Which political party is more successful in decreasing the number of abortions?
Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here In September 2020, social media users began circulating a text meme charting the decrease in abortion rates in the U.S. during previous presidential administrations, attributing the greater drop in those rates during Democratic administrations to a difference in approach (i.e., making it illegal vs. making it unnecessary):     As we noted in an earlier article on a similar topic, following the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that protected a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction, the abortion rate rose immediately afterward until it peaked in the 1980s, and it has fairly consistently declined since that peak through presidential administrations of both parties: article Following nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, the total number, rate (number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 1544 years), and ratio (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) of reported abortions increased rapidly, reaching the highest levels in the 1980s before decreasing at a slow yet steady pace.     Although it is true that the abortion rate has experienced greater declines during Democratic administrations than Republican ones, we can't draw any definitive conclusion that, as the meme tries to suggest, this difference is primarily due to varying approaches by the two main political parties. The simple idea presented by the meme has a number of flaws, chief among them that political factors that might influence the abortion rate (e.g., policies, legislation, judicial appointments and rulings) do not neatly conform to presidential terms of office -- what takes place during one administration generally continues to have an effect throughout subsequent administrations. As well, events occurring at state and local levels (not necessarily directly tied to federal actions) can have a substantial impact on the availability and prevalence of abortions. More important, though, is that we cannot definitively determine to what extent political factors influence the abortion rate. As the Guttmacher Institute (a pro-abortion-rights research organization) observed, recent declines in the abortion rate appear to have been driven not primarily by abortion restrictions but by a broader decline in pregnancies: observed Abortion restrictions target either individuals ability to access the procedure (such as by imposing coercive waiting periods and counseling requirements) or providers ability to offer it (such as through unnecessary and intentionally burdensome regulations). Any one of these restrictions could result in some people being forced to continue pregnancies they were seeking to end; this could, in theory, lower the abortion rate. With the available evidence, it is impossible to pinpoint exactly which factors drove recent declines, and to what degree. However, previous Guttmacher analyses have documented that abortion restrictions, while incredibly harmful at an individual level, were not the main driver of national declines in the abortion rate ... Rather, the decline in abortions appears to be part of a broader decline in pregnancies, as evidenced by fewer births over the same period. What's driving that decline in pregnancies, then? We don't know that for sure, either, but likely a combination of social, cultural, economic, medical, and political factors: combination Experts say the decline isnt due to a single cause, but rather a combination of several factors, including changing economics, delays in childbirth by women pursuing jobs and education, the greater availability of contraception, and a decline in teen pregnancies. The trend seen in the United States is also seen in much of the developed world, including Western Europe, said Dr. John Rowe, a professor at Columbia Universitys Mailman School of Public Health. One important factor driving this is the changing roles of women in society, Rowe said. In general women are getting married later in life, he explained. They are leaving the home and launching their families later. [Dr. Helen Kim, an associate professor at Northwestern Universitys Feinberg School of Medicine] said the concept of the ideal family size may be changing. There are shifts where having smaller families is a trend, she added. I cant speak on this as a sociologist, but this is what Ive seen among my peers and colleagues. One of the biggest factors is the decline in teen pregnancies, Rowe said. Thats good news ... And that makes a huge difference to their lives. The Guttmacher Institute posited a similar mix of factors to explain the decline in the abortion rate: Because both abortions and births [have] declined, it is clear that there were fewer pregnancies overall in the United States ... The big question is why. One possible contributing factor is contraceptive access and use. Since 2011, contraception has become more accessible, as most private health insurance plans are now required by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to cover contraceptives without out-of-pocket costs. In addition, thanks to expansions in Medicaid and private insurance coverage under the ACA, the proportion of women aged 1544 nationwide who were uninsured dropped more than 40% between 2013 and 2017. There is evidence that use of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods -- specifically IUDs and implants -- increased through at least 2014, especially among women in their early 20s, a population that accounts for a significant proportion of all abortions Another possible contributing factor might be a decline in sexual activity. Findings from one national survey suggest a long-term increase in the number of people in the United States -- mostly younger men -- reporting not having sex in the past year. Yet another possibility is that infertility is increasing in the United States, thereby reducing the chances of getting pregnant and subsequently seeking to obtain an abortion. More generally, there are a host of other potential factors that could be driving declines in pregnancy rates, from individuals evolving desires about whether and when to become parents to peoples changing economic and social circumstances. Finally, it is possible that ... there could have been an increase in self-managed abortions happening outside of medical facilities, which the census would be unable to capture. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also offered a combination of potential explanations for lower abortion rates: combination Multiple factors influence the incidence of abortion including the availability of abortion providers; state regulations, such as mandatory waiting periods, parental involvement laws, and legal restrictions on abortion providers; increasing acceptance of nonmarital childbearing; shifts in the racial/ethnic composition of the U.S. population; and changes in the economy and the resulting impact on fertility preferences and access to health care services, including contraception. As we stated four years ago, "causation between the presidency and abortion rates [is] difficult to demonstrate in any case, because it is hard to draw a straight line between federal government policy (let alone presidential policy) and abortion procurement." That observation remains true today. Carroll, Linda and Shamard Charles, M.D.  "Americans Aren't Making Enough Babies to Replace Ourselves."
  NBC News.  13 January 2019. Nash, Elizabeth and Joerg Dreweke.  "The U.S. Abortion Rate Continues to Drop: Once Again, State Abortion Restrictions Are Not the Main Driver."
  Guttmacher Institute.  18 September 2019. Kasprak, Alex.  "Abortion Rates Fall During Democratic Administrations and Rise During Republican Ones."
  Snopes.com.  11 November 2016.
Scam:  Telephone solicitors call out of the blue looking to hook you up with thousands of dollars worth of government grants (aka free money) they say you're eligible for. REAL FRAUD WHICH COSTS ITS VICTIMS AROUND $250 Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] There is a telephone scam that is targeting people across the nation. The caller identifies himself as a representative of the Government Grant Association. The caller then leads the person to believe they have qualified for a government grant and in order to pay out the grant they need the persons bank account number or they have the account number and need the person to verify the account number.   Origins:  A new form of the "prepayment" con has been blanketing the US throughout 2004. Through it, the unsuspecting are lured by the promise of government grants into agreeing to have an "up-front fee" (usually $249) siphoned from their bank accounts. Though the fee is taken immediately, the grants never materialize, leaving those who have been led to believe they were about to be enriched to the tune of thousands of dollars sadly disappointed and a few hundred dollars poorer. "Prepayment" frauds are far from brand-spanking new  many successful flim-flams hold out the carrot of big money (which never materializes no matter how hard it is chased after) to seduce the gullible into parting with some of their hard-earned funds. Those so gulled have acted on the belief they were arranging hard-to-secure loans at very favorable rates, often with distant countries said to be rabid with desire to lend to Americans. Or they were promised access to little-known and almost-forgotten college grants. Or they received the news they'd won foreign fabulous wealth in lotteries they had no recollection of entering. Even the venerable Nigerian scam is a prepayment con: though its victims initially believe that for helping distressed foreigners move large sums of cash from their country they will receive millions of dollars, very early into the process they discover they will have to dole out innumerable sums to various folks to bring this about. lotteries Nigerian scam Folks conned via prepayment schemes mistakenly believe they stand to gain vast amounts of something for practically nothing. Acting on that faith, they willingly part with funds they would ordinarily be loathe to spend yet which by comparison to the prizes about to be gained momentarily appear to be relatively small sums.  The 2004 'government grant' fraud operates on that principle. Those contacted by such cheats are told they are entitled to lay claim to government grants worth anywhere from $8,000 to $25,000. In return for their banking information and what now seems an insignificant processing fee  of $249, said grants will be directly deposited into their accounts. Those who suspect something might be wrong with the notion of the government handing them money for no discernible reason are told they are eligible for this form of largesse as a reward for their having paid their taxes promptly for the past few years or because they're senior citizens. Folks who further quibble with the process are issued all manner of guarantees, including the provision of 800 numbers to call if at any time they wish to bow out and have their up-front fees refunded. "Supervisors" may join phone conversations between scam artists and their potential pigeons to assure those evincing doubts about the government wanting to give them money that everything is meticulously legitimate. The doubters may also be given the addresses of web sites to examine which, they are told, will explain in far greater detail how these grants operate. These promises and seeming proofs serve only one purpose, and it is not the protection of the consumer  they work to lend an air of legitimacy to the pitch so as to soothe the suspicions of those about to be taken. Very few will think to call those numbers; they will instead trust that what they have been told are guarantees are in fact valid ones. Those inquisitive enough to dial those 800 numbers find they either go unanswered or have been disconnected.   Those operating versions of this scam have in the past identified themselves as representatives of granting agencies with the names of the Government Grant Center, Consumer Grants USA, Ultimate Funding Inc., Government Grant USA, Federal Government Information Center, Federal Government Grant Information Center, National Grant Center, Federal Research Funding, Customer Care Plus, and Department of Revenue. However, that a purported grant facilitation entity is not listed above in no way proves it is on the up-and-up, so no comfort should be taken from its absence. Swindlers routinely invent impressive-sounding names and titles for themselves and the entities they supposedly represent. "That's what scam artists do," said Pat Coakley of the Better Business Bureau, "they operate under a variety of names and phone numbers, then leave town and start all over again under other assumed names." As to how the con is run, one of our readers who was contacted by someone intent upon victimizing him with the 'government grant' scheme reported this exchange: [Bryan]    Good morning, this is Bryan. [Swindler]   My name is Alec Watson. (Female with a Indian or Pakistan accent.)  [Bryan]   This is Bryan. [Swindler]   Can I speak with Bryan P. please? [Bryan]   Speaking. (I never answer in an affirmative manner anymore. I once had my long distance carrier changed because I said yes when they asked me if I was Bryan. Once they recorded my yes they had me saying yes to anything.) [Swindler]   Again, my name is Alec Watson from the Las Vegas Government Grant Processing Center. And you have been approved to receive an eight thousand dollar grant. We would like to verify your information. Do you live at _____? Do you still work for _____? [Bryan]   Correct. Why would I get a grant for $8,000? [Swindler]   We have noticed that you have paid your taxes on time for the last 20 years. Can you please verify your bank? [Bryan]   North Island Financial Credit Union. [Swindler]   Can you tell me what your bank routing number is? [Bryan]   No, I cannot. [Swindler]   Bryan, we can process you for $8,000 for a full free grant. We can automatically withdraw the processing amount from your back account. Do you think that a cost of $257 is worth receiving $8,000? [Bryan]   Well, if you're charging me $257 then it isn't free, now is it? [Swindler]   I can give you a few minutes to get your checkbook. [Bryan]   I am at work. I do not have a checkbook with me. (Not kidding  my wife knows better then to send me to work with a checkbook during the holidays.) [Swindler]   A deposit slip? [Bryan]   No. [Swindler]   Sir, we cannot finish without your banking routing number; can you call someone at home and receive it? [Bryan]   Why can't you subtract the money from the grant? [Swindler]   Because we are not allowed to touch the grant money. Did you get your checking information yet? [Bryan]   Please remove me from your calling list. [Swindler]   Bryan, you don't want the $8,000? We are not authorized to remove you. [Bryan]   Ok, I found you on the web and it says you are a rip off. Please let me talk to a supervisor. [Swindler]   CLICK As Bryan experienced, the quite-reasonable question of "Why can't you deduct the fee from the funds you'll be sending me?" is always countered by the claim that it is impossible to do so. Others who have been party to such come-ons report being told laws precluded the use of the grant (or loan or scholarship or lottery prize) for anything other that its designated purpose, which included barring use of even a small part of those funds for payment of processing fees. Bryan's example also shows how much he was pressured to provide his banking information. Someone less aware of the possibility of being conned might well have given up that number under such a barrage.  The scam succeeds as well as it does thanks in part to the many television commercials touting free government money. (Such advertisers are vending books containing the contact information for a variety of government grants, loans, and subsidies.) Though there are genuine government grants to be had, they are not available to just anyone for no purpose. Forget about the ads on TV  there are not untold troves of government funds available just for the asking. Grants are awarded on the basis of specific criteria having been met for specific programs. Such grants are very strictly administered, require the completion of a great deal of paperwork, and are overseen at every step. These are not "Fill out a simple form, then cash a huge check" types of propositions; these are "Prove to us that you qualify under this program then, provided you are engaged in the activity we are interested in fostering, we might subsidize some of your costs" sorts of deals. The hoops to be jumped through are many and varied, and there is precious little by way of a freebie to it. Regarding the government grant scam, keep these three points in mind: The U.S. Government does not telephone people to offer them grants.  Grants are never guaranteed, nor are they issued for no apparent purpose, so folks should be downright suspicious of any talk of grants where the words "free" or "guarantee" are bandied about.  Real government grants require extensive documentation with great attention to detail. There is nothing simple or painless about securing a government grant. How To Avoid Falling Victim To Prepayment Scams: Above all else, have nothing to do with 'deal of a lifetime' offers that require payment in advance of fees. Do not fall in with schemes whereby you are required to prepay taxes on lottery winnings, or pay to have a prize shipped to you, or are to be charged a loan application fee. Do not pay someone for the privilege of working for them.  With regard to 'free government grants' come-ons, disabuse yourself of the notion that the U.S. government is in the business of providing grants (aka free money) to whichever of its citizens have made it their habit to pay their taxes on time. (Rather, the U.S. government offers a disincentive to those who are tardy with their payments  it assesses penalties for deadlines missed and charges interest on the amounts overdue.)   Stop believing in the chimera of "something for nothing."     Mulkins, Phil.  "Tell Us Your Bank Account Number, Etc., Etc."   Tulsa World.  16 August 2004  (p. A2).    Roesler, Richard.   "Agencies Warn of Grant Scheme."   [Spokane] Spokesman Review.  23 July 2004  (p. B1).    Sabatini, Patricia.  "Never Give Unknown Callers Bank Account Number."   Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  22 October 2004  (p. B16).    Williams, Fred.  "Scam Uses Phone to Get 'Up-Front Fees.'"   Buffalo News.  20 October 2004  (p. B7).    Wyoming Tribune-Eagle  "BBB Warns Local Consumers About Government Grant Scam."   2 December 2004  (p. A2). Claim:  Congress has eliminated the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit (EITC), and mortgage deductions from the tax code under pressure from lobby groups and the Koch brothers.  Example:  [Collected via Twitter, November 2014] Are u kidding!? Congress Eliminates Child Tax Credit, Mortgage Deduction & E.I.T.C   Origins:  On 11 November 2014, the National Report published an article claiming a "heavy burst of lobbying" by groups including the Koch brothers' Koch Industries preceded a vote whereby Congress rescinded several common tax breaks long afforded to millions of Americans.  article According to the article, the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit and the mortgage interest deduction were all forms of "entitlement payouts" that had been eliminated beginning with the 2014 fiscal year to allow "job creators" to flourish: The deeply unpopular congress, whose approval rating hovers around a historic low of 10%, has voted to remove the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit and the mortgage interest deduction from the tax code starting with the 2014 fiscal year. The move is almost assured to solidify the perception of the 113rd Congress of the United States as deeply disconnected from the struggles and desires of the populace it is supposed to serve.  The move, long championed by entitlement reform advocates like congressman Paul Ryan R-Wisconsin and Ted Cruz R-Texas, will cut entitlement payouts by a staggering 177 billion dollars. 54.33 billion dollars in savings will be realized from discontinuing the earned income tax credit, which generally pays those making less than 12 thousand dollars yearly large cash tax rebates far in excess of the actual tax they paid. 69.7 billion will be saved from the mortgage interest tax deduction, which critics say primarily favors top income earners. The elimination of the child tax credit, which critics say serves no fair purpose, will result in an additional 54 billion dollar savings. The article was nothing but a chain-yanking spoof, however: The National Report is a well-known fake news outlet notorious for publishing click-baiting, completely false stories such as "15 Year Old Who 'SWATTED' Gamer Convicted of Domestic Terrorism," "Solar Panels Drain the Sun's Energy, Experts Say," and "Vince Gilligan Announces Breaking Bad Season 6." 15 Year Old Who 'SWATTED' Gamer Convicted of Domestic Terrorism Solar Panels Drain the Sun's Energy, Experts Say Vince Gilligan Announces Breaking Bad Season 6 The article also quoted economist "Paul Horner" on Congress' purported tax credit repeal.  If that name sounds familiar, it's because Paul Horner is a National Report writer whose name is used as a recurring character in various stories published by the site.     Last updated:  13 November 2014 < The Club for Growth, an anti-tax group, portrays Donald Trump as a liberal in a new TV ad. Which presidential candidate supports higher taxes, national health care and the Wall Street bailout?asks the narratorin the Sept. 15 ad in Iowa as it shows photos of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. It's Donald Trump. The ad then shows a clip of Trump saying in 2004: In many cases I probably identify more as a Democrat. We have already fact-checked Trumps statements ontaxes(hes supported increases),health care(hes had different views over the years) and an attack about hisparty affiliation(he was once a Democrat). Here, we will fact-check if he supported the Wall Street bailout. Trump on the bailout In October 2008, Congress created a $700 billion emergency bailout fund called the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP,  to rescue banks in response to the subprime mortgage crisis. President George W. Bush pressed for passage, and it also drew the support of GOP presidential nominee John McCain and the Democratic nominee, Barack Obama. The Club for Growthcitedthree statements by Trump in support of the bailout. However, the ad omits that he expressed some skepticism about whether it would work. On Sept. 30, 2008, CNNs Kiran Chetry asked Trump about the bailout days before its final passage. The ad includes this segment of that interview: Chetry:Do you think that this bailout plan needs to pass in some way, shape or form for things to stabilize? Trump replied: Well, I think it would be better if it passed. But the ad omits the rest of Trumps statement in which he expressed some doubt about the bailout: I'm not sure that it's going to work.Youknow, it is trial and error. This is very complicated. This is more complicated than sending rockets to the moon. Nobody really knows what impact it's going to have. Maybe it works, and maybe it doesn't. But certainly it is worth a shot. I don't love the idea that the government's buying back all the bad loans. How about some of the good loans? You know? I don't like the idea that the government, frankly, is going to be negotiating with people to sell those loans, because maybe we'd be better off having the best bankers in the world do that. But I think overall, it's a probable positive, other than you have to control the price of oil. Because if you don't, whatever happens with the bailout, if you want to call it the bailout, whatever happens with the bailout, is will have no impact, no positive impact. OnLarry King Liveon April 15, 2009, King asked Trump his opinion of Obama and Trump turned to the bailout in part of his answer: I do agree with what they're doing with the banks. Whether they fund them or nationalize them, it doesn't matter, but you have to keep the banks going, Trump said. On Feb. 18, 2009, Trump talked about the bank bailout onDavid Letterman: The one thing is, the government came in and intelligently put money into the banks, so that if you have your money in CDs or whatever in the banks, youre not going to lose your money at least. In response to the ad, Trumptweeted: Little respected Club for Growth asked me for $1,000,000 -- I said NO. Now they are spending lobbyist and special interest money on ads! Trumps charge relates to a June 2 letter from Club for Growth president David McIntosh to Trump asking him to contribute $1 million to the group. Trump then issued apress releasesaying that the group was trying to shake him down. Club for Growth spokesman Doug Sachtleben told PolitiFact that Trump had asked for the meeting and was interested in donating to the group. Our ruling A Club for Growth TV ad states that Trump supports the Wall Street bailout. Trump made multiple statements in support of TARP, the bailout of the banks, in late 2008 and 2009. However, the ad omits that he raised concern that the banks had received billions and were not loaning them out. Overall, we rate this claim Mostly True. On Jan. 26, 2020, a helicopter crash in California killed NBA legend Kobe Bryant, his daughter Gianna, and seven other passengers. As the world reacted to this tragic news, some social media users noted that the outpouring of grief might be slightly misplaced because, they claimed, 30 Marines had also "just" died in a helicopter crash: helicopter crash   These social media users were referring to a genuine news story. However, they were mistaken that the helicopter crash that killed 30 Marines and a sailor had occurred "yesterday" or recently in January 2020. That incident actually took place in 2005, in Iraq. Here's a screenshot of the Navy news release about the 2005 helicopter crash: Navy news release   Readers may have noticed that this news release was published on Jan. 26, 2005. As the helicopter crash that killed Kobe Bryant happened on the 15th anniversary of the crash that killed 30 Marines, it's easy to see how some people may have misread this date.  Moreover, it seems that some news publications published recent stories that didn't clearly state that the military helicopter crash occurred 15 years ago. While the headline for News-Gazette in the screenshot below refers to a "day in history" piece, for example, the headlines from KWKT and KTUU presented the incident as a recent development.    KWKT and KTUU have since deleted their stories, and we were unable to find any archived versions of these pages.  To sum up: On Jan. 26, 2005, 30 Marines and a sailor were killed in a helicopter crash in Iraq. Fifteen years later, this story recirculated on social media in the wake of another fatal helicopter crash. The text of the original Navy news release appears below: original Navy news release Thirty Marines and one Sailor from the 1st Marine Division and the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing of the I Marine Expeditionary Force died Jan. 26 when their CH-53E Super Stallion helicopter crashed near Ar Rutbah in the Al Anbar Province while conducting security and stabilization operations. All Marines, Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen of the I Marine Expeditionary Force mourn the tragic loss of our brothers in arms. A recovery team is at the crash site, and the cause of the crash is currently under investigation. The names of the deceased are being withheld pending next of kin notification. "While we mourn the loss of these heroes, we will honor their sacrifice by continuing our mission to bring democracy to the people of Iraq," said Marine Lt. Gen. John F. Sattler, commanding general, I Marine Expeditionary Force. "To the families of these brave men, our heartfelt thoughts and prayers go out to you at this most difficult of times." US Navy.  "30 Marines, 1 Sailor Die in Helicopter Crash."
  26 January 2005. Chappell, Bill.  "What We Know: The Helicopter Crash That Killed Kobe Bryant And 8 Others."
  NPR.  27 January 2020. In May and June 2019, a misleading but widely seen meme about immigrants and Medicare benefits continued to circulate on Facebook:   Although the trope that undocumented immigrants are cashing in on U.S. government-funded public benefits for free is a common one, it's generally misleading. common one generally misleading Contrary to what the meme asserts, undocumented persons do not qualify to receive Medicare. Additionally, because many undocumented persons acquire fake Social Security numbers so that they can work, they pay billions of dollars into the system but never reap those benefits, said Steven Wallace, professor of public health at the University of California, Los Angeles, and associate director of UCLA's Center for Health Policy Research."In reality, undocumented immigrants paying into these programs actually are helping to subsidize them," Wallace told us by phone. "So its the other way around -- its not that they're draining the system. They're actually subsidizing it."The impacts of immigration on the economy and public benefits are political flashpoints in a larger national debate. For example, in September 2017 the Trump administration was criticized for rejecting a study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that concluded refugees have an overall positive effect on government revenue.A 2017 study conducted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reported that immigration "has an overall positive impact on the long-run economic growth in the U.S. In the short term and on the local and state government levels, new immigrants do have a negative revenue impact largely due to costs associated with educating children, health care and law enforcement. But in the long term, they are a net positive on revenue due to higher incomes of their descendants who are among the strongest fiscal and economic contributors in the U.S.PBS News Hour reported that "In general, more people working means more taxes  and thats true overall with undocumented immigrants as well. Undocumented immigrants pay an estimated $11.6 billion a year in taxes, according to the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy. Immigrants are also less likely to take public benefits than the native-born population for two reasons."Those two reasons, according to PBS, are that undocumented persons aren't eligible to receive federal public benefits, and many of the ones who are authorized to be here aren't eligible because they earn too much money.  Contrary to what the meme asserts, undocumented persons do not qualify to receive Medicare. Additionally, because many undocumented persons acquire fake Social Security numbers so that they can work, they pay billions of dollars into the system but never reap those benefits, said Steven Wallace, professor of public health at the University of California, Los Angeles, and associate director of UCLA's Center for Health Policy Research. undocumented persons "In reality, undocumented immigrants paying into these programs actually are helping to subsidize them," Wallace told us by phone. "So its the other way around -- its not that they're draining the system. They're actually subsidizing it." The impacts of immigration on the economy and public benefits are political flashpoints in a larger national debate. For example, in September 2017 the Trump administration was criticized for rejecting a study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that concluded refugees have an overall positive effect on government revenue. rejecting A 2017 study conducted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reported that immigration "has an overall positive impact on the long-run economic growth in the U.S. In the short term and on the local and state government levels, new immigrants do have a negative revenue impact largely due to costs associated with educating children, health care and law enforcement. But in the long term, they are a net positive on revenue due to higher incomes of their descendants who are among the strongest fiscal and economic contributors in the U.S. 2017 study PBS News Hour reported that "In general, more people working means more taxes  and thats true overall with undocumented immigrants as well. Undocumented immigrants pay an estimated $11.6 billion a year in taxes, according to the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy. Immigrants are also less likely to take public benefits than the native-born population for two reasons." Those two reasons, according to PBS, are that undocumented persons aren't eligible to receive federal public benefits, and many of the ones who are authorized to be here aren't eligible because they earn too much money. Frazee, Gretchen.  "4 Myths About How Immigrants Affect the U.S. Economy."
  PBS News Hour.  2 November 2018. Hirschfeld Davis, Julie, and Somini Sengupta. "Trump Administration Rejects Study Showing Positive Impact of Refugees."
  The New York Times.  18 September 2017. Congressional Budget Office.  "The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments."
  December 2007. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine.  "The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration."
  2017. One of the most common Republican attack lines against President Barack Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus package has been that the money isn't flowing to the nation's economy quickly enough. If the bill's supporters really wanted to help the economy quickly, the argument goes, they should have spent the stimulus money right away rather than using it on projects that will take more time to get up and running.Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., the No. 2 Senate Republican, made that point on ABC'sThis Week With George Stephanopouloson July 12, 2009.The reality is (the stimulus) hasn't helped yet, Kyl told Stephanopoulos. Only about 6.8 percent of the money has actually been spent.It's a matter of opinion and interpretation whether the stimulus has helped the economy since it passed in February. So we won't rule on that. But Kyl is mostly right about the amount that's been spent.The Obama administration publishes updated spending figures on Recovery.gov, the administration's Web site tracking the stimulus money. It includesa graphshowing the week-by-week trend in spending, which shows how it has steadily increased.As of July 3, $60.4 billion in stimulus money had been spent, according to the chart. If you divide this by the full stimulus amount of $787 billion, you get 7.7 percent  a bit higher than Kyl's 6.8 percent, but in the ballpark. It appears that Kyl was a few weeks out of date in his statistics. The figure spent by June 19 was 6.7 percent; in the subsequent two weeks of reported data, the government shelled out an additional $7.5 billion, boosting the percentage slightly.But on the larger point, Kyl is accurate: A relatively small portion of the stimulus has been spent. So we find his claim Mostly True. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here In late December 2020, social media users shared a meme claiming that the transition team for U.S. President-elect Joe Biden was "removed" from the Pentagon for leaking intelligence to the Chinese government:   The text of the meme reads: Last week the Biden transition team was removed from the Pentagon and now we know why. The Secretary of Defense gave disinformation to the Biden team about Naval movements in the South China Sea. Within 30 minutes the intel was leaked to the CCP. Anyone that is okay with this needs to have their head checked. Biden is in bed with China. Notably, the meme didn't include any evidence to support its claims  and there is no evidence that Biden's team was "removed" from the Pentagon or had leaked any intelligence to the Chinese Communist Party, the ruling political party in China. Had such a stunning event actually happened, we'd doubtlessly see mainstream news coverage. We found no credible news reports that the incoming presidential administration leaked intelligence to China, which would be a bombshell report. In fact, it's been an ongoing issue that outgoing U.S. President Donald Trump has not only refused to admit his electoral loss in the Nov. 3, 2020, election, but his administration has also demonstrated an unprecedented lack of cooperation with the incoming administration. cooperation On Dec. 18, 2020, Axios reported that Trump's acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller had "ordered a Pentagon-wide halt to cooperation with the transition of President-elect Biden, shocking officials across the Defense Department," citing "senior administration officials." reported Miller said in a statement that his staff had been cooperating, and would continue to do so after a "mutually-agreed upon holiday pause." Biden's team responded by stating Miller's comments were false and that they had never agreed on a holiday break in transition meetings. statement Biden's national security adviser Jake Sullivan said in a Dec. 29, 2020, interview with NPR that Trump's political appointees have continued to obstruct the transition process and haven't turned over vital information pertaining to things like a massive Russian cyberattack against American government agencies or plans to distribute COVID-19 vaccines to the American public. interview Biden called the lack of cooperation from the Trump administration "nothing short, in my view, of irresponsibility." called 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. FACT CHECK:  Did President Obama order that "behavioral experiments" be carried out on the American people?  Claim:   President Obama ordered "behavioral experiments" be carried out on the American people.   MOSTLY  WHAT'S :   President Obama issued an Executive Order on 15 September 2015 encouraging federal agencies to more frequently use behavioral research insights in the creation and adoption of policy.     WHAT'S :  President Obama ordered that "behavioral experiments" be carried out on American citizens; President Obama specifically directed agencies to implement any form of behavioral insight usage; the word "experiment" appeared anywhere in the Executive Order. Example:    [Collected via Twitter, September 2015] President Barry ORDERS BEHAVIORAL EXPERIMENTS ON AMERICAN PUBLIC!! https://t.co/MNHOSCvpAB #COSProject pic.twitter.com/0aQN33AqQ3 https://t.co/MNHOSCvpAB #COSProject pic.twitter.com/0aQN33AqQ3  TheFightingIrishDame (@TheIrishDame) September 16, 2015 September 16, 2015   Shock Executive Order: Obama Authorizes Behavioral Experiments On U.S. Citizens: To A ... - https://t.co/pl2RzxZr4q pic.twitter.com/ll7cWaFtqe https://t.co/pl2RzxZr4q pic.twitter.com/ll7cWaFtqe  State of Globe (@StateofGlobe) September 17, 2015 September 17, 2015   Obama Executive Order Instructs Federal Agencies to Conduct Mass Behavioral Experiments on U.S. Citizens: https://t.co/mCynSnLP0e https://t.co/mCynSnLP0e  Bill Periman (@BillPeriman) September 17, 2015 September 17, 2015   Origins:   On 15 September 2015 the web site Daily Caller published an article titled "President Obama Orders Behavioral Experiments on American Public" which claimed that the chief executive had "authorized federal agencies to conduct behavioral experiments on U.S. citizens": President Obama announced a new executive order which authorizes federal agencies to conduct behavioral experiments on U.S. citizens in order to advance government initiatives. The article was aggregated by other news outlets such as DC Clothesline, which similarly claimed the President's executive order had instructed "Federal Agencies to Conduct Mass Behavioral Experiments on U.S. Citizens": Does anyone actually believe "behavioral experiments" on the US citizenry are about "designing government policies to better serve the American people?" Think Pavlov's dog. And, can someone point to the Constitution and show where government has the authority to "experiment" on the citizenry in any shape, form or fashion? It's not there. Government possesses no authority whatsoever to conduct any type of experimentation, behavioral or otherwise, on the citizens of this nation. Both Daily Caller and DC Clothesline used the phrase "behavioral experiments" (conjuring up frightening scenarios of federal gaslighting), and the second article placed the phrase in quotes, suggesting specifically that the Obama administration had "ordered" sinister-sounding "behavioral experiments" be inflicted upon Americans. The 15 September 2015 Executive Order referenced by the articles is available on the White House's web site for open review. Tellingly, the word "experiments" does not appear anywhere within it; only words such as "encourage[d]," "identify," "review," and "improve." The executive order about "Using Behavioral Science Insights to Better Serve the American People" actually decreed: web site decreed To more fully realize the benefits of behavioral insights and deliver better results at a lower cost for the American people, the Federal Government should design its policies and programs to reflect our best understanding of how people engage with, participate in, use, and respond to those policies and programs. By improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Government, behavioral science insights can support a range of national priorities, including helping workers to find better jobs; enabling Americans to lead longer, healthier lives; improving access to educational opportunities and support for success in school; and accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy. Alongside the Executive Order, the White House issued a document titled "Fact Sheet: President Obama Signs Executive Order; White House Announces New Steps to Improve Federal Programs by Leveraging Research Insights." Aiming to provide details not included on the Executive Order about how "behavioral insights" could apply to the creation and implementation of policy, that document explained: document Behavioral science insights  research insights about how people make decisions  not only identify aspects of programs that can act as barriers to engagement, but also provide policymakers with insight into how those barriers can be removed through commonsense steps, such as simplifying communications and making choices more clear. That same study on financial aid found that streamlining the process of applying  by providing families with assistance and enabling families to automatically fill parts of the application using information from their tax return  increased the rates of both aid applications and college enrollment. When these insights are used to improve government, the returns can be significant. For instance, the Federal Government applied behavioral science insights to simplify the process of applying for Federal student aid and has made college more accessible to millions of American families. Similarly, the Pension Protection Act of 2006, which codified the practice of automatically enrolling workers into retirement savings plans, is based on behavioral economics research showing that switching from an opt-in to an opt-out enrollment system dramatically increases participation rates. Since the implementation of this policy, automatic enrollment and automatic escalation have led to billions of dollars in additional savings by Americans. Another germane fact sheet tidbit came in the form of detail pertaining to a new committee formed to facilitate the order's initiatives: The Executive Order also formally establishes the Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (SBST), a group of experts in applied behavioral science that translates findings and methods from the social and behavioral sciences into improvements in Federal policies and programs for the benefit of the American people. The passage excerpted above indicated that behavioral insights data targeted by the initiative stemmed not from government-led "behavioral experiments," but rather "findings and methods from the social and behavioral sciences."  Another passage supported inferences that non-governmental research groups would be tasked with submitting the bulk of relevant findings to the SBST for consideration in the drafting of future policy: The Behavioral Science & Policy Association (BSPA) is launching a Behavioral Science and Policy Series to identify promising avenues for applying behavioral science to public policy at the Federal level in order to improve Americans' lives. Through this series, by September 2016, working groups will deliver white papers that propose particular applications of behavioral science that can be applied, tested, and implemented at the Federal level in the near term. A less harrowing interpretation of the executive order than that fostered by conservative news sites was offered by the Houston Chronicle in a 17 September 2015 article: article Dr. Andrew Harper, a professor of behavioral science at the University of Texas Health Medical School, said behavioral science is an old discipline, used to maximize communication effectiveness, that is only now being applied to government-authored materials. "For example in healthcare there are simple things we want people to do  eat a balanced diet, sleep well," he said. "When just saying 'do it' doesn't work, we look to behavioral science to inform us on strategies that might work better." According to the executive order, research will be used to inform even the basic layout of federal agencies websites and other outreach information. The newly-founded team will consider "how the content, format, timing and medium by which information is conveyed affects comprehension and action by individuals." In other words, researchers will conduct clinical studies to determine how agencies could more effectively present information in a way that will move people to action. The Executive Order didn't come to pass without some objections, however. The University of Oxford's Practical Ethics in the News Blog featured an editorial that questioned how scientifically rigorous the selection and application of such data might be, implying the initiative's mission was too ambiguous. Author Joshua Shepherd conceded that the proposal was overall "a good thing," but said "the order raises a number of ethical and practical issues": editorial Given recent evidence that many results from experimental and social psychology fail to replicate, there might be reason to worry here. The executive order does not define what counts as an 'insight' from behavioral science. Is it the result of one study? A couple? Deployment of an insight that is nothing more than an experimental artifact could be damaging, or wasteful. Suppose a genuine insight exists. Even so, implementing it is not straightforward. Other experts didn't think that the potential flaws outweighed the benefits. University of Michigan professor Andrew Hoffman outlined the potential practical effects of such initiatives on policy in a Scientific American article, positing that their application to the drafting of policy was "long overdue": article [Hoffman] says that people might react rebelliously to a gas tax imposed by the government. A rise in its cost spurred by market forces, on the other hand, might prompt them to drive less. In that way, federal policies should consider the complicated ways that people filter, interpret and process messages. You can't expect to put a price on something  whether that's gas, plastic bags or emissions  and get an expected result, he said. These are things that sociology, psychology, political science have been focusing on for decades, Hoffman said. So to bring in the notion that humans are not perfectly rational, utility-maximizing beings in the formation of policy is long overdue. It is true that President Obama issued an Executive Order on 15 September 2015 encouraging and facilitating the application of behavioral research insights, with a stated goal of creating more efficient policy and stronger compliance. Moreover, some credible questions were raised about how rigorous standards for inclusion of such data might be. But the order neither referenced nor described "behavioral experimentation" upon the American people, nor did it in any way suggest that the order's details involved using anything other than existing, ongoing research carried out by social and behavioral science experts. Last updated:     17 September 2015 Originally published:   17 September 2015 Is this a mosquito? No. It's an insect spy drone for urban areas, already in production, funded by the US Government. It can be remotely controlled and is equipped with a camera and a microphone. It can land on you, and it may have the potential to take a DNA sample or leave RFID tracking nanotechnology on your skin. It can fly through an open window, or it can attach to your clothing until you take it in your home.  One of the current areas of research reportedly being undertaken in the scientific/military field is the development of micro air vehicles (MAVs), tiny flying objects intended to go places that cannot be (safely) reached by humans or other types of equipment. One of the primary military applications envisioned for MAVs is the gathering of intelligence (through the surreptitious use of cameras, microphones, or other types of sensors); among the more extreme applications posited for such devices is that they may eventually be used as "swarm weapons" which could be launched en masse against enemy forces. Some efforts in MAV research have involved trying to mimic birds or flying insects to achieve flight capabilities not attainable through other means of aerial propulsion. In 2007 a bug-like MAV model with a 3-cm wingspan was displayed at a robotics conference, in 2008 the U.S. Air Force released a simulated video showing MAVs about the size of bumblebees, and in 2012 engineers at Johns Hopkins University were studying the flight of butterflies to "help small airborne robots mimic these maneuvers." birds displayed video butterflies The specific mosquito-like object pictured above is, however, just a conceptual mock-up of a design for a MAV, not a photograph of an actual working device "already in production." And although taking DNA samples or inserting micro-RFID tracking devices under the skin of people are MAV applications that may some day be possible, such possibilities currently appear to be speculative fiction rather than reality. Some have claimed the U.S. government has not only researched and developed insect-like MAVs, but for several years has been furtively employing them for domestic surveillance purposes: The US government has been accused of secretly developing robotic insect spies amid reports of bizarre flying objects hovering in the air above anti-war protests. No government agency has admitted to developing insect-size spy drones but various official and private organisations have admitted that they are trying. But official protestations of innocence have failed to kill speculation of government involvement after a handful of sightings of the objects at political events in New York and Washington. Vanessa Alarcon, a university student who was working at an anti-war rally in the American capital [in September 2007], told the Washington Post: "I heard someone say, 'Oh my God, look at those.' "I look up and I'm like, 'What the hell is that?'. They looked like dragonflies or little helicopters. But I mean, those are not insects." Bernard Crane, a lawyer who was at the same event, said he had "never seen anything like it in my life". He added: "They were large for dragonflies. I thought, 'Is that mechanical or is that alive?'" The incident has similarities with an alleged sighting at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York when one peace march participant described on the internet seeing "a jet-black dragonfly hovering about 10 feet off the ground, precisely in the middle of 7th Avenue". Entomologists suggest that the objects are indeed dragonflies. Jerry Louton, an expert at the National Museum of Natural History, said Washington was home to large, impressively-decorated dragonflies that "can knock your socks off". Others maintain the technical obstacles involved in creating flying insect-sized robots have yet to be overcome: The technical challenges of creating robotic insects are daunting, and most experts doubt that fully working models exist yet. "If you find something, let me know," said Gary Anderson of the Defense Department's Rapid Reaction Technology Office. Getting from bird size to insect size is not a simple matter of making everything smaller. "You can't make a conventional robot of metal and ball bearings and just shrink the design down," said Ronald Fearing, a roboticist at the University of California at Berkeley. For one thing, the rules of aerodynamics change at very tiny scales and require wings that flap in precise ways  a huge engineering challenge. Scientists have only recently come to understand how insects fly. Even if the technical hurdles are overcome, insect-size fliers will always be risky investments. "They can get eaten by a bird, they can get caught in a spider web," Professor Fearing said. Leonard, Tom.  "US Accused of Making Insect Spy Robots."   The Telegraph.  10 October 2007. Weiss, Rick.  "Washington Abuzz with Talk of Dragonfly Spies."   The Sydney Morning Herald.  12 October 2007.