A college loan is the sole type of loan in the United States that cannot be refinanced when interest rates decrease.
Former President Bill Clinton raised a hot-button issue while stumping for his wife in Los Angeles this week: Americas mounting student loan debt. Student debt in the United States has reached $1.3 trillion, which trails only the amount Americans owe on their mortgages. Its often blamed for preventing young people from buying houses and cars, which fuels the countrys economy. Undergraduates in the class of 2015 finished school with anaverage of $35,000in student loan debt, the most in history, according to Edvisors.com, a financial aid website. If elected president in November, Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton would remove a unique barrier related to college loans, the former president claimed. A college loan is the only loan in the United States that you cannot refinance when interest rates go down, Bill Clinton said, speaking at a recent campaign rally at Los Angeles Trade-Technical College. We wondered: Is refinancing really off-limits for all college loans? With student loan debt such a big issue this election year, we decided to check the facts. Past efforts at change Both Hillary Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, have pledged to allow student loans to be refinanced. But they werent the first to call for this change. In June 2014, Senate Republicans rejectedlegislationby Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., that would have let student borrowers refinance their federal loan debt. Homeowners are refinancing. Small businesses are refinancing. We just want young people who got an education to have their shot, Warren was quoted as saying in aWashington Post news articleat the time. Republicans said they were not convinced the legislation would have resulted in lower borrowing costs, and labeled it an election stunt. The bill would have let people with federal and private loans issued prior to 2010 refinance at 3.86 percent, the article said. It added that the Obama administration estimated that the bill could have helped 25 million borrowers save $2,000 each over the lifetime of their loans, or $50 billion. Former President Bill Clinton speaks during a campaign stop for his wife, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Tuesday, Feb. 16, 2016, at the West End Community Development Center in Greenville, S.C. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya) Our research As theyve campaigned across the country, Hillary Clinton and Sen. Sanders have each pledged to allow for refinancing of college loan debt. What they, and apparently Bill Clinton, are talking about is refinancing federally backed student loans, which account forabout 90 percentof all student borrowing. We turned to the nonprofit college planning group American Student Assistance for some advice. They and other groups say federal student loans can be refinanced into private loans. But doing so can remove federal protections such as fixed interest rates and the ability to pause repayments. Also, private student loans can be refinanced into new lower-interest private loans. But theres no provision in federal law allowing the refinancing of a federal loan to another, lower-interest federal loan. There is no federal refinancing. Congress sets the interest rate for federal student loans, and most of these rates are fixed by law, no matter how solid your credit or income becomes post-graduation, American Student Assistanceadvisespotential borrowers. PolitiFact Texasexamined a similar claimin 2014 and rated it Mostly True. They spoke withHeather Jarvis, a North Carolina attorney specializing in student loan law, who told them some graduates may be able to refinance student loans at lower rates through private lenders. But, she said, this would only happen in cases in which borrowers have substantial income. Jarvis added that refinancing federal loans with a private loan is risky. The borrower gives up important protections that accompany federal loans (like flexible repayment and discharge provisions). Students repaying federally backed loans, Jarvis said, are effectively barred from refinancing opportunities because federal law makes no provision for the government to make such offers. Asked about the former presidents statement, Bill Clintons press secretary said in an email its very safe to say that the vast majority of students with debt have federaldebt. She pointed tostatistics from the College Boardshowing federal loans account for about 90 percent of student borrowing. She said a small percentage of borrowers can refinance a federal student loan by making it a private loan. Our ruling Former President Bill Clinton said at a recent campaign rally in Los Angeles: A college loan is the only loan in the United States that you cannot refinance when interest rates go down. Borrowers of federally backed student loans, which account for about 90 percent of student loans, cannot refinance those into lower-interest federal loans. Congress sets the interest rate on these loans, and theres no provision in federal law that allows for them to be refinanced. Depending on factors such as income, some borrowers can refinance their federal loans into lower-interest private loans, though they risk losing their federal loan protections. Clinton most likely was referring only to federally backed loans when he made his statement, but a clarification about private loans would have helped. We rated his claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.
Claim:  Photograph shows Michelle Obama serving a government funded soup kitchen meal to a person with an expensive cell phone. REAL PHOTOGRAPH; INACCURATE DESCRIPTION Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2009] Recently Michelle Obama went to serve food to the homeless at a government funded soup kitchen.   Cost of a bowl of soup at homeless shelter: $0.00 dollars Having Michelle Obama Serve you your soup: $0.00 dollars Snapping a picture of a homeless person who is receiving a government funded meal while taking a picture of the first lady using his $500 Black Berry cell phone and $100.00 per month cellular service: Priceless      Origins:  The above-displayed photograph is genuine, a snapshot taken on an occasion in March 2009 when Michelle Obama spent some time serving lunch to men and women at Miriam's Kitchen, a social service agency in Washington D.C., as part of the First Lady's effort to "spotlight local organizations, connect with the city and help those in need amid the economic crisis."   However, all the assumptions and implications of the text accompanying this picture are incorrect or unsubstantiated.  To wit:  The photograph does not depict anyone "receiving a government funded meal": Miriam's Kitchen is a privately funded organization with the goal of "providing individualized services that address the causes andconsequences of homelessness in an atmosphere of dignity and respect"; it is not government run or taxpayer funded. Miriam's Kitchen  A cell phone capable of capturing images (even a BlackBerry Pearl) is not necessarily a "$500 phone" with a "$100 per month cellular service."  Many much more affordable options are available, including cellular providers who give free phones to low-income customers under the Lifeline assistance program.  So a homeless person might very well carry a cell phone, as Scott Schenkelberg, the Executive Director of Miriam's Kitchen, observed when questioned about this photograph during an interview: BlackBerry Pearl affordable Lifeline interview Q: Since the First Lady's visit, both your guests and your food have been the subject of some criticism within the blogosphere. For example, some critics noted thatone of your guests had a cell phone and suggested that it was inappropriate to serve free food to someone who could afford a cell phone.  A: I suspect some people don't understand how inexpensive cell phones are, or how critical they are to this population. These days, you can purchase a cell phone at 7-11 for $10, then pay for minutes as you go. Our clients have a very fragile safety net. Many of them don't have shelter and are extremely vulnerable. For them, cell phones could literally be a lifeline. If they're looking for a job, the cell phone would also be incredibly important  can you even imagine trying to apply for a job without a phone number? Cell phones simply aren't luxuries anymore. If a guest can scrape together some money to purchase a cell phone, I think that's wonderful.  The assumption that a truly homeless person wouldn't have (or couldn't afford) a cell phone is also a mistaken one.  As Scott Schenkelberg noted, the ranks of the homeless served by organizations such as Miriam's Kitchen include not just the long-term, chronically homeless, but also the "newly homeless":  those who had recently been getting by economically until a sudden job loss or other reversal left them with nowhere to go: Until recently, we served mostly the chronically homeless, people who had fallen out of the economy long ago. More recently, we've been seeing more new faces, people who just fell into homelessness or other hard times. These people are generally high-functioning individuals who were hurt by the poor economy. It's very troubling to see previously self-sufficient people coming to Miriam's Kitchen in such high numbers. Last updated:  16 June 2009    Sweet, Lynn.  "Can Michelle Influence what We Eat, Too?"   Chicago Sun-Times.  6 March 2009  (p. C10).    Associated Press.  "First Lady Puts Service on the Menu."   The Australian.  7 March 2009. Soliciting contributions to her campaign fund, U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin warned her supporters about the dangers of dark money -- cash spent on elections by groups that dont have to disclose their donors. In an Oct. 30, 2015 email, the Wisconsin Democrat wrote that groups backed by conservatives such asKarl Roveand theKoch brothershave spent hundreds of millions of dollars to make sure they get right-wing extremists elected into office. And its only getting worse. Today, Baldwins email continued, dark money spending is 10 times what it was at the same point in the 2012 election cycle. And in 2012, it ended up topping $308 million. Then she asked for a contribution of $5 or more. A year away from the 2016 general election, is dark-money spending already 10 times higher than it was at this point four years ago? The answer, from the source widely acknowledged as the best in this area: Yes. What dark is We consulted the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign finance research group that runs a website calledOpenSecrets.org. (Two other groups involved in campaign finance -- the Sunlight Foundation and the Campaign Finance Institute -- also referred us to the center.) Using data from the Federal Election Commission, the Center for Responsive Politics tracks so-called dark-money spending -- that is, expenditures by nonprofit groups, whose primary function is not supposed to be political activity, that dont have to disclose their donors. Those groupscan receiveunlimited corporate, individual, or union contributions. They can use the money for various election activities, including buying ads that advocate for or against a candidate, running phone banks and making contributions to super PACs. Butthey cantcoordinate with or donate money to candidates. Lets start with 2011 and 2012 -- that is, the 2012 election  cycle. 2012 election cycle The center reports that, as Baldwin indicated, more than$308 millionin dark money was spent during the entire 2012 election cycle. Some 86 percent was spent by conservative groups, 11 percent by liberal groups and 3 percent by other groups. The most -- $71 million -- was spent byAmerican Crossroads/Crossroads GPS, which was co-founded by Rove.Americans for Prosperity, founded in part by the billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch, was second ($36 million) and theU.S. Chamber of Commercewas third ($35 million). The three leading liberal groups, as identified by the center, were theLeague of Conservation Voters($11 million),Patriot Majority USA($7 million), whose priorities include money for public schools and infrastructure, andPlanned Parenthood(nearly $7 million). 2016 cycle As for the 2016 cycle,$4.88 millionin dark money expenditures have already been made, according to the center. Thats more than 10 times the$440,000that was spent at this point during the 2012 cycle. The $4.88 millionhas been spent by six groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ($3 million) and Americans for Prosperity ($1.5 million), The only liberal group was Planned Parenthood, which spent just under $75,000 Richard Skinner, policy analyst at the Sunlight Foundation, told us that the focus of early dark money being spent in the 2016 cycle is on U.S. Senate elections that are considered to be competitive, though some is also being spent on U.S. House races. (Baldwin isnt up for election again until 2018. But Wisconsins other senator, Republican Ron Johnson,is ratedas being in a pure toss-up race in 2016 from Democrat Russ Feingold, whom Johnson defeated in 2010. No dark money has been spent yet in that race, according to the Sunlight Foundation.) Skinner said he didnt know whether dark money spending so far means that the total for the 2016 cycle will ultimately be 10 times higher than four years earlier. But he said he expects more dark money to spent in the 2016 cycle than ever before. Our rating Baldwin said dark money spending in the 2016 election cycle is 10 times what it was at the same point in the 2012 election cycle, when it topped $308 million. So-called dark money spending in election campaigns -- by groups that dont have to disclose their donors -- exceeded $308 million in the 2012 election cycle. So far in the 2016 cycle, it has reached nearly $5 million, more than 10 times the $440,000 that had been spent at this point in the 2012 cycle. We rate Baldwins statement True. More on Tammy Baldwin The pope and Donald Trump and Tammy Baldwin all agree on eliminating the carried-interest tax break.Half True. Scott Walker's views on abortion are more restrictive than any Republican president in recent times.True. Middle-class Americans pay a higher tax rate than millionaires and billionaires.Half True. Joke:  Naked woman distracts drivers by washing their windshields while her partner robs the cars. LEGEND Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, February 2005] WARNING A scam is being pulled, mainly on older men. What happens is that when you stop for a red light, a young nude woman comes up and pretends to be washing your windshield. While she is doing this, another person opens your back door and steals anything in the car. They are very good at this:  They got me 7 times Friday and 5 times Saturday.  I wasn't able to find them on Sunday. Origins:  This howler began its Internet life in January 2005. No, it is not a valid warning about an actual crime being perpetrated by gangs of naked women and their accomplices; it is merely a joke that is presented as an alert solely as the set-up for its final line, "I wasn't able to find them on Sunday." The crime victim's wistfulness is key to the jest, transforming the supposed account of repeated thefts into one of a lustful man so entranced by the sight of the woman's nudity that not only didn't he mind being repeatedly stolen from, he would actively go looking for it. In May 2005 we encountered a distaff version of the joke: Scam on Women of a Certain Age...Watch out this weekend, ladies... Be careful of this scam This new scam is being pulled mainly on older women who are apparently passed the age of giving a running pursuit. What happens is that when the intended victim stops for a red light, a completely nude and good looking, nicely tanned, unbelievably well enhanced young man comes up with muscles flexing, and body stretched to its full potential, he pretends to wash your windshield. While he is doing this, another person opens the back door of your car, taking anything you have in the car. They are very good at this. They got me seven times Friday and five times Saturday  I couldn't find them on Sunday. In August 2006 we began receiving inquiries about a more elaborate, "purse snatching" variation of the latter version: WARNING! I want ALL of my friends and family to be aware of this potential danger! I don't know how many of you shop at Sam's Club or Costco, but this may be useful to know. I became a victim of a clever scam while out shopping. This happened to me and it could happen to you!! Here's how the scam works: Two seriously good-looking 23-year-old, well-built guys come over to your car as you are packing your shopping in the trunk. They both are shirtless and start  wiping your windshield with a rag and Windex, with their highly-defined chest muscles and rock-hard abs exposed. It's impossible not to look. When you thank them and offer them a tip, they say 'No' and instead ask you for a ride to another Sam's Club or Costco. You agree and they get in the back seat. On the way, they start talking dirty about what they want to do to you. Then one of them climbs over into the front seat and begins kissing your neck and begs you to pull over so he can make love to you! BEWARE! While this is going on the other guy steals your purse!  I had my purse stolen last Tuesday, Wednesday, twice on Thursday, again on Saturday, and also yesterday and most likely tomorrow. I'm running out of purses ... PLEASE SEND ME ANY PURSES YOU ARE NO LONGER USING! You know I'm living on a fixed income and doing without food trying to keep the purses stocked! Thank you in advance ... PLEASE HELP! March 2009 brought an even more exaggerated version involving young female wallet thieves victimizing men who shop at Home Depot: SHOPPING AT HOME DEPOT A 'heads up' for those men who may be regular Home Depot customers. This one caught me by surprise. Over the last month I became a victim of a clever scam while out shopping. Simply going out to get supplies has turned out to be quite traumatic. Don't be naive enough to think it couldn't happen to you or your friends. Here's how the scam works: Two seriously good-looking 20-21 year-old girls come over to your car as you are packing your shopping into the trunk. They both start wiping your windshield with a rag and Windex, with their breasts almost falling out of their skimpy T-shirts. It is impossible not to look. When you thank them and offer them a tip, they say 'No' and instead ask you for a ride to McDonalds. You agree and they get into the back seat. On the way, they start undressing. Then one of them climbs over into the front seat and starts crawling all over you, while the other one steals your wallet. I had my wallet stolen January 4th, 9th, 10th, twice on the 15th, 17th, 20th, 24th & 29th. Also February 1st & 4th, Twice on the 8th, 16th, 23rd, 26th & 30th, three times last Monday and very likely again this upcomingweekend. So tell your friends to be careful. P.S. Wal-Mart has wallets on sale for 2.99 each. I found cheaper ones for $1.99 at K-Mart and bought them out. Also, you never will get to eat at McDonalds. I've already lost 11 pounds just running back and forth to Home Depot. In September 2010, we spotted this adendum to the version quoted above: So please, send this on to all the older men that you know and warn them to be on the lookout for this scam. (The best times are just before lunch and around 4:30 in the afternoon.) An instance of ostension was reported in December 2005 by Houston station KPRC-TV, who broadcast that  a pair of Hispanic women between 17 and 22 years of age robbed a local man in somewhat similar fashion. According to the victim's statement, a woman approached him as he was getting into his pickup truck and exposed herself, then pulled out a hammer and broke his window. A second woman produced a gun and robbed him. It is believed the same women stole another man's van not far from the apartment complex where the pickup owner was robbed. ostension Barbara "wash and beware" Mikkelson Last updated:  1 September 2010 On 7 February 2017, Betsy DeVos was confirmed as Secretary of Education in the new Trump administration by a narrow 51-50 margin, with the tie-breaking vote being cast by Vice President Mike Pence. All of the votes approving DeVos were cast by Republican senators, leading some of her detractors to posit the theory that she had essentially paid for her position via campaign contributions. That theory was illustrated by several charts circulated online that allegedly documented the amount of money DeVos had contributed to various senators:  The above-displayed chart first appeared on Reddit, but the data it incorporates was taken from a report published by the Center for American Progress. That report included another chart showing the DeVos family's campaign contributions: Reddit  A similar report filed by the Center for Responsive Politics stated that "Betsy DeVos and her relatives have given at least $20.2 million to Republican candidates, party committees, PACs and super PACs" since 1989: report In the 2016 cycle alone, the family had given at least $10 million as of late October to a host of GOP candidates and committees. Much of that  $4.4 million  went to super PACs: those supporting the White House bids of Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz as well as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and businesswoman Carly Fiorina, and the Koch brothers-backed Freedom Partners Action Fund and the super PAC started by Republican strategist Karl Rove, American Crossroads; the latter two groups helped support numerous Republicans in tight House and Senate races. However, these charts don't show how much Betsy DeVos personally contributed to Republican campaigns.  A second chart from the Center for Responsive Politics documented that Betsy DeVos herself was only responsible for about 7% of these contributions:  It should also be noted that these charts tally cumulative donations made over the span of two and a half decades (although the 2016 campaign cycle comprised the bulk of those donations). None of this information in itself establishes that the contributions were made with the intent of gaining office for Betsy DeVos, or that they had that effect (intended or not).  Republican senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, for example, received $43,200 from the DeVos family but voted "No" during Betsy DeVos' confirmation hearing. And although nearly all the Republican senators who had received contributions from the DeVos family voted "Yes," so did all the Republican senators who had not received any contributions from the DeVos family. The Washington Post posited a much more likely explanation for the confirmation vote breakdown  partisanship: posited If Democrats controlled the Senate, DeVos would have lost her confirmation. Theres every reason to believe that [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell let [Susan] Collins and Murkowski vote no on DeVos for political reasons, holding enough votes in reserve to assure shed win. The motivation was partisan support for a Republican nominee, not that a small fraction of his past campaign financing depended on DeVoss generosity. The Washington Post also noted that while the DeVos family contributed millions of dollars to Republican candidates, their contributions constituted only a sliver of the total money raised by those campaigns:  It's no secret that DeVos and her family have been major donors to the Republican Party over the last few decades. In 1997, DeVos wrote that her family was the "largest single contributor of soft money" to the Republicans: I know a little something about soft money, as my family is the largest single contributor of soft money to the national Republican party. Occasionally a wayward reporter will try to make the charge that we are giving this money to get something in return, or that we must be purchasing influence in some way. [...] They are right. We do expect some things in return. We expect to foster a conservative governing philosophy consisting of limited government and respect for traditional American virtues. We expect a return on our investment; we expect a good and honest government. Furthermore, we expect the Republican party to use the money to promote these policies, and yes, to win elections. During DeVos' confirmation hearing in January 2017, Senator Bernie Sanders asked her about how much her family had contributed to the Republican Party over the years, and she averred that an estimate of about $200 million might be accurate: confirmation hearing Sanders: Mrs. DeVos, there is a growing fear, I think, in this country that we are moving toward what some would call an oligarchic form of society, where a small number of very, very wealthy billionaires control, to a significant degree, our economic and political life. Would you be so kind as to tell us how much your family has contributed to the Republican Party over the years? DeVos: Senator, first of all thank you for that question. I again was pleased to meet you in your office last week. I wish I could give you that number. I dont know. Sanders: I have heard the number was $200 million. Does that sound in the ballpark? DeVos: Collectively? Between my entire family? Sanders: Yeah, over the years. DeVos: Thats possible Sanders: Okay. My question is, and I dont mean to be rude. Do you think, if you were not a multi-billionaire, if your family has not made hundreds of millions of dollars of contributions to the Republican Party, that you would be sitting here today? DeVos: Senator, as a matter of fact, I do think that there would be that possibility. Ive worked very hard on behalf of parents and children for the last almost 30 years to be a voice for students and to empower parents to make decisions on behalf of their children, primarily low-income children. Senate education committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) told Politico that the DeVos family's contributions were made legally and were properly disclosed: Politico All of that is disclosed, Alexander said. You can ask those senators and evaluate it yourself. Thats the reason we have limits on campaign contributions and we have disclosures of those things. A spokesperson for Florida senator Marco Rubio, who was singled out for having received nearly $100,000 from the DeVos family, defended his acceptance of those contributions: singled "People contribute to Senator Rubio's campaign because they support his agenda. Ms. DeVos is a strong supporter of empowering parents and providing educational opportunity for all, policies Senator Rubio has supported for over a decade. Her nomination was opposed by Democrats who take millions of dollars from the big unions obsessed with denying school choice to low-income children.  Brown, Emma.  "With Historic Tiebreaker from Pence, DeVos Confirmed as Education Secretary."
  The Washington Post.  7 February 2017. Alexander, Dan.  "Betsy DeVos Says It's 'Possible' Her Family Has Donated $200M to Republicans."
  Forbes.  17 January 2017. Bump, Phillip.  "The DeVos Vote Is a Bad Case Study for the Power of Campaign Contributions."
  The Washington Post.  7 February 2017. Stratford, Michael.  "DeVos Heads Into Confirmation with a Megadonor's Advantage."
  Politico.  20 December 2016. Noland, Jack.  "Betsy DeVos and Her Big-Giving Relatives: Family Qualifies as GOP Royalty."
  Center for Responsive Politics.  1 December 2016. Boser, Ulrich.  "Conflicts of DeVos."
  Center for American Progress.  12 January 2017. In its latest print advertisement, placed Oct. 5 in 41 newspapers statewide, the Back to Basics PAC angles to turn Gov. Rick Perry's favorite selling point against him: the Texas economy. Perry often touts job gains on his watch; in a recent TV spot, titled Texas: Open for Business, he says Texas has gained more jobs than all other states combined from January 2001 to June 2010, a statement we recently ratedTrue. Yet the latest Back to Basics ad finds fault, pointing out that Perry fails to acknowledge that lawmakers balanced the latest state budget partly by accepting billions of dollars in federal stimulus money. The ad then lists some economic changes that have occurred since the governor wrote President Barack Obama in February 2009 assuring him that the state would accept the federal dollars. Punch line: Perry won't tell you that the Texas unemployment rate has even grown more than the nations as a whole. Really?On its website, Back to Basics points to statistics from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics showing that the Texas unemployment rate between February 2009 and August 2010 rose from 6.8 percent to 8.3 percent, up 1.5 percentage points. During the same period, the U.S. unemployment rate grew from 8.2 percent to 9.6 percent, up 1.4 percentage points. The number of jobless people in Texas grew by 204,400 during that time  an increase of 26 percent. Meanwhile, the nation as a whole experienced a 17 percent increase. We checked with Cheryl Abbot, a bureau economist in Dallas, who told us that the figures used by Back to Basics were correct. She also told us that there were no statistical or logical problems with comparing the increase in the state's unemployment rate with that of the United States. I would probably phrase (the statement) more correctly as 'the unemployment rate has increased at a faster rate in Texas,' but saying that it's grown more, there's probably nothing wrong with putting it that way, Abbot said. We asked Abbot how best to interpret the 0.1 percentage point gap between the changes in the national and state unemployment rates. She said there is very little difference between 1.5 and 1.4 in this context, noting that one interpretation of the numbers could be that during those 18 months, Texas' job performance was about the same as the nation's. That's part of Back to Basics' point, said Cliff Walker, the group's director. Those numbers show Perry isn't as good as he says he is, he said. Next, we looked into whether changing the time period for comparing unemployment rates also changes the result. We tried five different starting points -- January 2009, December 2008, November 2008, January 2007 and December 2000 -- and in all those cases, the Texas unemployment rate increased by the same number of percentage points as the national rate, or less. (December 2000 was when Perry entered the governor's office, and January 2007 was the beginning of his current term.) When we asked Walker why Back to Basics started its time period of comparison with the month of Perry's letter to Obama, he told us that the group is trying to draw attention to the fact that Perry took federal stimulus dollars  a fact that many Texans, more than a year and a half later, still do not know. Our take: Back to Basics' statement accurately recaps a specific time period  the 18 months following Perry's acceptance of federal stimulus aid for Texas in February 2009  that shows unemployment rising faster in Texas than the nation as a whole. As our analysis shows, though, lengthening the time period often yields a different result, with unemployment in Texas rising more slowly than the nation. We rate the statement Mostly True. As Donald Trump was sworn in as the 45th President of the United States on 20 January 2017, many people noticed some considerable changes to the official White House web site at WhiteHouse.gov web site, such as the seeming removal of the terms "LGBT" and "climate change": noticed It is true that searching for these terms immediately after the inauguration returned no related results:    However, it's inaccurate to say that these terms were specifically scrubbed from the site by Donald Trump. On 17 January 2017, WhiteHouse.gov issued an announcement explaining the digital transition that would take place on Inauguration Day. For instance, all of the messages posted by Barack Obama under the @POTUS handle on Twitter were transferred to a new @POTUS44 account, giving Donald Trump the opportunity to take over the previous presidential Twitter account @POTUS. announcement Twitter In the same way, the content related to the Obama administration on WhiteHouse.gov was migrated to a new web site, ObamaWhiteHouse.Archives.gov: Where you canaccess archival Obama White House content After January 20, 2017,materials will continue to be accessible on the platforms where they were created, allowing the public continued access to the content posted over the past eight years. WhiteHouse.gov becomes ObamaWhiteHouse.gov The Obama White House website  which includes press articles, blog posts, videos, and photos  will be available at ObamaWhiteHouse.gov, a site maintained by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) beginning on January 20, 2017. If you are looking for a post or page on the Obama administrations WhiteHouse.gov from 2009 through 2017, you can find it by changing the URL to ObamaWhiteHouse.gov. For example, after the transition, this blog post will be available at ObamaWhiteHouse.gov/obama-administration-digital-transition-moving-forward. ObamaWhiteHouse.gov/obama-administration-digital-transition-moving-forward Content regarding the terms "LGBT" and "climate change" are still readily available on ObamaWhiteHouse.gov. ObamaWhiteHouse.gov As of this writing, Whitehouse.gov is sparsely populated. Its blog currently hosts one post (about the inaugural address), while pages for Press Briefings, Statements, Nominations, and Presidential Actions are all blank:  One of the new pages that has since gone up up on Whitehouse.gov (titled "An America First Energy Plan") suggests that the Trump administration will be targeting previous climate initiatives in order to help boost domestic oil and gas industries: new pages Energy is an essential part of American life and a staple of the world economy. The Trump Administration is committed to energy policies that lower costs for hardworking Americans and maximize the use of American resources, freeing us from dependence on foreign oil. For too long, weve been held back by burdensome regulations on our energy industry. President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule. Schulman, Kori.  "The Obama Administration Digital Transition: Moving Forward."
  The White House.  17 January 2017. Now that were living in a federal government shutdown, whats the hit to the economy? U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz wagged her calculator at the GOP and cited a whopping figure on Twitter. $10 billion in costs to the economy per week and this is what the R's had to say?tweetedWasserman Schultz, D-Weston, who also serves as the chair of the Democratic National Committee. We wanted to check her number: How much will the shutdown cost the economy? Predictions about economic shutdown Wasserman Schultzs numbers are the same as those from theWhite House. A White House spokesman said the $10 billion figure came from an August report from the investment groupGoldman Sachs. We also found similar estimates fromMoodysandIHS. These financial firms agree that the impact depends on how long the shutdown goes on. The impact gets worse the longer a closure lasts. A brief shutdown would delay, not cancel, most spending, said the Goldman Sachs report. In a brief shutdown, it is likely that only federal employee compensation would be lost  most of the other activity would just be delayed and made up later. A longer shutdown  the longest shutdown on record in late 1995 and early 1996 lasted about three weeks  would affect a greater share of federal activities. The report includes three scenarios based on a two-day, one-week and three-week shutdown. It predicts a $2.6 billion economic loss for a two-day shutdown, $10.4 billion for a week and $36.8 billion for three weeks. Moodys found that a shutdown lasting three to four weeks would cost $55 billion, with costs accelerating as time goes on. Moodys takes into account the losses from federal workers not getting paid, the delay of housing and small business loans, the hit to tourism spending and the interruptions for contractors. To be clear, these are rough estimates of what we think impacts will be, Moodys analyst Brian Kessler told PolitiFact. There is just a ridiculously large number of moving parts. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moodys,testifiedbefore the Joint Economic Committee about the shutdown in September. A shutdown that lasts only three or four days would have modest economic consequences, costing the economy approximately 0.2 percentage point of annualized real GDP growth in the fourth quarter. ... However, shutting the government down for three or four weeks would do significant economic damage, reducing real GDP by 1.4 percentage points in the fourth quarter. And this likely understates the economic fallout, as it does not fully account for the impact of such a lengthy shutdown on consumer, business and investor psychology. IHScalculated a loss of $1.6 billion for one week as a result of furloughs, with the impact increasing for a longer shutdown. The spending habits of government employees probably would not change if the shutdown was short-lived, particularly if they believed that they would receive back wages, as in 1995, states the September IHS report. Any uncertainty about compensation, however, could increase the impact on consumer spending. Meanwhile, incomes would be maintained for Social Security beneficiaries. Medicare payments would also continue, so spending on health care services would not be harmed and hospitals and doctors would receive payments. Other experts weighing in on the estimates We also readstudiesaboutprevious shutdowns andmediareportsanalyzingthe potential hit to the economy. We interviewed Tad DeHaven, budget analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute; Jason Peuquet, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and Dean Baker, an economist with the liberal Center for Economic Policy Research. Our experts generally agreed on one key point: The economic hit will depend on how long the shutdown lasts. Jason Peuquet of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, told us that it extremely difficult to quantify the impact on the economy of a shutdown. Sure, analysts can calculate the direct costs of furloughing federal employees, Peuquet told PolitiFact in an email. But once you factor in the impacts on thousands of federal contractors, the time and resources lost preparing for and implementing the shutdown, the added economic uncertainty of how lawmakers will resolve this, how the Federal Reserve may respond if the shutdown continues for an extended period, and then the ensuing economic reverberations of these changes, it is a very imprecise exercise. DeHaven of Cato emphasized that these analyses from economists are just estimates and that the actual impact on the economy could be different. If you go back and look at previous shutdowns, there was no long-term effect..., DeHaven said. For Wasserman Schultz or the White House to tweet out this going to cost X amount of money to me is nonsense. You could talk about the cost associated due to government creating uncertainty in the economy for a lot of things Washington is doing. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concluded that the cost of shutdowns in fiscal year 1996 was$1.4 billion-- most of that was for back pay to furloughed workers, according to University of Maryland political science professorRoy Meyers. In 1995, the government first closed from Nov. 14-19 and then again from Dec. 16-Jan.6. But Peuquet and Meyers told us that there are some factors that could make the shutdown economic hit different today, which means we cant simply add an inflation factor to the mid 1990s shutdowns. Back then, several appropriations bills had already been enacted -- allowing spending in several areas of the federal government. This time, those bills havent been enacted. The federal government also relies more heavily on contractors than it did in the 1990s, and they are unlikely to get back pay. We are still learning a lot of this as we go, Peuquet said. Another factor to consider: The economy is much worse now than it was in the mid 1990s. This one is going to be bigger in terms of daily costs..., Meyers told PolitiFact. The economy is weaker. It cant handle as much of a shock as it could handle in 95-96. Our ruling Wasserman Schultz said the shutdown is projected to result in $10 billion in costs to the economy per week. That number comes from an investment report from Goldman Sachs. We found other estimates from financial firms that were slightly larger and slightly smaller than the $10 billion figure, but they were in the same ballpark. A key point here, though, is that these are estimates. Experts agree that caution and caveats are needed: There is much uncertainty about the economic impact, including the timing and length of the shutdown. For instance, if the shutdown is short and workers get paid back wages, the impact could ultimately be modest. If the shutdown continues for several weeks, the price tag could escalate exponentially. Overall, we rate this statement Mostly True. Claim:  A woman named Lana obtained a late-term abortion because she learned she was carrying a male fetus. PROBABLY  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, February 2015] This has been going viral in my Facebook feed lately, and some fairly reputable sources have started reporting on it, and I have been unable to verify any of the sources. The first time I saw it it was referenced in a scathing pro-life article that blanket stereotyped feminists based on it. The original article is very difficult to access from all the attention Could you please look into the validity of it? It has the air of being created for purely for shock value and attention, and for use with the purpose of supporting right wing politics. Origins:  On 17 January 2015, the website Injustice Stories published an article purportedly  article penned by a woman named Lana who claimed to have terminated her pregnancy at the five-month mark because she learned the fetus was male. Unnoticed at first, the claim about "Lana" and her questionable decision to obtain a late-term abortion achieved traction when sites such as Daily Caller and the Huffington Post published articles about it after taking the single-source story at face value (and apparently without any attempt at verification) in early February 2015. Daily Caller Huffington Post Both those publications' articles quoted portions of the original, which became increasingly difficult to access due to a traffic spike. Daily Caller paraphrased the original thusly:  Lana, who only uses her first name, appears to be a child of privilege. She boasts of involvement in "fighting for women's rights" being all-consuming, "even to the point of eschewing a career." Yet that lack of a career hasn't stopped her from traveling to "many different places" to continue that "fight." She tells the story of a flight to an Occupy Wall Street event in San Francisco where she screamed "Assault" because the man sitting next to her said "B******* like you need to learn their place." Putting the unlikeliness of that exchange aside, Lana then demanded to be moved to another seat. That's when she was told the only empty seats were "both back in economy." At which point she demanded the man be moved. The encounter left her "having felt as though I had been verbally and emotionally raped." If the premise (which included an unemployed woman who traveled the world first class) didn't give one pause, the next portion might have. In the original post, the writer claimed she learned the sex of her unborn child via ultrasound, and after three days of soul searching opted to abort the pregnancy: By the third day, I started regaining some of my mental strength and knew what I had to do. I couldn't bring another monster into the world. We already have enough enemies as it is. It didn't matter that I would be raising a son, he would still come into contact with boys, men, perhaps even the suit jockey who would inevitably twist his carefully constructed upbringing with their kindness. He would think "These men aren't so bad, why would mom say that they are holding me down?" Not all men are bad, my driver showed genuine concern for my well-being that day and I may have taken my anger out on him. That may have been uncalled for. But I knew what I had to do. A few days later, I went in for the procedure, as it was fairly later in my pregnancy, I was aware there were certain risks, but it went off without a hitch. My body's betrayal was no more, I was free, and for the first time since the airplane incident, I felt strong. I had done something positive, something that would actually make a difference, something good, even though as I would find out, many others wouldn't see it that way. Missing from the account were any identifying details about the timeframe in which the purported abortion occurred, the general locality, or any other details or information regarding the procedure. In fact, the process of terminating a pregnancy after the twenty-week mark is far more complex and risky than a first-trimester abortion, and women who have experienced it are unlikely to describe it as "without a hitch." Inconsistencies aside, the site Injustice Stories was virtually unknown before the implausible story of Lana's abortion was published. That's probably because a  domain lookup revealed the domain was registered on the same day Lana's story was posted. Furthermore, in order to read the entirety of the article, site visitors were forced to share the page on social media (which in turn boosted its visibility incrementally before it caught the eye of larger news sources). The tale's lack of plausibility, combined with the use of a brand-new site to publish it, indicated the account was likely a troll for pageviews, not a real-life account representing the sordid state of feminism. While many skeptical readers believed the hoax was aimed at promoting an anti-abortion agenda, it's also possible the site's purveyor fabricated the tale primarily to generate outrage-based clicks. Last updated:   10 February 2015 On April 7, 2021, the real estate gossip website Dirt reported that Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors had purchased a home in Topanga, an eccentric neighborhood located in the western portion of Los Angeles, for $1.4 million. Dirt reported eccentric Categorized under real estate purchases by "politicians," Dirt's headline reported, "Black Lives Matter Co-Founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors Lands Topanga Canyon Compound." (Cullors is a political activist, but she isn't a "politician" in the sense that she holds public office.) The story sparked a tsunami of spinoff articles and commentary with the aggregate effect of creating a cloud of doubt over the finances of the nonprofit organization associated with the Black Lives Matter movement, the peak of which was a claim in a meme that baselessly accused Cullors of using donations to Black Lives Matter to purchase the house:   But Dirt's article, which is the source that all of the stories and posts about the Topanga home purchase are based on, didn't report that Cullors purchased the home with BLM donations. It said the home was sold "to a corporate entity that public records show is controlled" by Cullors, but didn't name the corporation. Cullors is a fairly high-profile public figure. Aside from being an activist and organizer, she makes frequent media appearances. She is the co-author of a best-selling book, "When They Call You a Terrorist: A Black Lives Matter Memoir." She also signed a deal with Warner Brothers in late 2020 to create programming for the network's various platforms. book deal We sent Dirt an email asking if they would disclose the name of the business entity the home was sold to, but didn't receive a response in time for publication. We haven't been able to independently verify Dirt's report that Cullors purchased the home in Topanga. Her name didn't come up in our own public records search. In an April 2022 investigative report by New York Magazine's Intelligencer outlining a $6 million home purchase by Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation (BLMGN), however, movement leaders appeared to indirectly acknowledge that Cullors had indeed purchased properties, although it doesn't give specifics. In a statement sent to Snopes by email, BLMGNF directly denied the allegation that Cullors had used donation money to buy the Topanga Canyon home, or any other personal property: To be abundantly clear, as a registered 501c3, BLMGNF cannot and did not commit any organizational resources toward the purchase of personal property by any employee or volunteer. Any insinuation or assertion to the contrary is categorically false. Since the organization's inception in 2013, the Foundation said Cullors received compensation totaling $120,000 for work that included serving as spokesperson and engaging in political education. Since 2019, Cullors' role with the Foundation has been voluntary and unpaid. She currently serves as the executive director, per the Foundation's statement. The organization also characterized the narrative as a "right-wing offensive" against a high-profile Black activist that "not only puts Patrisse, her child and her loved ones in harms way, it also continues a tradition of terror by white supremacists against Black activists." We'll break down some of the dialogue and reporting around this story, but the important points are these: If it's true that Cullors purchased the Topanga home, no evidence has been presented that proves she did so with donation money. This claim is based on supposition. Important additional context is that while many stories about the home portray it as a lavish purchase, those portrayals are exaggerated. Compared with other properties listed on Dirt, the home reportedly purchased by Cullors is relatively modest. Other posts on the site detail multi-million dollar estates bought by the likes of pop music icon Madonna, tennis champion Serena Williams, and pop star Ariana Grande. Even if it's true that Cullors purchased a single family home in Los Angeles for $1.4 million, we note that because of overall home prices in L.A., that amount doesn't go as far as it would in other areas. Dirt reports that the home in Topanga has three bedrooms, two bathrooms, and a guest house and sits on just over a quarter of an acre-sized lot. It's not small but to call it a "mansion" as Fox News did in an April 13 headline is a stretch. headline Right-leaning Media Research Center tweeted, "The liberal media wont cover this: [Black Lives Matter] co-founder Patrisse Cullors bought a 1.4 MILLION dollar house near Beverly Hills." tweeted Everything in the city of Los Angeles could technically be described as being "near Beverly Hills" just as easily as it could be described as being "near Disneyland." The Topanga community is about 20 miles from Beverly Hills. Many of the reports touched on tensions among some activists within the Black Lives Matter movement itself by quoting comments given by Hawk Newsome, a BLM activist in New York, who told the New York Post he thought the nonprofit's finances should be investigated. New York Post Aside from getting record numbers of feet on the street in demonstrations across the country in the spring and summer of 2020, Black Lives Matter organizers told The Associated Press that it brought in $90 million in donations to the nonprofit organization associated with the movement, the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation. told The Post story published on April 10 also reported Cullors went on a "million dollar real estate buying binge" and claimed she spent $3.2 million "snagging four high-end homes." published When you read past the headline and leading language, the Post story really describes two modest home purchases, one in South Los Angeles (formerly known as South Central) and the other in Inglewood. Both homes are in working class communities and were purchased for $590,000 and $510,000 respectively. Like most homes in Los Angeles, they have appreciated in value since their most recent purchase date. South Central The Post also reports Cullors' wife bought a home in rural Georgia and that the couple "eyed" luxury property in the Bahamas, without purchasing it. Was this a "buying binge"? We don't have enough information from the Post story to answer questions like: Were these homes consecutively purchased, lived in and sold? Were other parties involved in the reported purchases? Were they lived in by family members? Did any of the addresses crop up due to errors in public records databases? errors Black Lives Matter was founded in 2013 by three women: Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi. It was originated as a response to the acquittal of George Zimmerman, a Florida neighborhood watch volunteer who shot and killed Black teenager Trayvon Martin. But the phrase and its underlying civil rights cause have been the rallying cry for a national racial justice movement in response to the killing of Black people by police, and racism embedded in the criminal justice system. killing The spring and summer of 2020 saw the movement's biggest demonstrations in its history, with millions of Americans braving the COVID-19 pandemic to take to the streets, touched off by the killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. As the movement reached critical mass and thus scored social and political wins, which included major companies affirming their commitment to racial justice and the election of progressive leaders, Black Lives Matter has also been a regular target for right-wing media and commenters. target media commenters Cullors resigned from the foundation in May 2021, stating the move had been in the works for more than a year. She told the Associated Press she was resigning to further focus on a new book and the TV deal with Warner Bros. In late August 2021, Cullors was appointed to the Los Angeles County Arts Commission. told appointed Updated to include Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation statement. Updated to note Cullors left her post with the non-profit organization in May 2021 and was appointed to the L.A. County Arts Commission in August 2021. The wordconservativewas uttered 18 times during the Fox Business News Republican presidential debate on Nov. 10, 2015. The first 17 references made in the Milwaukee Theatre were done with particular emphasis by U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. (Ohio Gov. John Kasich used the word once.) Paul called himself the only fiscal conservative among the eight candidates on stage -- and made a point to contrast himself with U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, in one of the more contentious exchanges of the night. Rubio had just defended his proposal to increase a child tax credit when Paul interjected. We have to decide what is conservative and what isn't conservative. Is it fiscally conservative to have a trillion-dollar expenditure? We're not talking about giving people back their tax money. He's talking about giving people money they didn't pay. It's a welfare transfer payment,Paul saidof Rubios tax credit plan. So, here's what we have. Is it conservative to have $1 trillion in transfer payments -- a new welfare program that's a refundable tax credit? Add that to Marco's plan for $1 trillion in new military spending, and you get something that looks, to me, not very conservative. Defending the tax credit and his defense spending proposals, Rubio said the family is the most important institution in society and the world is a stronger and a better place when the United States is the strongest military power in the world. But is Rubio proposing a new $1 trillion welfare program and $1 trillion in new military spending? And $1 trillion over what period of time? Tax credit Rubiostax planincludes creating a new, partially refundable child tax credit of up to $2,500 per child. It is meant to offset income and payroll taxes and is considerably larger than the $1,000 credit that is currently available. Refundabletax credits help people at the lower end of the income scale, in that people who are too poor to pay any income tax can get money back from the government. Pauls campaign referred us to a March 2015analysisby the nonpartisan Tax Foundation of a tax plan proposed in the Senate by Rubio and U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah. That analysis estimated the credit would result in a loss of tax revenue of about $170 billion per year. Thats the equivalent of $1.7 trillion over 10 years -- 10 years being a common time frame for federal budget planning. But its worth noting that Paul didnt say 10 years in making his claim. Well note that, unlike the original Rubio-Lee plan, Rubio as a candidate isproposingthat the credit would be phased out at higher income levels --  beginning at $150,000 for an individual and $300,000 for a family. That would mean the lost revenue would be something less than $1.7 trillion over 10 years, but still well above $1 trillion, saidKyle Pomerleau, director of federal projects at the Tax Foundation, a free market-oriented think tank. Thats because relatively few people at the higher incomes have children and would be eligible for the tax credits, he told us. In other words, the tax credit is expensive, Pomerlau said, because its large and nearly universal for families. The Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of theUrban InstituteandBrookings Institution, also did anestimateof the original tax credit proposal and came up with a figure similar to that of the Tax Foundation -- an estimated loss of nearly $1.58 trillion in tax revenue over 10 years. Roberton Williams, a fellow at the Tax Policy Center, told us the center hasn't analyzed Rubio's current proposal. But he said a loss of $1 trillion in tax revenue over 10 years is a fair estimate. Pauls characterization of Rubios tax credit as welfare is a stretch, however. Eleanor May, Pauls campaign spokeswoman, said giving people a refundable credit -- meaning, giving them more than they paid is a welfare transfer payment from one group of people to another. But as our colleagues at PunditFactnoted, even the most expansive definition of welfare --  including the cash program called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (formerly known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children), traditional food stamps, Medicaid and the food program called Women, Infants and Children -- doesnt include tax credits. Rubio, whose campaign did not respond to our requests for this article, noted in the debate that everyone who works pays the payroll tax. Defense spending Rubio has backed more defense spending since at least March 2015, when he and U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., introduced a budget amendment to increase the Pentagons budget. At the time, Rubio argued that adjusted for inflation, defense spending had declined by 21 percent since 2010 -- a claim PolitiFact National ratedMostly True. Rubios amendment proposed restoring defense spending levels to what had been proposed in the spring of 2011, for fiscal 2012 going forward, by then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Gates proposal was prior to spending limits that were imposed by theBudget Control Actof 2011, which became law in the summer of 2011. Returning to the so-called 2012 proposed spending levels would add $1 trillion in defense spending over 10 years,Benjamin Friedman, a defense research fellow at the liberatrian Cato Institute, told us. That is also the estimate made in a July 2015reportfrom the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. The morning after the Milwaukee debate, Rubio was asked in a Fox News interview: So, where are you going to get the trillion dollars from that Rand Paul says we shouldnt be spending? Rubio didnt address the figure, saying: First of all, before we fund anything, the federal government should be fully funding national security. But he has made references to the $1 trillion cost in the past. In a September 2014speech, Rubio said he agreed with a recommendation by the bipartisan National Defense Panel to return to the 2012-level spending, which we are on track to be around $1 trillion short of through fiscal year 2022. And on his campaign website, Rubiosayshe would restore defense spending to the 2012 level, and begin to undo the damage caused by $1 trillion in indiscriminate defense cuts. Our rating Paul said Rubio is proposing a new $1 trillion welfare program and $1 trillion in new military spending. Its estimated that over 10 years, a common time frame for federal budget planning, Rubios child tax credit would result in the loss of $1 trillion in tax revenue; and his plan to reverse declines in Pentagon spending would cost $1 trillion. But its a stretch to call the tax credit welfare and in making his claim, Paul didnt state that the $1 trillion costs would be over 10 years. We rate Pauls statement Mostly True. More debate claims Go herefor PolitiFact National's fact checks on statements made during the Milwaukee debate. And herefor PolitiFact Wisconsin's night-of review of the debate.