Was the military that Trump inherited from Obama considered to be lacking in resources?
One claim that has often been repeated by U.S. President Donald Trump is that he rebuilt a military that was "totally depleted" by his predecessor, Barack Obama. Trump's grievance is based on a grain of truth  military spending was reduced during Obama's second term  but Trump's statements on the matter have combined distorted facts with outright falsehoods. The way Trump tells it, the United States military was in a complete shambles when he took office. Over the years, Trump has made a variety of statements in order to perpetuate this notion.  In one oft-repeated story, Trump illustrated his claim that Obama depleted the military by saying that the armed forces had "no ammunition" when he took office. In October 2019, for instance, Trump said: "When I took over our military, we did not have ammunition." said This is not true. The military did not run out of ammunition during the Obama administration (or during any other administration, as far as we can tell). not true In addition, Trump falsely claimed in August 2018, as he was signing the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2019, that the military had not received any money for years and years. Trump said: "Weve been trying to get money. They never gave us money for the military for years and years. And it was depleted." This, again, is false. In fact, approximately $600 billion was spent on the military in the year before Trump took office.  President Trump has also mischaracterized his own military spending. On May 22, 2020, during a speech at the "Rolling to Remember Ceremony: Honoring our Nations Veterans and POW/MIA," Trump claimed that he spent trillions on equipment: speech "Weve invested the $2.5 trillion in all of the greatest equipment in the world, and its all made here, right in the USA.  This is not true. The $2.5 trillion figure refers to the total Department of Defense (DOD) budget that was passed under Trump -- comparatively speaking, Obama's budget during was about $3.3. trillion during his first term and $2.7 trillion during his second term -- but only of a portion of the DOD budget is spent on equipment. The amount spent on procurement, or the act of obtaining military equipment and supplies, varies from year to year, but it generally made up about 15% of Trump's total military budget.  not true While Trump has told several falsehoods about how Obama supposedly "totally depleted" the military, there is some general truth to the idea, as overall military spending was reduced during the Obama administration. However, there is a bit more nuance to this issue than is often heard on the campaign trail.  While the military was leaner during the Obama years, the Obama administration still spent trillions on national defense.  Calculating an exact dollar figure for how much the U.S. spends on the military (and what administration is responsible for that spending) is a complicated proposition. The military budget covers a wide range of expenses across five military branches: the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and Space Force. One could also factor in money spent on the Department of Veterans Affairs, on overseas contingency operations, and on other security agencies, such as Homeland Security. Military contracts and budgetary plans also often overlap presidential terms, meaning that spending authorized under one president may end up getting spent under another. Furthermore, each president is faced with different domestic and global threats, which require different approaches and therefore different spending. Lastly, no president has sole discretion over military spending. For instance, sequestration, a provision of the 2011 Budget Control Act that passed congress with bipartisan support, limited the amount that could be spent on the military. military budget covers sequestration The "green book," an annual budgetary analysis put out by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, shows that military spending greatly increased following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks during the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush. Spending continued to increase after Obama took office. In 2010, there was a slight decrease in military spending, and that trend continued until 2015. Spending increased again during Obama's final year in office and then continued to increase during Trump's administration.  green book The following chart from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) takes a look at the United States' budget stretching back to the 1980s. The green line at the top of this chart is the United States budget for National Defense.  Center for Strategic and International Studies   Trump's military budget for his first four years (approximately $2.9 trillion) was more robust than Obama's budget during his last four years (approximately $2.7 trillion). However, it was smaller than Obama's budget during his first four years (approximately $3.3 trillion). The Marine Corps Times writes: writes The military the president inherited from Obama was not depleted or facing a massive readiness crisis, which resulted from massive underfunding in the Obama years. In fact, according to Gen. David Petraeus ,who commanded our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan and also headed the CIA, and Michael OHanlon, there was no readiness crisis and in 2016, the year Trump was elected, the state of our military was awesome. Nor was the defense budget seriously underfunded in the Obama years. If one controls for inflation, in FY2021 dollars Obama spent $3.3 trillion in his first term compared with the $2.9 trillion under Trump. Moreover, while defense spending did decline slightly in Obamas second term, it still amounted to $2.7 trillion, about $200 million, or 7 percent less, than Trumps first-term budget. However, this decline was a result of the Budget Control Act or sequestration (BCA,) which was instituted by his current chief of staff, Mark Meadows, who was then a congressman from South Carolina. While the military certainly had ammunition during the Obama administration, and while the Obama administration certainly spent a few trillion dollars more than nothing on national defenses, several aspects of the military were truly reduced during Obama's administration. Todd Harrison, the director of Defense Budget Analysis for CSIS, examined Obama's budget for fiscal year 2017, the budget that would be in place when Trump took office, and found that "nearly every measure of force structure  the number of brigades, aircraft, ships and subs, marine battalions, and end strength  [was] smaller than when the [post 9/11] buildup began." However, this "smaller force consumes a budget more than 50 percent larger in real terms than before 9/11. The military is spending more for a smaller force."  examined Obama's budget Though it is certainly not accurate to say that the military did not receive any funding during the Obama administration, there was truly a reduction in spending. Two major factors resulted in reduced spending. First, congress placed restrictions on military spending in 2011 in an attempt to reduce the national deficit. And second, the Obama administration started to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and Iraq.  Here's how The New York Times explained the impact of the congressional sequester on military spending: explained In 2011, in response to a debt ceiling crisis, lawmakers reached a bipartisan agreement to reduce deficits by at least $2.1 trillion over the next decade. In addition to limits on domestic spending, limits were placed on the Pentagons base budget, but not its wartime spending. Congress increased spending caps by $32 billion in 2013 and $40 billion in 2015, referred to by budget watchers as partial sequester relief. In February, the cap was blown off entirely, when Mr. Trump signed a budget deal that raised it by $165 billion over two years. Effectively, that ended the sequester without repealing the original law. From 2012 to 2017, the Pentagons annual budget had decreased as a percent of the economy. But it still hovered around $600 billion  a far cry from no money at all. Qiu, Linda.  "Trump Goes for Broke on Claim Military Received No Money Before His Watch. (Hes Still Wrong.)."
  The New York Times.  13 August 2018. Plinkington, Ed.  "Barack Obama Sets Out Plans for Leaner Military in Historic Strategy Shift." 
 The Guardian.  5 January 2012. Ewing, Philip.  "Fact Check: Has President Obama 'Depleted' The Military?"
  NPR.  29 August 2016. Korb, Lawrence.  "Trumps Misleading Claims on Military Readiness and Veteran Care."
  Marine Corps Times.  14 September 2020. Harrison, Todd.  "Analysis of the FY 2017 Defense Budget."
  Center for Strategic and International Studies.  April 2016. Robertson, Lori.  "Trumps False Military Equipment Claim.'"
  FactCheck.org.  2 July 2020.
In July 2020, an advertisement for U.S. President Donald Trump's 2020 reelection campaign started appearing on Trump's official Facebook page showing a comparison of two images entitled "Public Safety" and "Chaos and Violence." The "Public Safety" image showed Trump surrounded presumably by various members of law enforcement, while the "Chaos and Violence" image supposedly showed protesters beating up an American police officer: started appearing Shortly after this ad started running, media outlets such as the BBC noticed that the image on the right was not taken in 2020, and that it didn't show an incident from the United States. This image was actually taken in 2014, and shows a clash between police and protesters in Ukraine.   BBC The BBC reported: A post by Donald Trump's official Facebook account purports to show violence in the US but is in fact of an event in another country. The advert shows one image of Mr Trump in a calm setting talking to police officers beside another of a security official being surrounded by protesters, saying: "Public safety vs chaos and violence". However, the image is a photo from a pro-democracy protest in Ukraine in 2014. This photograph was taken by photographer Mstyslav Chernov in February 2014 during a protest in Kyiv, Ukraine. The image is available via Wikipedia under a "Creative Commons" license. The terms for this photograph state that it is free to use  as long as the photographer is given proper credit. But the advertisement on Trump's Facebook page offered no mention of the photographer.  Wikipedia Creative Commons Here's an uncropped version of Chernov's photograph:   Chernov confirmed to Business Insider that the Trump ad did indeed use his photograph from Ukraine in 2014. Chernov went on to say that the only way to combat this sort of deception is through "education and media literacy." Business Insider Chernov said: "Photography has always been used to manipulate public opinion. And with the rise of social media and the rise of populism, this is happening even more," he said. "The only way to combat this is through education and media literacy. When people learn to independently distinguish truth from lies, then the number of manipulations will decrease." Giles, Christopher.  "Facebook: Trump Posts Misleading Ad Using Ukraine Photo."
  BBC.  22 July 2020. Jankowicz, Mia.  "A New Trump Campaign Ad Depicting a Police Officer Being Attacked by Protesters is Actually a 2014 Photo of Pro-Democracy Protests in Ukraine."
  Business Insider.  22 July 2020. In July 2019, an $80 coupon began making the rounds on Facebook for the ALDI grocery store chain. These shared posts were the latest iteration of the common "free coupon" or "free gift card" scams that frequently plague social media and have also preyed on shoppers of chains such as Kroger and Target: Kroger Target  A different scam coupon offer also circulated with the ALDI logo in December 2015, advertising a "get 40% off all purchases in store" promise. Another displayed what appeared to be a free coupon for "$60 off a minimum $70 purchase", and even one for $75 off:  "Aldi has a coupon for $60 off a minimum $70 purchase. Aldi has verified this is a scam, but people are sharing it all over facebook." These coupons are not legitimate, as ALDI themselves noted on their Facebook page:  These coupon offers are a form of survey scams that direct victims to either a survey on an website not owned by ALDI, or what looks like a Facebook page for ALDI. The survey pages nor the Facebook page have any affiliation with the company, despite being adorned with the ALDI logo. Both instruct people to share the bogus ALDI coupon offer on their Facebook timelines and submit comments about it:  This page instructs shoppers to follow these "two simple steps" in order to get their coupons. Once the steps are completed, however, users are not greeted with information explaining how to claim their coupons. Instead, they're asked to take a brief survey that entails providing personal information such as home address, telephone number, e-mail address, and date of birth, and are required to sign up for credit cards or enroll in number of subscription programs in order to obtain their "free" gift cards:  A version of the scam also surfaced in May 2016, and another later in 2018. ALDI responded to frustrated consumers on Facebook:  In June 2017, a version of the scam touting discounts in honor of ALDI's purported anniversary also appeared on Facebook: "HEY FRIENDS CHECK THIS OUT!!!!!Aldi is giving Free $75 Coupon to Everyone to celebrate 103rd Anniversary!Each Person (1)- Go & get yours!ALDI-COM.COM" However, attempting to visit the linked domain (ALDI-COM.com) led to a "deceptive site ahead" warning and not to ALDI's official web site:  If you frequently use Facebook, there is a good chance that you'll run into one of these survey scams again. A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau lists key factors for identifying fraudulent Facebook posts: article "Dont believe what you see. Its easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions." All in all, trying to claim that "free" deep discount ALDI coupon is likely going to end up costing you a lot more than you'll save. Patterson, Emily.  "Customer Survey Scam Lures Victims with Gift Card." 
  Better Business Bureau.  4 July 2014. 10 July 2019: This story has been updated with a scam offer appearing on Facebook that promises $80 off at ALDI. Claim:  Chuck Green penned a column about Barack Obama's being a "victim of Bush's failed promises." CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Green, February 2010] Barack Obama is setting a record-setting number of records during his first year in office. Largest budget ever. Largest deficit ever. Largest number of broken promises ever. Most self-serving speeches ever. Largest number of agenda-setting failures ever. Fastest dive in popularity ever. Wow. Talk about change. Just one year ago, fresh from his inauguration celebrations, President Obama was flying high. After one of the nations most inspiring political campaigns, the election of Americas first black president had captured the hopes and dreams of millions. To his devout followers, it was inconceivable that a year later his administration would be gripped in self-imposed crisis. Of course, they dont see it as self imposed. Its all George Bushs fault. George Bush, who doesnt have a vote in Congress and who no longer occupies the White House, is to blame for it all. [Rest of article here] here   Origins:  Chuck Green is a veteran Colorado journalist who served as editor-in-chief of the Denver Post and now writes a column which is syndicated in newspapers throughout Colorado.  The column referenced above, entitled "Obama is a victim of Bush's failed promises," was penned by Green and published in the Aurora Sentinel on 7 February 2010. Last updated:  12 May 2010 Claim:  Walt Disney's will specified that a substantial bequest go to the first man to become pregnant or bear a child. Status:  False. Examples: [Collected via e-mail, October 2004] I've actually heard this quite a few times but, I was told that Walt Disney had a section of his will that the first MAN to give birth to a baby would a piece of his estate (I've heard they would get Disney World, I've also heard that they would get $10 million).   [Collected via e-mail, January 2008] One day at lunch, we some how got on the subject of Walt Disney, and someone brought up a new thing I had never heard before, he said "It says in Walt Disney's will that the entire Disney corporation goes to the first male to get pregnant." Origins:  The eccentric wealthy person who leaves behind a will giving a substantial fortune to the person who accomplishes some difficult feat (or meets some unusual qualification) is a common figure in entertainment and legend.  Such figures are generally found more often in fiction than in fact, although real-life instances are not hard to find.  (One of the most notable examples is the case of Charles Vance Millar, a Toronto lawyer whose will included a number of capricious bequests, including one that touched off years of legal wrangling in the 1930s in what came to be known as "The Great Stork Derby.") Millar One of the more odd (and puzzling) recent examples of this genre is the claim that Walt Disney's will specified cash or assets worth many millions of dollars be given to the first man to become pregnant or give birth to a child.  Although the reason why this particular claim has become attached to the name of Walt Disney may be something of a mystery, determining that it is false is a fairly simple matter, for a number of reasons: Walt Disney was, for the most part, a man whose sensibilities reflected turn-of-the-century, conservative Midwestern values.  He didn't truck in the outrageous or bizarre, and the thought of a man's bearing children is something he likely would have found disturbing and repulsive, not something he would have sought to encourage or reward with the bestowment of a considerable fortune.  Most  versions of this claim have Walt supposedly bequeathing something he could not give away, such as a sum of money exceeding the value of his portion of his estate, or corporate assets belonging to publicly held companies (e.g., Disneyland, Walt Disney World, Walt Disney Productions).  Although Walt Disney held a personal financial stake in a few Disneyland attractions (such as the railroad and the monorail) and made a good deal of money licensing the use of his name to Walt Disney Productions, he owned neither the theme park nor the company that bore his name and therefore could not direct that either be "given" to anyone.  (At the time of his death, Walt and his wife Lillian jointly owned stock amounting to about 14% of Walt Disney Productions.)  Walt Disney's will of March 1966, which was in effect when he passed away in December of that year, contained no provisions for rewarding pregnant men (or any other unusual disbursements).  Disney left 45% of his estate to his wife and daughters, another 45% to the Disney Foundation in a charitable trust (most of which was dedicated to CalArts), and the remaining 10% in a trust to be divided among his sister, nieces, and nephews. will CalArts Although some medical researchers have expressed the belief that a man might someday be able to carry a pregnancy to term (even if it isn't necessarily a good idea), and a renowned piece of Internet "performance art" presented the idea that a male pregnancy had already been accomplished, for now the subject still remains one of speculation rather than fact. pregnancy performance art Last updated:  11 March 2008     Sources:   Gabler, Neal.  Walt Disney: The Triumph of the American Imagination.   New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006.   ISBN 0-679-43822-X   (pp. 629-630). Walt Disney: The Triumph of the American Imagination    Barrier, Michael.  The Animated Man: A Life of Walt Disney.   Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2007. ISBN 0-520-24117-7  (p. 323). The Animated Man: A Life of Walt Disney President Donald Trump disputed theNew York Times' reportthat he paid little to no federal income taxes in many years,claimingin the first presidential debate with former Vice President Joe Biden that he actually paid millions of dollars in federal income taxes. At the same time, Trump also said he tries to reduce what he pays through legal tax maneuvers, and he blamed Biden for the laws that let him do so. I dont want to pay tax, Trump said at one point. Like every other private person, unless they're stupid, they go through the laws, and that's what it is, Trump said. (Biden) passed a tax bill that gave us all these privileges for depreciation and for tax credits. We built a building, and we get tax credits like the hotel on Pennsylvania Ave.  Trumps claim that he paid millions of dollars in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017 is countered by the New York Times, which obtained years of his tax-return data. But we wondered about the presidents claim about a Biden-passed tax bill. Asked what Trump was referring to, the Trump campaigncited a passagein the Times report, which described how Trump got a $72.9 million tax refund due to a change made under President Barack Obama. The change was part of a law enacted during the Great Recession. It allowednet operating lossesincurred by businessesin 2008 and 2009to be deducted from tax liability for the previous five years, rather than the prior limit restricting such carrybacks to two years. Biden was vice president at the time the provision kicked in. Now business owners could request full refunds of taxes paid in the prior four years, and 50 percent of those from the year before that, the Times wrote. Trump took advantage of this change to wipe out the federal income taxes he paid from 2005 through 2007 with the tax refund, which he claimed and received starting in 2010, according to the Times. The refund is the subject of an audit by the Internal Revenue Service. What does that have to do with depreciation and tax credits? Without access to Trumps tax returns and financial records, its difficult to know what privileges Trump was talking about. The Trump campaign did not respond when PolitiFact asked if there were other tax bills or privileges linked to Biden that Trump was referencing. But tax experts said Trumps mention of the historic preservation tax credit he received for his hotel in Washington appears to jumble the details between the tax refund he got and other tax deductions or credits he may have taken to reduce his tax liability over the years. One could view the statement (from Trump) as simply confused and getting the details badly wrong, said Daniel Shaviro, a professor of taxation at New York University School of Law. Trumps debate-night claim has to do with theprovision passed under Obamathat allowed losses from businesses to be used to recoup taxes paid in the previous five years. The provision was part of theWorker, Homeownership and Business Assistance Act of 2009. A business can only carryback or carryforward certain amounts, and that bill removed some of those restrictions temporarily for 2008 and 2009, said Joseph Bishop-Henchman, the vice president of tax policy and litigation at the National Taxpayers Union Foundation. Its an efficient, relatively hidden way to help certain rich people, added Edward McCaffery, a professor of law, economics and political science at the University of Southern California, whonoted in an op-edthat a similar provision was included in the coronavirus relief bill from March. Joe Biden speaks at a panel on the economy in Washington on Nov. 5, 2009, one day before the Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009 was signed into law. (AP) In Trumps case, the change let him request the tax refund that is now being scrutinized by the IRS and a congressional tax committee. If the IRS decides the refund was illegitimate, the Times reported Trump could owe the government more than $100 million. The audit dispute over Trumps tax refund may center, according to the Times, on Trumps declaration in his 2009 tax return of more than $700 million in business losses. The Times said the materials it obtained did not show which business or businesses created those losses. The carryback rule would have allowed losses incurred for any reason to be applied to income up to five years in the past, McCaffery said, including losses from depreciation, or the reduction in the value of property or an asset over time. But its unlikely that all Trumps losses are from depreciation, experts told PolitiFact. The Times reported that Trumps records show that his casinos, golf courses and other interests lose real money, and that he has lost chunks of his fortune even before depreciation is figured in. We'd have to know precisely where the excess losses that he had circa 2009 came from, McCaffery said. The fact that this is what the IRS is auditing strongly suggests its not simply depreciation, which would be based on easily audited facts. Theres a lot more to what hes done than just using depreciation and tax credits, added Steven Rosenthal, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Other tax maneuvers documented by the Times included questionable write-offs for business expenses and a charitable tax deduction. But the $700 million in losses appears to correspond with Trumps decision to part ways with his casinos in Atlantic City, N.J., the Times reported. Theres no obvious connection between the 2009 bill, whichdoesnt mentiondepreciation, and other depreciation deductions or tax credits Trump may have applied. Garrett Watson, a senior policy analyst at the Tax Foundation, said the change to carryback rules was not a tax credit. Trumps reference to his hotel in Washington, D.C., further muddles the facts. The exterior of the Trump International Hotel in Washington on Oct. 26, 2016. (AP) A 2015reportby Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., found that the Trump Organizationgot $40 millionin the form of a historic preservation tax credit for renovating the Old Post Office into a hotel, which the Times said he has used to reduce his tax liability in more recent years. But that type of credit has beenon the bookssince 1976. This didnt have to do with any policy change on the part of the Obama administration or Congress, Watson said. Laws enacted under Obama didcreate or extendseveral tax credits. Bishop-Henchman noted that Obamaseconomic recoverypackagesextendedprovisions allowing businesses todeduct 50% of the costof certain properties up front, rather than write all costs off over time. As a U.S. senator representing Delaware, Biden also voted yes on a pair of bipartisan tax laws in1981and1986that overhauled the depreciation system, Watson said, while also noting that depreciation existed in a slightly different form before 1981. We dont know how those particular changes impacted Trumps specific tax situation, Watson added. Depreciation changes in the code are generally changes in timing of when expenses associated with an investment are deducted, so they do not impact total tax paid in the long run. Regardless, Biden was just one senator. Its always peculiar when Trump is blaming Biden for legislation that happened to be enacted when Biden was in office as a senator or the vice president, Rosenthal said, noting that there are many more people involved with tax legislation. Trump said Biden passed a tax bill that gave us all these privileges for depreciation and for tax credits. We built a building, and we get tax credits like the hotel on Pennsylvania Ave. A 2009 provision enacted under Obama allowed losses to be used to reduce tax liability for up to five previous years. The Times reported that Trump used this provision to claim a major tax refund. At the time, Biden was vice president. Other depreciation deductions and tax credits that Trump may have applied  including the decades-old tax credit for his hotel in Washington  are not clearly linked to Biden or to the 2009 provision that let Trump claim his refund. Overall, Trumps claim is partially accurate. We rate it Half True. Many homeowners are currently receiving receipts stamped Paid in the mail for their 2018 property tax bills. Whether the bill goes up or down each year is of paramount importance to homeowners. So politicians are also eager to weigh in on the issue. Today, property taxes are lower than they were in 2010. Allowing taxpaying to keep more of their hard-earned money has been and will continue to be a top priority, state Rep. John Nygren, R-Marinette, said Jan. 11, 2019 in atweet. Property taxesare levied on most types of real estate -- including homes, businesses, and parcels of land. The amount owed depends on the fair market value of the property, as determined by the local assessor. Is Nygren right? Are property taxes lower today than they were in 2010? The evidence The year 2010, of course, is not an arbitrary starting point. It marks the year Republican Scott Walker was elected governor and when the GOP won full control of the Legislature. Democrat Tony Evers is now in the governors office, after topping Walker in the 2018 election. When asked for backup to the claim, Nygrens chief of staff Nathan Schwanz pointed to a January 2019 report from theLegislative Fiscal Bureauon median property tax payments in the state. The nonpartisan fiscal bureau is considered the gold-standard on such financial and budget issues. Here is its breakdown for the years in question: 2010 - 2011-- $2,963 2011- 2012 -- $2,953 2012 - 2013 -- $2,943 2013 - 2014 -- $2,926 2014 - 2015 -- $2,831 2015 - 2016 -- $2,849 2016 - 2017 -- $2,852 2017 - 2018 -- $2,876 2018 - 2019 -- $2,870 (preliminary estimate)  So, the 2018-19 total is, indeed, lower than the 2010-11 total. The fiscal bureau regularly does such estimates, and they are routinely cited by politicians of both stripes.But its important to note they are an illustration -- some people's property taxes went down, some went up. Even if your home value was right at the statewide average, your tax bill might have been higher due to various factors, including levies in individual communities. Past ratings Meanwhile, we have checked variations of this claim in the past: *July 15, 2015: Walker claimed that because of his actions, property taxes were lower than they were four years earlier. Walkers actions to limit the ability of local governments and school districts to raise levies played a major role. But we found the lower property taxes to that point were also due in part to declines in housing values. Our rating:Mostly True. *Jan. 13, 2017, Walker said property taxes -- as a percentage of personal income -- were the lowest that they've been since the end of World War II An analysis by the nonpartisan Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance showed that on the measure Walker cited, they were lowest since 1946. Our rating:True. *June 7, 2017, after a lower than 2010 claim from Walker, we wrote that fiscal bureau estimates of the hypothetical property tax on a median-valued home found the tax was indeed lower. That time we found the drop in residential property taxes was due to commercial and manufacturing properties rising at a faster rate -- not due to collecting less revenue. Our rating:Mostly True. Finally, we also used the Walk-O-Meter to monitor a promise by Walker to continue to reduce the tax burden on working families and seniors every year he was in office. This, of course, applied to all taxes -- not just property taxes. We rated the pledgePromise Kept. Are there any wrinkles this time? Yes. According to the fiscal bureau, the change over the latest two years -- from 2017-18 to 2018-19 -- is a net decrease for homeowners, even though the gross tax bill is projected to increase. Whats behind the difference? Funding for the lottery and gaming property tax credit increased by about $66 million, which contributed to the decrease in the median net tax bill. Where Wisconsin ranks To be sure, Wisconsin property taxes remain among the highest in the United States. Various property tax trackers place Wisconsin in the top 10, sometimes in the top five. The personal finance websiteWalletHubanalyzed data from the U.S. Census Bureau for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The website also used rates to obtain the dollar amount paid in real estate taxes on a median-valued home in each state. It ranked Wisconsin as the fifth worst state for property taxes. With the median home value sitting at $167,000, the typical tax bill comes to $3,257, according to WalletHub. Filling out the rest of thetop fivefor 2018 were: Median Home valueTaxes New Jersey: $316,400            $7,601 Illinois:  $174,800                  $4,058 New Hampshire: $239,700     $5,241 Connecticut: $269,300            $5,443 Wisconsin: $167,000              $3,257 But Nygrens claim was not about the states rank. So that does not factor into our rating. Our rating Nygren said today, property taxes are lower than they were in 2010. Data from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau shows the statement generally rings true. But there have long been wrinkles on these claims -- from declining property values driving the drop to an increase in commercial and manufacturing property values shifting the burden from homeowners. Those sorts of factors are still in play, this time with tax credits contributing to latest decrease. And the rating is still Mostly True. Claim:   Photograph shows U.S. Air Force jets celebrating a Supreme Court ruling regarding the Defense of Marriage Act.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2013] THIS PICTURE IS CIRCULATING ON FACEBOOK, STATING THAT THE US AIR FORCE SENT UP THESE JETS WITH COLORED SMOKE TO SYMBOLIZE THE GAY PRIDE FLAG, AND CELEBRATE MARRIAGE EQUALITY AS DEFINED BY THE SUPREME COURT TODAY 26 JUNE 2013. COLORS ARE ALL WRONG, AND IT LOOKS PHOTOSHOPPED. WOULD LOVE FOR IT TO BE REAL, BUT DONT WANT TO REPOST ANYTHING MISLEADING.  Origins:  On 26 June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case of United States v. Windsor which struck down a section of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that strictly defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, thereby paving the way for same-sex couples who are legally married to access numerous federal privileges  and programs that use marital status as a criterion for eligibility (such as Social Security  survivors' benefits and the ability to file joint tax returns). Shortly afterwards, the photograph displayed above was widely circulated in social media with claims that it pictured U.S. Air Force jets participating in a celebration of the DOMA ruling, the colored smoke trails behind them symbolizing the rainbow of colors that became the standard symbol of the gay community in the 1970s.  However, this image has nothing to do with a purported celebration of the DOMA ruling by the U.S. Air Force, as this same picture has been widely reproduced on numerous web sites all over the world since well before June 2013.  The source of the original (as displayed on flickr) appears to bea photograph taken at the Royal International Air Tattoo (RIAT) Airshow in  Fairford, Gloucestershire (UK), on 17 July 2010. flickr RIAT Last updated:  27 June 2013 Getting companies to pay more in taxes is one of the pillars of Bernie Sanders plans for America. The extra revenue plays a key role in everything from universal health care, to tuition-free college, to rebuilding the nations aging water mains, bridges and highways. How much does he think is there? The largest U.S. companies would owe $620 billion in U.S. taxes on the cash they store in tax havens, SanderstweetedApril 6, 2016. Thats a fair chunk of change, and we thought wed see if it held up. By the way, theres no single definition of a tax haven. The term covers both profits from overseas subsidiaries and the use of offshore accounts in places like Bermuda. The common thread is money is booked in places with lower taxes than the United States. The Sanders campaign directed us to ajoint studyfrom Citizens for Tax Justice and US PIRG, both left-leaning organizations. Their analysis began with the more than $2.1 trillion that Fortune 500 companies are holding in accumulated profits offshore for tax purposes. When the foreign subsidiary of a U.S. multinational turns a profit, the money is taxed at the rate where the subsidiary is based. Uncle Sam doesnt get a penny until the multinational brings the money home. That gets a little confusing because the money might actually be in the United States, but it isnt on the books of the U.S. parent. In any event, for tax purposes, most of those funds are not formally repatriated or brought back to the United States. The logic is simple: Why pay a higher rate in the United States, formally as high as 35 percent, when you might be paying a fifth that much in a foreign country, such as Ireland? The Citizens for Tax Justice/US PIRG analysts looked atthe 57 corporations that actually told regulators how big their tax bill would be if they brought the money home. These 57 companies would owe $184.4 billion in additional federal taxes, the report said. The analysts made some assumptions and applied the results to the companies that didnt release this information. The total for all Fortune 500 companies combined? They would collectively owe $620 billion in additional federal taxes. We asked independent tax scholars what they thought of that estimate. Some of them said it was in the ballpark. Richard Harvey, a former partner at the accounting firm Pricewaterhouse Coopers and now at Villanova School of Law, said Sanders might actually be underestimating. Harvey pointed to the foreign earnings that multinationals report as indefinitely reinvested. Officially, thetotal is about $2.3 trillion. But Harvey thinks that overlooks a lot of cash. The total unrepatriated foreign earnings would be even higher because companies like Apple and Pfizer do not label all undistributed foreign earnings as indefinitely reinvested,  Harvey said. If one assumes that U.S. multinational corporations have approximately $2.5 trillion to $3 trillion of unrepatriated foreign earnings, and the average tax rate on most undistributed foreign earnings is less than 10 percent (in many cases close to 0 percent), then a $620 billion estimate is very reasonable, and may be low. Edward Kleinbard, professor of law at the University of Southern California and a former chief of staff at the U.S. Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation, took a different approach, and reached approximately the same conclusion. Kleinbard took theJoint Committee on Taxationsestimate of how much revenue would come from a one-time 14 percent tax on those foreign earnings kept overseas. This is in fact what President Barack Obama has proposed in his latest budget. The net haul from that would be about $195 billion. Using that figure, Kleinbard estimated how much would come in if the rate were 35 percent, rather than 14 percent. You get to $488 billion, he said. Thats not perfect, because of how foreign tax credits (offsets to U.S. taxes) would have to be handled, but its the right ballpark. Thats less than the $620 billion Sanders cited, but as Kleinbard put it, it's a honkin' big number. The banking giantCredit Suisseestimated the total new revenues at $533 billion. Edmund Outslay, professor of taxation at Michigan State University, thinks Sanders overshot the mark. Outslay told PolitiFact that he questions a key assumption in the study behind Sanders number. The study estimates an average tax rate of 6 percent that all Fortune 500 companies are paying overseas today. Because any foreign tax bill is deducted from what a firm owes Washington, the lower the foreign tax rate, the higher the potential revenues for the United States. Outslay thinks 6 percent is unrealistic. Some studies I have seen estimate a foreign tax rate of about 16.5 percent, Outslay said. If this number is more accurate, the total tax to be gained (would be) $550 billion. At 25 percent, the net U.S. tax would only be $320 billion. Outslay himself leans more toward a $300 billion figure. In addition to thinking multinationals are paying a higher rate overseas, he also said in most cases, the foreign earnings are actually invested in bricks and mortar. Those dollars are not cash in the way Sanders talked about this. How the IRS would treat that money is unclear. All this leaves us with a range of estimates of the potential tax revenues, ranging from about $300 billion (Outslay), to $490 billion (Kleinbard), to $550 billion (Credit Suisse), to over $620 billion (Harvey). Our ruling Sanders said that if American multinational corporations had to pay taxes on the profits they made overseas, they would owe $620 billion. This is at the high end of the estimates we collected. Sanders also described the overseas holdings as cash. According to one expert we reached, a lot of that money might be invested in factories and other hard infrastructure and might not be available for tax collections. Still, the mid-range estimate from credible sources is in the $500 billion to $550 billion range. All the numbers cited were relatively high. We rate Sanders estimate Mostly True. In May 2022, a fake quote was attributed to former congressman Trey Gowdy in an attempt to hype the film "2000 Mules" on social media:    This is not a genuine quote from Gowdy. It doesn't appear on Gowdy's social media feeds, nor does it appear in any genuine news articles about "2000 Mules" or Gowdy.  Gowdy confirmed to The Associated Press that this quote is fake and that he had never seen or even heard of the film: Both assertions are completely false. Never said it. Didnt attend. Never heard of the movie much less seen the movie. So, its false at every level. confirmed to The Associated Press "2000 Mules" is a documentary released in May 2022 by Dinesh D'Souza, a right-wing political commentator who received a pardon from former U.S. President Donald Trump after pleading guilty to violating campaign finance laws in 2014. The film attempts to further the discredited premise that the 2020 election was marred by widespread voter fraud.  pardon from former U.S. President Donald Trump A number of news organizations looked into the movie's claims and found them to be sorely lacking. The Washington Post said the film offered the "least convincing election-fraud theory yet." The Associated Press wrote that there were "gaping holes" in the film's claims, and the Denver Post wrote that the film used "faulty assumptions, anonymous accounts and improper analysis of cellphone location data." Washington Post said the film Associated Press wrote Denver Post wrote The movie has received little to no attention from mainstream conservative media outlets.  mainstream conservative media outlets Analysis | 2000 Mules Offers the Least Convincing Election-Fraud Theory Yet. Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/11/2000-mules-offers-least-convincing-election-fraud-theory-yet/. Accessed 12 May 2022. PolitiFact - The Faulty Premise of the 2,000 Mules Trailer about Voting by Mail in the 2020 Election. Politifact, https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/may/04/faulty-premise-2000-mules-trailer-about-voting-mai/. Accessed 12 May 2022. Press, Ali Swenson |. The Associated. Fact-Checking 2000 Mules, the Movie Alleging Ballot Fraud. The Denver Post, 8 May 2022, https://www.denverpost.com/2022/05/08/2000-mules-fact-check/. Staten, Adam. Dinesh DSouza Slams Tucker Carlson, Newsmax over New Documentary Coverage. Newsweek, 9 May 2022, https://www.newsweek.com/dinesh-dsouza-slams-tucker-carlson-newsmax-over-new-documentary-coverage-1704863. Gov. John Kasichs wish to sell off six state prisons has become yet another partisan political hot potato in Columbus. Then again, what isnt during budget season.But state Rep. Matt Lundy, an Elyria Democrat, kicked it up a notch with comments during a May 2 news conference called for the purpose of throwing cold water on the Republican governors plan to sell off five adult prison facilities and one youth detention center.Kasich has said the transaction could net Ohio a profit of $200 million.Lundy disagrees. He argues that there still will be bonds and improvement debts to be serviced and that will cut into the profit.He likened the proposal to an insane yard sale and questioned the logic of selling state assets during a down economic period when they may fetch low bids.He also accused Republicans in control of the House of helping Kasich to lure buyers.The substitute budget now adds in tax breaks and tax deductions for those who buy these prisons, Lundy said. The House passed its version of the budget on May 5.Politifact Ohio decided to take a closer look.The House did propose a sales tax exemption, income tax deduction and commercial tax exclusion for any buyer that strikes a deal with Ohio to take over the prisons offered for sale. Lundy said such friendly trinkets will eat away at the states expect profits on the deal.So, why was it included? Kasichs proposal didnt offer the tax breaks but the House Republicans did.House Finance Chairman Ron Amstutz, a Wooster Republican, said the tax provisions were added to assure that the private buyer of the prisons would be treated like any other state entity since they will essentially be performing a state function by housing inmates.Typically state entities dont pay taxes on their functions and that is true of local governments, as well, Amstutz said. And I think the desire is to maintain that status in order to provide for services at the lowest cost that we can.If the private entities were to pay these particular taxes, which go back to supporting the local communities where the facilities are located, then basically the state taxpayers would be subsidizing the local taxpayers at that point for a state function and typically we dont do that, Amstutz explained.State prisons spokesman Carlo LoParo noted, however, that any buyer of the state prisons would be expected to pay property taxes each year, which would net a huge amount of cash for the local governments where there facilities are located.Thats pretty substantial, LoParo said. He added that the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections had closely monitored the House negotiations to make sure that a carve out for property taxes was not stuck in.We took pains to make sure there were no loopholes, he said. We fully expect them to pay property taxes to those communities where the prisons are located.The impact for local governments could be substantial.For example, there are two facilities offered for sale that are in Marion -- the North Central Correctional Institution that houses adults and the Marion Juvenile Correctional Facility, which is currently closed.Combined, the two properties are valued at $100 million, which would result in about $1.5 million annually in property tax collections for that small city. LoParo said that should be enough money help Marions police force pick up criminal investigations at the two facilities, which would fall to the city and not state highway patrol, as is currently the case.So where does Lundy land on the Truth-O-Meter.Lundy is correct that the the substitute budget includes tax breaks and tax deductions for those who buy the prisons. There would be no sales tax on the purchase and there are other exclusions for income and commercial taxes.The administration is demanding that local property taxes absolutely be paid, which could yield significant revenue to local governments and schools.And Lundy is correct that the tax breaks and deductions in the budget bill were added in by the House.On the Truth-O-Meter, we rate Lundys comment as True.