My debt to GDP was the lowest or one of the lowest of modern presidents. My taxes to GDP was the lowest and my spending to GDP was too.
During the tour to promote his presidential memoir,Decision Points, George W. Bush defended his fiscal record in an interview with Matt Lauer on NBC'sToday Show. In the interview, Bush said that the ratio of the deficit to gross domestic product during his time in office was lower than Ronald Reagan's by half. Lower than my dad's. And only [worse than] Bill Clinton among modern presidents. ... My debt to GDP was the lowest or one of the lowest of modern presidents. My taxes to GDP was the lowest and my spending to GDP was too. We thought it would be worthwhile to see if Bush was correct. So we turned to a historical table from the Office of Management and Budget that shows tax receipts, spending and the deficit as a percentage of GDP -- essentially, as a percentage of the nation's economy as a whole.The challenge is figuring exactly how to compare recent presidents.Let's start with the deficit. The most obvious way to do it is to add up all of the annual percentages for a president and divide by the number of years served, to produce an average.Calculating it this way -- and beginning our list of modern presidents with President Dwight Eisenhower -- we came up with the following order: Eisenhower (deficits averaged 0.53 percent of GDP), Clinton (0.76 percent of GDP), Richard Nixon (0.93 percent), Lyndon Johnson (1.1 percent),George W. Bush (2.0 percent), Jimmy Carter (2.4 percent), George H.W. Bush (3.98 percent), Reagan (4.23 percent). (We excluded John F. Kennedy and Gerald Ford because of their short tenures. )You can do the same with spending and tax receipts.For spending as a percent of GDP, the ranking from low to high is Eisenhower (18.1 percent of GDP), Johnson (18.7 percent), Nixon (19.2 percent),George W. Bush (19.6 percent), Clinton (19.8), Carter (20.8), George H.W. Bush (21.9), and Reagan (22.4).For tax receipts as a percentage of GDP, the ranking from low to high is Eisenhower (17.5 percent of GDP), Johnson andGeorge W. Bush (tied at 17.6 percent), George H.W. Bush (17.9 percent), Reagan (18.2 percent), Nixon (18.3 percent), Carter (18.4 percent) and Clinton (19 percent).Whether Bush is correct depends heavily on which presidents you consider modern. If you only go back to Reagan -- the earliest president that Bush himself cited by name in the interview -- then Bush is basically correct. Only Clinton did better when measured by deficit as a percentage of GDP, while no president dating back to Reagan scored better on spending or tax receipts as a percentage of GDP.By contrast, if you go back to Eisenhower -- the first fully post-World War II president -- Bush is in the middle of the pack on the deficit and on spending, and he's near the top on tax receipts.But there's another way to look at the deficit -- to compare a president's first deficit as a percentage of GDP to their last. This shows what direction the deficit went during their tenures.And on this one, George W. Bush does the worst of any president dating back to Eisenhower.The younger Bush went from a 1.3 percent surplus to a 3.2 percent deficit, a decline of 4.5 percentage points. The best was Clinton, who moved the deficit from a 3.9 percent deficit to a 2.4 percent surplus -- a positive change of 6.3 percentage points. The other presidents all had changes up or down that were roughly two percentage points or smaller.This suggests that Bush's fiscal record wasn't so sterling if you use a different measure than the one he did. But to analyze the accuracy of his statement, we'll stick closely to the words he used. George W. Bush is correct that he outperformed his father, Reagan and (mostly) Clinton. So if you consider those the modern presidents, he's essentially right. If you broaden the modern presidents to include those serving in the entire post-World War II period, Bush is about average. While we wouldn't have chosen to define the modern presidents to include just the four that Bush mentioned by name, we'll give him some deference in framing the question. So we rate his statement Mostly True.
In April 2018, actor Channing Tatum and his wife, actor and dancer Jenna Dewan Tatum, announced plans to separate after nine years of marriage. In an era of celebrity hoaxes, the news was greeted with skepticism by some of our readers. It's true. On 3 April, the pair published a joint statement on their respective Instagram accounts that confirmed their impending separation: Instagram accounts Hey world! So... We have something we would like to share. First off, it feels odd that we have to share this kind of thing with everyone, but it's a consequence of the lives we've chosen to lead, which we also happen to be deeply grateful for. We're living in an incredible moment in time, but it's also a time where truth can easily get distorted into "alternative facts" ;) So we want to share the truth so you know that if you didn't read it here then it's most certainly fiction. We have lovingly chosen to separate as a couple. We fell deeply in love so many years ago and have had a magical journey together. Absolutely nothing has changed about how much we love one another, but love is a beautiful adventure that is taking us on different paths for now. There are no secrets nor salacious events at the root of our decision -- just two best friends realizing it's time to take some space and help each other live the most joyous, fulfilled lives as possible. We are still a family and will always be loving, dedicated parents to Everly. We won't be commenting beyond this, and we thank you all in advance for respecting our family's privacy. Sending lots of love to everyone, Chan&Jenna.   The couple, who starred together in the 2006 movie Step Up, were married in 2009. They have one daughter, Everly, who was born in 2013.  married born Wihlborg, Ulrica. "Inside Channing Tatum and Jenna Dewan's Malibu Wedding."
 People. 12 July 2009. Bull, Sarah; Sheridan, Emily. "And Baby Makes Three! Channing Tatum and Wife Jenna Confirm Birth of Daughter Everly."
 Daily Mail. 4 June 2013. In his latest film,Capitalism: A Love Story, Michael Moore takes more than a few swipes at President Ronald Reagan, essentially asserting that under Reagan's watch, the rich got richer at the expense of everyone else. During the Reagan era, he said, the richest Americans had their top income tax rate cut in half. Moore is correct that the top marginal tax rate  the rate of income tax charged to an individual on their last dollar of earnings  decreased from 70 percent in 1980 to 28 percent in 1989. That's not the same as saying the richest had their taxes cut in half. In 1980, the top marginal tax rate was 70 percent on earnings over $161,300. The rate was substantially lower for the income earned below that. For example, that year, there were no taxes on the first $2,300 of income; 14 percent on income between $2,300 and $4,400; and on up via a graduated scale. So if you made $162,000 in 1980, for example, you paid far less on average than 70 percent of your income in federal taxes. The marginal tax rate also doesn't take into account various available deductions and tax credits, said Bob Williams of the Tax Policy Center. When Reagan revamped the tax code and dropped the top marginal tax rates to 50 percent in 1982, and then down to 28 percent by 1988, he also closed some of the tax loopholes available to people at the top. It's much fairer, we think, to look at effective individual income tax rates. That's the actual percentage of income that people paid in income taxes, factoring in not only the graduated percentages along the marginal tax rate scale, but also the deductions and tax credits that people were entitled to. In 1980,the effective individual income tax ratefor the top 1 percent of earners was 22.3 percent. In 1989, that rate dropped to 19.9 percent. That's a decrease of 2.4 percentage points, which works out to an 11 percent drop. That's sizable, but nowhere near 50 percent. If you widen the field and consider the top 10 percent of earners, instead of just the top 1 percent,the drop in effective individual income tax rate was about the same, just over 10 percent. For middle incomes, the effective individual income tax rate also dropped, from 8 percent to 6 percent. That's a 25 percent decrease. In other words, it wasn't just the rich who saw their income tax rates drop under Reagan. One more thing. When the top marginal tax rate dropped between 1980 and 1989, it went from 70 percent on earnings over $161,300 in 1980 to 28 percent on earnings over $128,810 in 1989. Obviously, that's not an apples-to-apples comparison. Did the rich get richer during the Reagan years? Yes. And Moore is technically correct when he says that the richest Americans had their top income tax rate cut in half. But we suspect some may mistake that for the richest having their taxes cut in half. In fact, we first began to look at this claim from a fact sheet provided on Moore's Web site before the movie was publicly released. And in the fact sheet, it states that the richest had their taxes cut in half. We were prepared to give that a False, as the effective tax rate for the richest was cut by about 10 or 11 percent. But in the movie, Moore describes it as the top income tax rate, apparently referring to the highest marginal rate. As we said, some may misinterpret that, but we think Moore has been careful enough with his words to get a Mostly True. Scammers and malware purveyors are always looking for ways to entice online users into following web links that will lead those victims into the traps set for them, and offers of free products are prime bait in that pursuit of prey. One common method such predators use is establishing fake Facebook accounts mimicking those of well-known vendors of consumer products (typically of the edible variety, such as Starbucks, Taco Bell, McDonald's, KFC, Wendy's, Burger King, Whole Foods, Safeway, Food Lion, and Little Caesars) and posting bogus offers for "lifetime passes" or other dispensations of free product as part of a supposed company anniversary or birthday celebration (e.g., "Starbucks is giving away free lifetimes in celebration of the brand's 44th anniversary"). The primary type of free product fraud is the "sweepstakes scam," which is intended to lure victims into completing numerous surveys, disclosing a good deal of personal information, and then agreeing to sign up for costly, difficult-to-cancel "Reward Offers" hidden in the fine print. The scammers spread links via e-mail and Facebook that purport to offer free product to those who follow those links. These web pages (which are not operated or sponsored by the companies they reference) typically ask the unwary to click what appear to be Facebook "share" buttons and post comments to the scammer's site (which is really a ruse to dupe users into spreading the scam by sharing it with all of their Facebook friends). Those who follow such instructions are then led into a set of pages prompting them to input a fair amount of personal information (including name, age, address, and phone numbers), complete a lengthy series of surveys, and finally sign up (and commit to paying) for at least two "Reward Offers" (e.g., Netflix subscriptions, credit report monitoring services, prepaid credit cards): Pursuant to the Terms & Conditions, you are required to complete 2 of the Reward Offers from the above. You will need to meet all of the terms and conditions to qualify for the shipment of the reward. For credit card offers, you must activate your card by making a purchase, transferring a balance, or making a cash advance. For loan offers you must close and fund the loan. For home security and satellite tv offers you must have the product installed. You may not cancel your participation in more than a total of 2 Reward Offers within 30 days of any Reward Offer Sign-Up Date as outlined in the Terms & Conditions (the Cancellation Limit). Not only that, but the fine print on the "free" product offers typically states that by accepting its terms, the user agrees to receive telemarketing phone calls and text messages from a variety of different companies:   Similar phony free product lures are used to spread malware. In those versions of the scam, those who attempt to reach the URL provided for the purpose of claiming the free products are instead victimized by a Facebook "lifejacking" attack, a malicious script that takes over a user's Facebook profile without their knowledge and propagates itself to their friends' accounts as well. lifejacking In short, those who seek "free" merchandise generally end up paying a dear cost for it. In May 2016, syndicated talk radio host Sean Hannity aired an item claiming that Donald Trump had sent a plane to give 200 stranded U.S. marines a much-needed ride home after Operation Desert Storm in 1991: item When Corporal Ryan Stickney and 200 of his fellow Marines prepared to return to their families after Operation Desert Storm in 1991, a logistics error forced them to turn to a surprising source for a ride home: Donald J. Trump. Today, Stickney would like to say "thank you." Stickney (left), was a squad leader in a TOW company of a Marine reserve unit based in Miami, FL and spent approximately six months in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War between 1990 and 1991. Upon his units return to the United States, the former Marine says the group spent several weeks decompressing at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina before heading back to Miami. Stickney recalls being told that a mistake had been made within the logistics unit and that an aircraft wasnt available to take the Marines home on their scheduled departure date. This  according to Stickney  is where Donald Trump comes in. "The way the story was told to us was that Mr. Trump found out about it and sent the airline down to take care of us. And thats all we knew ... I remember asking 'Who is Donald Trump?' I truly didn't know anything about him," the former Marine said. Corporal Stickney snapped a photo to remember the day by:   The story came up several times during the course of the 2016 presidential campaign (Cpl. Stickney even told it in person at a Trump rally), but skeptics questioned its validity despite a statement from the Trump campaign allegedly confirming it: "The Trump campaign has confirmed to Hannity.com that Mr. Trump did indeed send his plane to make two trips from North Carolina to Miami, Florida to transport over 200 Gulf War Marines back home. No further details were provided." told confirming The few details we do have about Trump's alleged participation don't, in fact, add up. We can confirm, based on military records, that the 209-member Anti-Tank (TOW) Company, part of the 8th Tank Battalion for Operation Desert Shield, deployed to Camp LeJeune, North Carolina, from their home base in Miami on 26 November 1990. And we can confirm that the company deployed from Camp LeJeune to Saudi Arabia on 22 December, served throughout the combat phase of Operation Desert Storm (from 17 January to 28 February 1991), and returned to North Carolina in April. A command chronology of the deployment notes that a "Cpl. Stickey" was among those receiving certificates of commendation. deployed command chronology We can also confirm, via a 23 April 1991 article from the Sun-Sentinel, that a series of flight delays stalled the company's homecoming to Miami on 22 April, but that they finally did arrive home after split across two separate flights. Stickney's photograph shows that he arrived on a plane marked "Trump," but it also proves something else: that even if Trump did send the plane, it wasn't his private jet. article That Trump didn't send the pictured plane at all was something noted by a sharp-eyed reader, who wrote to us to note: First, thats not Trumps private 727 jet; its one of the jets in the Trump Shuttle fleet. I wondered if maybe Trumps jet back in those days was painted differently, so I researched his private jet as of April 1991. I found that Trump was deep in the red, financially, and having to liquidate assets, one of which was his personal 727. The sale of that jet was finalized in the first week of May 1991, making it highly unlikely he was also flying reservists around while discussing the sale at the end of April. jet Shuttle The markings of the plane in Stickney's photo match those of the Trump Shuttle fleet, so the question becomes: Did Trump himself send a Trump Shuttle to retrieve the stranded Marines, or was it procured some other way? To arrive at an answer, it's necessary to go into a bit of the history of Trump Shuttle. A July 2015 article in NYC Aviation detailed Trump's short-lived airline industry involvement, beginning with an entirely separate carrier, Eastern Air Shuttle, which he immediately rebranded with his own name: article carrier rebranded CEO Frank Lorenzo ... began selling off assets including the prized Shuttle operation. Donald Trump placed a winning bid for the Shuttle, its aircraft and landing slots at LaGuardia and National for $380 million dollars that was financed through no less than 22 banks. The newly branded Trump Shuttle took the skies on June 7, 1989. Timing is everything in business, and unfortunately for Trump he entered the airline game at the wrong time. The US entered an economic recession in the late-80s leading many corporations to cut back on business travel. In addition, tensions in the Middle East leading up to the first Gulf war caused oil prices to spike. This 1-2 punch was devastating for the airline industry and led to the demise of a number of airlines including Eastern and Pan Am. Given these circumstances, the Trump Shuttle lost money, and with Trump continuing to accumulate debt in his other ventures it was becoming increasingly difficult to pay back the loans taken to purchase the airline. In September of 1990 Trump defaulted on his loan and control of the airline went back to the banks led by Citibank. Given that the bankers, not Donald Trump, owned Trump Shuttle from September 1990 until it was sold to U.S. Air in 1996, Trump wasn't in a position to send the planes anywhere, much less on a spur-of-the-moment Marine transport mission. So who did? As it turns out, the U.S. military itself chartered the flights -- a common practice in the day, according to an 11 August 2016 report by The Washington Post: Lt. Gen. Vernon J. Kondra, now retired, was in charge of all military airlift operations. He said that relying on commercial carriers freed up the military cargo aircraft for equipment transport. Vernon J. Kondra Kondra's notes on the flight are declassified and available online and show a contract for Trump Shuttle to "move troops in [the] continental United States" during the 1990-91 timeframe: online There are several references to a 1990-91 contract for Trump Shuttle to carry personnel across the United States, between the East and West Coasts, on a standard LaGuardia-Dover-Charleston-Travis-Chord-Kelly-Dover-LaGuardia run.   "It worked very well, and the crews loved it, and really thought that we'd done something special for them," Kondra recalled in the oral history. "It was a helluva lot better than using 141s [cargo craft], which we could use for something else." But Kondra said that the notion that Trump personally arranged to help the stranded soldiers made little sense. "I certainly was not aware of that. It does not sound reasonable that it would happen like that. It would not fit in with how we did business. I don't even know of how he would have known there was a need." So the real story underlying the claim that Donald Trump personally sent his jet to pick up stranded soldiers and return them to the U.S. is that the military paid to charter a plane from an airline Trump no longer owned in order to bring those service personnel home. Kessler, Glenn.  "Too Good to Check: Sean Hannitys Tale of a Trump Rescue."
  The Washington Post.  11 August 2016. Reed, Ted.  "Trump: I Ran a Great Airline."
  The Globe and Mail.  26 September 2011. Rodriguez-Florido, Lourdes.  "Grand Homecoming Welcomes War-Weary Marine Reservists Company Looks Forward to Settling Into Life's Regular Routines."
  Sun-Sentinel.  23 April 1991. CNN.  "Inside Donald Trump's Private Jet."
  10 November 2009. GulfLINK.  "8th Tank BN Command Chronology 8th Nov 90 to March 91."
  12 April 1991. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO As Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine announced a statewide mask mandate starting July 23, 2020, amidst a rise in COVID-19 cases in the region, online rumors suggested any mask manufacturers, including those selling masks from home, were at risk of facing lawsuits.  announced rise Snopes readers alerted us to the circulation of the above-displayed letter purportedly from the Ohio State Bar Association (OSBA), printed on an American Bar Association (ABA) letterhead. Dated July 19, 2020, the letter claimed that under "Ohio Consumer Laws" individuals could bring a lawsuit against establishments selling or manufacturing masks without licenses or warning labels, including those selling out of their homes, especially if wearers got lung damage. The letter, full of grammatical errors and deprived of punctuation, stated: Under Ohio Consumer Laws you can now bring lawsuit against any retail establishment selling or manufacturing Face Masks or Facial Coverings for the purpose virus protection You can now file lawsuits against anyone selling a facial covering that has not been Medically Approved to filter contagious diseases. This includes any Homemade or Factory made mask With the rise in lung damage caused by pleurisy you can Legally sue for Medical Damages and or selling a Medical Device without license Any mask sold without proper warning labeling sewn into the fabric will be considered in violation, you can also file a mislabeled or not FDA approved lawsuit You can also pursue anyone selling face masks out of their homeYou can also bring suit if selling a medical device without licenseYou can also bring suit for Illegal Monetary Sales and failure to disclose income under IRS 254-70994USYou can also now bring suit against any small business that knowingly sells a defective face covering that causes lung damage We believe these lawsuits will be very lucrative moving forward We learned that the letter attribution was fake and its contents were suspect. In a statement on their Facebook page, the OSBA said they did not issue a letter and readers should be wary of its contents: statement   We reached out to the OSBA who would not comment on the contents of the letter because as an organization they refrain from giving legal advice.  Snopes also reached out to the Ohio attorney generals office about the information in the letter. A representative confirmed that under Ohio law consumers can bring lawsuits against suppliers for unfair and deceptive practices, but much of what constitutes a violation relies on court interpretation. According to the Ohio Revised Code, such deceptive practices include: Ohio Revised Code That the subject of a consumer transaction has sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses, or benefits that it does not have; That the subject of a consumer transaction is of a particular standard, quality, grade, style, prescription, or model, if it is not [...] It is likely that this applies to any mask manufacturers that make deceptive promises about the quality of their product(s) and the level of protection the product(s) provide. DeWine and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended the use of homemade and non-medical grade masks in addition to practicing social distancing. The CDC stated that surgical masks or respirators are critical supplies that should continue to be reserved for healthcare workers. The Ohio state and federal governments have shared recommendations for do-it-yourself (DIY) or homemade masks without any requirement for a license or warning labels. Consumer protection laws may apply to people selling these homemade masks without affixed labels, but the actual legal implications remain unclear given government recommendations.  DeWine Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Ohio The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) regulates masks used for medical purposes only. In April 2020, when health care providers in the U.S. reportedly did not have access to enough personal protective equipment, including masks, the FDA issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for face masks used by the general public and in health care settings during the COVID-19 public health emergency. In short, this EUA required that face masks should be labeled accurately and their use not be misrepresented. Authorized masks were to meet the following requirements:  Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) 1. The product is labeled accurately to describe the product as a face mask and includes a list of the body contacting materials (which does not include any drugs or biologics); 2. The product is labeled accurately so that it does not claim to be intended for use as a surgical mask or to provide liquid barrier protection; 3. The product labeling includes recommendations against use in a clinical setting where the infection risk level through inhalation exposure is high; 4. The product is not labeled in such a manner that would misrepresent the products intended use; for example, the labeling must not state or imply that the product is intended for antimicrobial or antiviral protection or related uses or is for use such as infection prevention or reduction; 5. The product is not labeled as a respiratory protective device, and therefore should not be used for particulate filtration; and 6. The product is not labeled for use in high risk aerosol generating procedures. In sum, although the above-displayed letter was fake, it is possible that consumer protection laws that apply to all kinds of manufacturers would also apply to mask manufacturing, even though its interpretation in situations involving homemade masks is unclear. We thus rate this claim as false. Codes.Ohio.gov.  "Chapter 109:4-3 Deceptive Acts or Trade Practices in Connection with Consumer Transactions."
 Accessed 3 August 2020 FDA.gov. "To: Manufacturers of Face Masks; Health Care Personnel; Hospital Purchasing Departments and Distributors; and Any Other Stakeholders."
  24 April 2020.  Ingles, Jo.  "Coronavirus in Ohio: Ohioans Advised To Wear Homemade Masks in Public."
  WOSU.  6 April 2020. Morello, Carol.  "Coronavirus Cases on the Rise in the Midwest as They Ebb in the Sun Belt."
  The Washington Post.  28 July 2020. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Considerations for Wearing Masks."
  16 July 2020. Waldrop, Theresa.  "Ohio Governor Orders Statewide Mask Mandate as of Thursday."
 CNN. 22 July 2020. A leading Democrat predicts devastation if Gov. Scott Walkers proposed $300 million cut over two years to the University of Wisconsin System is adopted. For UW-Madison its a major issue, Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca, D-Kenosha, said in a March 12, 2015Wisconsin Eye interview. Its penny wise and pound foolish there. Barca added: The average faculty member at UW-Madison brings in close to a quarter million dollars a year. So you cut them and theyre leaving. They have plenty of opportunities to go to Harvard or Princeton or Stanford. Barca was joined on the Wisconsin Eye program by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester. He thinks the university cut is too large, but says Democrats are overreacting. Lets remember that the cut thats happening under Gov. Walker is about the size of the one that happened under (former Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat), and I didnt hear Democrats complaining about the loss of the university and how the world was going to come to an end. Well test Vos claim soon. For now, lets examine Barcas statement about the prowess of the Madison faculty in attracting research grants. Researching the research When we asked Barca to back up the claim, spokeswoman Laura Smith pointed to apage on the UW-Madison websitethat answers frequently asked questions about the 2015-17 budget -- at least from the UW Systems perspective. The page asserts that asking professors to teach more classes -- as Walker suggested -- would cut into critical functions of the university: Research is central to their jobs. According to university statistics, each faculty member is bringing in approximately $242,000 on average to support their research in a highly competitive national environment. Faculty and staff brought in more than $500 million in federal research awards in 2012-13, money that would not otherwise come to Wisconsin. So theres Barcas close to a quarter million figure. We asked UW-Madison about the numbers. They are from 2012-13, and were published in March 2014 in theuniversitys Data Digest. The document provides a detailed look at various aspects of the campus and is put together by three offices: Academic Planning & Institutional Research, Office of the Provost and the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Finance & Administration. UW-Madison is one of the leading research institutions in the country as measured by total grants from outside sources, mostly the federal government. Out of its 2,173 faculty members, 1,275 (or 59 percent) secured research grants in 2012-13, the latest year available. So theres a point of clarification: Barca frames his claim around the idea that any cuts will hurt the universitys ability to bring in research money. But in the year examined, 41 percent did not bring in grants. The university says it uses the total number of faculty when calculating the per-professor grant haul because all faculty members are expected to do research. In all, professors pulled in a total of $525.7 million in grants from outside sources. The grants are in these areas: biological sciences, humanities, physical sciences, social sciences. Spread over 2,173 faculty, thats the $242,000 figure. If you spread it out over just the faculty receiving grants, the average is $412,000. Jocelyn Milner, a UW official who helps prepare the Data Digest, told us that grant productivity is calculated in another way as well. Theres another $355 million in grants that are not awarded to individual professors, but to a dean or other official even though professors end up doing the research. When you add those in the per-faculty grant figure rises to $399,000 per year, Milner said. UW prefers the more conservative methodology that is behind the $241,935 figure, Milner said. We found that ranking universities on research prowess often turns on how much money they pull in. There areother factors that can help judge research prominence, such as journal articles published, endowment assets, faculty awards, and so on. Our rating Barca said, The average faculty member at UW-Madison brings in close to a quarter million dollars a year. He referred to research grants won. UW-Madison figures back up the claim, but theres one point of clarification, in that not all faculty get grants. We rate Barcas statement Mostly True. Frankly, PolitiFact Oregon was surprised to spota press release fora new radio campaign ad designed to set the record straight on Oregons prisons laws. We didnt know there was a need. Was there another ballot measure pending? Was somebody spreading falsehoods about prison laws? Didnt Oregonians vote on sentencing back in 2008? What was going on?Steve Doell is a longtime advocate of crime victims and president ofCrime Victims United, which helped get Measure 11 passed in 1994. This ad campaign is his latest venture, a nonprofit that he says is separate from Crime Victims and one that he said is aimed at giving people the facts about prison statistics.He wants to remind voters through the Truth in Sentencing Project that fewer than one in four convicted felons is sent to prison. Less than one-half of one-percent are in prison for drug possession. And this:About 7 in 10 of Oregons inmates are in prison for violent crimes and serious sex offenses including felony assault, armed robbery, kidnapping, manslaughter, child molestation, rape, attempted murder, and murder, he writes in the press release.In the accompanying radio ad, he says two-thirds of prisoners are violent criminals. In short, Oregons system works, he said. Doell got his numbers from theOregon Criminal Justice Commission, which administers Oregon's felony sentencing guidelines and serves as a statistical and data clearinghouse. Off we went, with a detour stop at the Department of Corrections.According to theagencys July 2012 inmate population profile, 9,878 of the 14,186 people in prison were there because of crimes against a person. That is 70 percent, or more than two-thirds. Hold on to the idea of a person crime.The same population profile also tells us that nearly 9,300 of those inmates are in prison for crimes one could describe as violent: Assault, homicide, rape, kidnapping, robbery, sodomy and sex abuse. Thats about 65 percent, which is about two-thirds.We caught up with Craig Prins, the criminal justice commissions executive director, who confirms that 70 percent of inmates have committed a crime against a person -- but he wanted to make sure we understand that that doesnt mean they are all necessarily violent criminals, on par with murderers and child molesters.For example, a drunken driver who doesnt kill anyone is categorized as committing a crime against a person, even though no one was hurt. A drunken driver who hits and kills another person has definitely committed a crime against a person, even though there was no intent to commit homicide. For Prins there is a distinction. For Doell, there isnt. We offer the information for readers to assess.We also have another point that readers may want to keep in mind: More non-violent offenders are being admitted into prison -- which means that the ratio of violent offenders may drop in the future.Thats because in 2008, Oregon voters approved Ballot Measure 57, which increased sentences for drug and property offenders. It was a legislative proposal drafted in response to a more punishing measure sponsored by Doell and others. Property and drug offenders sentenced under Measure 57 are expected to add 1,000 beds to the prison system over 10 years with overall bed growth closer to 2,000.Prins and others onGov. John Kitzhabers Commission on Public Safety have been tasked with finding ways to improve public safety and save money. The commission is to come up with ideas for the 2013 Legislature. And while Doell insists the Truth in Sentencing Project is not in response to an outside force, its clear this governor wants to make changes in state prisons.A June report by the Pew Center on the States, which is providing technical help to Oregon to review numbers and tease out prison growth drivers, states thatOregon in 2011 admitted more low-risk offenders than in 2000. Also, the share ofproperty, drug and other offenders increased from 53 percent of new admits in 2000 to 59 percent in 2011. (p.20) In other words, trends are changing and they may change more with the approval of Measure 57, which went into effect in January.Doell says the state doesnt have the greatest record on correctly projecting bed additions. He also doesnt think Measure 57 will change the ratio that much. I dont think theres going to be a significant change, I think it could be a percentage point or points here and there, he said.We think readers should be mindful that there is a forecast and new sentencing guidelines that may change the ratio in the future, but we dont know for sure by how much, if at all. The state would not hazard a projection other than the overall increase of 2,000 beds, of which at least 1,000 come from Measure 57.As for a ruling? It is factually correct that as of now, 70 percent of inmates are in prison for crimes against a person, and that 65 percent are in there for crimes we can see are violent in nature. That is about seven in 10 or two-thirds. We rate the statement True. Claim:  Milk sold at Wal-Mart contains rBST, a dangerous growth hormone.  Status:  Multiple:  Some milk vended by retailers comes from rBST-treated cows:  True.  As of March 2008, Wal-Mart's "Great Value" milk no longer contains rBST:  True.  Milk produced by rBST-treated cows has been proved dangerous for ordinary human consumption:  False. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, March 2007] Health Warning - rBST in Great Value[Walmart] Milk I just received this from my sister-in-law in Gainesville and I wanted to let you all know, especially if you have daughters or granddaughters. Please read this and pass along to as many people.... Mitzi Lyons, her husband is Kyle, live here in Gainesville, TX. Their daughter, for THREE years has incurred menstrual problems (bleeding every day) for three years and within the last year she started producing milk. They have performed every test, every surgery, put her on birth control and the last straw was fixing to be a hysterectomy in January. BUT, Mitzi's dad started research on the internet of his granddaughter's problem and found out about rBST in milk (injecting cows with hormones so they will produce more milk). Walmart Great Value milk is the kind that the Lyons family has always drunk. 3 months ago, they pulled Marissa off of Great Value Milk and she quit bleeding and lactating. Borden milk does not have rBST in it. Her doctor's in Houston are going to write a medical journal discovery on her, because FDA says that rBST is safe. Mitzi asked me to please share this with everyone I could think of to hopefully save someone the pain and suffering that Marissa has endured. Mitzi knows this was an answered prayer. I have pulled my family from Walmart Great Value Milk and bought Borden and Borden has a label on their milk that says rBST not used on their cows. Please pass this on...... Origins:  rBST, or recombinant bovine somatotropin, is an artificial growth hormone injected into dairy cows approximately every two weeks to boost milk production. It is the synthetic  version of BST (bovine somatotropin), a naturally-occurring hormone in cattle. Cows treated with rBST go from producing over 70 pounds of milk per day to somewhat less than 90, a significant increase in output. The use of rBST is controversial. On the plus side, it elevates milk production and boosts farm income. On the downside, it can increase udder infections in cows (thereby necessitating greater use of antibiotics), and some say it may increase cancer risk in milk drinkers.  The cancer claims have not been proved. Those who say there is a risk point to a connection between rBST injections and elevation of another hormone in cows, IGF-1. In humans, too much IGF-1 is linked with increased rates of colon, breast, and prostate cancer. Use of rBST is banned in Canada, but not because of any potential ill effect it might have on humans; its use was proscribed because of its harmful effects on cows (udder irritation). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says rBST is safe for consumers and that milk from rBST-treated cows is no different from milk from non-treated cows: FDA Before the 1993 approval of rbST, FDA determined that the recombinant, or genetically engineered form of bST is virtually identical to a cow's natural somatotropin, a hormone produced in the pituitary gland that stimulates the production of milk. During that rbST approval process, FDA concluded that there is no significant difference between milk from treated and untreated cows. For that reason, FDA also concluded it does not have the authority to require special labeling for milk and dairy products from rbST-treated cows, and that producers have no basis for claiming that milk from cows not treated with rbST is safer than milk from rbST-treated cows. Assurances notwithstanding, recent years have seen a grassroots consumers movement away from products reliant upon antibiotics or growth hormones. Shoppers are increasingly seeking out "rBST- (or rBGH-)free" milk in lieu of the hormone-assisted sort. But it comes at a price  this type of milk is far more expensive. While a half-gallon of 2% milk (Lucerne) goes for $1.99, its non-rBST equivalent (Sunmilk) goes for $3.89, and organic 2% milk (Horizon and Stremicks Heritage) for $4.19.  We encountered this e-mail purporting to detail a teen's reaction to the rBST in the milk she drank in March 2007. While there is reason to believe the young woman depicted in the tale exists and that the description of her travails is at least somewhat accurate, that's a far cry from saying her drinking of rBST-enhanced milk caused her medical woes. There have been rumors that rBST causes premature puberty in children, but as yet there's nothing credible to hang them upon.  Indeed, arguing against such an outcome is the type of hormone itself: Somatotropins (growth hormones) are not the same as gonadotropins (sexual development hormones), and they don't cross functions, especially when applied to different species. The e-mailed alert includes an exhortation to swear off milk from Wal-Mart in favor of that from Borden. That advice is a bit simplistic, because just about any large retailer that vends milk will generally offer both rBST and non-rBST kinds for sale. Those concerned about avoiding rBST should read labels, looking for words like "organic," "hormone free," and "rBST free." (Consumers should also assume if that they don't see one of those phrases, the product they're considering buying does contain rBST.) On 21 March 2008, Wal-Mart announced that its "Great Value" milk would no longer be sourced from rBST-enhanced cows. Barbara "milk dud" Mikkelson Additional information:       bST Fact Sheet   (Cornell University)   Last updated:  23 March 2008    Sources:   Pollack, Andrew.  "Which Cows Do You Trust?"   The New York Times.  7 October 2006  (p. C1).     Raine, George.  "Got rbST in Your Milk?"   The San Francisco Chronicle.  25 March 2007  (p. D1).     Reuters.  "Hormone-Free Milk Sales Stir Heated Debate."   Los Angeles Times.  19 January 2007  (p. C6). This article discussed the potential implications of a case that was, at the time of writing, undecided by the Supreme Court. On 17 June 2019 the Supreme Court decided that case, rejecting arguments that could have resulted in a stronger presidential pardon. Far from Kavanaugh's being a deciding vote on the case, the court ruled 7-2 against the notion that Federal and State prosecution for the same crime violates the so-called double jeopardy clause of the Constitution. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented. decided On 29 November 2015, a motorist named Terance Gamble, who had been convicted of second degree robbery seven years earlier, was pulled over by an Alabama police officer because of a faulty headlight on his vehicle. Upon searching the car, the officer found a handgun, among other items. It is illegal under both Alabama law and United States law for convicted felons to possess firearms, and Gamble was eventually sentenced to one year in prison on that charge by the state of Alabama. Terance Gamble During Gamble's prosecution under Alabama law for possession of a firearm as a felon, the Federal Government also charged him with the same crime. Gambles lawyers argued that this second conviction was a violation of the U.S. Constitutions ban on double jeopardy, which is intended to protect people from being prosecuted for the same crime more than once. The double jeopardy clause is found in Fifth Amendment to the U.S. constitution, which states (in part) that "No person shall ... be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. Specifically, the clause has been interpreted to be a prohibition on: interpreted Gamble has been in federal prison since entering a guilty plea on 18 October 2016 that allowed him to appeal his case. In June 2018, the Supreme Court agreed to hear his argument that he has been unconstitutionally punished multiple times for the same crime. While the case is about the constitutionality of a man being charged twice for the same gun possession incident in a narrow sense, the case more broadly has the potential to significantly alter 150 years of Supreme Court precedent. Since the 1850s, the Supreme Court has allowed for one explicit exception to the Constitutions double jeopardy protections: cases of dual sovereignty (or separate sovereigns) which stem from view that the federal government and state governments are distinct entities with occasionally overlapping jurisdictions. (Exceptions to this exception exist which seek to limit double prosecutions at the federal level, but as this case shows they do not always have that effect.) federal level, This separate sovereigns exception to double jeopardy, though built on several previous rulings, was made most explicit in a 1920s bootlegging case, United States v. Lanza, which allowed a man to be charged with bootlegging crimes by both the state of Washington and the federal government. With respect to that case, Chief Justice William Howard Taft argued: United States v. Lanza We have here two sovereignties, deriving power from different sources, capable of dealing with the same subject matter within the same territory. Each may, without interference by the other, enact laws to secure prohibition, with the limitation that no legislation can give validity to acts prohibited by the amendment. Each government, in determining what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity, is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other. The separate sovereigns exemption has for much of its history been a controversial precedent which critics maintain is not rooted in the original text of the Constitution but is instead cobbled together from different partially relevant Supreme Court decisions -- decisions rooted in a time when the federal government was less powerful and whose questions never directly sought to address the explicit matter of double punishment for the same crime in state and federal jurisdictions. This argument is reflected in Gambles filing. filing The government argues in this case that the precedent is well-established through myriad Supreme Court cases and consistent with the Founding Fathers' vision of state and federal government duality: The dual-sovereignty principle has been long held, and consistently endorsed by this Court, which has recognized its soundness as a matter of [p]recedent, experience, and reason alike, The Court explained the roots of the principle more than 150 years ago. And in 1959, the Court described a challenge to the dual-sovereignty doctrine as not a new question, having been invoked and rejected in over twenty cases" ... Each sovereign is entitled to exercis[e] its own sovereignty to determin[e] what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity and prosecute the offender without interference by the other. Under petitioners interpretation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, one sovereigns efforts (successful or not) to enforce its own laws would vitiate the other sovereigns similar law-enforcement prerogatives. But that cannot be squared with the Constitutions bedrock structure of governance. In this case, Gamble has explicitly asked the Supreme Court to rule on a single specific question: Whether the Court should overrule the separate sovereigns exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause. The reason Gamble v. United States is generating buzz from people other than constitutional law scholars is that the separate sovereigns exception also prevents President Trump from pardoning people for state crimes. Under current Supreme Court precedent, a presidential pardon of an individual does not prevent that individual from being prosecuted for the same or similar crimes under state law. Under the dual sovereignty doctrine, Adam J. Adler wrote in the Yale Law Review, as long as two offenses are defined by different jurisdictions, they cannot constitute the same offense. wrote The Congressional Research Service issued an August 2018 report on the potential ramifications of the case, and this report included a discussion of its possible effect on the presidential pardon power: report The Gamble case may nevertheless have significant collateral legal effects ... A win for Gamble could also indirectly strengthen the Presidents pardon power, by precluding a state from prosecuting an already-pardoned defendant who has gone to trial on an overlapping offense. Some pundits have speculated that the reason why certain politicians seem to be in a rush to seat Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court is that is that he has a notably strong view of presidential powers and therefore would be a vote in favor of Gamble and for an expansion of presidential pardon powers -- and the Supreme Court announced they would be hearing this case the day after Justice Kennedys retirement. This temporal proximity has prompted some commenters to opine that the rush might be motivated by a desire to limit the presidents legal liability in the Russia probe and other investigations: strong view day after   While we cannot speculate on the motives of politicians who are supporting Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, The Atlantic reported that prominent political legal scholars agree in a general sense with the view of this cases having importance with regard to President Trumps pardon power: reported Within the context of the Mueller probe, legal observers have seen the dual-sovereignty doctrine as a check on President Donald Trumps power: It could discourage him from trying to shut down the Mueller investigation or pardon anyone caught up in the probe, because the pardon wouldnt be applied to state charges. Under settled law, if Trump were to pardon his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, for example -- he was convicted in federal court on eight counts of tax and bank fraud -- both New York and Virginia state prosecutors could still charge him for any crimes that violated their respective laws ... If the dual-sovereignty doctrine were tossed ... then Trumps pardon could theoretically protect Manafort from state action. If Trump were to shut down the investigation or pardon his associates, the escape hatch, then, is for cases to be farmed out or picked up by state-level attorneys general, who cannot be shut down by Trump and who generally -- but with some existing limits --can charge state crimes even after a federal pardon, explained Elie Honig, a former assistant U.S. attorney in New Jersey. The Atlantic also reported that at least one member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who approved Kavanaugh for a floor vote before the full Senate, Orrin Hatch, has publicly weighed in on the topic (unmotivated, he says, by the implications for the pardon power), filing an Amicus Curiae brief in favor of Gamble which argued that the pervasive federalization of criminal law to cover conduct that traditionally was prosecuted and punished by the states, and that falls within the states core legislative interests, threatens to undermine the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause unless the dual sovereignty doctrine is overruled in this context. Amicus Curiae Oral arguments for the case have not been scheduled but will occur during this Supreme Court term. If confirmed, Judge Kavanaugh could become a deciding vote in the case. Supreme Court of the United States.  Brief for Petitioner (No. 17-646)."
  24 October 2017. Cornell Legal Information Institute.  Double Jeopardy."
  Accessed 3 October 2018. U.S. Department of Justice.  9-2.031 - Dual and Successive Prosecution Policy ("Petite Policy")."
  Accessed 3 October 2018. Supreme Court of the United States.  United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377."
  11 December 1922. Supreme Court of the United States.  Brief for the United States in Opposition (No. 17-646)."
  16 January 2018. Adler, Adam J.  "Dual Sovereignty, Due Process, and Duplicative Punishment: A New Solution to an Old Problem."
  Yale Law Journal.  November 2014. Hsin, S.  "When Does Double Prosecution Count as Double Jeopardy?"
  Congressional Research Service.  16 August 2018. Kirby, Jen.  "7 Legal Experts on How Kavanaugh Views Executive Power  And What It Could Mean for Mueller."
  Vox.  11 July 2018. Vazquez, Maegan.  "Supreme Court Agrees to Hear 'Double Jeopardy' Case in the Fall."
  CNN.  22 June 2018. Bertrand, Natasha.  "A Supreme Court Case Could Liberate Trump to Pardon His Associates."
  The Atlantic.  25 September 2018 Supreme Court of the United States.  Brief of Senator Orrin Hatch as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner (No. 17-646)."
  11 September 2018. Updated [17 June 2019]: Added note that the Supreme Court ruled on this case. In December 2019, readers asked us about reports that claimed the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump had proposed changes to the way Social Security disability payments are made, which could cause thousands, even hundreds of thousands, to lose their benefits.  On Dec. 12, the Philadelphia Inquirer and Chicago Tribune posted an article with the headline "Trump Administration Proposes Social Security Rule Changes That Could Cut Off Thousands of Disabled Recipients." The article reported that: Inquirer Tribune "The Trump administration is proposing changes to Social Security that could terminate disability payments to hundreds of thousands of Americans, particularly older people and children. The new rule would change aspects of disability reviews  the methods by which the Social Security Administration determines whether a person continues to qualify for benefits. Few recipients are aware of the proposal, which is open for public comment through January." The left-leaning website Common Dreams published an article with the headline "'A National Disgrace': Trump Proposes Social Security Change That Could End Disability Benefits for Hundreds of Thousands.'" That story reported: article "Activists are working to raise public awareness and outrage over a little-noticed Trump administration proposal that could strip life-saving disability benefits from hundreds of thousands of people by further complicating the way the Social Security Administration determines who is eligible for payments." On the face of it, the changes proposed by the Trump administration would not, in fact, directly or immediately strip disability benefits from thousands of would-be recipients, rather the changes would introduce more (and more frequent) eligibility reviews for those who wish to receive them. However, some critics have argued that those increased bureaucratic requirements would over-burden some would-be recipients, in particular especially vulnerable recipients, and would ultimately (albeit indirectly) result in thousands losing disability benefits.  The Social Security Administration distributes disability benefits in two principle ways: Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), which typically provides benefits to people based on their previous Social Security tax contributions and history of work, and is paid out of the Social Security insurance fund; and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which typically provides benefits to people based on their disability status and inability to work, and is paid out of general tax coffers.  ways In order to prevent potential abuse and waste in the system, the Social Security Administration conducts "continuing disability reviews," essentially investigating whether each recipient still has a disabling condition, and if so, which kind. Those reviews take place more or less frequently, depending on the nature of each individual's disability, broken into three "medical diary categories," as follows: reviews In November, the Social Security Administration published its proposals to make several changes to the review system. The most significant proposal was to add a fourth medical diary category, "Medical Improvement Likely." Recipients placed in that category would undergo a review every two years. proposals According to a document accompanying the proposals, the decision to introduce the fourth category was made, in part, because the administration saw a pattern whereby some in the "Medical Improvement Expected" category were being prematurely subjected to re-evaluation, after six-18 months, before a medical improvement had the chance to take hold, and some in the "Medical Improvement Possible" category had successfully treated their impairment comfortably within the three-year review interval. The introduction of the new category would therefore mean the bureaucratic burden on some recipients would actually be lessened, since they would be subject to review less frequently, though clearly it would also mean others would be subject to more frequent reviews. On the whole, the administration has estimated that, between 2020 and 2029, the new category would tend towards requiring more frequent reviews for those currently in the "Medical Improvement Possible" category, rather than less frequent reviews for those currently in the "Medical Improvement Expected" category:   The administration expects the introduction of the "Medical Improvement Likely" category to lead to an 18 percent increase in the total number of reviews undertaken over the next decade. This would therefore lead to an increased up-front cost in administering the disability benefits programs, and an increased aggregate bureaucratic burden to recipients (even if some individual recipients would actually undergo reviews less frequently).  Greater scrutiny of individual cases, and enhanced enforcement of eligibility criteria, results in some recipients no longer being deemed eligible, and no longer receiving either SSDI or SSI, which saves money for the Social Security insurance fund and the Treasury, respectively. For the 2015 fiscal year, for example, the Social Security Administration calculated a 19.9:1 return on investment rate for disability benefits enforcement  meaning that for every $1 spent on performing reviews, the government would save $19.90 on disability benefits that would otherwise have been paid, over the course of a lifetime, to recipients who are now deemed ineligible. To be specific, the administration estimated that the $717 million spent on reviews in 2015 would ultimately save $14.3 billion in lifetime disability benefit payments.  calculated So the introduction of the Trump administration's proposals is highly likely to ultimately lead to thousands of disability benefits recipients no longer receiving those benefits  both because some will be overburdened by the bureaucratic demands of more frequent reviews, and because some recipients whose medical status no longer meets the eligibility criteria will have that ineligibility discovered sooner. A considerable measure of truth, therefore, exists in the reports published by the Philadelphia Inquirer and Common Dreams. However, those articles failed to mention an important component to the administration's proposals: They would not change how a recipient's eligibility is determined, only how often that determination takes place. As the proposal stated: "We are not changing the Medical Improvement Review Standard that we use to determine whether a person continues to meet the disability requirements of the Act." This means that, while the proposed increase in the number and frequency of reviews was highly likely to ultimately cause thousands to lose their benefits, that loss of benefits would not be arbitrary, or based on an application of a new and different standard for determining whether someone's health has improved. The standards and criteria for assessing whether an improvement has taken place would be the same as currently exist, and only the frequency of those reviews would change. In other words, some recipients would be subject to more frequent reviews, but if those more frequent reviews result in a finding that the recipient still has a qualifying disability or impairment  based on the same criteria as currently apply  the recipient would continue to receive disability benefits.  It could be that, as some critics have argued, the proposal represents an elegant way for the administration to save money by removing thousands from the recipient rolls without having to change eligibility criteria  the latter a move that would be more likely to cause public outrage or political opposition. However, on its face at least, the proposal involves enhanced enforcement of existing eligibility standards and criteria. That's an important distinction, and a significant omission from news articles that reported, with some justification, that the Trump administration had proposed changes to Social Security disability benefits that would cause thousands to be stripped of those benefits.  argued Lubrano, Alfred. "Trump Administration Proposes Social Security Rule Changes That Could Cut Off Thousands of Disabled Recipients."
 The Philadelphia Inquirer/The Chicago Tribune. 12 December 2019. Johnson, Jake. "'A National Disgrace': Trump Proposes Social Security Change That Could End Disability Benefits for Hundreds of Thousands."
 Common Dreams. 16 December 2019. Social Security Administration. "Proposed Rule -- Rules Regarding the Frequency and Notice of Continuing Disability Reviews."
 Federal Register. 18 November 2019.