Did Paul Ryan Nominate Joel Osteen for House Chaplain?
Shortly after outgoing House Speaker Paul Ryan fired House Chaplain Patrick Conroy in a closed-door meeting at the end of April 2018, a rumor that the House Speaker had nominated televangelist Joel Osteen as his replacement started to spread online: fired spread   Paul Ryan did not nominate Joel Osteen to be the new House Chaplain. This rumor originated with a satirical post on the message board Democratic Underground: post In a surprise move during the weekend, Speaker Ryan proposed that Prosperity Gospel champion, Joel Osteen, become the new chaplain for the U.S. House of Representatives. In a brief comment, the Speaker said, "America needs to become more prosperous. It needs a new approach to individual wealth. Pastor Osteen carries that message and shows us the way. Working Americans should be grateful to pay more taxes to the Federal Government. As Jesus, himself, said, 'It will be returned an hundred-fold.' Joel, my good friend, suggests that the road to a more prosperious America will come through even higher taxes on low-income citizens, who will benefit in the end, of course. I agree with the good Pastor, and will be introducing new legislation to that effect soon."    The author of this post, a user identified as "MineralMan," wrote in the comments that the "evil grin" emoticon included at the bottom of the post indicated that the text was satirical. Forum users also compared the text to articles on the Borowitz Report, a well-known satirical blog published in the New Yorker: Borowitz Report   Zanona, Melanie.  "Ryan Explains Decision to Dismiss House Chaplain."
  The Hill.  27 April 2018.
Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO Responding to an unprecedented disruption to the U.S. economy caused by the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic, U.S. President Donald Trump on March 27, 2020, approved a $2.2 trillion stimulus package called the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.  approved CARES Aiming to provide direct payments to Americans, the relief package authorized the U.S. Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to send $1,200 checks to low- and middle-class workers. The legislation also boosted funding for unemployment benefits, set aside billions of dollars for loans to help small businesses, and increased health care spending by $100 billion, among other provisions. $1,200 checks But the bill included an additional benefit for wealthy Americans, per national media headlines in mid-April: Over 43,000 U.S. Millionaires will get stimulus averaging $1.6 million each" (New York Post) and "How Some Rich Americans Are Getting Checks Averaging $1.7 million" (Forbes). Snopes received numerous reader inquiries about the veracity of those reports.  Over 43,000 U.S. Millionaires will get stimulus averaging $1.6 million each How Some Rich Americans Are Getting Checks Averaging $1.7 million" The claim is multi-pronged: that millionaires and other Americans received the same type of stimulus checks, termed "Economic Impact Payments"; that those payments were higher for millionaires than for other workers; and that the economic benefits for the country's wealthiest residents averaged $1.7 million each under the CARES Act. other Americans The coronavirus relief package authorized the federal government to send: For single tax filers with higher annual salaries  but less than $99,000  the federal government is reducing the stimulus checks by $5 for each $100 above the $75,000 threshold (similar math goes for payments to families). Yet here is evidence that proves part of the above claim false, in the words of the IRS: "Tax filers with adjusted gross income up to $75,000 for individuals and up to $150,000 for married couples filing joint returns will receive the full payment"  which does not exceed the amounts of $1,200 for individuals, $2,400 for joint claims, and $500 per qualifying child. That means only in this hypothetical situation  a family had 3,400 qualifying children  could an American receive a stimulus check of $1.7 million. Here's language verbatim from the CARES Act:   However, the latter part of the claim  that millionaires could reap an average of $1.7 million in financial gains under the CARES Act  is less definite. The answer begins with understanding pre-CARES Act tax code. In 2017, the federal government established new limitations on how much money owners of so-called "pass-through" businesses can deduct as losses against their "nonbusiness" income to minimize their tax liability. Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, owners of such businesses  entities where profits flow through to owners and are not subject to corporate income taxes  could deduct a maximum of $250,000 in losses individually ($500,000 for couples) to offset taxable income from other sources, such as capital gains. Two Democratic Congressmen  Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Rep. Llloyd Doggett of Texas  have explained the rule like this: pass-through" Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, have explained If one spouse owns a company that had a $5 million loss in 2018 and the other spouse made $5 million from stock market investments, this limitation meant that the couples taxable income was $4.5 million (not zero, if the loss were allowed to fully cancel out the income). The other $4.5 million in losses, however, could be carried forward to use in future years. Provisions in the CARES Act temporarily suspended that limitation until the start of 2021, according to an analysis of legislative records by Snopes. In other words, the IRS is legally obligated to count excess losses from businesses that it otherwise wouldnt have and provide them with "the same treatment as if the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act had not been enacted," according to attorneys with the international law firm Foley and Lardner.  Foley and Lardner Additionally, the provisions change the timeline of the 2017 law and allow for the new standard to retroactively apply, enabling businesses to report losses in 2018 and 2019 against the past five years. Those taxpayers, however, would likely need to amend their 2018 and 2019 tax returns if they have already been filed to see any changes, according to the tax consulting firm Calvetti Ferguson.  Calvetti Ferguson And since the modification under the CARES Act only applies until Dec. 31, 2020, the 2017 law will kick in the following year. Here's how that change to tax code is relevant to the claim: Americans who earn $1 million or more will benefit the most from the temporary suspension on the deduction limit, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan congressional body the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). In early April 2020, Whitehouse and Doggett requested the committee to research "the distributional effects" of the provision within the CARES Act. Later, the commissions chief of staff, Thomas Barthold, shared its findings in a letter to the congressmen, including the caveat: Joint Committee on Taxation in a letter There is, of course, a great deal of uncertainty about the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and how those economic effects will translate into business losses for individuals. The revenue estimate represents our best effort to give Congress useful information about the potential scale of revenue changes associated with this provision. The letter included the following table, showing what class of Americans will receive what percentage of benefits from the amendment to the 2017 tax law:   The table shows almost 82% of the provision's benefits will go toward about 43,000 Americans who earn $1 million or more annually. Put another way, hedge-fund investors and owners of real estate businesses are "far and away" the two prime beneficiaries of the change to the 2017 tax law, Steve Rosenthal, a tax expert at the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, told The Washington Post. The JCT also found that suspending the limitation for "pass-through" businesses will cost taxpayers about $90 billion in 2020 alone, the Post reported. Tax Policy Center The Washington Post Using those numbers, you can do back-of-the-napkin math to estimate the amount of money the country's wealthiest population could reduce from their tax burden as a result of the change (82% of $90 billion): about $73.8 billion. Then, if you divide that total by the estimated number of impacted Americans who earn $1 million or more (43,000), you end up with an average of $1,716,279  or about $1.7 million  each. "If you take the reports calculations at face value, that means that, on average, each of the eligible taxpayers would get a windfall of ~$1.7 million! Forbes contributor Shahar Ziv wrote. Clearly not all of those earning only $1 million will receive a $1.7 million tax cut; however, just as some may receive less than the $1.7 million, some may benefit much more." In sum, given that U.S. millionaires won't receive stimulus payments based on their income under the CARES Act but rather the Act's provisions enable those Americans to take advantage of a temporary tax relief  potentially to the tune of $1.7 million on average  we rate this claim as a "Mixture" of true and false information. Arnell, Michael and Teachout, Eric.  CARES Act  Income Tax Implications."  Calvetti Ferguson.  31 March 2020. Brown, Lee.  Over 43,000 U.S. millionaires will get stimulus averaging $1.6 million each.
  New York Post.  16 April 2020. Cochrane, Emily and Fandos, Nicholas.  Senate Approves $2 Trillion Stimulus After Bipartisan Deal.
  The New York Times.  25 March 2020. H.R.748  CARES Act.  All Actions H.R.748  116th Congress (2019-2020).
  Congress.gov.  Accessed 20 April 2020. Internal Revenue Service. "Economic impact payments: What you need to know".
 Accessed 20 April 2020. May, Ashley and Weisblat, David.  CARES Act -- Summary of Tax Provision.
 Foley & Lardner LLP.  Accessed 20 April 2020. H.R.748  CARES Act.  All Actions H.R.748  116th Congress (2019-2020).
Congress.gov.  Accessed 20 April 2020. Stein, Jeff.  Tax change in coronavirus package overwhelmingly benefits millionaires, congressional body finds.
 The Washington Post.  14 April 2020. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Congress.gov.  Accessed 20 April 2020. The White House.  Remarks by President Trump at Signing of H.R. 748, The CARES Act.
27 March 2020. Ziv, Shahar.  How Some Rich Americans Are Getting Stimulus Checks Averaging $1.7 Million.
Forbes.  14 April 2020. Remember those nerdychartsthat Ross Perot flashed during his third-party run for president in 1992?The Texas billionaires visual aids warned of the perils of Americas mounting government debt.Twenty years later, Wisconsins junior U.S. Senator, RepublicanRon Johnson, is taking a page from Perot as he acts as a surrogate for Mitt Romney and advocates for a spending slowdown.Explaining one of hisdigital chartsduring a Sept. 11, 2012 campaign stop in Sheboygan, Johnson ripped Obama forsayinghis administrations proposedBuffett ruletax plan for million-dollar earners would stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade.I havent yet publicly called President Obama a liar, Johnsontold his audience. But Im saying he lies. Slight diplomatic difference.Johnson said the Buffett rule would raise just $5 billion a year. Hes right, as PolitiFact Ohio found in ratingTruea claim by Sen. Rob Portman that it would bring in less than $5 billion per year. ... Enough to pay one weeks interest on the national debt.Johnsons presentation uses a chart to contrast the Buffett Rules revenue potential to the deficits accumulated under Obama (2009-2012) and over the two terms of his predecessor, Republican George W. Bush (2001-2008).The chart shows deficits totalling $2 trillion in eight years under Bush, and $5.3 trillion under Obama in just four years. A caption on the chart says those deficits exploded during the Obama administration.Is Johnson right on the deficit numbers and their rapid growth?As backup, Johnsons campaign cited numbers from the White HousesOffice of Management and Budget.The figures show red-ink budgets in seven of eight years that coincide with Bushs term. The annual deficits totalled $820 billion in his first term and nearly $1.2 trillion in his second.Add them up and theres the $2 trillion figure cited by Johnson.That same White House table shows four years of deficits for 2009-12, the time frame that coincides with the Obama era, ranging from $1.29 trillion to $1.4 trillion. The total, including estimated figures for 2012, is $5.33 trillion.Thats nearly triple the Bush deficit figure, in half the time.It seems simple, with the numbers and the trend matching up with Perots, er, Johnsons chart.We wish it were that simple.But there is considerable disagreement in academic and political circles over how to assign responsibility to presidents for spending and deficits.Using the same table and a slightly different approach can put a somewhat different spin on the trend line -- though we found no scenario under which the Bush-era deficits top those under Obama.Heres why.The big question any researcher faces is when to start and end the clock when looking at spending and deficit by presidents.It would be tidy to start the clock on Inauguration Day, but the federal budget year begins Oct. 1. That means an incoming president inherits a budget-in-progress from his predecessor, though he often makes changes.That timing mismatch makes a pretty big difference, for example, in pinning deficit numbers on Bush and Obama.To wit: Democrat Bill Clintons last budget, for fiscal 2001, resulted in a surplus of $128 billion -- the last black-ink budget on record. But Johnson attributed that surplus to Bush, who entered office Jan. 20, 2001. Johnson argues that once elected the budget can be changed by the new president.Similarly, on the back end of the Bush years, Johnson gives the eye-popping 2009 deficit of     $1.4 trillion all to Obama -- even though Obama was working with Bushs last budget, which took effect in October 2008, during the final months of Bushs second term.That methodology becomes even more important when you consider that just before Bush left office, the deficit for fiscal year 2009 already was projected to be $1.2 trillion, according to the scorekeeping agency for Congress, as reported byPolitiFact.So, Johnson attributes the 2009 deficit entirely to Obama even though much it was already anticipated before the Democrats inauguration. (By the end of the 2009 fiscal year, the deficit rose to $1.4 trillion in part due to Obamas economic stimulus plan).What about Johnsons methodology?We asked three experts who closely follow the budget, and each said there is no consensus on how to attribute the overlapping budget years.Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, said apportioning responsibility is really tricky.Looking at what has happened -- budget deficit-wise -- during the Bush and the Obama presidencies doesnt tell the whole picture because of the differences of the fiscal year and impacts of policies that were enacted prior to either of them assuming office, Ellis wrote in an email.Still, Ellis said he considered Johnsons numbers correct even if the presentation was simplistic.Whats more, there are some extra complicating factors unique to the Bush-Obama changeover, such as how best to parcel out the deficit blame for such things as Bushs major tax cuts and Obamas more modest tax trims, two wars that overlap their presidencies, two recessions, a Wall Street bailout that each supported, and major new programs under each (Medicare prescription drugs, stimulus).The Great Recession of 2007-2009, which fueled deficits when tax collections fell, also overlapped the two presidencies.Jason Peuquet, research director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said Johnsons numbers were defensible. He suggested looking at theincrease in debt-- as opposed to deficits -- because it can be tracked to the day a president starts and ends a term.By that measure, we found a $4.9 trillion increase in gross public debt in Bushs two terms vs. $5.4 trillion so far in Obamas single term.Gary Burtless, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said there is no good answer to your question that is going to satisfy everyone.Our ratingJohnsons chart showed $2 trillion in deficits under Bush and $5.3 trillion under Obama, and concluded that deficits exploded during the Obama administration.The numbers check out, but comparing presidents budget records is not as simple as Johnsons chart suggests. For instance, Bush owns some debatable piece of the Obama deficits.We rate Johnsons claim Mostly True. In July 2016, news raced through social media that Jaden Smith, actor and son of Will and Jada Pinkett-Smith, had committed suicide:  The news was not true, and didn't come from a legitimate source. In fact, users who clicked the above-displayed message were greeted with a popup message requesting permission from a Facebook app to post on their behalf, making the article appear less like a hoax and more like an outright scam:   Messages about Jaden Smith's alleged suicide were shared from various sites, and led to a variety of dodgy-sounding Facebook apps, including "Smart Mobiles," "Gadgy Land," "Pakiza," "Top Feeds" and several others.  Intrepid internet users who clicked the link and gave the app permission were eventually greeted with one of several "news" story claiming that Jaden Smith had committed suicide. The web sites responsible for this hoax have published dozens of fake news stories and graphics with this false claim:  Users who granted these apps permission to post to Facebook on their behalf quickly found this death hoax posted to their own Facebook feeds, thereby replicating itself across social media. Jaden Smith himself has been active on his social media accounts, seemingly unaware that he's supposed to be dead. He posted a photograph of himself on 27 July 2016: posted  Clickbait stories such as celebrity death hoaxes are common ways for dubious web sites and apps to spread malware. Even if the sites don't spread invasive software outright, your computer or social media accounts can still be easily hijacked so that unscrupulous companies can profit from a seemingly large social media presence. malware Claim:  Illustrations show a proposed Grand Canyon skywalk. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2005]  Grand Canyon SkywalkScheduled to open January 1, 2006Hualapai Indian Reservation   * Juts out about 70 feet into the canyon, 4000 ft above the Colorado River  *Will accommodate 120 people comfortably (How comfortable would YOU be?)  * Built with more than a million pounds of steel beams and includes dampeners that minimize the structure's vibration  * Designed to hold 72 million pounds, withstand an 8.0 magnitude earthquake 50 miles away, and withstand winds in excess of 100 mph  * Has a glass bottom and sides...four inches thick   Origins:   Strange as it may seem, theabove-displayed illustrations are indeed renderings of a proposed skywalk extending over the south rim of the Grand Canyon, to be built on the  Hualapai Indian Reservationadjacent to Arizona's Grand Canyon National Park. Hualapai Indian Reservation The $30 million all-glass Skywalk will hover 3,800 feet above the Colorado River over a rim of the Grand Canyon, allowing tourists to stroll on an 80-yard walk around a semicircular platform jutting beyond the canyon rim, surrounded by Plexiglas that will provide a spectacular view of the canyon floor directly below.  (The statement that the structure is designed to hold "72 million pounds" appears to be a copywriter's misparsing of a 72-ton figure.)  The Skywalk (initially projected to open in early 2006, before construction delays pushed back the completion date) will be part of a new Grand Canyon West resort on the Hualapai reservation at the western edge of the park, about 120 miles from Las Vegas.   As the Arizona Republic noted, the Skywalk is part of an effort by the Hualapai tribe to create a multi-faceted tourist resort and revenue stream not dependent upon casino gaming: Levi Esquerra, program director for Northern Arizona University's Center for American Indian Economic Development, said the Hualapais are one of the few tribes to have a bustling economy without casino gaming as a linchpin. "They've been able to exploit their natural beauty and become a tourist destination," Esquerra said. "What we've normally seen in the past between the tribes and national Park Service is like the Blackfeet in Montana appealing to get free access to Glacier National Park. But the Hualapais have a new and aggressive attitude to develop markets on their own land." The Hualapai's Grand Canyon Resort Corp. already has completed the first phase of an adjoining Indian village, where Navajo, Hopi, Hualapai and Havasupai craftsmen constructed traditional dwellings surrounding an amphitheater that hosts daily Native American dances. The first phase of a nearby Old West village also has been completed, and plans are on the drawing board to construct a tram from the canyon rim to the floor. Ditto for an anticipated high-end resort and a campground, which will house about 50 cabins and be able to accommodate 200 campsites and 200 recreation vehicles. The parts for the Skywalk project were fabricated in other locations and brought to the Grand Canyon site as it was readied for their installation, a process depicted in the photographs shown below:                      The transparent pathway was installed in place in March 2007, and Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin offically inaugurated the Skywalk on 20 March 2007 by taking a stroll on it in front of a crowd of about 1,000 tourists, dignitaries and tribal members:    Grand Canyon West has announced 28 March 2007 as the official public opening date:  Grand Canyon West, a destination owned and operated by the Hualapai Tribe at the Grand Canyon's western rim, announces March 28, 2007 as the official public opening date of The Skywalk. The Skywalk will be the first-ever cantilever shaped glass walkway to suspend more than 4,000 feet above the canyons floor and extend 70 feet from the canyon's rim.  Access to The Skywalk will run from dawn to dusk and will cost $25 per person in addition to the cost of a Grand Canyon West entrance package. One hundred and twenty people will be allowed on the bridge at a time. Admittance is first come, first serve for walk up visitors; however, reservations can be made. Guests will enter and exit the walkway via temporary buildings while the adjacent visitors center is being completed. Grand Canyon West plans to issue numbered shoe covers  in in order to avoid scratches and slipping - to each visitor that enters the open-air walkway. Prior to the public opening in March, Grand Canyon West will host a "First Walk" event for media and VIPs. The name of the first public figure to step on The Skywalk will be announced closer to the opening.  The historical rollout of The Skywalk structure, with the glass in place, is scheduled for February 27 to March 2. The initial part of the rollout process involves jacking the structure up off of the supports and then subjecting the structure to several days of thorough tests that replicate the conditions of final placement. After the final testing is complete, the multi-million pound steel enforced structure will be rolled out across the canyon's edge, which takes multiple days. Immediately after the structure is in position, it will be seated and attached to the foundation. Details for a media event during the rollout will be revealed closer to the event. Additional information:      Destination Grand Canyon West   Last updated:  20 March 2007     Sources:   Braun, David.  "Photo in the News: Grand Canyon to Get Glass Bridge."   National Geographic News.  26 August 2005.    Clarke, Jay.  "Tribe Plans Walkway Over Grand Canyon."   The [San Jose] Mercury News.  4 December 2005.    Gaynor, Tim.  "Astronaut's Small Step Opens Grand Canyon Skywalk."   Reuters.  20 March 2007.    Mannweiler, David.  "Don't Look Down and You'll Be Fine."   The Indianapolis Star.  20 November 2005.    Shaffer, Mark.  "Hualapai Tribe Finds Economy Flows Better with River Plan Than Casino."   The Arizona Republic.  13 October 2005. An entreaty to help save the life of a victimized child who had been raped by an AIDS-positive attacker began circulating as a cell phone text message in June 2010. At that time, the message being zinged from phone to phone represented the rapist being sought with a photograph of an African American male bearing gold teeth: This guy raped a five year old little girl. He ruined her life, she is alive & in the hospital can't move and can never have children, or a normal life. This guy goes by different names he is in hiding & has AIDS. The girl came out positive. Please help us catch this animal. Every time this message is fwd the Dell Hospital will donate $.15 to Maria's medication & treatment. Please don't hesitate to fwd this. It could've been you're daughter or sister. God bless. Thank you!. Forward this to as many people as possible. In October 2010, the hoax underwent a revival when it was circulated anew, that time accompanied by the photo of a Hispanic male sporting multiple tattoos. Since 2014, this Facebook post has been shared more than 77,000 times. A second post from 2016 has been shared more than 82,000 times with a different photograph: this Facebook post second post   There was no such child: the whole thing was a leg-pull, said Dell Children's Medical Center of Central Texas: said A false text message has been circulating that describes an incident involving a 5-year old girl. The message states that every time you forward it to someone, Dell Children's Medical Center will donate 15 cents to cover the child's healthcare expenses. This message is spam and is in no way affiliated with Dell Children's Medical Center or the Seton Family of Hospitals. If you receive this message, please delete it. As demonstrated so aptly by public efforts to provide relief to earthquake victims in Haiti, beneficences initiated by cell phone generally involve a tracking and billing mechanism that requires participants to text a specific short word or phrase to a particular (five-digit) number, not the willy-nilly forwarding of a explanatory narrative to as many people as possible. Haiti In 2009 we began to note that "Forward this message to help fund medical care for a sick or dying child" appeals were beginning to appear as cell phone text messages as well as being passed in e-mail. That trend continues into the present, with the "shot 14-year-old boy" just another iteration of the same basic hoax that falsely claims the American Cancer Society, the Make-A-Wish Foundation, or some other large entity will donate a predetermined amount of money every time a particular message is forwarded. Such leg-pulls have been circulating via e-mail since 1997. hoax Typically, a large charity is named as the benefactor standing ready to direct monies towards the costs of medical care for the languishing child, but various corporations have also been fingered for this role in other iterations of the hoax, such as AOL and ZDNet in the Rachel Arlington leg pull (brain cancer sufferer in need of an operation) and McDonald's and Pizza Hut in the Justin Mallory prank (epileptic in need of long-term care). Rachel Arlington Justin Mallory Everyone wants to help sick children get better, and the thought of a little boy or girl suffering from some dread disease or infirmity because people couldn't be bothered to forward a message tugs straight at the heartstrings. Problem is, hoaxsters know that, and they play upon these very human drives for their personal amusement. Once again, that is the case here: Well-intentioned forwarding does nothing towards helping a sick child; it does, however, make the day of some prankster. If you want to make a difference in a sick child's life, the best way is still the old-fashioned one: donate your money or your time, don't passively share a worthless message.   KEYE-TV [Austin].  "Text Messages About Dell Children's Med Center Donations Are False."
  22 June 2010. Roser, Mary Ann.  "Seton Alerts Public That Text Message to Help 'Raped' Child Is Bogus."
  The [Austin] Statesman.  22 June 2010. This story was updated on June 4, 2019 to add a second viral Facebook post. Conservative political commentator Wayne Allyn Root opined back in 2010 that President Obama "is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos."  Claim:   Wayne Allyn Root wrote in an opinion piece that President Obama is "purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy."  Example:  [Root, June 2010]   Rahm Emanuel cynically said, "You never want a crisis to go to waste." It is now becoming clear that the crisis he was referring to is Barack Obama's presidency. Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos  thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within. Barack Obama is my college classmate (Columbia University, class of '83). As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University. They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival ... and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it. [Rest of article here.] here Origins:  Wayne Allyn Root, the Libertarian Party's 2008 vice presidential candidate, is a political commentator whose columns appear on various conservative web sites and the author of several books, including The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gambling & Tax Cuts.  He penned a biweekly political opinion column published the Las Vegas Review-Journal, and his entry for 6 June 2010 was the article excerpted above, entitled "Obama's agenda: Overwhelm the system," in which he opined that President Obama is "purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos." Wayne Allyn Root column article Some online-circulated versions of this column are entitled "Obama's college roommate speaks out," but that heading reflects a misreading of the word "classmate," as Wayne Allyn Root never was, or claimed to be, Barack Obama's roommate  Root merely attended Columbia University at the same time as Barack Obama did and later claimed (despite substantial evidence to the contrary) that neither he nor anyone else attending Columbia during that time had ever heard of or met Barack Obama. claimed Root's credentials as a political prognosticator are rather suspect, as he predicted in May 2012 that Barack Obama would lose the upcoming presidential election to Republican candidate Mitt Romney "in a landslide."  (Obama handily won with 62% of the electoral vote.) predicted handily When LeBron James returns to Cleveland as a member of the Miami Heat during the upcoming NBA season, a small slice of his game-day check will be carved out and handed over to the city of Cleveland.Taxing the income of visiting professional athletes  the jock tax, as some derisively call it  is a common practice around the country that was incorporated into Ohio law in 2000.Ohios cities with major professional sports franchises have been collecting the tax for years, but recently the jock tax has become an issue in the state auditors race, a closely watched election because the winner will sit on the five-member Apportionment Board that will redraw Ohios legislative districts next year.Republican Dave Yost, in his quest to paint Democratic opponent David Pepper as a serial taxer, has blamed Pepper for instituting a jock tax when he was a Cincinnati city councilman. (To be clear, the state auditor cannot levy taxes. )Pepper also kicked off a jock tax, imposing a levy on the sports and entertainment industry, according to a video Yosts campaign produced in August.PolitiFact Ohio asked Yosts campaign to back up the claim. It pointed to legislation Pepper sponsored as a city councilman in 2002 that called on Cincinnati to begin collecting income taxes from visiting professional athletes and entertainers. The motion passed and Cincinnati began collecting the tax.Pepper, now a county commissioner in Cincinnatis Hamilton County, denies responsibility for imposing the tax. Pepper instead blamed state lawmakers who included the jock tax in a comprehensive municipal tax bill passed in 2000. Pepper said that bill, HB 483, forced cities to tax those athletes earnings.We took a closer look at HB 483 and found a provision that prohibits cities from taxing the income of anyone who works in a city for 12 or fewer days in a calendar year. An exception to that rule, however, is a professional entertainer or professional athlete  as may be reasonably defined by the municipal corporation, the bill reads. That means an Ohio city can tax a professional athletes pay, no matter how many days he works there. (The provision originally was part of another bill that passed in 2000, HB 477, but was thrown into HB 483 for technical reasons. )While Pepper argued state law requires Cincinnati to collect the jock tax, experts we talked to said the 2000 state law placed Cincinnati under no obligation to do so.Its up the city, said John Mahoney, deputy director of the nonpartisan Ohio Municipal League, which represents the collective interests of the states municipalities.Cities, under home rule powers, generally have the final say when deciding whose income to tax. State lawmakers can only limit this authority, Mahoney said. The Ohio Municipal League, he noted, worked with lawmakers on the issue during the legislative process.Don Mottley, a former Republican state representative who sponsored both HB 483 and HB 477 and chaired the House Ways and Means committee hearings on each bill, agreed with Mahoney.Theres nothing in there that requires them to tax athletes and entertainers, Mottley said. It just permits them to.Mottley left the General Assembly at the end of 2000 and began practicing law. He also is a former chairman of the Ohio State Bar Associations taxation committee.He represented the Cincinnati Bengals before the Cincinnati City Council in 2002 in opposition of Peppers legislation. The Bengals feared Cincinnatis tax on opposing players would prompt more NFL cities to pass similar laws, Mottley said.But Cincinnati was far from the first city to collect a jock tax. Cleveland has been collecting the tax for more than three decades, and Columbus, home to an NHL team and a Major League Soccer team, has been doing so since the mid-1990s.In his defense, Pepper said the video makes it seem as if he created a never-before-seen tax. Pepper said he wanted Cincinnati to be in step with state law that allowed it to tax visiting athletes income. He said city law mandates taxing all qualifying wage earners.It is true that Pepper did not create the jock tax: It was collected in other cities before he pushed for it in Cincinnati. And a claim in the video that  CNN called it one of the strangest taxes in America is an overstatement. The jock tax was included in a 2005 CNNmoney.com article that described, in general terms, how athletes income is taxed in different states. The story did not mention Pepper or the city of Cincinnati.However, Peppers legislation, while beneficial to the city budget, did institute the tax collection in Cincinnati. And the experts we talked to said collecting the tax was the citys prerogative. Pepper cant duck responsibility for starting the tax in Cincinnati.We find the statement True. Claim:  If John Kerry were elected President, the Secret Service would have to protect him and every property he owns for the rest of his life. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] You will pay upkeep/Secret Service for 5 Kerry mansions.  It is good to be John F. Kerry....... The F stands for Forbes in case you ever wondered. He is one of the richest Senators in Government. When someone is elected president, it means the Secret Service has to protect the President and his family as well as his property. The Kerry's have five US properties not counting the several foreign properties they own too. The cost to run these homes are more than what the average American could afford, even if the rent was free, and all you had to pay the water, gas & electric. Including ground keepers, maintenance, pool, and house keepers. To be President would require the taxpayers to pay for all that now if elected. Including a complete staffed Secret Service security 24 hours a day. In addition to that we will have to pay for each of their homes for security improvements even if they never go to them all there is that just in case. Who do you think will pay for all this? We Pay! This takes all the expense off Kerry and puts it on us. Nevertheless, factor another major cost to Americans that Kerry does not want you to know about. Becoming president would automatically include taking care of all their properties with Secret Service Agents that includes 5 agents per 6 hour shift 4 times a day 365 days of the year for the rest of their lives so long as they own those properties. It comes with being President once you are elected. It requires us the taxpayers, to pay for this as well as his annual salary as well as his retirements including the cost of living adjustments to boot.  These salaries and agents protect all their real estate property with Secret Service Agents and pay the bills for the rest of his life. In addition, feed the Secret Service Agents and rotate new ones every 6 hours for the rest of his life. Do the math. Five properties need to be protected. This requires five Secret Service Agents per shift, daily every six hours, per property! That is 20 Secret Service Agents per day per property everyday including Holidays. Wow, what does that cost? Lets say an average of 20 agents per property, each earning a about $60K per agent to survey the perimeters and protect. Now times that by five properties so far. That is if the Kerry's do not buy any more properties afterwards. This also includes the Agents vehicles and repairs, gas, meals, days off, paid vacation, and medical plan visits etc per agent. Who pays? YOU pay, the whole time they are alive after becoming President! Is this the best use of our tax money electing Kerry to take care of all their properties both foreign and domestic? On the other hand, shouldn't he pay for his own? Yet, the Presidential salary could not afford it. The more I think about paying for Kerry's properties everyday, just makes me happy keeping President Bush all the more merrier. Without raising taxes to boot. How on earth would Kerry pay for everyone to have Healthcare, increase our military, and have us pay to protect his investments, all without raising our taxes? Tax and spend Kerry is his party motto. Which really has to make you wonder why anyone with his wealth, would take a salary of that of a U.S. Senator, never mind wanna be President? Do you believe him now why he needs to be the Prez? To serve the people? On the other hand, the people serve Him and his wife! IF YOU AREN'T COMPLETELY APPALLED, THEN YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION Origins:   The fact that Senator John Kerry's middle name is "Forbes" is about the only piece of information this latest political diatribe gets  right. John Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, together own several homes, but since they signed a prenuptial agreement and have kept their premarital assets separate,  a Boston townhouse (which John Kerry mortgaged in 2003 to finance his presidential bid) is the only one of these homes that they technically own as a couple.  The government is obligated to provide Secret Service protection to the President and his immediate family, so if John Kerry were elected to that office, of course he and his family would be entitled to the same level of security detail that the Secret Service provides to every President.  That protection might indeed include the use of public funds to pay the costs of installation and maintenance for security systems at some of the Kerrys' homes, because the protection of First Families is viewed as a right and proper charge upon the nation.  Security measures of this level would not be specific to the Kerrys; the homes of all Presidents are treated this way, as (to a lesser extent) are the homes of all former Presidents.  homes It is not true, however, that every single residence owned by the either of the Kerrys (whether it be in America or abroad) would be staffed by five Secret Service agents around the clock, and that those agents would be guarding the Kerrys and all their properties for the rest of John Kerry's life.  Secret Service staffing levels vary as the situation requires, and lifetime protection for former Presidents and their spouses was eliminated by Congressional legislation in 1997.  President Clinton and his wife, Hillary, are the last First Couple who will receive such a benefit; President George W. Bush and all who succeed him in the White House will be limited to receiving Secret Service protection for a period of not more than 10 years from the time they leave office.  protection In any case, the idea that U.S. voters would have to pay higher taxes if John Kerry were elected President in order to "protect his investments" is just silly.  The projected U.S. federal budget for 2005 is $2.4 trillion  the amount of money spent to protect the President and his family (whoever that President might be) is but a teeny-tiny fraction of a drop in that vast bucket.  The only thing sillier than that notion that taxes would have to be raised to protect a putative President Kerry is the suggestion that the cost of Secret Service protection should be a factor in voters' choosing who should serve as President of the United States. budget For more information about the protection afforded former Presidents, see our article about a similar rumor that was attached to the previous First Couple when President Bill Clinton left office in 2001. article Last updated:  2 October 2004    Sources:   Burger, Timothy and Kenneth Bazinet.  "Hil and Bill Buy 3M Home, Sweet Home in Capital."   [New York] Daily News.  30 December 2000  (p. 6).     DeFrank, Thomas.  "1st Family's N.Y. Bunker."   [New York] Daily News.  14 September 1999  (p. 5).     Fuchs, Marek.  "First Family's Arrival Changes the Focus of Secret Service Office."   The New York Times.  29 October 2000  (Weekend Calendar; p. 5).     Grove, Lloyd.  "The Reliable Source."   The Washington Post.  12 January 2001  (p. C3). In thevideoannouncing his run for California governor, RepublicanTravis Allensaid he wants to reduce the states crime rate and its high taxes. We recently fact-checked Allens claims on crime in the video. The Orange County state assemblyman earned aMostly Falsefor his statement that crime is on the rise in all the states major metros. We found he cherry-picked data from an uptick in crime in 2015 and ignored the states decades-long decline in crime which continued in early 2016. Given the importance of taxes in California, we also decided to examine Allen's claims on this topic. Ive seen our taxes increase to be among the highest in the nation, Allen said in the campaignvideoon June 22, 2017. In California, we must get serious about cutting our taxes. Californians pay among the highest taxes in the entire nation. Allen makes his claim at about the 0:15 minute mark of the video above. Was Allen right? Are Californias taxes really among the highest in the nation? We set out on a fact check. Our research We decided to examine where California ranks in key tax categories, including income, sales and property taxes. Additionally, we looked at how California measures up in a more comprehensive category: Its overall state-local tax burden. We also spoke with several tax experts for some context on these rankings. They all said comparing tax rates is doable but messy, noting that states assess taxes in different ways. Allens campaign did not respond to our request for evidence to support his claim. Heres what we found in each key tax category: Income tax Californias top tier income tax rate is the highest in the nation at 13.3 percent, according to theTax FoundationandCalifornia Taxpayers Association. Its the rate paid by Californians who earn more than $1 million annually. Maine had the second highest top rate at 10.15 percent, followed by Oregons 9.9 percent, as of Jan. 1, 2017. Several states have no income tax, including Nevada, Washington, Texas and Florida. Of course, only a fraction of Californians pay the top income tax rate, noted Annette Nellen, professor and director of the graduate tax program at San Jose State University. A recentSacramento Bee analysisof state tax data found 61,000 households, or 0.4 percent of the states 16 million total, reported income of more than $1 million in 2014. This is a very small percentage of the population, Nellen said. Not everybody is paying that. So, if someone was to say we have really high taxes in California, sometimes thats interpreted as everybodys paying a really high tax when in California we also have a fairly high exemption for individuals and children which might cause some lower-income folks to not pay any California income tax at all, at least not directly. Per capita, Californians pay $1,991 annually in state income taxes, which ranks fourth highest in the country, according to the Tax Foundation. Sales tax While only a fraction pay the states top income tax rate, everyone who lives here or visits pays Californias highest-in-the-nation sales tax rate of 7.25 percent. Four states tie for the second-highest statewide sales tax rate, at 7 percent: Indiana, Mississippi, Rhode Island, and Tennessee, according to the Tax Foundation. States with no sales tax include Oregon, Montana, New Hampshire and Delaware. When adding state and local sales taxes, California rank drops to 10th highest. This combined tax rate varies across the state. In some parts of Los Angeles County, for example, it tops 10 percent, said David Kline, a spokesman for the California Taxpayers Association. The association researches tax data and opposes what it calls unnecessary taxes. Property tax Unlike Californias income and sales tax rates, the state's average effective property tax rate is among the lowest in the nation, at 0.72 percent, or 36th among states, according to the Tax Foundation. Thats due to voter approved Proposition 13, which limited property tax increases to no more than 2 percent per year. New Jersey had the highest property tax rate at more than 2.1 percent, according to a2016 reportby the Tax Foundation. Still, Kline said, property tax in California is compounded by additional taxes, such as parcel taxes and Mello-Roos assessments, or fees charged to property owners in a specific area to pay for public improvements such as streets and parks. Those can add hundreds or thousands of dollars every year, he added. Total tax burden In addition to ranking individual tax categories, the Tax Foundation produces a more comprehensive category it calls the State-Local Tax Burden. It measures the share of income in the state that goes to state and local taxes. California ranked sixth highest on this list at 11 percent. New Yorkers faced the highest burden at 12.7 percent, followed by Connecticut at 12.6 percent. Alaskans paid the smallest share of their income, 6.5 percent, in state and local taxes. We asked Joe Henchman, vice president of the Tax Foundation, about the accuracy of Allens claim that Californias taxes are among the highest in the nation. I think its a fair comment to make, Henchman said. Unless youre being really specific about a particular type of tax, California is usually at the high end of the states. Its almost always in the top half of the states in terms of a tax or its burden or how much people pay. And its often in the Top 10. Exceptions do exist, he said, such as Californias low taxes on wine (44th highest), spirits (40th) and beer (28th), compared with other states. Nellen, the San Jose State University tax professor, agreed Californias taxes are generally high and said Allens claim is mostly backed up by the facts. Growth and taxes In recent years, top Democrats in California have deflected criticism about the states high taxes by pointing to strong employment and GDP growth. Gov. Jerry Brown, for example, has repeatedly pointed to themore than 2 million jobsCalifornia has created since he returned to office in 2011. Allen has criticized Browns recent signing of a 12 cent per gallon increase in the states gas tax. That move is expected to make Californias gas tax second highest in the nation, behind Pennsylvanias, once it goes into effect in Nov. 1, 2017. Henchman said, for now, Californias economy has succeeded despite its high taxes. Nobody moves to California because of taxes, he said. They move in spite of the taxes, because of other positive benefits. Theres good weather, theres Silicon Valley, theres great universities, theres Hollywood, etc., etc. Those, for a lot of people, make it worth paying the taxes, to a point, Henchman added. Our ruling Republican candidate for governor Travis Allen recently claimed Californias taxes are among the highest in the nation. Allens statement is broad and needs clarification. But when looking at some of the most important tax categories, including income, sales and gasoline taxes, theres a lot of truth to his claim. California has the highest top tier income tax and the highest state sales tax in the nation. Its important to note that the top rate income tax is paid by only a fraction of households in the state, and that the sales tax rate drops to 10th in the nation when local and state sales taxes are examined state-by-state. Notably, it does not have one of the nations highest property tax rates, at 36th highest. Allens claim is accurate but needs this additional information. We rate it Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. UPDATE:An earlier version of this fact check described California's property tax rate as 0.72 percent. We have clarified that this is the state's average effective property tax rate. Visit our Tracking the Truth serieshereto see all of our 2018 governor's race fact-checks. Governors race Allenis one of several Republican candidates to announce a run for California governor. The others include John Cox, a venture capitalist from San Diego County and former state Assemblyman David Hadley of Manhattan Beach. Several prominent Democratsare also competing in 2018 to succeed Jerry Brown as governor. They include former Los Angeles MayorAntonio Villaraigosa, California TreasurerJohn Chiang; Delaine Eastin, the states former superintendent for public instruction; andGavin Newsom, the states current lieutenant governor. Apollreleased in June 2017 showed a tightening race. Newsom was in the lead among all candidates, with 22 percent support from likely voters. Villaraigosa had 17 percent support, up from his 11 percent three months earlier. Tracking the Truth: Hear a claim you want fact-checked? Email us at[email protected], tweet us@CAPolitiFactor contact us onFacebook.