The national debt is on track to double during Obamas presidency.
Possible presidential aspirant Scott Walker opens his newbookwith a dismal depiction of conditions in the nations capital. If you are like me, the view from Washington, D.C., these days is pretty grim, the Republican governor writes in Unintimidated: A Governor's Story and a Nation's Challenge, which is due out Nov. 19, 2013. Barack Obama has been elected to a second term. Obamacare will not be repealed anytime soon. Congress has approved massive tax increases. Then Walker makes this claim: The national debt is on track to double during Obamas presidency. Lets see how much the debt has grown and to what extent Obama is responsible. What is the debt? We hear plenty about the federal debt and annual federal budget deficits. So, lets make sure were on the same page before we dig in. Total federal debt, also known as gross debt, is the amount of debt issued by the U.S. Treasury and other federal agencies. It has two components: Debt held by the government is money the government owes itself. Mainly, the government borrows from trust funds such as Social Security and Medicare -- payments owed to beneficiaries in the future -- to fund current government operations. Debt held by the public is owed to investors outside the federal government, including individual and corporate investors in the United States and overseas, foreign governments, the Federal Reserve and other entities. It's money the government borrows when it runs annual budget deficits -- in other words, the money the government needs to bridge the gap between what it spends and what it takes in. How much is the debt? Jacquelynn Burke, a publicist for Sentinel, Walkers publisher, responded to our request to Walker for information to back his claim. She told us Walker was referring to total debt and to the portion held by the public and cited two documents from Obamas own administration, a2013 reportfrom the Council of Economic Advisers and Obamas2014 budget. Its helpful here to note that debt is tallied at the end of the fiscal year and that the federal fiscal year runs from October through September. So, fiscal 2008 started in October 2007 and ended in September 2008. The documents Walker relies on show total debt on pace to double -- from $9.99 trillion in fiscal 2008 to an estimated $20 trillion in fiscal 2016; and debt held by the public to more than double, from $5.8 trillion to $14.7 trillion. (FactCheck.org also reports that debt held by the public ison pace to doubleduring Obamas presidency.) Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, cited the same documents Walker did when we asked him about Walkers claim. Edwards said that, even though fiscal 2008 ended more than three months before Obama was first inaugurated, it is a good starting point because most of the debt accumulated in fiscal 2009 was from Obamas stimulus plan. Joshua Gordon, policy director at the centristConcord Coalition, which advocates for fiscal responsibility, argued that a better starting point is the end of fiscal 2009 -- a year later than what Walker uses -- since Obama would have been in office for nearly nine months at that point. He also argued against examining total debt, saying that since it includes borrowing from Social Security, it doesn't really have any economic significance. Gordon cited figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office for debt held by the public. They show that that portion of the total debt was $7.54 trillion at the end of fiscal 2009, but isnt projected to double until fiscal 2019, after Obama leaves office. Gordon and Marc Goldwein, senior policy director of the nonprofitCommittee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan organization focused on debt reduction, also made another point on comparing debt levels over time. They told us measuring debt as a percentage of gross domestic product is better for comparison purposes than simply using raw dollars. According to Congressional Budget Office figures, debt held by the public as a percentage of gross domestic product wont double during Obamas presidency. They show debt held by the public at the end of 2009 was equal to 52.3% of gross domestic product. Thats expected to reach 76.2% at the end of fiscal 2014, but then drop during the rest of Obamas presidency. At the same time, the federal debt is commonly reported in raw dollars, not as a percentage of GDP. So, at least in terms of raw dollars, there is evidence that debt is projected to double during Obamas time in office. Who's to blame Walker implied that Obama plays a role in how much the debt has grown, but he didnt say the president caused the increase. That squares with how weve evaluated similar claims in the past. For one thing, each president inherits the previous presidents budget, as well as the interest payments needed to pay off debts accumulated under previous presidents. Moreover, about two-thirds of the annual deficit during Obamas presidency term has been from entitlements and interest. Entitlements, such as Social Security and Medicare, are less susceptible to a presidents policy preferences than discretionary spending that Congress must approve on an annual basis. Entitlements are also more heavily driven by demographic factors, such as the aging of the population, which is also out of any presidents control. For its part, The White House didn't challenge Walker's claim, but cited documents indicating that annual deficits are becoming smaller. A couple of other points on responsibility for the debt before we close. Ananalysisby the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities acknowledged that deficits and debt have been sharply higher under Obama. But the analysis says the Great Recession, tax cuts adopted under President George W. Bush, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain most of the deficits that have occurred on Obamas watch. The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, meanwhile, traces the the debt problem back even further, to around 1970, when the government decided to significantly increase spending without a corresponding increase in revenue. The problem cant be fixed, according to thatanalysis, without creating a mechanism to prevent the government from running persistent deficits in the future. Our rating Walker said: The national debt is on track to double during Obamas presidency. Documents from Obamas own administration indicate the debt is on pace to double in raw dollars, the way the debt is commonly reported, though not as a percentage of gross domestic product. Walker aptly indicated that Obama bears part of the blame. We rate Walkers statement Mostly True. To comment on this item, please go toJSOnline.com.
FACT CHECK:  Photograph shows shooting victim Trayvon Martin at Space Camp.  Claim:  A photograph shows shooting victim Trayvon Martin at Space Camp in 2009.    MOSTLY  Summary:   A photograph of Trayvon Martin at a STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) Education Coalition-related activity is real, although it was taken at Experience Aviation and not at Space Camp (or Aviation Challenge Camp). Example:    [Collected via e-mail and Facebook, September 2015]  I saw a facebook post with a picture of a young black youth from 2009. The post says: Notice how we never knew Trayvon Martin went to space camp. How media shapes black boy narratives. Is this really a picture of Trayvon Martin at Space Camp? -------------------------------------------------------- I've seen this circulating on Twitter and Facebook... this particular one is from "The Other 98%." Its a photo supposedly of Trayvon Martin at Space Camp taken on 8/11/2009. I've been unable to find a reputable source corroborating its authenticity but it appears to be fake in order to advance a particular political persuasion. Origins:   In late September 2015, Florida resident George Zimmerman (acquitted of criminal charges in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin in 2012) attracted media attention once again after re-tweeting a photograph of Martin's body. Consequently, a social media claim about photograph documenting Martin's attendance at a Space Camp gained related traction. George Zimmerman Renewed interest in the photograph of Martin at Space Camp didn't begin with Zimmerman's controversial Twitter activity, as copies of it were circulating several weeks prior (in August 2014): Trayvon Martin at Space Camp in Florida. #BlackLivesMatter pic.twitter.com/z98u2d4OPs #BlackLivesMatter pic.twitter.com/z98u2d4OPs  Khaled Bey (@KhaledBeydoun) August 15, 2015 August 15, 2015   Notice how we never knew #TrayvonMartin went to Space Camp. how media shapes black boy narratives. #GeorgeZimmerman pic.twitter.com/18NjL0fwz2 #TrayvonMartin #GeorgeZimmerman pic.twitter.com/18NjL0fwz2  Raqiyah Mays (@RaqiyahMays) August 18, 2015 August 18, 2015   While the claim was neither extraordinary nor implausible, persistent tensions over Martin's death and Zimmerman's acquittal led to doubt among some social media users about whether the photograph was authentic. Debate over its authenticity escalated after Zimmerman's re-tweet, and on 26-27 September 2015 comedian Steve Marmel published items to Twitter and Facebook encouraging fellow users to respond to Zimmerman with the photograph whenever he mentioned Martin on social media. Twitter In his Facebook post, Marmel included the photograph shown above and explained his intent in publicizing the image: post Yesterday, I learned that George Zimmerman decided it would be fun to retweet Trayvon Martin's dead body. Soulless. Someone on this page - you can scroll the comments to see who - suggested that whenever Zimmerman does that.... And he does it a lot because he seems to be a sociopath, the reply should be this. A picture of the life he took. On his timeline. For all to see. I'm tired of this guy too. I want twitter to shut off his megaphone - to stop him from harassing INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE and doing this endless end-zone dance about how he got away with it. And after that, I never want to speak of him again. I do not wish him harm. I just wish him obscurity. Until then: Support for this man should be a societal litmus test that you either pass or fail. I thought this was a good idea.  Claims (unaccompanied by photographs) that Trayvon Martin had attended Space Camp emerged early on in the debate over his death. A 13 April 2012 editorial in Ebony, published when polemics assailing Martin's character had not yet begun to gain significant traction, examined the impact of respectability politics on the Martin family during the very early, pre-trial days of the case. At the time of the article's publication, Ebony's assertion about Martin and Space Camp was not yet the sort that would solicit doubt or skepticism as part of a narrative that hadn't yet developed: respectability However, it is worth considering how differently this developing story might be playing out if Trayvon and his clan were not such respectable Negroes; no one has been able to document any real evidence of Martin being anything other than a typical kid. One who wore Hollister clothes, went to space camp and played football. One who seemed more poised for the next season of Degrassi before youd ever picture him hanging around the kids from The Wire. A 19 July 2013 HLN piece partly corroborated the claim by way of Martin's mother, Sybrina Fulton: piece Fulton also made mention of her son's interest in aviation.  She noted, "I actually have a brother that was involved in aviation. I don't want to say 'convinced,' but he encouraged him to pursue aviation. And Trayvon did. He went to experience aviation  the program Barrington Irving has. He started going there, like, over the summer.  He really enjoyed the program. He really was very interested. He would not miss a day. It was just something that he was focused on. He wanted to just be in the aviation industry."  The photograph of now-contested authenticity depicted Martin in a hangar wearing a Space Camp-style flight suit, and it was dated 11 August 2009. Martin was repeatedly mentioned on Facebook by Experience Aviation shortly after his death, and related organizations similarly confirmed that Martin attended "Experience Aviation" in the summer of 2009. Experience Aviation's web site details the organization's mission: Space Camp flight suit mentioned Experience Aviation Experience Aviation Experience Aviation is a nonprofit organization that utilizes aviation to build STEM skills in students and direct them toward careers in aviation and other STEM-related fields. In 2005, at age 21, Barrington Irving founded the non-profit organization, Experience Aviation Inc., to address the shortage of skilled professionals in aviation and other STEM-related industries by motivating youth and encouraging them to pursue careers involving Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math. Experience Aviation is a 501-C3 non-profit organization based at Opa-Locka Executive Airport and the Glenn Curtiss Mansion in Miami Springs. The organization operates two 3,200-square-foot Learning Center facilities. Successful programs offered at the Center and at community partner facilities include a 10-week Build & Soar Project, a STEM Summer Academy, Inspiration Career Tours, and a Career Development/Internship program.  Irving spoke of Martin in a 30 March 2012 CNN piece about the teen's death and was depicted alongside a younger Martin in a separate article: piece separate During the summer of 2009, his parents  who separated when Martin was 11, but shared custody  enrolled their 14-year-old son in "Experience Aviation," a nonprofit program in Opa-Locka, Florida, that introduces young people to aviation. The seven-week program is the brainchild of Barrington Irving, the youngest person ever  and the first black pilot  to fly solo around the world, a feat he accomplished in 2007 at the age of 23. Irving remembered Martin as "a polite kid" who enjoyed flying. "When I first met Trayvon he had a strong interest in football. He reminded me of myself because I had a strong interest in football until I fell in love with aviation," said Irving. After graduating from the program, Martin spent the following summer as a volunteer, assisting new students enrolled in the aviation program. The photograph was authentic as confirmed by multiple involved parties in April and May of 2015. It bordered on splitting hairs to note that the program was not specifically Space Camp, but a separate, STEM-based summer science enrichment program called Experience Aviation. Conflation of the two was neither likely deliberate nor largely inaccurate: Martin did attend aviation camp during the summer of 2009, and was fondly remembered by the organization that hosted him. The September 2015 controversy (reignited by Zimmerman's tacit Twitter approval of a graphic photo of Martin's dead body) filtered the claim through a then-current lens: folks believed those who maintained Martin went to Space Camp had  fabricated the detail to further paint the teen as sympathetic or otherwise more worthy of compassion in light of that renewed debate. But the photograph appeared on the Internet no later than May 2012, a time when attacks on Martin's character had not yet begun in earnest. Martin's STEM camp attendance described in print in April 2012 (in a slightly inaccurate manner), and photographs supporting that assertion surfaced on the web in May 2012 or earlier. Not only did those separate assertions precede the bulk later claims about Martin, they appeared separately and remained largely uncontested until Zimmerman's retweet in September 2015. May 2012 Last updated:     28 September 2015 Originally published:   28 September 2015 Way back in the olden days of 2007, readers were asking us about this much-circulated bit of helpful advice concerning automobile fuel level displays: I have been driving for many years. One would think I would have noticed the little secret on my dash that was staring me right in the face the whole time. I didn't and I bet you probably haven't either. Quick question, what side of your car is your gas tank? You probably can't remember right away especially if you drive more than one car or if you do a rental while on vacation. My solution was to uncomfortably stick my head out the window, strain my neck and look. If you don't do this in your own car you definitely have done it in a borrowed or rental car. If you look at your gas gauge, you will see a small icon of a gas pump. The handle of the gas pump will extend out on either the left or right side of the pump. If your tank is on the left, the handle will be on the left. If your tank is on the right, the handle will be on the right (see attached images). It is that simple! Why don't the dealers share such important information with car buyers? I have on purpose asked many car salesmen since I found this out and 'THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW THIS - NOT ONE DID'. As anyone who has driven a rental car well knows, it is indeed useful to have some sort of indicator on the instrument panel that reveals which side to refuel on. Sadly, "The World's Best Kept Auto Secret" (as the e-mail was often titled) was a bit of misinformation or a misunderstanding: while the indicator it described was real, the "The World's Best Kept Auto Secret" message misidentified its nature. The nozzle-and-hose side of the fuel level (or "low fuel") indicator, which is usually presented as an icon depicting a gas pump, doesn't consistently correspond with the side of the car where the fuel door is to be found, nor does its placement on the instrument array (left side versus right side) tell whether you should bring the passenger's or driver's side up next to the pumps at your local gas station.  There's no magic to it. Although "The World's Best Kept Auto Secret" will prove true for some vehicles, it won't for others, it's akin to the many folkloric "tests" for determining an unborn child's sex, it has only two outcomes (the icon's nozzle-and-hose side and the side the vehicle's fuel door is on match or they don't), so this "secret" will work  sometimes but not always. (Yes, we know that some vehicles have their fuel doors in the back, but there are so few of them that for the purpose of this discussion we might as well ignore that possibility.)  sex The fuel icons in modern cars do inform drivers which side to refuel on, but it's not the placement or shape of the fuel icon that carries that information: Nearly all newer models of automobiles include a small arrow or triangle next to the fuel icon that indicates which side of the vehicle bears the fuel door.  As seen in the graphic example displayed below, sometimes the arrow and fuel handle are on opposite sides of the icon; it's the former, not the latter, that signifies where the gas cap is:  There's no agreement among auto manufacturers as to which side the gas cap should be on (which, if they would just choose one side or the other, would solve the whole problem right there: you'd then always know which side of your vehicle to park closest to the pump). It would make more sense to consistently position the aperture on the passenger's side, both because it's easier to get out of your vehicle when you don't have to weasel your bulk past the gas pump you've just parked next to, and because should you run out of gas on the highway, it's a lot safer to pour more in when you're not standing next to the traffic whizzing by you. An argument can also be made for placing the gas cap on the rear of vehicles. Were it there, you would no longer need be concerned about getting any particular side of your car sidled up to the pump:  provided the rear of the vehicle were somewhat close to the refueling array, it wouldn't matter if the gas pump island were to the left or the right.  Yet another solution would be to have two fuel entry doors, one on each side. That notion, however, fails on cost. According to Rick Asher, a spokesman for General Motors, the cost of putting a gas cap on both sides of a vehicle would far exceed the value of the added convenience for the vast majority of people. Which leaves us right back where we started, which is having to make mental note of which side a vehicle's fuel door is on when driving rentals or other cars unfamiliar to us (or try checking the side-view mirrors to see where it is before pulling up to the pumps). Cichowski, John.  "An Idea on Gas-Cap Issue We Can All Get Behind."
  The [Bergen County] Record.  20 January 2006  (p. A3).

 Huntsville Times.  "Gas Cap Adaption Not Worth the Cost."
  4 December 2005  (p. A2). Claim:  Comedian Bill Cosby's remarks form the basis of a 'We Can't Blame White People' essay. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2005] They're standing on the corner and they can't speak English. I can't even talk the way these people talk: Why you ain't, Where you is, What he drive, Where he stay, Where he work, Who you be... And I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk. And then I heard the father talk. Everybody knows it's important to speak English except these knuckleheads. You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth.  In fact you will never get any kind of job making a decent living. People marched and were hit in the face with rocks to get an education, and now we've got these knuckleheads walking around. The lower economic people are not holding up their end in this deal. These people are not parenting. They are buying things for kids. $500 sneakers for what? And they won't spend $200 for Hooked on Phonics.  I am talking about these people who cry when their son is standing there in an orange suit. Where were you when he was 2?  Where were you when he was 12? Where were you when he was 18 and how come you didn't know that he had a pistol? And where is the father?  Or who is his father? People putting their clothes on backward: Isn't that a sign of something gone wrong? People with their hats on backward, pants down around the crack, isn't that a sign of something? Or are you waiting for Jesus to pull his pants up? Isn't it a sign of something when she has her dress all the way up and got all type of needles [piercing] going through her body? What part of Africa did this come from?  We are not Africans. Those people are not Africans; they don't know a thing about Africa. With names like Shaniqua, Taliqua and Mohammed and all of that crap, and all of them are in jail. Brown or black versus the Board of Education is no longer the white person's problem. We have got to take the neighborhood back. People used to be ashamed.  Today a woman has eight children with eight different 'husbands'  or men or whatever you call them now. We have millionaire football players who cannot read. We have million-dollar basketball players who can't write two paragraphs. We as black folks have to do a better job. Someone working at Wal-Mart with seven kids, you are hurting us. We have to start holding each other to a higher standard. We cannot blame the white people any longer. Origins:  On 17 May 2004, at an NAACP event commemorating the 50th anniversary of Brown vs. Board of Education, the landmark Supreme Court decision that struck down school segregation, entertainer Bill Cosby gave a speech on the theme of blacks in America taking responsibility for their own lives. In his exposition to that assembly, the man known to television viewing audiences as lovable, kindly, yet permanently bemused patriarch Dr. Huxtable spoke harshly about his  speech  perception of the ills affecting black American society. He cited elevated school dropout rates for inner-city black students and criticized low-income blacks for not using the opportunities the civil rights movement has won for them. Blacks, by their unplanned pregnancies, poor parenting, lack of education, non-standard English, counter-culture dress, and involvement in crime, fail the black community as well as themselves, he said. That May 2004 speech has been both praised and condemned, and excerpts from it have been cobbled together (often in forms that rearrange and present them out of context) and circulated on the Internet under titles such as "We Can't Blame White People" and "Bill Has Done It Again."  Bill Cosby has not repudiated his controversial pronouncements or attempted to distance himself from them. Instead, he has chosen to expand upon his theme on subsequent occasions and to make himself a spokesperson for black self-empowerment through education and better parenting. In the service of this cause, he has drawn upon his celebrity to make his voice heard; but, unlike many entertainers who take to the soapbox to decry their btes noires, he brings far more to the podium than merely a recognizable face and a fan base. This man who is best known to the world as a comedian holds a doctorate in education. He is also highly regarded in the African-American community, where he and his wife, Camille, are prized for their philanthropy. (The Cosbys were present at the NAACP event that sparked the e-mail quoted above in order to be honored for their open-handed generosity in donating money to black colleges.)  Dr. Cosby defended his comments almost as soon as he made them. The day after, he said in an interview: "It makes no sense to claim that these are things that belong quietly in the black community. We have to figure out how do you get parenting back into the home. This is a problem of epic proportion." Then, in a statement released shortly after the NAACP gala, he made clear his purpose: "I think that it is time for concerned African-Americans to march, galvanize and raise  the awareness about this epidemic, to transform our helplessness, frustration and righteous indignation into a sense of shared responsibility and action." In another interview, he said: "I feel that I can no longer remain silent. If I have to make a choice between keeping quiet so that conservative media does not speak negatively or ringing the bell to galvanize those who want change in the lower economic community, then I choose to be a bell ringer."  In July 2004, he again took to the public soapbox to expound upon his thesis. In a speech given at Rev. Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition/PUSH Coalition conference in Chicago, he said:  "You've got to stop beating up your women because you can't find a job, because you didn't want to get an education and now you're (earning) minimum wage. You should have thought more of yourself when you were in high school, when you had an opportunity." In December 2004, he addressed a panel at Medgar Evers College in Brooklyn, telling them: "Stop waiting for a leader. Get Up! Tell your friends. And if they can't get up, we must see about them because they are true victims ... It's time to study four hours a day with your children. Teach them how much they'll be worth when they have A's instead of F's." Barbara "sag your pants, sag your chances, says Cos" Mikkelson Variations:  An August 2009 variant prefaced Dr. Cosby's remarks with the following claim regarding their origins: Bill Cosby's response on the Bailout in America This is actually word for word what he said to a gathering of students who asked about the bailout in America Great response. This man deserves a Nobel Prize. As noted above, this item dates from a talk Dr. Cosby gave in 2004, so his words had nothing to do with any economic bailouts provided to businesses in 2009. Last updated:  19 May 2014    Harris, Paul.  "The Paradox That Divides Black America."   The Observer.  9 October 2005.    Mitchell, Mary.  "Cosby Gave It to Us Straight  and It's a Valuable Lesson."   Chicago Sun-Times.  3 June 2004  (p. 14).    O'Connor, Austin.  "A Beloved Comic, Now Crusader."   Lowell Sun.  18 November 2004.    Suggs, Ernie.  "Cosby, Unbowed, Defends Remarks."   Cox News Service.  2 July 2004.    Associated Press.  "Cosby Continues to Challenge African-Americans."   15 December 2004. Sometimes, the circulation of misinformation revives interest in separate, similar, but still inaccurate claims. Thisappeared to be the case with a March 2016 internet rumor alleging that the Food and Drug Administration classified walnuts as drugs. In February and March 2016, the FDA was already the subject of rumors that the agency "outlawed"cannabidiol (CBD) oils. Almost immediately, rumors began to surfaceon social media that walnuts had also recently fallen prey to preposterous reclassification by the FDA. outlawed While the rumors weren't new, interest in whether walnuts were drugs spiked in March 2016. Many social media users linked to a RealFarmacy itemfrom2013. On 23 March 2016, the Facebook page "Living Traditionally" sharedthe 2013 article as if its claims were new: item shared    The 2013 article claimed thatFDA sent letters to walnut distributor Diamond Foods deeming that their "walnut products [were] drugs": Seen any walnuts in your medicine cabinet lately? According to the Food and Drug Administration, that is precisely where you should find them. Because Diamond Foods made truthful claims about the health benefits of consuming walnuts that the FDA didnt approve, it sent the company a letter declaring, Your walnut products are drugs  and new drugs at that  and, therefore, they may not legally be marketed  in the United States without an approved new drug application. The agency even threatened Diamond with seizure if it failed to comply. RealFarmacy alsoclaimedthat manufacturers' First Amendment rights were being infringed by the FDA's regulation of unsubstantiated health claims: Of course, if the Constitution were being followed as intended, none of this would be necessary. The FDA would not exist; but if it did, as a creation of Congress it would have no power to censor any speech whatsoever. If companies are making false claims about their products, the market will quickly punish them for it, and genuine fraud can be handled through the courts. In the absence of a government agency supposedly guaranteeing the safety of their food and drugs and the truthfulness of producers claims, consumers would become more discerning, as indeed they already are becoming despite the FDAs attempts to prevent the dissemination of scientific research. Besides, as [another blog]observed, If anyone still thinks that federal agencies like the FDA protect the public, this proclamation that healthy foods are illegal drugs exposes the governments sordid charade. The site linked to a letter publicly shared on the FDA's website, which wasalready several years old by the time the 2013 article was published,and whichplainly indicated that itsaction was due to health claimsmadeabout walnuts in labeling and marketing: letter The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has reviewed the label for your "Diamond of California Shelled Walnuts" products and your website at www.diamondnuts.com. Based on our review, we have concluded that your walnut products are in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) and the applicable regulations in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR) ... Based on claims made on your firm's website, we have determined that your walnut products are promoted for conditions that cause them to be drugs because these products are intended for use in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease. The following are examples of the claims made on your firm's website under the heading of a web page stating "OMEGA-3s ... Every time you munch a few walnuts, you're doing your body a big favor.": "Studies indicate that the omega-3 fatty acids found in walnuts may help lower cholesterol; protect against heart disease, stroke and some cancers; ease arthritis and other inflammatory diseases; and even fight depression and other mental illnesses." "[I]n treating major depression, for example, omega-3s seem to work by making it easier for brain cell receptors to process mood-related signals from neighboring neurons." No part of the letter said (or even implied)that walnuts had been subjected to a sweeping reclassificationasdrugs, and inthe ensuing six years, no one was arrested for or charged with possession of walnuts with intent to distribute. Additionally,the FDA didn't ban, regulate, or demand withdrawal of Diamond Foods' walnuts, or any other, from the market, but did go after the company for unauthorizedhealth claims: The back of your product label also bears the following statement: "The omega-3 in walnuts can help you get the proper balance of fatty acids your body needs for promoting and maintaining heart health. In fact, according to the Food and Drug Administration, supportive but not conclusive research shows that eating 1.5 oz of walnuts per day, as part of a low saturated fat and low cholesterol diet, and not resulting in increased caloric intake, may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease. Please refer to nutrition information for fat content and other details about the nutritional profile of walnuts." Although FDA exercises enforcement discretion over the last two sentences of this statement, which meet the criteria for a qualified health claim for walnuts and coronary heart disease, the last two sentences read in conjunction with the first sentence makes the entire statement an unauthorized health claim. The statement suggests that the evidence supporting a relationship between walnuts and coronary heart disease is related to the omega-3 fatty acid content of walnuts. There is not sufficient evidence to identify a biologically active substance in walnuts that reduces the risk of CHD. Therefore, the above statement is an unauthorized health claim. This letter is not intended to be an inclusive review of your products and their labeling. It is your responsibility to ensure that all of your products comply with the Act and its implementing regulations. As with claims that CBD oils wereoutlawed, blogs and Facebook pages spreading rumors that walnuts had been reclassified as drugs either didn't read or misrepresented the FDA's warning letters. In both instances, manufacturers were warned about use of marketing and labeling language that warranted classification of the products in question as drugs, primarily pertaining to suggestion that the substances or foods were "intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or preventanycondition." Thewarnings werespecifically due an "unauthorized health claim," and products that arenot classified as drugs by the FDA are not legally allowed tomake such claims. However, the letters in no way indicated that walnuts had been classified as drugs. Prior dubious itemsfromRealFarmacyincludedclaims that science disproved a link between sun exposure and skin cancer, and another baselessly accusing unspecifiedpro-GMObioterrorists of sabotaging Chipotle's productsupply with foodborne pathogens. skin cancer bioterrorists Announced in April 2021, U.S. President Joe Bidens American Families Plan is an ambitious proposal that aims to expand Americans' access to childcare and education and increase the number of women in the workforce. The plan is to fund all of this through more taxes on higher-income earners and increased reporting requirements of banks that could potentially yield more tax revenue. These reporting requirements have caught the ire of a number of banks that took issue with this less widely known section of the plan. Announced reporting A Facebook post by FNB Community Bank claimed: The Biden administration has proposed requiring all community banks and other financial institutions to report to the IRS on all deposits and withdrawals through business and personal accounts worth more than $600 regardless of tax liability. This indiscriminate, comprehensive bank account reporting to the [Internal Revenue Service (IRS)] can soon be enacted in Congress and will create an unacceptable invasion of privacy for our customers. Facebook post   Another screenshot shared by our readers expressed similar concerns:   The Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) even began a campaign, calling on communities to send a letter to Biden to prevent this so-called intrusive proposal": began a campaign, Tell Congress: Don't Let IRS Invade My Privacy The Biden administration is proposing requiring financial institutions report to the IRS all transactions of all business and personal accounts worth more than $600. This is an unprecedented invasion of privacy. In order to knock down this intrusive proposal, please send this letter to your representative and senators immediately. We looked up the proposal itself, and it does require more robust reporting of transactions across business and personal accounts. The proposal, which aims to go into effect after Dec. 31, 2022, states: proposal This proposal would create a comprehensive financial account information reporting regime. Financial institutions would report data on financial accounts in an information return. The annual return will report gross inflows and outflows with a breakdown for physical cash, transactions with a foreign account, and transfers to and from another account with the same owner. This requirement would apply to all business and personal accounts from financial institutions, including bank, loan, and investment accounts, with the exception of accounts below a low de minimis gross flow threshold of $600 or fair market value of $600. We begin by explaining some of the more technical terms in this proposal. A "de minimis threshold" is broadly defined as the amount of a transaction that has such a small value that accounting for it would be unreasonable. We spoke to Visiting Assistant Professor of Tax Law at New York University, Nyamagaga Gondwe, who explained, "It is the amount below which the [IRS] would argue isn't worth investigating. It's the difference between your company giving you a $5 card to Subway, versus traveling on a private jet on your company's dime. [The latter] is worth reporting." In this case, "gross flow" refers to the aggregate inflows and outflows of cash from bank accounts. In sum, the current proposal stipulates that an aggregate amount of less than $600 worth of cash flowing into and out of accounts is not worth reporting.  defined gross flow The "fair market value" refers to the amount people are willing to pay for an asset in the open market. In this case, Gondwe argued, the use of the term could possibly refer to the changing market value of transactions more than $600 that may occur in foreign currency transactions.  refers to The ICBA claims that the proposal will make banks report "all transactions" above the limit, but this is misleading. While it is true that the IRS will have more information on cashflows above $600, that doesnt mean they will have all the information pertaining to all transactions. The Center for American Progress (CAP) points out that banks will only be providing aggregate numbers to the IRS after each year  gross inflow and gross outflow  and not individualized transaction information. This reporting requirement would also extend to peer-to-peer payment services like Venmo, but wouldnt require people to report any additional information to the government. According to The Wall Street Journal, financial institutions must already report interest, dividends, and investment incomes to the IRS, and the IRS can get other information through audits. Center for American Progress extend Wall Street Journal audits According to Marie Sapirie of Tax Notes, a publication focused on tax news, a parenthetical to the proposal indicates that there is some flexibility on raising the minimum account balance/inflow/outflow above $600. Tax Notes parenthetical The Tax Notes report also states that the treasury department estimated this form of reporting would raise $463 billion over the 10-year budget window, making it the third largest revenue raiser proposed in the budget. The aim is to target businesses outside of large corporations that carry out gross underreporting of their income in the amount of $166 billion per year. According to the proposal: Requiring comprehensive information reporting on the inflows and outflows of financial accounts will increase the visibility of gross receipts and deductible expenses to the IRS. Increased visibility of business income will enhance the effectiveness of IRS enforcement measures and encourage voluntary compliance. Tax Notes aim Banks claim this would be an invasion of consumer privacy, with the ICBA saying it would allow the government to monitor account information. However, CAP analysts Seth Hanlon and Galen Hendricks argue, Only the prior years total inflow and total outflow would be reported on annual forms. No one would say that the IRS monitors you on your job because it receives a W-2 from your employer with your total wages every January. saying argue Another challenge not mentioned in the ICBAs consumer alert is the higher costs this reporting proposal may place on banks. In May 2021, a coalition of banking associations wrote a letter to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, arguing that they already give a lot of data to the IRS, and that this would impose additional costs on their systems: consumer alert wrote a letter The costs and other burdens imposed to collect and report account flow information would surpass the potential benefits from such a reporting scheme. New reporting would appear to require material development costs and process additions for financial institutions, as well as significant reconciliation and compliance burden on impacted taxpayers. For example, reporting total gross receipts and disbursements would require a new reporting paradigm for depository institutions, which necessitates system changes to collect the information. On the flipside, Sapirie wrote for Tax Notes, the benefits of such a reporting proposal may be difficult to come by: Tax Notes Increasing the amount of information flowing into the IRS would not in itself lead to increased enforcement, and it might come with added challenges. [Former IRS Commissioner Charles O.] Rossotti acknowledged that the IRS today cannot use all the information it already receives, and significant areas of noncompliance are barely addressed, so more reporting alone will not solve the problem. It would almost certainly have a deterrent effect for taxpayers contemplating evasion, but the extent of that effect is unclear, and it might be insufficient to justify the costs to financial institutions and the federal government of implementing such a large new reporting regime. But CAPs analysis argues that this will help prevent tax evasion, while also providing more funding to enhance data security for consumers: CAPs analysis Additional funding would go to enhancing data security. Even at present, the IRS data security is already much better than the financial industry, with only very rare and limited breaches compared to the exponentially bigger data breaches from financial institutions. Second, the reporting of information flows only from financial institutions to the IRS and not in the other direction, as some earlier proposals had called for.  [...] The Biden administrations bank reporting proposal is a critical element of the Build Back Better agenda. It gives the IRS some visibility into opaque forms of income that disproportionately accrue to high-income individuals. Despite fearmongering from bank lobbies, the proposal protects taxpayers privacy while simply requiring banks to provide basic, aggregated information about flows. That enables the IRS to select audits in a more efficient and equitable way so that the vast majority of taxpayers will be less likely to be audited. And by deterring and helping catch tax cheats, the proposal raises substantial revenue for the Build Back Better agenda, which provides critical investments to increase economic opportunities for American families and communities. On Oct. 12, 2021, Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended the proposal in response to a question from a reporter, who said, "[Banks] are concerned about the tracking of transactions that are greater than $600, Americans are starting to get worried about this. Do you think [this] is going to stay in the Reconciliation Bill?"  defended "With all due respect, the plural of anecdote is not data," Pelosi said. "Yes, there are concerns that some people have. But if people are breaking the law and not paying their taxes, one way to track them is through the banking measure. I think $600  that's a negotiation that will go on as to what the amount is. But yes."     Whatever the impact of this proposal is, it does require additional reporting of certain bank transactions, just not in the way the above banks are portraying it. As such, we rate this claim a Mixture. A Scorecard for Reconciliation, Round 2. Tax Analysts, https://www.taxnotes.com/featured-analysis/scorecard-reconciliation-round-2/2021/09/10/783l0?highlight=biden. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Community Banks Must Engage Customers on New IRS Reporting Mandates. ICBA, https://www.icba.org/newsroom/blogs/main-street-matters---advocacy/2021/08/19/community-banks-must-engage-customers-on-new-irs-reporting-mandates. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Consumer Alert from ICBA. ICBA, https://www.icba.org/bank-locally/consumer-alert-from-icba. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021.Digging Into the Bank Info Reporting Plan. Tax Analysts, https://www.taxnotes.com/tax-notes-today-global/information-reporting/digging-bank-info-reporting-plan/2021/08/30/777dx. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Fair Market Value (FMV). Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fairmarketvalue.asp. Accessed 16 Sept. 2021. "General Explanations of the Administrations Fiscal Year 2022 Revenue Proposals." Department of the Treasury, May 2021, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/General-Explanations-FY2022.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Gross Cash Flow Definition. Law Insider, https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/gross-cash-flow. Accessed 16 Sept. 2021. Hanlon, Seth, and Galen Hendricks. Bank Tax Reporting Is a Critical Component of Bidens Build Back Better Agenda. Center for American Progress, 14 Sept. 2021, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2021/09/14/503821/bank-tax-reporting-critical-component-bidens-build-back-better-agenda/. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. ICBA Urges House Panel to Reject IRS Monitoring Plan. Default, https://www.icba.org/newsroom/news-and-articles/2021/09/09/icba-urges-house-panel-to-reject-irs-monitoring-plan. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Jagoda, Naomi. Pelosi Defends IRS Bank-Reporting Proposal, Says Specifics Open to Negotiation. The Hill, 12 Oct. 2021, https://thehill.com/policy/finance/576362-pelosi-defends-irs-bank-reporting-proposal. Joint Trades Statement for the Record: Senate Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight Hearing Entitled: Closing the Tax Gap: Lost Revenue from Noncompliance and the Role of Offshore Tax Evasion." 10 May 2021, https://bpi.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Joint-SfR-Senate-Finance-Subcommitte-Hearing-on-Closing-the-Tax-Gap-051021.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Rubin, Orla McCaffrey and Richard. Biden Tax Plan Leans on Banks to Help Find Unreported Income. Wall Street Journal, 29 Apr. 2021. www.wsj.com, https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-tax-plan-leans-on-banks-to-help-find-unreported-income-11619701380. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Tankersley, Jim, and Dana Goldstein. Biden Details $1.8 Trillion Plan for Workers, Students and Families. The New York Times, 28 Apr. 2021. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/28/us/politics/biden-american-families-plan.html. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. "When Is a Minimal Fringe Benefit Not So Minimal?" https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/when-is-a-minimal-fringe-benefit-not-so-minimal. Accessed 16 Sept. 2021. Oct. 14, 2021: Added Pelosi's comments on the proposal. FACT CHECK:  Did President Obama order that "behavioral experiments" be carried out on the American people?  Claim:   President Obama ordered "behavioral experiments" be carried out on the American people.   MOSTLY  WHAT'S :   President Obama issued an Executive Order on 15 September 2015 encouraging federal agencies to more frequently use behavioral research insights in the creation and adoption of policy.     WHAT'S :  President Obama ordered that "behavioral experiments" be carried out on American citizens; President Obama specifically directed agencies to implement any form of behavioral insight usage; the word "experiment" appeared anywhere in the Executive Order. Example:    [Collected via Twitter, September 2015] President Barry ORDERS BEHAVIORAL EXPERIMENTS ON AMERICAN PUBLIC!! https://t.co/MNHOSCvpAB #COSProject pic.twitter.com/0aQN33AqQ3 https://t.co/MNHOSCvpAB #COSProject pic.twitter.com/0aQN33AqQ3  TheFightingIrishDame (@TheIrishDame) September 16, 2015 September 16, 2015   Shock Executive Order: Obama Authorizes Behavioral Experiments On U.S. Citizens: To A ... - https://t.co/pl2RzxZr4q pic.twitter.com/ll7cWaFtqe https://t.co/pl2RzxZr4q pic.twitter.com/ll7cWaFtqe  State of Globe (@StateofGlobe) September 17, 2015 September 17, 2015   Obama Executive Order Instructs Federal Agencies to Conduct Mass Behavioral Experiments on U.S. Citizens: https://t.co/mCynSnLP0e https://t.co/mCynSnLP0e  Bill Periman (@BillPeriman) September 17, 2015 September 17, 2015   Origins:   On 15 September 2015 the web site Daily Caller published an article titled "President Obama Orders Behavioral Experiments on American Public" which claimed that the chief executive had "authorized federal agencies to conduct behavioral experiments on U.S. citizens": President Obama announced a new executive order which authorizes federal agencies to conduct behavioral experiments on U.S. citizens in order to advance government initiatives. The article was aggregated by other news outlets such as DC Clothesline, which similarly claimed the President's executive order had instructed "Federal Agencies to Conduct Mass Behavioral Experiments on U.S. Citizens": Does anyone actually believe "behavioral experiments" on the US citizenry are about "designing government policies to better serve the American people?" Think Pavlov's dog. And, can someone point to the Constitution and show where government has the authority to "experiment" on the citizenry in any shape, form or fashion? It's not there. Government possesses no authority whatsoever to conduct any type of experimentation, behavioral or otherwise, on the citizens of this nation. Both Daily Caller and DC Clothesline used the phrase "behavioral experiments" (conjuring up frightening scenarios of federal gaslighting), and the second article placed the phrase in quotes, suggesting specifically that the Obama administration had "ordered" sinister-sounding "behavioral experiments" be inflicted upon Americans. The 15 September 2015 Executive Order referenced by the articles is available on the White House's web site for open review. Tellingly, the word "experiments" does not appear anywhere within it; only words such as "encourage[d]," "identify," "review," and "improve." The executive order about "Using Behavioral Science Insights to Better Serve the American People" actually decreed: web site decreed To more fully realize the benefits of behavioral insights and deliver better results at a lower cost for the American people, the Federal Government should design its policies and programs to reflect our best understanding of how people engage with, participate in, use, and respond to those policies and programs. By improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Government, behavioral science insights can support a range of national priorities, including helping workers to find better jobs; enabling Americans to lead longer, healthier lives; improving access to educational opportunities and support for success in school; and accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy. Alongside the Executive Order, the White House issued a document titled "Fact Sheet: President Obama Signs Executive Order; White House Announces New Steps to Improve Federal Programs by Leveraging Research Insights." Aiming to provide details not included on the Executive Order about how "behavioral insights" could apply to the creation and implementation of policy, that document explained: document Behavioral science insights  research insights about how people make decisions  not only identify aspects of programs that can act as barriers to engagement, but also provide policymakers with insight into how those barriers can be removed through commonsense steps, such as simplifying communications and making choices more clear. That same study on financial aid found that streamlining the process of applying  by providing families with assistance and enabling families to automatically fill parts of the application using information from their tax return  increased the rates of both aid applications and college enrollment. When these insights are used to improve government, the returns can be significant. For instance, the Federal Government applied behavioral science insights to simplify the process of applying for Federal student aid and has made college more accessible to millions of American families. Similarly, the Pension Protection Act of 2006, which codified the practice of automatically enrolling workers into retirement savings plans, is based on behavioral economics research showing that switching from an opt-in to an opt-out enrollment system dramatically increases participation rates. Since the implementation of this policy, automatic enrollment and automatic escalation have led to billions of dollars in additional savings by Americans. Another germane fact sheet tidbit came in the form of detail pertaining to a new committee formed to facilitate the order's initiatives: The Executive Order also formally establishes the Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (SBST), a group of experts in applied behavioral science that translates findings and methods from the social and behavioral sciences into improvements in Federal policies and programs for the benefit of the American people. The passage excerpted above indicated that behavioral insights data targeted by the initiative stemmed not from government-led "behavioral experiments," but rather "findings and methods from the social and behavioral sciences."  Another passage supported inferences that non-governmental research groups would be tasked with submitting the bulk of relevant findings to the SBST for consideration in the drafting of future policy: The Behavioral Science & Policy Association (BSPA) is launching a Behavioral Science and Policy Series to identify promising avenues for applying behavioral science to public policy at the Federal level in order to improve Americans' lives. Through this series, by September 2016, working groups will deliver white papers that propose particular applications of behavioral science that can be applied, tested, and implemented at the Federal level in the near term. A less harrowing interpretation of the executive order than that fostered by conservative news sites was offered by the Houston Chronicle in a 17 September 2015 article: article Dr. Andrew Harper, a professor of behavioral science at the University of Texas Health Medical School, said behavioral science is an old discipline, used to maximize communication effectiveness, that is only now being applied to government-authored materials. "For example in healthcare there are simple things we want people to do  eat a balanced diet, sleep well," he said. "When just saying 'do it' doesn't work, we look to behavioral science to inform us on strategies that might work better." According to the executive order, research will be used to inform even the basic layout of federal agencies websites and other outreach information. The newly-founded team will consider "how the content, format, timing and medium by which information is conveyed affects comprehension and action by individuals." In other words, researchers will conduct clinical studies to determine how agencies could more effectively present information in a way that will move people to action. The Executive Order didn't come to pass without some objections, however. The University of Oxford's Practical Ethics in the News Blog featured an editorial that questioned how scientifically rigorous the selection and application of such data might be, implying the initiative's mission was too ambiguous. Author Joshua Shepherd conceded that the proposal was overall "a good thing," but said "the order raises a number of ethical and practical issues": editorial Given recent evidence that many results from experimental and social psychology fail to replicate, there might be reason to worry here. The executive order does not define what counts as an 'insight' from behavioral science. Is it the result of one study? A couple? Deployment of an insight that is nothing more than an experimental artifact could be damaging, or wasteful. Suppose a genuine insight exists. Even so, implementing it is not straightforward. Other experts didn't think that the potential flaws outweighed the benefits. University of Michigan professor Andrew Hoffman outlined the potential practical effects of such initiatives on policy in a Scientific American article, positing that their application to the drafting of policy was "long overdue": article [Hoffman] says that people might react rebelliously to a gas tax imposed by the government. A rise in its cost spurred by market forces, on the other hand, might prompt them to drive less. In that way, federal policies should consider the complicated ways that people filter, interpret and process messages. You can't expect to put a price on something  whether that's gas, plastic bags or emissions  and get an expected result, he said. These are things that sociology, psychology, political science have been focusing on for decades, Hoffman said. So to bring in the notion that humans are not perfectly rational, utility-maximizing beings in the formation of policy is long overdue. It is true that President Obama issued an Executive Order on 15 September 2015 encouraging and facilitating the application of behavioral research insights, with a stated goal of creating more efficient policy and stronger compliance. Moreover, some credible questions were raised about how rigorous standards for inclusion of such data might be. But the order neither referenced nor described "behavioral experimentation" upon the American people, nor did it in any way suggest that the order's details involved using anything other than existing, ongoing research carried out by social and behavioral science experts. Last updated:     17 September 2015 Originally published:   17 September 2015 On 20 August 2016, the UK newspaper The Guardian (among others) published an article about a September 2016 study suggesting that the maternal mortality rate in Texas had doubled in recent years (outstripping that of countries with overall poorer health outcomes): article The rate of Texas women who died from complications related to pregnancy doubled from 2010 to 2014, a new study has found, for an estimated maternal mortality rate that is unmatched in any other state and the rest of the developed world. The finding comes from a report, appearing in the September issue of the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, that the maternal mortality rate in the United States increased between 2000 and 2014, even while the rest of the world succeeded in reducing its rate. Excluding California, where maternal mortality declined, and Texas, where it surged, the estimated number of maternal deaths per 100,000 births rose to 23.8 in 2014 from 18.8 in 2000  or about 27%. But the report singled out Texas for special concern, saying the doubling of mortality rates in a two-year period was hard to explain in the absence of war, natural disaster, or severe economic upheaval. From 2000 to the end of 2010, Texass estimated maternal mortality rate hovered between 17.7 and 18.6 per 100,000 births. But after 2010, that rate had leaped to 33 deaths per 100,000, and in 2014 it was 35.8. Between 2010 and 2014, more than 600 women died for reasons related to their pregnancies. No other state saw a comparable increase. The article noted that reproductive health advocates placed the blame squarely on Texas' unique targeting of reproductive health centers and practices, citing budget cuts, atypically strict reproductive health laws and efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, along with the vast size of the state (which made it difficult for many women to cross state lines to obtain gynecological care unavailable in Texas): strict defund In the wake of the report, reproductive health advocates are blaming the increase on Republican-led budget cuts that decimated the ranks of Texass reproductive healthcare clinics. In 2011, just as the spike began, the Texas state legislature cut $73.6m from the states family planning budget of $111.5m. The two-thirds cut forced more than 80 family planning clinics to shut down across the state. The remaining clinics managed to provide services  such as low-cost or free birth control, cancer screenings and well-woman exams  to only half as many women as before. Not everyone was convinced the ostensible cause and effect was so clear cut, as noted in a Townhall piece holding that conclusions about Texas' legislative efforts were politically motivated and contradicted by data: piece Apparently, the researchers did some adjusting of their own. According to the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS), maternal mortality rates have been alarmingly increasing for years. That modest increase, lead researcher Marian MacDorman imagines, was a huge increase. In 2000, the MMR was 10.5 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births (equating to 30 tragic deaths). By 2009, this rate had nearly tripled to 28.9 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births (resulting in 116 deaths). Thats a modest increase? In 2010, the MMR actually decreased to 24.6. Then, MacDorman et al claimed: Texas had a sudden increase in 2011-2012. If by sudden they mean over ten years of significant increases ... sure. They completely ignored the fact that from 2010 to 2011, the MMR rose from 24.6 to 30.7 (an increase of about 25 percent). From 2011 to 2012, the increase was only 3%, rising to a rate of 31.6 ... not doubling! That didn't stop Slate.com and a host of media outlets from declaring: After Texas Slashed Its Family Planning Budget, Maternal Deaths Almost Doubled. In 2013 it rose another 25 percent to 39.5 (claiming the lives of 153 women). Heres the clincher, though. Texas MMR dropped in 2014 in rate and total maternal deaths. Neither the peer-reviewed study nor any of the leftists in the news media mention this. Both items cited the study, titled "Recent Increases in the U.S. Maternal Mortality Rate"  published [PDF] in the September issue of the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology. Both the study's title and its objective described a nationwide focus on maternal mortality: PDF To develop methods for trend analysis of vital statistics maternal mortality data, taking into account changes in pregnancy question formats over time and between states, and to provide an overview of U.S. maternal mortality trends from 2000 to 2014. Similarly, its conclusion singled out no state by name and made no specific reference to Texas: Despite the United Nations Millennium Development Goal for a 75% reduction in maternal mortality by 2015, the estimated maternal mortality rate for 48 states and Washington, DC, increased from 2000 to 2014; the international trend was in the opposite direction. There is a need to redouble efforts to prevent maternal deaths and improve maternity care for the 4 million U.S. women giving birth each year. Texas' second namecheck in the study was benign, noting that the overall rate of maternal mortality was so low that only California and Texas served as sources of by-state data  due not to their specific outcomes, but to the size of their populations: It would be preferable to analyze data individually for each state; however, maternal death is a rare event, and the number of cases (396 U.S. deaths in 2000 and 856 in 2014) was not sufficient to support individual state analysis for all but the most populous states (California and Texas). But the "Results" portion of the introductory page noted that California's and Texas' statistics trended differently and provided a primary finding that colored media coverage of the findings: The estimated maternal mortality rate (per 100,000 live births) for 48 states and Washington, DC (excluding California and Texas, analyzed separately) increased by 26.6%, from 18.8 in 2000 to 23.8 in 2014. California showed a declining trend, whereas Texas had a sudden increase in 20112012. Analysis of the measurement change suggests that U.S. rates in the early 2000s were higher than previously reported. Much of the research hinged on pinpointing and adjusting for what was described as "the pregnancy question" (which was "added to the 2003 revision of the U.S. standard death certificate"), defined by the World Health Organization as death certificate language recording "The death of a woman while pregnant or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy, irrespective of the duration and the site of the pregnancy, from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy or its management, but not from accidental or incidental causes." The WHO also provided for late maternal deaths via a separate but similar checkbox: "The death of a woman from direct or indirect obstetric causes more than 42 days but less than 1 year after termination of pregnancy." Although the phrasing "termination of pregnancy" typically is understood to mean "an abortion" in layman's speech, the researchers and WHO used it to mean the end of a pregnancy via live birth, stillbirth, miscarriage, or abortion. Researchers noted that state-by-state adoption of the pregnancy question vis a vis death records led to findings that required some adjustment to reach conclusions. While some states immediately adopted the guideline in 2003, others waited years. By January 2014, 44 states and the District of Columbia included the question on their death certificates; that incongruous state-by-state data pool led to efforts on the researchers' parts to calibrate the data and parse it. The study noted that Texas (which adopted the question in 2006) demonstrated results that led to "uncertainty" in the final report: California is the only state that revised their death certificate with a pregnancy question inconsistent with the U.S. standard. The California question only asks about pregnancies within the past year. In addition, there were changes over time in specific data provided by California to the National Center for Health Statistics for deaths at less than 42 days, making use of this measure impracticable. Thus, maternal and late maternal deaths were combined for the California trend analysis. Finally, we estimated maternal mortality rates for 48 states and the District of Columbia from 2000 to 2014. California and Texas were excluded from this estimation: California because it does not provide comparable data and Texas as a result of uncertainty regarding recent trends (see Results). In that section, researchers described Texas' atypical spike in maternal mortality and noted that the laws in question were not likely sufficient to account for the spike (referencing a "future study" to obtain more information on Texas): Texas had an unrevised question about pregnancies in the past 12 months and revised to the U.S. standard question in 2006. Adjusted maternal mortality rates for Texas show only a modest increase from 2000 to 2010, from a rate of 17.7 in 2000 to 18.6 in 2010. The slope of this regression line was 0.12 (95% CI 20.22 to 0.46) (564 maternal deaths and 4,246,835 live F4 births) (Fig. 4). However, after 2010, the reported maternal mortality rate for Texas doubled within a 2-year period to levels not seen in other U.S. states. Joinpoint trend analysis was done separately for the 20002010 and the 20112014 periods because the trends for these two periods differed widely.  The Texas data are puzzling in that they show a modest increase in maternal mortality from 2000 to 2010 (slope 0.12) followed by a doubling within a 2- year period in the reported maternal mortality rate. In 2006, Texas revised its death certificate, including the addition of the U.S. standard pregnancy question, and also implemented an electronic death certificate. However, the 2006 changes did not appreciably affect the maternal mortality trend after adjustment, and the doubling in the rate occurred in 20112012. Texas cause-of-death data, like with data for most states, are coded at the National Center for Health Statistics, and this doubling in the rate was not found for other states. Communications with vital statistics personnel in Texas and at the National Center for Health Statistics did not identify any data processing or coding changes that would account for this rapid increase. There were some changes in the provision of womens health services in Texas from 2011 to 2015, including the closing of several womens health clinics. Still, in the absence of war, natural disaster, or severe economic upheaval, the doubling of a mortality rate within a 2-year period in a state with almost 400,000 annual births seems unlikely. A future study will examine Texas data by raceethnicity and detailed causes of death to better understand this unusual finding. The study's introduction cited "[e]arlier studies [which] identified significant underreporting of maternal deaths in the National Vital Statistics System," reiterating in its "Discussion" section that variations by state impeded the research: For example, had the National Center for Health Statistics and the Texas vital statistics office both been publishing annual maternal mortality rates, the unusual findings from Texas for 20112014 would certainly have been investigated much sooner and in greater detail. The study noted that Texas demonstrated what appeared to be a spike in maternal mortality between 2011 and 2014, but researchers weren't yet confident that slashed funding for women's healthcare was primarily responsible for the change. Moreover, researchers mentioned widespread underreporting of maternal mortality across all states, positing it was "an international embarrassment that the United States, since 2007, has not been able to provide a national maternal mortality rate to international data repositories such as those run by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development." Study author Christine Morton told a reporter that the Texas-specific findings remained an unsolved puzzle: told I think everybody is at a loss to understand why Texas saw such an increase in maternal mortality rate. We posited that the documented changes in provisions in women's health services happened in this same time period, but it's hard to knowin the absence of in-depth case review of maternal mortality data in Texashow that lined up with those changes. As the Townhall columnist pointed out, Texas did demonstrate upticks in maternal mortality antedating 2011 clinic funding provisions. State data from 1970 to 2014 evidenced the 2011 to 2014 spike in maternal mortality but exhibited a maternal death rate (a number unaffected by the raw number of deaths or births in any given year) that didn't appear to correlate directly with changes in state laws. In 1970, the maternal death rate hovered at 0.3 per 1,000 live births, dropping to 0.1 in 1977 and remaining virtually static until it rose to 0.2 in 2003. That figure remained fairly constant until 2009, when it reached 0.3 at 116 deaths; 2011 saw identical numbers. In 2012, 2013, and 2014 respectively that rate was 0.3 (121 deaths), 0.4 (153 deaths), and 0.3 (139 deaths): data  So the September 2016 study on the United States' maternal mortality rate published in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology identified a steady increase in maternal deaths in Texas and cited state laws and funding as a potential (not proven) factor in that post-2011 uptick. But study authors bemoaned a lack of comprehensive record-keeping nationwide that impeded research, and the first year maternal deaths began increasing in Texas was 2003 (before clinics were affected by legislative efforts to reduce abortion).   Bomberger, Ryan.  "The Truth About Texas Maternal Mortality Rates and the Epic Defunding of Planned Parenthood."
  Townhall.  26 August 2016. Goodwyn, Wade.  "Texans Try to Repair Damage Wreaked Upon Family Planning Clinics."
  NPR.  28 January 2016. MacDorman, Marian F. et.al.  "Recent Increases in the U.S. Maternal Mortality Rate."
  Obstetrics and Gynecology.  September 2016. Peters, Adele.  "Texas Has the Worst Maternal Mortality Rate in the Developed World."
  Fast Company.  26 August 2016. Redden, Molly.  "Texas Has Highest Maternal Mortality Rate in Developed World, Study Finds."
  The Guardian.  20 August 2016. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here On Dec. 15, 2020  the day after the U.S. Electoral College confirmed Joe Biden as America's 46th President  the tweet displayed below alleged Russian President Vladimir Putin acknowledged Biden's victory over President Donald Trump before U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell did. U.S. Electoral College Joe Biden tweet Donald Trump  The claim was accurate, and we unpack why below. It followed weeks of both leaders' remaining quiet on the election's outcome amid court battles and an aggressive misinformation campaign by Trump to try to overturn his loss. misinformation campaign Let us lay out the timeline. At 10:20 a.m. Moscow standard time, which is 2:20 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) in the U.S., on Dec. 15, the Kremlin released a statement in which Putin congratulated Biden on winning the presidential race and wished him "every success." The statement read: released a statement In his message, Vladimir Putin wished the President-elect every success and expressed confidence that Russia and the United States, which bear special responsibility for global security and stability, can, despite their differences, effectively contribute to solving many problems and meeting challenges that the world is facing today. The President of Russia noted that with this in mind, Russian-American cooperation, based on the principles of equality and mutual respect, would meet the interests of both nations and the entire international community. 'For my part, I am ready for interaction and contacts with you,' Russias Head of State stressed. Hours later, McConnell, a Republican, acknowledged the victory for Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris for the first time in a prepared speech on the Senate floor. Kamala Harris According to a video of the remarks on the Majority Leader's YouTube channel  footage that was uploaded to the video platform around 11 a.m. EST and also appeared on his official website as a Kentucky senator  McConnell said: official website as a Kentucky senator The Electoral College has spoken. So today, I want to congratulate President-elect Joe Biden. The President-elect is no stranger to the Senate. He has devoted himself to public service for many years. I also congratulate the Vice President-elect, our colleague from California, Senator Harris. Beyond our differences, all Americans can take pride that our nation has a female Vice President-elect for the first time. News outlets, including MSNBC, first reported on McConnell's remarks around 10:20 a.m. (ET). A tweet from McConnell's press team with a link to the YouTube video posted less than 30 minutes later, at 10:47 a.m. tweet   Some onlookers on social media speculated McConnell purposefully waited for Putin's statement on the election before making his own. "It has always been Putin pulling their strings, not Trump," one Twitter user alleged, referring to Republican leadership. Twitter user But there was no evidence to explicitly explain why or under what rationale the senator made his comments on the Senate floor, congratulating Biden more than a month after he was announced the next head of the White House. Also unknown was if or to what extent he at all considered Putin's statement hours prior signifying a new chapter in U.S.-Russia relations.  All of that said, the Kentucky Republican recognized a Biden presidency roughly eight hours after the Russian leader. For that reason, we rate this claim The hotly contested West Virginia primary for a U.S. Senate seat is now over. But it didnt take more than a few hours for the general election to start. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., appeared on West Virginia radio host Hoppy Kerchevals show, the morning after election night. In the general election, Manchin faces Republican state Attorney General Patrick Morrisey in what most observers see as a competitive race. Manchin portrayed himself as a fiscal conservative both as governor and in the Senate in hisinterviewwith Kercheval. He expressed concern about the rising federal debt, which exceeds $21 trillion in the broadest measurement. By 2022, just the interest payment on our debt will be greater than the defense of our country, Manchin said. Is Manchin right? We found that hes at least certainly close. You may not realize this, but as a nonprofit news organization, we depend on  and answer to  you. Your support directly impacts our abilility to provide objective, factual reporting  on issues that matter.Donate now to our Spring Campaign and go on the record as saying facts matter! In 2017, the last year for which complete data is available, defense spending stood at $590 billion. Net interest on the debt stood at $263 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan budget analysis arm of Congress. So defense spending is currently more than twice as big as net interest. However, net interest is expected to grow faster than defense spending over the next decade. Thats according to CBOs most recentBudget and Economic Outlookreport, which projects a variety of budget categories 10 years into the future. (See Fig. 2.1here.) Between 2018 and 2028, CBO projects, both defense and interest will rise, with interest overtaking defense spending in fiscal year 2023. In 2023, defense spending will be $679 billion and net interest will reach $702 billion. The gap will only grow from there. So CBO has it one year later than Manchin said. That said, things could change between now and then  and CBOs assumptions are not the only way to make these projections. CBOs projections assume that defense spending will return to tighter levels in 2020, after the current spending bill expires, said Todd Harrison, director of defense budget analysis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. However, Congress has regularly raised the spending limits since they were first imposed in 2011. And if Congress acts as it has in the past, that would change the calculations. However, CBO does not specify the amounts under this alternative assumption, so that scenario is too speculative to consider. Manchin said, By 2022, just the interest payment on our debt will be greater than the defense of our country. The closest official estimate we could find says that net interest will pass defense spending in 2023, or one year later than Manchin said. But using a different set of unofficial assumptions, it could be different. We rate his statement Mostly True. In September 2019, we received multiple inquiries from readers regarding an old story about the origins of the famous KFC original recipe  the blend of herbs and spices that went into creating "Colonel" Harland Sanders' original Kentucky Fried Chicken.  The African Diaspora Facebook page wrote: "Meet Mrs. Childress. Colonel Sanders Stole His Famous Fried Chicken Recipe From A Black Woman Named Mrs. Childress. He later paid her $1,200 for her recipe. KFC is worth 15 Billion Dollars today." That text was accompanied by the following image:    On Sept. 3, a Facebook account with the name Glenn Dickens wrote, "In case you didnt know. Meet Miss Childress, she died in poverty. She is the woman behind the original #KFC recipe. He took all her profits and made us think it was his recipe."    In recent years, this story has appeared in many other social media posts, memes, and articles, all of them claiming that the recipe that made Sanders rich and gave rise to one of the most popular fast-food chains in American history was initially stolen from a black woman (sometimes named "Mrs. Childress," sometimes "Miss Childress," and in some instances not named). posts memes articles Many iterations of the story hold that Sanders later handed over the relatively meager amount of $1,200 after getting pressured by the woman's family, and most posts include an image of an African American woman preparing fried chicken in a kitchen, describing her as "Miss Childress." In reality, the image was taken from a 1920s magazine advertisement for Snowdrift shortening, one that played on racist and painfully outdated stereotypes of that era, and depicted the woman (named only as "Sarah") as an exemplar of the racist "mammy" caricature  a cheerful, black, female domestic servant to white families, especially in the segregation-era American South. magazine advertisement mammy  Source: University of Illinois    It's possible the image is a photograph, but it is perhaps more likely a painting, since the norm for popular American magazines in the 1920s  such as Ladies' Home Journal, where the "Sarah" advertisement was published  was for photographs to be printed in black and white, with illustrations presented in color. It's not clear who the woman depicted in the advertisement was or on whom she was modeled, so we cannot rule out the possibility that she was the "Miss Childress" described in the KFC memes.  Journ a l published Also, evidence is lacking in support of the main claim  that Sanders stole his famous original fried chicken recipe from a black woman named Miss Childress. A 2010 blog post claimed that: "Ron Douglas in 'Americas Most Wanted Recipes' says that Sanders took his secret recipe from a black woman, one Miss Childress of Kentucky, whose family he paid $1,200 when they complained." However, Douglas' book does not, in fact, make any such claim.  post book We found no evidence to support the "Miss Childress" story in a newspaper archive that stretches back more than 100 years, and the prominent food writer Joshua Ozersky made no mention of Sanders' having stolen the recipe from a specific black woman, in his widely cited 2003 biography "Colonel Sanders and the American Dream." biography The version of events presented there by Ozersky is the conventionally accepted one: Sanders set up a gas station in Corbin, Kentucky, during the 1930s, then began serving food there, including fried chicken. His food and hospitality garnered the gas station a good reputation among passing travelers, and he eventually converted the business into a restaurant and motel. Sanders settled upon a blend of 11 herbs and spices that went into making his fried chicken, and began using a pressure cooker to fry the chicken. In later years, he franchised out the use of his recipe to restaurants across the United States, and from there the iconic brand emerged. Sanders' decision to use a pressure cooker (rather than a pan or deep fryer) to make the chicken was arguably the key factor in the development of fried chicken as "fast food" and the extraordinary success of Kentucky Fried Chicken. This is a factor the "Miss Childress" memes and social media posts typically neglect, suggesting as they do that the success of Sanders and KFC was entirely attributable to the blend of herbs and spices used to season the chicken itself. According to Ozersky, for example, the use of the pressure cooker was considerably more important. As he wrote in his 2003 biography of Sanders: biography "... What made the chicken great was the innovation of using a pressure cooker to make it. It's much less glamorous than any secret mixture of herbs and spices but far more important ... No one was going to start a fast food empire using cast-iron skillets, even if those were the best way to cook chicken. (And they are ...) It takes too long to make chicken in a pan and even the most colossal version hammered out by a southern smithy can only hold thirty pieces at a time at most." Sanders patented his pressure cooker process in 1966, writing in his application that the method he had come up with allowed a cook to create "accurately controlled conditions of temperature, pressure, time, sizes of serving pieces, and amount and composition of breading used, for the purpose of producing superior taste, texture and appearance in the finished product." application While Ozersky cited no specific act of intellectual property theft on the part of Sanders, he did allude to the racial tensions and cultural appropriation involved in the development of fried chicken in the early 20th century American South, writing that Sanders embodied the following "paradox": "Anyone who knew anything of the South knew that no Kentucky colonel would have cooked the fried chicken in a southern household; the chicken in prosperous southern households, particularly in the Colonel's era, was inevitably cooked by a black maid or family housekeeper. Colonel Sanders created an alternative reality in which the white planter not only ate the chicken but implicitly made it. Nothing could have been further from the truth." We also put the "Miss Childress" story to Psyche Williams-Forson, chair of the department of American Studies at the University of Maryland College Park, an expert in the interaction of food, cultural history and women's studies and author of the 2006 book "Building Houses Out of Chicken Legs: Black Women, Food and Power."  book She told us she had found "no direct evidence that Colonel Sanders 'stole' the KFC recipe from an African American woman," and had come across no information that indicated Sanders later paid the woman $1,200 under pressure from her family.  However, Williams-Forson emphasized that a history does exist of white entrepreneurs and chefs taking recipes from African American women and men, without giving them proper credit. She pointed to the example of Idella Parker, who was a long-time maid to the white cookbook author Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings, and later an author in her own right. In her 2006 book, Williams-Forson wrote: "The cookbook, according to Parker, required 'months and months together' in Rawlings' tiny kitchen extracting the recipes from '[Parker's] hands and head.' [Parker] says: 'Many of the recipes in the book were mine, but [Rawlings] only gave me credit for three of them, including 'Idella's biscuits.' There were several others that were mine too, such as the chocolate pie, and of course it was me who did most of the cooking when we were trying the recipes out.'  "In the end, Parker, whose many contributions made the cookbook a reality, only received an autographed copy. But of this she says, 'in those days I was grateful for any little crumb that white people let fall, so I kept my thoughts about the cookbook strictly to myself.'" More broadly, Williams-Forson told us, "some black women who performed domestic service had their recipes improperly 'borrowed.'" She added: "Given that throughout enslavement and long after, African American and white women often worked together in the kitchen instructing and cooking various recipes, it is quite difficult to make a strong assertion of whose recipe belongs to whom. The issue, however, is that African American women were never credited in cookbooks. How is this possible given the proven evidence of African American culinary skill?" Despite the absence of documentary evidence to support the "Miss Childress" theory, Williams-Forson outlined the reasons why it should not be dismissed, writing to us in an email: "This is not to say it did not happen. I am saying I did not find this evidence. And where might this evidence be uncovered? Would Sanders have acknowledged it? Might the African American family have kept a receipt? This is a needle in a haystack because it happened so often to African Americans, who were denied the opportunity to read and write, and thus were unable to document their culinary practices." Although we have found no evidence to support the claim, it is possible that Sanders did directly steal his fried chicken recipe from a specific African American woman, who may or may not have been named Childress. If he did, it is also plausible that no documentary evidence of that act of plagiarism ever existed, or that if it did, it has not survived. Alternatively, Sanders might have borrowed and taken elements of several fried chicken recipes, perhaps some of them invented by, or passed down or shared between, African American women  in the way that many recipes evolve and change over the years. "Miss Childress" might simply be a stand-in or symbolic victim in the wider legacy of appropriation and intellectual property theft that characterized much of the cultural relations between whites and blacks in early 20th-century America. Until and unless we obtain concrete evidence that clears up that uncertainty, we are issuing a rating of "Unproven." 4AM News. "Did Col. Sanders Come Up With the 11 Herbs and Spices or Miss Childress?"
 10 February 2017. Pilgrim, David. "The Mammy Caricature."
 Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia, Ferris State University. 2012. Abagond.Wordpress.com. "Colonel Sanders."
 7 September 2010. Douglas, Ron. "America's Most Wanted Recipes: Delicious Recipes From Your Family's Favorite Restaurants."
 Atria Books. 25 June 2009. Ozersky, Josh. "Colonel Sanders and the American Dream."
 University of Texas Press. 2003. Williams-Forson, Psyche. "Building Houses Out of Chicken Legs: Black Women, Food and Power."
 The University of North Carolina Press. 8 December 2006.