Ted Cruz Erupts in Hooters After Expense-Account Master Card Refused
Claim:  Senator Ted Cruz went into a shouting tirade after a Hooters restaurant refused to accept his government expense account credit card.    Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2013] Did Ted Cruz cause a scene at a restaurant because his expense card was declined?   Origins:  On 29 September 2013, the web site The Lapine published an article positing that Senator Ted Cruz of Texas went into a shouting tirade after a Hooters restaurant refused to accept his government expense account credit card as payment for a $53 tab: article Following a live radio interview today, Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz and host Rush Limbaugh immediately left the studio and went for lunch at a nearby Hooters but the restaurant refused the Senator's government expense-account credit card and asked that the $53 tab be paid in cash. That set Senator Cruz off according to media reports. "He got the hiccups he was so mad," Hooters' assistant manager Kyle Lane told the Washington Post's Ezra Klein. After shouting at Hooters' waitresses and management for an extended period, Cruz admitted he had no cash and was forced to borrow the money from a FOX News reporter. Soon afterwards links and excerpts referencing  that article were being circulated via social media, with many of those who encountered it mistaking it for a genuine news item.   However, the article was just a spoof that originated with The Lapine, a Canadian-based satirical web site.  (Clues to the site's nature are that its name is taken from a language spoken by rabbit characters in the novel Watership Down, and that the site's motto is "Rabbits eat Onions.") The Lapine Other stories published by The Lapine include "Atheist Suicide Bomber Kills Eighteen Agnostics," "Dalai Lama Spotted Wearing 'Leave Justin Alone' Button," and "Arizona Gun Buyers Offered Free Flag Tattoo." Last updated:  3 October 2013
On Nov. 8, 2022, the day of much-anticipated midterm elections, The New York Times published a list of tips to help particularly stressed election watchers. A couple of those tips earned the Times a round of jeering from right-wing media and social media users. right-wing media users Yes, the tipscame from the Times. Some seem straight forward enough. Limit scrolling on your phone for updates, take a short walk, for example. A couple of them went viral for the wrong reasons, including "breathe like a baby" and face-plunge into ice water. the tips The list of tips is titled "5 ways to soothe election stress" with pointers that include, "Breathe like a baby. Focus on expanding your belly as you breathe, which can send more oxygen to the brain." Here's a screenshot of the list, as posted on the social media platform Twitter: posted  (Screenshot, @nytimes Twitter page) The phrase "breathe like a baby" may sound infantilizing, but the breathing practice described in the list above is a technique known as diaphragmatic breathing, sometimes called belly breathing, and it is known to ease anxiety and stress, whether it's from the watching election returns or anything else. known Licensed clinical psychologist Dianne Grande wrote in Psychology Today that the technique works because "it signals the brain and body to relax." That's because it stimulates the body's parasympathetic nervous system, known as the "rest and digest" aspect of the nervous system think of it as the opposite of the "fight or flight" response, per the University of California, Los Angeles' Health blog. stimulates We can't say we found much in the way of reputable medical sources to support the idea that going face first into a bowl of ice will help with anxiety, election-related or otherwise, though Psychology Today says research does support the idea that hot and cold baths can help with mood. says "Relaxation Therapies," Integrative Digestive Health & Wellness, UCLA Health. https://www.uclahealth.org/medical-services/gastro/wellness/wellness-approaches/relaxation-therapies#:~:text=Diaphragmatic%20breathing,rest%20and%20digest)%20nervous%20system. Accessed 9 Nov. 2022. Solan, Matthew. "Ease Anxiety and Stress: Take a (Belly) Breather." Harvard Health, 26 Apr. 2019, https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/ease-anxiety-and-stress-take-a-belly-breather-2019042616521. Grande, Dianne. "The Simplest Stress Management Skill." Psychology Today, 31 July 2021,https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-it-together/202107/the-simplest-stress-management-skill. In October 2016, an image appeared on social media accusing Indiana's governor (and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's running mate) Mike Pence of supporting "gay conversion" therapy, particularly the use of electric shocks as part of the practice:  The allegation dates back to 2000, when Pence was running for Congress. His campaign web site at the time touted his call to add a stipulation to the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act, a 1990 law providing funding for HIV/AIDS treatment for patients living with the disease lacking either the income or the necessary insurance to pay for it on their own: campaign HIV/AIDS treatment Congress should support the reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act only after completion of an audit to ensure that federal dollars were no longer being given to organizations that celebrate and encourage the types of behaviors that facilitate the spreading of the HIV virus. Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior. Although he didn't say so outright, the position has been widely interpreted as signaling Pence's support for "gay conversion" therapy, which seeks to "cure" patients of being attracted to members of the same sex. According to the American Psychological Association, electric shocks were one of the techniques used to address homosexuality through "aversion therapy" prior to the group's decision in 1973 to stop classifying it as a mental disorder. By the time Pence made his statement regarding the Ryan White CARE Act, that group and several others, including the American Psychiatric Association, had rejected the practice: American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, Psychotherapeutic modalities to convert or repair homosexuality are based on developmental theories whose scientific validity is questionable. Furthermore, anecdotal reports of cures are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm. In the last four decades, reparative therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure. Until there is such research available, [the American Psychiatric Association] recommends that ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to changeindividuals sexual orientation, keeping in mind the medical dictum to first, do no harm. The potential risks of reparative therapy are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient.Many patients who have undergone reparative therapy relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed. "Conversion therapy" has been banned by law in five states (California, Illinois, New Jersey, Oregon, and Vermont) as well as in Washington, D.C. We contacted Pence's office seeking comment on his stance regarding the issue but did not receive a response. Republicans were hit with a similar accusation in July 2016, when their national platform included the phrase "We support the right of parents to determine the proper medical treatment and therapy for their minor children." accusation platform When asked whether that statement represented support for "conversion therapy," Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus replied that "It's not in the platform." replied In 2012, PolitiFact twiceratedTrueclaims that President Barack Obama failed to keep a promise to cut federal deficits in half by the end of his first term. At that point, the budget gap topped a trillion bucks and Republican congressmencalled out Obamabecause the deficit had been reduced by just 15 percent. But there was the president atLaborfest 2014in Milwaukee proclaiming we cut our deficits by more than half. In his Sept. 1, 2014speech, the president ticked off for union supporters a list of major policy decisions he contends helped boost the economy and improve the governments bottom line. We cant cover all of those here, but the deficit claim grabbed our attention. Has it really been cut in half? The White House Office of Management and Budget pointed us to achart prepared by that officein 2013 as proof of Obama's claim. It compares the yearly deficits under Obama, expressed -- as they often are -- as a share of the nations entire economy, which is measured by the Gross Domestic Product. At the start of Obamas term, the chart showed, the figure was 9.2 percent. The latest figure was 4.1 percent. That appears to back Obama's statement. But let's examine this in detail. To do that, we reviewed figures published by the Congressional Budget Office as well as theWhite Houses Office of Management and Budget. We also consulted with independent fiscal experts. The baseline year for comparison is fiscal year 2009, which ended Sept. 30 of that year. This was the last budget from President George W. Bush, as Obama took office in January of that year. The most recent complete fiscal year is 2013. Those are the same years Obama's chart showed. Our analysis showed the drop easily topped 50 percent, and was actually somewhat higher than Obama's chart would indicate. As a share of the economy, we found -- and our experts confirmed -- the drop was from 9.8 percent in 2009 to 4.1 percent in 2013. Obamas chart actually reflects a lower deficit figure for 2009, and therefore a lower share of GDP, 9.2%. Thats because instead of using the actual 2009 deficit of $1.4 trillion, Obama lowers it by the $200 billion in increased deficit spending that he -- not Bush -- pushed through in the stimulus plan to address the crisis that became the Great Recession. That resulting figure is what Obama calls the deficit he inherited from Bush. But no matter which figure is used, the deficit as a share of the economy still fell by more than half. Show me the money There's another way to look at this. That is, in raw dollars -- the way attendees at the union event probably would. Indeed, deficits are often expressed that way as well. The White House and CBO figures each show that in 2009 the deficit reached $1.4 trillion. As a share of GDP, it easily topped any year since World War II, said Steve Ellis, vice president of the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense. By the end of fiscal year 2013, the deficit figure had fallen to $679.5 billion in dollars unadjusted for inflation. Thats a 52 percent drop. Heres the year-by-year trend in 2009 dollars: Fiscal year Deficit Deficit as share of GDP 2009 1,412,688,000,000 9.8 percent 2010 1,294,373,000,000 8.8 percent 2011 1,299,593,000,000 8.4 percent 2012 1,086,963,000,000 6.8 percent 2013 679,502,000,000 4.1 percent There is one wrinkle. When you use Obama's methodology to compare the deficit Obama inherited -- the 2009 result minus the stimulus package to that in 2013 --  the drop in the deficit is slightly under half, at 48%. Ellis and Marc Goldwein, senior policy director at the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, both included an additional year, the 2014 fiscal year, which is just a month from completion. The Aug. 27, 2014CBO estimate for this years budget,fiscal year 2014, is a continued shrinking of the deficit to $506 billion, or 2.9 percent of GDP. Those figures would put Obama's claim over the top no matter the number-crunching method. Looking ahead Ellis cautioned that talking about deficit amounts in raw dollars doesnt really give a good sense of the scale: A $400 billion deficit in a $10 trillion economy is a lot bigger than a $400 billion deficit in $17 trillion economy. And he and Goldwein emphasized that while the deficit has been halved, its been halved from a skyscraping peak. In the decade before deficits exploded in 2008 and 2009, they averaged just over 1 percent of GDP, including three years of surpluses, we calculated. As of 2013, that figure was at 4.1 percent. The growth in the deficit from 2007 to 2009 was due mainly to factors related to the Great Recession, said Goldwein. Tax collections fell as people lost jobs and corporate profits dropped; spending on food stamps and other aid programs rose with increased need; stimulus and tax break legislation passed, as did bailouts of financial firms. The economic recovery, wind-down of stimulus, reversal of TARP/Fannie transactions, and lower interest rates are really what has caused our deficit to fall so much, Goldwein told us. He mentioned cuts in discretionary spending as well. Looking ahead, the CBO warns that later in the next decade deficits as a share of the economy will grow and federal debt will climb without changes in current policies. But Obama, its fair to say, was speaking of the change during his presidency. And his claim dovetails with one PolitiFact National checked in July 2013, ratingTrueObamas claim that the deficit is falling at the fastest rate in 60 years. Our rating At a union rally on Labor Day, Obama declared We cut our deficits by more than half. The numbers back up Obamas claim:  Thanks to income tax revenues rising and spending on emergency assistance dropping, Americas deficit has fallen by more than 50 percent from its highest point since World War II to a level $733 billion lower. We rate the claim True. President Donald Trump often speaks of how other countries treat American products unfairly. At a private fundraising event in Missouri, Trump singled out a particular practice in Japan. It's called the bowling ball test. Do you know what that is? Trump said, according to a recording obtained by theWashington Post.That's where they take a bowling ball from 20 feet up in the air, and they drop it on the hood of the car. And if the hood dents, then the car doesn't qualify. Well, guess what, the roof dented a little bit, and they said, nope, this car doesn't qualify. It's horrible, the way we're treated. It's horrible. TheWashington Postnoted, It was unclear what he was talking about. So we wanted to look into it. We asked the White House press office what Trump had in mind and got no comment. In her regular press briefing, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Trump was just joking. However, we found something that loosely fits what he described. There are no bowling balls, and no 20-foot drop. But Japans National Agency for Automotive Safety and Victim Aid does whats called apedestrian head protection performance test. Its designed to measure the force someones head would absorb if a car hit them. This involves firing a carefully calibrated hemisphere-shaped device (so, more like half of a bowling ball) at the hood and windshield. The device records the force. Heres a graphic from the agencys website:  Note that the largest head impactor is 4.5 kilograms, or about 10 pounds. So, the details about a bowling ball, the weight and the height of the drop are all wrong. But those details aside, Trump also got the purpose and nature of the test totally wrong. When he said, If the hood dents, then the car doesn't qualify, that would be a test of the strength of the hood. In contrast, the test is all about a persons head and the force it has to absorb in an accident. Its the complete opposite, said Sean Kane, president of Safety Research and Strategy, a private firm that studies vehicle and consumer product safety. In fact, the more a hood dents or flexes, the better it is for the head of the unlucky pedestrian. Its akin to any other type of crash, Kane said. You look at cars today, and the impact damage to cars is much greater. Theres a lot of crush, but thats to absorb the energy and keep it away from people. Abiomedical engineering dissertationfrom Wayne State University made the same point: To lower head injury criterion, two main principles are necessary: provision of sufficient deformation space and provision of a low stiffness of the impacted vehicle body parts. However, Trump got one element correct. American cars sold in Japan, at least all models made this decade, have to meet the Japanese safety standard. So Trump was correct that this is a hurdle for American car makers. Its worth noting that Europe has a similar standard. Inthe early 2000s, the problem of cars hitting pedestrians was worse in Europe and Japan than in the United States. In Japan, for example, 27 percent of all traffic fatalities were pedestrians hit by cars. In the United States, it was 13 percent. The head impact test is a standardized test and has been there for many years, said Pankaj Mallick, professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Michigan-Dearborn. Our car companies are very much aware of this, but at this time, there are no National Highway Traffic Safety Administration requirements to do this test for qualification of a car hood. Kane noted that the United States stands out for having lower safety standards than Europe and Japan. If U.S. car makers wanted to make safer cars, they could sell them in both markets, he said. If they dont, thats a business decision. Trump said that in Japan, they take a bowling ball from 20 feet up in the air and they drop it on the hood of the car. And if the hood dents, then the car doesn't qualify. American cars must meet a Japanese standard. But Trump mangled the highly controlled process, which does not involve a bowling ball dropped from 20 feet. Where Trump really goes astray is on the purpose of the test; he has it backward. Its not about seeing if the hood is strong. The more a hood gives way, the better it is for the head of a pedestrian. Trumps understanding of the test is so far off the mark, we rate this claim False. Amid discussions of statehood for Washington, D.C., in late April 2021, a meme spread on social media positing that the Dakota territory was split into the states now known as North and South Dakota in the late 1800s for the purpose of giving the Republican Party more political power, namely more senators and electors. One example is a meme from U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif.:   The meme read, "Congress split the Dakota territory in half in 1889 to admit two new states with 4 Republican senators. So spare us the fake outrage over DC statehood." The text was taken from a tweet posted by journalist Ari Berman on April 22. tweet The meme generally responds to congressional Republicans who have stated that allowing D.C., a heavily Democratic region, to become a state will shift the balance of political power in Congress. Noting the racial demographics of D.C. versus other states, some Democrats have accused Republicans of stonewalling D.C. statehood because of racism. stated racial demographics accused It also characterizes current Republican opposition to D.C. statehood as hypocritical, noting that the national Republican party has benefited historically from addition of new states with Republican populations. Writing for The Atlantic in 2019, Boston College historian Heather Cox Richardson wrote: The Atlantic The number of states in the union has been fixed at 50 for so long, few Americans realize that throughout most of our history, the addition of new states from time to time was a normal part of political life. New states were supposed to join the union when they reached a certain population, but in the late 19th century, population mattered a great deal less than partisanship. While McConnell is right to suspect that admitting Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia now would shift the balance in Congress toward the Democrats, the Republican Party has historically taken far more effective advantage of the addition of new states. In 1889 and 1890, Congress added North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, and Wyomingthe largest admission of states since the original 13. This addition of 12 new senators and 18 new electors to the Electoral College was a deliberate strategy of late-19th-century Republicans to stay in power after their swing toward Big Business cost them a popular majority. The strategy paid dividends deep into the future; indeed, the admission of so many rural states back then helps to explain GOP control of the Senate today, 130 years later. Like most things viewed through the lens of history, the reasons North and South Dakota exist as two separate states are complicated by changing context. Business interests, local efforts, and national political wrangling all played a role, but without a doubt, adding North and South Dakota to the growing union of states had the effect of benefiting the national Republican party politically, and they didn't hide that motivation. But comparing the statehood process for North and South Dakota to current advocation for Washington, D.C. statehood is comparing apples to oranges, said Michael Card, associate professor of political science at the University of South Dakota.  That period in American history was drastically different to the current circumstances in many ways  namely, at that time, a large number of states were in the process of being added into the Union. One of the major factors in deciding statehood was population counts of non-indigenous American settlers. That figure was set at 60,000 in 1787. set at 60,000 Another contextual difference was that the nature of the political parties have evolved over time, meaning the Republicans and Democrats of today are not representative of the parties with those names from the late 19th century in many ways. Many of the non-indigenous settlers in the southern part of what was then Dakota territory were Union veterans of the Civil War and their families, who were Republicans. Many likely moved far away from the battlefields in the American South in an effort to get away from traumatic memories, Card noted. Scandinavian and Canadian immigrants tended to settle in the north. As USA Today pointed out, "the Republican Party was much more concerned with protecting African Americans and their voting rights from its founding through the early 20th century. In the mid-20th century, both parties' stances on racial equity began to switch." That switch came after Democratic legislators passed voting and civil rights legislation i the 1960s. pointed out Another important point of context the population counts in North and South Dakota justified statehood and that Democrats, who were at that time were in control of national government and aware of the territory's Republican leanings, had slowed the statehood process, in hopes of gaining a political toehold in the region. slowed the statehood But they couldn't stall forever. According to historian Elwyn B. Robinson in the book "History of North Dakota," there were 190,983 inhabitants in North Dakota in 1890, while there were 348,600 in South Dakota. And in the end, it was Democrats in Congress and Democratic U.S. President Grover Cleveland who relented, signing legislation granting statehood to North and South Dakota, along with Montana and Washington. In "History of North Dakota," Robinson noted that local advocacy also came into play when it came to the creation of the two states. At the local level, there was an internal push for statehood from a small group of influential men who were unhappy with the outside control that came with Dakota being a territory, and who wanted political equality of status.  History of North Dakota Statehood was a quiet revolution, accomplished by less than two hundred men. The first leaders were Yankton politicians, but all came from southern Dakota and all were Republicans. With few exceptions, they were conservative, middle-class business and professional menbankers, lawyers, ministers, railroad employees, and newspaper editors. They were of the older American stock and came from New England, New York, or the states of the Old Northwest. They were Republicans because Dakota was a one-party regiona result of the long years of territorial status when the Republican party had control of the United States government. The idea of splitting the northern region off from the southern one started with this group, but not because of political power in Washington, D.C., Robinson wrote: "From the beginning the Yankton leaders, a small oligarchy with much influence, planned for the division of the territory at the forty-sixth parallel. Division seemed natural. The railroads ran east and west, so that southern and northern Dakota had little contact with each other." When Robinson described the decision to ultimately split the territory into two when admitting it into the Union though, he noted that it was pushed hard by the Republican Indiana senator who would become the 23rd U.S. president, Benjamin Harrison: Finally, the program of division, with southern Dakota becoming a state and northern Dakota a territory, was dropped in favor of a bill to admit two states. Senator Benjamin Harrison of Indiana pushed it hard and the large population of Dakota (in 1890, North Dakota alone had 190,983 inhabitants and South Dakota 348,600) made further denial seem unjust and irresponsible. In the presidential campaign of 1888 the Republican platform called for admission of two states. Ordway and the Dakota Democrats finally dropped their single-state bill. Both Republicans and Democrats voted for the Omnibus Bill of February 22, 1889, authorizing the framing of constitutions in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington. When the bill finally passed the House of Representatives, some of the members threw books and papers into the air in celebration and there was a general handshaking of congratulation. A step toward equality of status had been taken. Updated rating to "Mixture" and added additional context. Gov.-elect Rick Scott kicked off a five-day, 10-city tour of the state's major industries on Dec. 6, 2010, by meeting with defense contractors and Florida-based military leaders.Scott started the tour in the Panhandle, meeting with about 20 defense contractors, including Boeing, Lockheed Martin, L-3 Communications and InDyne Corp., at the University of Florida Research and Engineering Education Facility in Shalimar, before meeting with military leaders at Eglin Air Force Base.We want to make sure we're always thought of as a very military-friendly state,Scott said to reporters at a brief press conference. We're going to focus on what our strengths are. We're clearly a logical place for the military to expand and for the defense industry to expand. We've got a lot of talent in the state, we like the defense industry and the military, so we're going to figure out where we have the most value.Scott tried to underscore the importance of the military to Florida by noting that the military accounts for about 10 percent of Florida's economy, according to theSt. Petersburg Times.Florida is home to 20 major military installations and three unified combatant commands. The Gulf of Mexico is a key training ground for both the Air Force and the Navy, and the state also has two U.S. Coast Guard air stations and another dozen other Coast Guard stations.But does all of that translate to a 10 percent share of the state's gross domestic product,which was $737 billion in 2009?The answer comes from an arm of Enterprise Florida called theFlorida Defense Alliance, a public/private partnership created in 1998 to help position Florida to keep its military infrastructure in place and expand in other areas when opportunities arise. The group commissioned a study in 2008 to examine the economic impact of Florida's stationed military and auxiliary defense industry work.The study was conducted by Rick Harper, an economist from the University of West Florida, who has studied the economic impact of the film and entertainment industry in Florida and who represented Northwest Florida on former Gov. Jeb Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2001-2006. Using 2005 data, Harper concluded that defense-related spending is responsible for $52 billion, or 7.5 percent, of Florida's gross state product that year.The military spent $27 billion across Florida counties in fiscal year 2005, Harper concluded -- $10.4 billion was for goods and services, $12.4 billion for pensions and transfer payments, and $4.3 billion for salaries and wages. The rest of the economic impact is measured in indirect and induced spending, which would include parts of the private defense industry as well as parts of the Florida economy that help service the military, the defense industry and their employees.Harper said that defense and military spending accounted for 732,300 direct and indirect jobs in the state and generated state and local tax revenues of nearly $1 billion.Counties with larger installations enjoy larger impacts, Harper found. Military and defense spending in Duval County had a $12.1 billion impact, a $5.3 billion impact in Hillsborough County and a $6.6 billion impact in Okaloosa County. All but six counties have at least $3 million per year in direct defense-related spending.Harper and Florida Defense Alliance executive director Rocky McPherson noted that the study does not include the economic impact generated by the Florida National Guard or Coast Guard operations. You can see a short synopsis of the study for yourselfhere. Or if you have a lot of time, here's thethree-volume version.Harper's study relies on five-year-old data, so we wanted to see if there was anything more recent. McPherson said Harper and University of West Florida researchers were updating their study using 2008 data but, he said, that report is not available yet. Harper declined to share the results of the study with PolitiFact Florida, but did talk about the results in general terms.Since 2005, Department of Defense spending has risen substantially, particularly in terms of procurement (i.e., contracting), as well as payments to disabled veterans, although active duty military staffing numbers (number of people) have declined somewhat and payments to retirees are not growing as they did earlier due to attrition of WWII and Korean era veterans, Harper wrote. The overall growth in military spending (the study to be released uses 2008 federal spending data), combined with weakness in other areas of the Florida economy in the most recent years, means that DoD (Department of Defense) spending will have risen as a share of the total economy.We searched around for other studies measuring the military's economic impact in Florida, but found none. In examining Harper's study, we found it to be a straightforward, unbiased report. Researchers relied on Department of Defense actual expenditures, precise personnel levels and actual government contracts.Where does it leave us? Scott told reporters military spending makes up about 10 percent of the state's economy. In 2005, military spending accounted for 7.5 percent of the state gross domestic product, but that figure did not include the impact of the Florida National Guard or Coast Guard bases. The author of the study, who is now updating his report using 2008 numbers, said that while he cannot release more up-to-date numbers, that the military's position in the economy has risen since 2005. That will make Scott's point nearly right on. We rate this claim True. In early March, the price of oil shot up rapidly in response to Russias invasion of Ukraine and the United States decision to ban imports of Russian energy. Coupled with inflation, increased labor costs and other factors that had already raised the price of gasoline, drivers in the U.S. quickly saw much higher prices at the pump. By March 14, the price of oil started todrop, but gasoline prices have been slow to follow, prompting some social media users to make comparisons to 2008 and accuse oil and gas companies of price gouging. Thetermis generally used when businesses take advantage of rising demand during a crisis and charge exorbitant prices for necessities. One Facebook post claimed that the price of oil was $141.71 per barrel in June 2008 while gas cost $4.10 per gallon on average. In March 2022, the post said oil cost $99.76 per barrel, while the average price of gas was $4.32 per gallon. If youre blaming anyone but greedy oil companies for their price gouging, youve bought into propaganda that hurts you more than anyone else, theMarch 14 postsaid. The post was flagged as part of Facebooks efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more aboutour partnership with Facebook.) Other posts similarly claimed that because oil prices fell and gas prices didnt, companies must be exploiting consumers. Posts with misleading claims about the relationship between the price of oil and the price of gasoline. Experts who study the price of oil and gas told PolitiFact that it takes more time for gas prices to respond to changes in crude oil costs  and noted that there are factors in 2022 that werent at play in 2008, which make direct comparisons misleading. The numbers are also cherry-picked, and the difference in pricing between 2008 and 2022 isnt as large as the post suggests. Crude oil prices are set in the global market. And the price of crude oil has the biggest impact on the price of gasoline  thats been the case for nearly all changes in retail gasoline prices in the past 35 years, said Mark Finley, afellowin energy and global oil at Rice Universitys Baker Institute for Public Policy. When Russia  the worldsthird-largestoil producer  attacked Ukraine at the end of February, the uncertainty, fear of further conflict and international efforts to reduce reliance on Russian oil drove upcrude oil prices. High oil prices can quickly drive up prices at gas stations nationwide, experts said. After oil prices fall, it typically takes a while for gas prices to decrease and consumers often assume foul play even when there isnt any, said Nicole Petersen, a GasBuddy spokesperson. Gas stations lose profit when oil prices increase sharply because they cannot drastically lift gas prices due to local competition, Petersen said. Then, when oil prices fall, gas stations try to recoup any losses before lowering their prices, she said. Unique factors in each states gasoline market also affect gas prices, said Devin Gladden, a AAA spokesperson. Locally, gas stations might have contracts with gasoline dealers that lock in prices at a certain rate for set periods of time  sometimes weeks or months, he said. The March 14 Facebook postcorrectlycited the average priceof a gallon of gas that day: $4.32. But it cherry-picked its $99.76 figure for the price of crude oil. West Texas Intermediate crude oil is traditionally used as a U.S. benchmark when discussing and comparing oil prices. On March 14, WTI crude oil hit a low of $99.76, but the closing price was$103.01. Gas rose to $4.32 per gallon on March 14 as a result of oil prices being around $130 per barrel at times in the first half of March, Gladden said. The Facebook post was wrong about prices in June 2008. Themonthly averageprice of a gallon of gasoline was $4.05, and the average price ofWTI crude oilwas $133.88 per barrel, less than what the post claimed. The data set in this posting is misleading because it gives people this impression that crude prices are more stationary than they are, Gladden said. In all actuality, they are highly volatile. Posts comparing June 2008 prices to current prices also mislead because they compare a full month of data to half a month in 2022, experts said. Different global conditions are also at play. In 2008, the spike in oil and gas prices was tied to the financial crisis. The recession caused a drop in demand for gasoline, and as the economic recovery began, there was an immediate ramp-up in production to meet growing supply needs. That supply crunch, caused prices to spike, Gladden said. In March, the Russia-Ukraine conflict caused panic and speculation that contributed to the rapid price rises, Gladden said. But its also normal for prices to rise this time of year due to the demand from the spring and summer driving season, he said. In part, that will keep prices elevated even though oil prices have declined, Gladden said. Also, an ongoing truck driver shortage, increased labor costs and high inflation in the U.S. have caused gas prices to rise. On top of that, Gladden said the oil industry is still recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic, which decreased gas prices due to decreased demand. State-level taxes on gasoline are also about 7 centshigherper gallon now than they were in2008, Finley said. A Facebook post claimed that comparing the price of oil and gas in June 2008 to March 2022 shows that oil companies are price gouging. Experts said it takes time for gas prices to respond to drops in crude oil costs, and thats not necessarily indicative of price gouging. The posts numbers are cherry-picked; the difference in prices isnt as great as it suggests. The current situation differs from 2008 because increased labor costs, the pandemic, additional taxes and inflation were all already contributing to rising gasoline prices before Russia invaded Ukraine in February. Direct comparisons lack important context, experts said. We rate these posts False. RELATED:Ask PolitiFact: Why are gas prices going up? RELATED:How much blame does Putin deserve for high gasoline prices? Editor's note: Shortly after this article was published, U.S. President Donald Trump vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act. You can read more about Trump's veto here from the Associated Press. The original article continues below. Associated Press House Resolution 6395, or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (NDAA), was surprisingly controversial during the final weeks of 2020. U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to veto the military budget bill, which passed the House and Senate with more than a two-thirds majority vote, because it did not call for the removal of Section 230, an unrelated piece of legislation that provides internet publishers legal immunity from third-party content.  threatened to veto Section 230 On Dec. 22, 2020, conservative commentator Chuck Callesto claimed that there was another reason Trump might want to veto the bill. Callesto wrote that the NDAA contained a provision that "Nullifies the President's use of the Insurrection Act."   While Callesto presents his claim as if he is quoting directly from the bill, the phrase "nullifies the President's use of the Insurrection Act" does not appear anywhere in the NDAA (which numbers 1,480 pages, not 5,893 as Callesto claimed), the full text of which can be found here.  here Insurrection Act House Amendment 833 It's a bit of a moot point, however, as this amendment did not make it into the final bill. As of this writing, the NDAA does not include any language pertaining to the Insurrection Act.  The Hill reported on Dec. 6 that the amendment pertaining to the Insurrection Act was removed as Congress debated the NDAA: reported The NDAA also includes a modest rebuke of Trumps use of Pentagon funding on his southern border wall. The compromise includes House-passed language capping emergency military construction spending at $100 million annually for domestic projects. Trump took $3.6 billion from military construction funds to build the wall. The compromise jettisoned some rebukes of Trump, including House-passed language to restrict a presidents Insurrection Act powers and block funding for a nuclear test. But this year stands in stark contrast to last year, when most of House Democrats efforts to box in Trump on defense policy were stripped from the final product. In summary, the viral tweet claiming that the NDAA "nullified" the Insurrection Act is based on a House amendment proposed in July that would have restricted (not nullified) the president's use of the Insurrection Act. This amendment, which would have required the president to make certifications to Congress before invoking the Insurrection Act, did not make it into the final form of the legislation. 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 Sept. 27, 2020, The New York Times published a report after obtaining several years of U.S. President Donald Trump's tax returns. published a report As news broke that Trump had paid just $750 in federal income tax in 2016 and 2017  no federal income taxes in 10 of the past 15 years  in addition to the fact that he took an approximate $70,000 deduction for hairstyling during "The Apprentice," and that he has more than $300 million worth of loans coming due, a rumor started to circulate on social media that White House senior adviser Jared Kushner had quietly deleted all of his tweets from his Twitter account: no federal income taxes   This rumor is false. Kushner didn't delete all of his tweets following the NYT article about Trump's taxes.  The above-displayed tweet contains a genuine screenshot of the @JaredKushner Twitter account. This account has been online since 2009, but it has been used sparingly by its owner. Archived pages show that this account posted three messages back in March 2011  none of which was related to taxes  but was then inactive for at least three years. The few messages that were posted to this account were deleted sometime between 2014 and 2016, and no new messages have been posted since then.  JaredKushner March 2011 at least three years In other words, Kushner didn't wipe his Twitter account clean on the evening of Sept. 27 after the NYT published a story about his father-in-law's taxes. This account rarely posts tweets, and the three tweets that were shared to the account in 2011 (again, none of which were related to taxes) were deleted years ago.  This isn't the first time that someone has stumbled across Kushner's Twitter account in the aftermath of a controversy, noticed that it was barren, and then incorrectly assumed that Kushner had recently scrubbed it clean. In October 2017, shortly after Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III revealed charges against former Trump presidential campaign chair Paul Manafort and two other campaign officials, social media users noted then that Kushner's Twitter account was suspiciously void of content, and falsely claimed that he had recently deleted all of his tweets. falsely claimed A few months later, when it was reported that Mueller may have interviewed Kushner in the course of his investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 presidential election, this false rumor again was circulated on social media:  reported   The @JaredKushner account has been devoid of content since at least 2016. Claims that he recently deleted his tweets in the wake of breaking news stories are false.  Apuzzo, Matt.  "Muellers Prosecutors Are Said to Have Interviewed Jared Kushner on Russia Meeting."
  The New York Times.  29 November 2017. Buettner, Russ; Craig, Susanne; McIntire, Mike.  "Long-Concealed Records Show Trump's Chronic Losses and Years of Tax Avoidance."
  The New York Times.  27 September 2020. A radio host recently asked Gov. Rick Scott for an update on his trademark 7-7-7 plan -- creating 700,000 jobs in seven years in seven steps. (We're trackingthat promise on the Scott-O-Meter. )Scott said Floridas economy is getting better in a lot of ways.Were doing well. Were at a three-year low on our unemployment in this state... We generated around 100,000 net jobs so far, if you look at the federal numbers, he said in the April 18, 2012,interviewwith Orlando-based station WDBO. But if you look at the state numbers, about 230,000 people that were on unemployment when I took office are not on unemployment now.When you look around the state, tourism is up, the home markets up, home sales are up, home prices are up. So good things are happening, but we still have 900,000 people out of work, he said.What stuck out to us is his claim that 230,000 fewer people receive unemployment benefits than when he took office 15 months ago. That sounds like a drastic decrease, which Scott is taking credit for and in turn using as evidence that the states economy is improving.A spokeswoman with the states Department of Economic Opportunity, the agency that manages the unemployment compensation program, responded to our request about Scotts claim. Spokeswoman Nancy Blum said the number of people receiving unemployment compensation dropped from 561,736 on Jan. 31, 2011, to 345,052 on March 31, 2012. Thats a total decline of 216,684.Thats pretty close to about 230,000, which is the number Scott offered.Whether Scott is right to take credit for the decline -- and whether that is translating to a better Florida economy -- is more complicated.In 2011 and 2012, Scott and Florida lawmakers made a series of changes to the states unemployment compensation program that generally make it harder for people to receive benefits.Among them: Meanwhile, businesses got tax breaks. A 2012 bill reduces unemployment compensation taxes for businesses by at least $50 per employee, with savings of $276 million the first year.The Miami Workers Center asked the U.S. Department of Labors civil rights division to investigate Floridas unemployment compensation system over allegations that these changes act as barriers to people who deserve checks but cant get them for lack of computer access or reading skills. A Labor department spokesman told us the investigation is ongoing.The governors number in and of itself does not demonstrate any kind of economic recovery in Florida, said Valory Greenfield, staff attorney for Florida Legal Services, which represents the workers center. What it tells me based on our experience working with claimants is that fewer people who are potentially eligible are getting into the program.In fact, since August 2011 the department has denied 131,115 applicants for failing to comply with the new law, mostly for failing to fulfill the work search or the initial skills assessment.Those denials resulted in a $30.3 million savings. Economists said Scott's number, while accurate, isn't necessarily a great economic measure on its own. They also said it's too soon to tell if Florida's more stringent eligibility requirements play a big role in the declining number of recipients. Part of the drop-off could be attributed to people whose benefits have expired. Since December 2011, 30,600 people have exhausted all state and federal unemployment benefits, according to the department.So far I havent been able to see any hard data or evidence to quantify (either) effect, said Mekael Teshome, PNC Financial Services Group economist.Whats more relevant, Teshome said, is that jobless claims have been coming down since their peak in mid 2009, well before Scott took office. That somewhat undermines the idea that the drop is thanks to Scott. In fact, if you started counting in 2010 instead of 2011 when Scott took office, even fewer people -- 300,770 -- are receiving unemployment benefits. Some experts also pointed to the contracting size of the labor force, which helps to lower the unemployment rate but also indicates some people are no longer looking for work. About 15,000 people left the labor force from February, according to the statesMarch 2012 labor report. The 15,000-person drop in the labor force was part of the reason why the unemployment rate fall from 9.4 percent in February to 9 percent in March.Some of those are people whose benefits ran out and are now not looking for work, said Chris McCarty, director of the University of Floridas Bureau of Economic and Business Research. Some of those are retirees who have left the labor force permanently.Our rulingScotts claim that 230,000 fewer people are receiving unemployment benefits than when he entered office is pretty close to the actual drop (216,684). A couple of caveats here. The figure is not completely an indicator that the economy is improving, as Scott suggests, and is somewhat the result of a strict new state law. Also, the trend of jobless claims started falling in mid 2009, more than a year before Scott took office. That undercuts, to a point, the suggestion Scott should get the credit. Scotts statement is accurate but can use some additional information. Thats our definition of Mostly True.