 safe harbor leasing provisions, said Stephen J. Entin, senior fellow at the Tax Foundation and former deputy assistant secretary for economic policy in the Reagan administration. 1983:A law Reagan signed in 1983 aimed to keep Social Security afloat by increasing payroll taxes and taxing Social Security benefits for some high-earners. This cost $24.6 billion, or almost $50 billion in 2015 dollars, through 1988, according to an administrationestimate. 1984:The Deficit Reduction Act that Reagan signed rolled back part of the 1981 cut on buildings, Entin said, with the idea that Congress would enact spending cuts. But many of those cuts were either never enacted or were later restored, Entin said. This led to $25 billion in tax receipts. Reagan also signed tax increases in 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 (as well as a couple other laws with revenue reductions). So where does that leave Reagans tax record on the whole? Its mixed. On one hand, revenues were lower as ashare of GDPin his last year in office (17.6 percent of GDP in 1988) compared to the year before he took office (18.5 percent of GDP in 1980), according to the White House Office of Management and Budget. However, the thrust of the 1981 tax cut that Cruz touted on Colberts show didnt prove to have lasting effects on the whole. A 2006 Treasury Departmentanalysisoffers another view of the plunge after the 1981 law and the subsequent changes that wound it back. Reagans staff tallied up the effect of major legislation on tax receipts over his tenure for his final budget proposal (page 4-4). The 1981 tax cuts comprised most of the total $275 billion in tax relief, but the other side of the ledger listed $133 billion in cumulative tax increases. Thus, Reagan took back about half the 1981 tax cut with subsequent tax increases, Bartlett wrote. Our ruling Responding to Cruzs assertion that Reagan signed the largest tax cut in history, Colbert said he reversed it and raised taxes when revenues did not match the expectations. Legislation that Reagan signed over his time in office and raised taxes did not completely reverse the 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act. But the broader point Colbert makes is on point. Reagan agreed to raise taxes to deal with budget deficits, even if he wasnt enthusiastic about it. We rate the claim Mostly True.