The Kelly Beguiles
MOSTLY  WHAT'S :   A Saudi prince owns a minority share of Twenty-First Century Fox, the parent corporation of Fox News, via an investment firm.  WHAT'S :  The photograph of Megyn Kelly posing is a fabrication, and the Saudi prince is not really a "co-owner" of Fox News. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2015] Origins:  Rumors about Saudi nationals and the ownership of Fox News have been circulating online for years; and interest in the rumors was revived in August 2015 after Fox News political commentator Megyn Kelly grilled business magnate and GOP presidential hopeful Donald Trump during a Republican candidates' debate earlier that month. Fox News Kelly (to a far larger degree than her co-moderators Bret Baier and Chris Wallace) was criticized by Trump and his supporters for supposedly treating Trump unfairly during that debate, and not long afterwards the meme displayed above began circulating online, casting Kelly as the face of a purported sinister alliance between Fox News and Saudi operatives. First of all, the image used in that meme is a fake, as the  unaltered original photograph of Kelly proves that her likeness was added to a scene at which she was not present: unaltered The claim that Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal is "co-owner" of Fox News is also misleading, though less a matter of Photoshop and more one stemming from the slightly complex realm of investments and holdings in relation to large media corporations. The term "co-owner" generally refers to a person who holds a 50% share in a business entity, or at least a share comparable to that of the other largest stakeholders, but Al-Waleed does not qualify on either count. According to news accounts, Prince Al-Waleed's investment firm, Kingdom Holding Company, holds a 6.6% stake in 21st Century Fox, the parent corporation of the Fox News Group (which includes the Fox News Channel and the Fox Business Network)  a sizable chunk, but far from a controlling or co-controlling interest in the company. news accounts Kingdom Holding Company If such minority institutional holdings qualify as "co-ownership," then Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal would also have to be considered a "co-owner" of business entities such as Twitter and Citigroup. Twitter Citigroup
Echoing Gov.-elect John Kasichs pledge to cut taxes, Ohios incoming agriculture chief recently called for the elimination of the states estate tax.The tax has contributed to the declining number of family farms in Ohio, said State Rep. Jim Zehringer, a Republican from Northwest Ohio whom Kasich recently picked to lead the states Department of Agriculture.Ohio is losing over 700 family farms a year, some of them just to pay the inheritance tax, Zehringer said at a Nov. 16 news conference at which Kasich introduced him as the new agriculture director.Kasich, a Republican who defeated Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland in November,has specifically called for the elimination of the tax, which Zehringer referred to as the inheritance tax, because he believes it punishes success. An estate tax is levied on the net value of an estate before its assets are transferred to anyone else.PolitiFact Ohio decided to take a look, given the farming remains one of Ohios key industries.First we looked to see if the number of family farms actually is decreasing at the rate Zehringer claims.Rob Nichols, a spokesman for John Kasich, said Zehringer based his claim on the United States Department of Agricultures statistics, specifically, an agricultural census the department conducts every five years.For his assessment, Zehringer compared figures for one classification of family farms. The USDA, however, also counts family-held corporations within its definition of family farms, according to Amanda Pomicter of the USDAs National Agricultural Statistics Service. Family-held corporations represent only a fraction of family farms in Ohio, but their inclusion does color the picture of how fast the number of family farms are shrinking in the state.Here is a comparison over the last 15 years of the figures Zehringer used and statistics that include family-held corporations.Year         Family farms only     Family farms and corps1992         60,936                         62,5381997         69,123                         71,0992002         70,890                         72,5792007         66,382                         69,131Nichols told us that Zehringer used the most recent of these five-year stretches for his assertion. Ohio lost 4,508 family farms in that span for an average of about 902 farms a year. If the statistics Zehringer used showed a 900-farm-per-year decline, why did he ballpark the annual losses at 700? He was being conservative, Nichols said.Had Zehringer also included in his analysis farms owned by family-held corporations, he might have reduced the annual decline even further.In the same five year stretch, using the figures the USDA prefers, Ohio lost 3,448 family farms for an average of 690 lost farms per year.The U.S. Department of Agriculture wont begin counting farms for its 2012 census until the end of that year, so the figures for 2007 represent the most recent available data.Another point of clarity is needed for Zehringers assertion that the states inheritance tax is causing the state to lose family farms.John Kohlstrand, a spokesman for the Department of Taxation, said the state does not have an inheritance tax. He said inheritance taxes apply to each individual who receives property from an estate.Ohio has an estate tax, which is levied on the net value of an estate before its assets are transferred to anyone else. In e-mails, Nichols told us that was what Zehringer was referring to and that it is universally known that some family farms are sold because the estate tax could not be paid.In Ohio, estates worth $338,333 or less are effectively exempt from the state estate tax due to a tax credit, which is available to all estates, of up to $13,900. A 6 percent tax rate applies to estates worth between $338,334 and $500,000. For estates worth more than $500,000, the tax is $9,700 plus 7 percent of the estates value. A federal estate tax also exists. It was phased out in 2010 as part of the Bush tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of the year, pending an extension by Congress. The U.S. Agriculture Department does not track how many family farms are lost due to estate taxes, said James Ramey, director of the Ohio field office of the USDAs National Agriculture Statistics Service.Neither does the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation. But Joe Cornely, the bureaus spokesman, said Zehringer is absolutely right that the Ohio estate tax contributes to the decline in family farms. Sometimes a chunk of a farm is sold to pay federal and state estate taxes and, as a result, the farm is no longer commercially viable, Cornely said.The federal estate tax is more burdensome, but inheritance taxes, regardless whether its state or federal, can have negative consequences on the heirs, he saidThe food and agriculture industries are a $98 billion business in Ohio. The loss of family farms, particularly in light of Kasichs commitment to job creation, is sure to be something the incoming Agriculture chief will monitor.Zehringers data is somewhat dated, and he didnt include all types of family farms in his analysis. His statement is not far off the annual decline found in Ohio using statistics the USDA prefers. And ultimately, the differences in numbers dont impact his underlying point.As for the estate taxs role in the decline, its difficult to say exactly how many family farms were lost for that reason. But Cornely, an authority on Ohio agriculture, said his is sure some of the loses would be due to taxes.We rate the statement True. Debt is typically a major campaign issue in elections from the municipal level all the way up to the office of the President of the United States.  Candidates tout their accomplishments in balancing budgets or reducing government debt as examples of fiscal prudence while pointing to increased debts during their opponents' administrations as indicators of profligate and wasteful spending of taxpayers' money.    The chart reproduced above, which was posted to the Flickr account of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, attempted to reverse conventional political stereotypes by portraying recent Republican presidents as responsible for huge increases in the national debt, while showing recent Democratic presidents as responsible for much lower increases in the level of debt.   Flickr account As a first step in evaluating this chart, we have to determine the applicable definition of "debt."  In general, the term "public debt" (or "debt held by the public") refers to money borrowed by the government through the issuance and sale of securities, government bonds, and bills.  It includes federal debt held by all investors outside of the federal government, including individuals, corporations, state or local governments, the Federal Reserve banking system, and foreign governments. Another form of debt is "intragovernmental debt" (or "debt held by government accounts"), which refers to money that the government has borrowed from itself, such as when the U.S. government invests money from federal savings programs such as Medicare and the Social Security trust fund by buying up its own treasury securities.  A variety of names have been applied to the total of these two forms of debt, including "gross federal debt," "total public debt," and "national debt." Although this chart is labeled as presenting a "percent increase in public debt," it actually uses figures corresponding to the total described as "gross federal debt" above (i.e., a combination of debt held by the public and debt held by government accounts, rather than just the former).  We checked the numbers in this chart by using (for pre-1993 years) the U.S. Treasury's Monthly Statement of the Public Debt (MSPD), noting the total debt reported as of January 31 of each relevant year, and (for 1993 onwards) the Treasury's The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It application, noting the total debt reported as of Inauguration Day of each relevant year. Monthly Statement of the Public Debt The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It From these records, we gleaned the following information: Ronald Reagan:Took office January 1981.  Total debt: $848 billionLeft office January 1989.    Total debt: $2,698 billionPercent change in total debt:  +218%  George H.W. Bush:Took office January 1989.  Total debt: $2,698 billionLeft office 20 January 1993.    Total debt: $4,188 billionPercent change in total debt:  +55% Bill Clinton:Took office 20 January 1993.  Total debt: $4,188 billionLeft office 20 January 2001.  Total debt: $5,728 billionPercent change in total debt:  +37% George W. Bush:Took office 20 January 2001.  Total debt: $5,728 billionLeft office 20 January 2009.  Total debt: $10,627 billionPercent change in total debt:  +86% Barack Obama:Took office 20 January 2009.  Total debt: $10,627 billionTotal debt (as of the end of April 2011):  $14,288 billionPercent change in total debt:  +34% So, as far as raw numbers go, the chart is reasonably accurate (although our calculations produced a somewhat higher debt increase for Ronald Reagan than reported).  That said, however, we have to consider how valuable these numbers are; whether by themselves they present a reasonable comparative measure of presidential fiscal responsibility.  In that regard, one could find a number of aspects to take issue with:  The chart isn't a true comparison of equals, as it includes three presidents who served two full terms (Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush), a president who served one term (George H.W. Bush), and a president who had served half a term (Obama).  Obviously, the longer a president holds office the greater the opportunity for him to influence the debt, and certainly (barring a radical change in current circumstances)  the increase reported for Barack Obama would be considerably higher by the time he left office.   All presidents come into office with policies and budgets that were put into place by their predecessors in the White House and Congress, and they all pass the same along to their successors when they leave office.  Therefore, determining how much of the change in debt that occurs during a given president's administration is actually the result of his actions (rather than the consequence of factors over which he had little or no influence) would require a much more complex analysis than the one presented here.  Which is the best measure of debt for this purpose: public debt, intragovernmental debt, or a combination of the two?  As noted in the General Accounting Office's FAQ on Federal Debt, they represent rather different concepts: FAQ Debt held by the public approximates current federal demand on credit markets. It represents a burden on today's economy, and the interest paid on this debt represents a burden on current taxpayers. Federal borrowing from the public absorbs resources available for private investment and may put upward pressure on interest rates. Further, debt held by the public is the accumulation of what the federal government borrowed in the past and is reported as a liability on the balance sheet of the government's consolidated financial statements. In contrast, debt held by government accounts (intragovernmental debt) and the interest on it represent a claim on future resources. This debt performs largely an internal accounting function. Special federal securities credited to government accounts (primarily trust funds) represent the cumulative surpluses of these accounts that have been lent to the general fund. These transactions net out on the government's consolidated financial statements. Debt issued to government accounts does not affect today's economy and does not currently compete with the private sector for available funds in the credit market.   Are plain percentage changes in the national debt level a useful figure, or do they need to be placed in context to have relevance?  Some would argue, for example, that the Debt-to-GDP ratio is a better measure of economic health relative to the national debt than raw debt figures alone, and a chart which tracked the change in that ratio over the last several presidencies would paint a significantly different picture of debt levels than the one displayed above.  Debt-to-GDP chart All in all, this is a case of relatively accurate information which is of marginal value due to a lack of proper comparative context. Gov. John Kasich has said collective bargaining should be restricted for Ohios public workers  to help governments balance their budgets and, in turn, help the state bring its spending into balance in the face of a massive deficit.One of the reasons I did this is I wanted local governments to have the tools to be able to control their costs, Republican Kasich said in March right before he released his budget proposal that sharply cuts state funding to local governments.But opponents of controversial Senate Bill 5  a measure that Kasich enthusiastically signed March 31 that would sharply restrict bargaining, end binding arbitration and ban public employees from striking  say the governors argument comes up false when comparing Ohio to other states.There is no evidence to suggest that collective bargaining is the cause of overall budget challenges, former Hamilton County Commissioner David Pepper told an Ohio House committee in March. Many states without collective bargaining, such as Arizona, Nevada and North Carolina, have far larger budget deficits than many that do, including Ohio.Clearly, Pepper and the governor have very different ways of framing the debate over collective bargaining. The last part of his comment got PolitiFact Ohios attention, though, and we decided to take a look.Pepper, a Democrat who lost to Republican Dave Yost last November in the state auditor election, said his point was that most states are suffering budget difficulties regardless of whether they have collective bargaining options for public workers.There is clearly from looking across the country no correlation between states that have collective bargaining for public workers and having budget problems or being competitive, Pepper said in an interview. There simply is no case for getting rid of collective bargaining to solve budget problems.Pepper said his comments were based on information from Policy Matters Ohio, a left-leaning research organization. Its executive director, Amy Hanauer, testified in February to a Senate committee that Arizona, North Carolina and Nevada all faced more significant budget gaps than Ohio for fiscal 2010.In terms of percentages of their overall budgets, the gaps were higher in Arizona (65 percent), North Carolina (26 percent) and Nevada (47 percent) than in Ohio (14 percent) for fiscal 2010, according to data from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, also a left-leaning group. CBPPs data is widely used by government think tank groups, including by the Pew Center on the States.Data from the bipartisan National Conference of State Legislatures showed the same was true in fiscal 2011 when those same three states had deficits that were a larger percentage of the overall budget than was the case in Ohio.In terms of dollars, Arizonas deficit of $5.1 billion and North Carolinas -- $5 billion -- were both higher than Ohios gap of $3.6 billion for 2010. But Nevadas -- $1.5 billion -- was lower.Republicans who control the General Assembly argue that many local governments have complained about public employee wages and benefits, sometimes gained through binding arbitration when negotiations have failed. But likening restrictions on collective bargaining to a budget solving pill appears to be a stretch.States with no collective bargaining for public employees had an average budget gap of 24.8 percent in 2010, according to Policy Matters Ohio. Meanwhile, states with collective bargaining for all public employees had an average deficit gap of 24.1 percent.Pepper was right on the money in terms of percentage gaps. He was correct in terms of actual dollars and cents for two of the three states he cited.On the Truth-O-Meter, we rate Peppers statement Mostly True. An image comparing changes in the financial status of former and current United States presidents was widely shared on social media at the end of 2017, with minimal text suggesting that the data it presented was particularly revealing of something (without providing any detail about what that "something") might be:  <!-- --> As for the hard data, we won't dwell on precise numbers because net worth figures are typically estimates that are at least partially based on assets with fluctuating valuations, and federal election disclosure laws have only required that candidates list their assets and liabilities in ranges rather than specific amounts. However, in general we can note that the information in the image is at least within the ballpark of reasonable. The Clintons' net worth was as reported as $700,000 in their 1992 statement, the Obamas' net worth was estimated at about $1.3 million in 2007 (mostly derived from book publishing advances and royalties), while the Trumps' net worth was pegged at $3.7 billion in 2016. $700,000 $1.3 million $3.7 billion As of 2017, the Clintons were estimated to have made $240 million since Bill Clinton left office in 2001, the Obamas' combined net worth was reckoned to be about $24 million, while the Trumps' net worth was thought to have dropped to about $3.1 billion. Suffice it to say that the Clinton and Obama families have done very well for themselves since leaving the White House, but the Trumps have realized no similar windfall (and have possibly seen their overall wealth decline a bit). $240 million $3.1 billion The comparison in this image is one of apples and oranges, however, and therefore it reveals nothing remarkable or surprising. It contrasts two men who each served eight years as President and are no longer in office with one man who has only been the U.S. chief executive for a year and still occupies that position. The longer one holds high office, the more opportunity one has to establish connections and build experience that might prove financially lucrative later on, so obviously two men who sat in the White House for eight years each has a considerable advantage over the one who has barely been in Washington for a year. More important, though, is that former Presidents Clinton and Obama are former presidents who have returned to private life, and thus they can avail themselves of many money-making opportunities common to ex-presidents -- writing books, giving speeches, consulting for private companies, holding board seats, advising businessmen and politicians -- that are simply not available to a sitting president. But for the incumbent chief executive, the position of President of the United States affords its holder little time to manage any outside business interests, and conflict of interest laws make it difficult for presidents to engage in profitable business ventures while they're serving as public officials. (Most sitting presidents choose to put their business interests into blind trusts or otherwise delegate their day-to-day management to others during their terms of office.) conflict of interest blind trusts This image also conveniently omits data that demonstrates the money-making proclivities of former presidents to be neither an aberration nor an activity limited to Democrats: George H.W. Bush saw his fortune grow from $4 million in his pre-presidential days to $23 million in 2017, and his son, George W. Bush, began his presidency with $20 million and is now reportedly worth $35 million. Finally, nothing about this subject has anything to do with any presidents, current or former, "stealing" anyone's money. Whatever controversies may have surrounded Presidents Clinton, Obama, and Trump so far, none of them has been accused of enriching themselves by looting the public treasury. Erb, Kelly Phillips.  "What's a Blind Trust, Anyway, And Why Won't It Work for President-Elect Trump?"
  Forbes.  12 January 2017. Forbes.  "The Definitive Net Worth of Donald Trump."
  Accessed 28 December 2017. Alexander, Dan.  "How Bill and Hillary Clinton Made $240 Million in the Last 15 Years."
  Forbes.  8 November 2016. Dangremond, Sam.  "How Much Is Hillary Clinton Actually Worth?"
  Town & Country.  12 October 2017. Gore, Leada.  "Donald Trump's Net Worth as He Takes Office and Barack Obama's as He Leaves."
  AL.com.  19 January 2017. Wang, Jennifer.  "Donald Trump's Fortune Falls $800 Million to $3.7 Billion."
  Forbes.  28 September 2016. Gerth, Jeff.  "THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Personal Finances; Wealthy Investment Family a Big Help to Clinton."
  The New York Times.  5 February 1992. Dangremond, Sam.  "How Much Money Can Ex-Presidents Pull In?"
  Town & Country.  23 March 2017. As President Donald Trump prepared on 8 January 2019 to deliver a televised speech to the nation making the case for billions of dollars to construct a wall along the roughly 2,000-mile border between the U.S. and Mexico, some social media users circulated an inaccurate meme containing the claim that the preceding Obama administration, with the help of Democratic lawmakers Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, had given Iran $150 billion in cash.   President Trump battled Congress over his request for $5.7 billion to fulfill a 2016 campaign promise to "build the wall." The resulting impasse over budget appropriations for the wall's construction led to a protracted shutdown of the federal government. build the wall impasse shutdown As with many memes, the one above paired two topics that were unrelated to each other, along with a generous helping of inaccuracy. The "enemy of the U.S." referred to Iran, which was never given a $150 billion cash payment by President Barack Obama with the help of Pelosi and Schumer. Instead, billions of dollars worth of Iranian assets were unfrozen as a result of the 2015 nuclear deal negotiated with that country, which had nothing to do with the U.S. federal budget or border wall construction. nuclear deal Trump floated the "$150 billion" figure in conjunction with his desired border wall construction in a 12 December 2018 Twitter post: The Democrats and President Obama gave Iran 150 Billion Dollars and got nothing, but they cant give 5 Billion Dollars for National Security and a Wall?  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2018 December 12, 2018 The $150 billion figure is an estimate of the value of Iranian assets that were unfrozen as a result of Iran's agreeing to the terms of the nuclear agreement reached with seven nations in 2015, including the U.S., an agreement formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. In other words, Iran gained access to assets that already belonged to them, assets that had been frozen in various financial institutions around the world due to sanctions imposed to curb Irans nuclear program. But Iran didn't get $150 billion in cash, nor did they receive any money at all from U.S. taxpayers -- they only regained access to assets that had been frozen in several different countries (not just the U.S.), and the $150 billion figure was merely an upper estimate. agreement Moreover, that $150 billion figure was the highest estimate of the value of Iran's frozen assets, with multiple sources reporting much lower figures. For example, Adam J. Szubin, Acting Under Secretary of Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, supplied written testimony to a U.S. Senate committee in August 2015 stating that U.S. assessment of the total liquid assets Iran would regain control of as a result of the nuclear agreement was "a little more than $50 billion": testimony We must also be measured and realistic in understanding what sanctions relief will really mean to Iran. Estimates of total Central Bank of Iran (CBI) foreign exchange assets worldwide are in the range of $100 to $125 billion. Our assessment is that Irans usable liquid assets after sanctions relief will be much lower, at a little more than $50 billion. The other $50-70 billion of total CBI foreign exchange assets are either obligated in illiquid projects (such as over 50 projects with China) that cannot be monetized quickly, if at all, or are composed of outstanding loans to Iranian entities that cannot repay them. These assets would not become accessible following sanctions relief. Nader Habibi, professor of economics of the Middle East at Brandeis University, told us via email his best estimate was that between $30 billion and $50 billion of unfrozen funds were made available to Iran as a result of the deal. On 8 May 2018, President Trump announced that he was pulling the U.S. out of the nuclear deal with Iran, which had been negotiated over the course of two years. Associated Press.  "Democrats and Obama Did Not Give $150 Billion to Iran."
  14 December 2018. Hirschfeld Davis, Julie.  "Schumer and Pelosi Tap Themselves to Respond to Trump Speech."
  The New York Times.  8 January 2019. Bozorgmehr, Najmeh.  "Iran to Keep Most Unfrozen Overseas Assets in Foreign Banks."
  Financial Times.  8 February 2016. Cunningham, Erin, and Bijan Sabbagh.  "Iran to Negotiate with Europeans, Russia and China About Remaining in Nuclear Deal."
  The Washington Post. 8 May 2018. Dahl, Fredrik.  "Iran Has $100 Billion Abroad, Can Draw $4.2 Billion: U.S. Official."
  Reuters.  17 January 2014. Habibi, Nader. " Irans Frozen Funds: How Much Is Really There and How Will They Be Used?"
  The Conversation.  11 August 2015. U.S. Rep. Pete Gallego invoked pickup trucks to frame his case for making it easier for college students and young graduates to refinance student loans. The average student loan debt in Texas is over $22,000, the Texas Democrat wrote in a May 14, 2014, email blast. That also happens to be the cost of an average size pickup truck! But heres whats truly alarming: students are NOT allowed to refinance their loans at lower rates -- the same way car owners can, Gallego wrote. Democratic-sponsored legislationwould provide federal aid so students and graduates stuck with high interest rates could repay the loans at the lower rates Congress approved for new student loans in 2013, though a May 16, 2014 National Journalnews storycalled the proposal a long shot in the Senate, where Republicans were described as likely to resist higher taxes on the wealthy to pay for the refinancing wrinkle. Gallegos revved our curiosity thrice over. Average student loan debt By email, Gallegos campaign manager, Anthony Gutierrez told us the congressmans average student-loan debt figure came from anews storyposted online May 8, 2014, on the GovBeat blog ofThe Washington Post. That story said more than a million Americans would graduate this year with substantial student loan debt, a conclusion it attributed to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The graduates will have an average of $26,500 in student loans, thePoststory said, joining the tens of millions of other adults who collectively hold more than $1 trillion in student loan debt. That burden is largest, on average, in many Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states, a few Southeastern states and California. An accompanying U.S. map shows more than 20 states including Texas where the average student loan debt is $22,000 to $25,000  ThePostcredited these conclusions to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, using data from the third quarter of 2012. We ventured to a web page for the reserve bank where its entry on student loan debt led us to aresearch paper, published in 2012 and revised in April 2013, by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. According to the revised paper, student loan debt increased dramatically over the last several years, from about $346 billion in the fourth quarter of 2004 to $996 billion in the fourth quarter of 2012, a surge of nearly 14 percent a year. By comparison, the report said, total credit card debt was $679 billion and auto debt was $783 billion. Then again, the report states, increasing levels of debt were driven largely by growth in the number of borrowers, rather than growth in average debt levels of borrowers. The report said that in the fourth quarter of 2012--a few months after the period analyzed in thePosts chart--the median borrower holding student loan debt owed $13,924 in student loan debt. The average amount of student loan debt across all consumers with student loan debt was $24,699. Thats the latest available calculation, Bill Medley, spokesman for the Kansas City Fed, told us by email. Pricing average pickup trucks Next, did Gallego capture the price of an average-size pickup? Gutierrez told us the campaign researched average used truck prices on the Cars Direct website. He pointed us to an April 5, 2012,articleon the site showing suggested retail prices for five 2010 and 2007 models. These prices are for a base model pickup truck with standard options and no additional accessories, the article said. According to the story, the average manufacturers suggested retail price for a 2010 two-door Ford F-150 was $22,355 and the average for a 2010 Dodge Ram 1500 was $21,510--prices close to the $22,000-plus cited by Gallego. Then again, the Cars Direct article listed estimated prices for two 2010 models at less than $22,000. It also listed the price for another 2010 truck as nearly $6,000 higher. But Gallego priced used pickups; we looked on Edmunds.com, which compiles car and truck prices, for manufacturers suggested retail prices for model-year 2013 and 2014 pickups.According to the site, the price for a basic Ford F-150 regular cab starts at $24,070 (2013 model) and $24,735 (2014). A Toyota Tacoma regular cab starts at $17,625 (2013) and $18,125 (2014),the sitesays. Limits on refinancing student loans? Finally, are students really not allowed to refinance college loans? Gutierrez pointed out news articles including a Feb. 20, 2013,Time magazine piecestating that unlike other consumers who have taken advantage of reduced interest rates to refinance purchases, student borrowers have been restricted because Congressnot the free marketsets the interest rate on the vast majority of student debt, and because these loans are not secured by collateral private lenders are loath to undercut the federal governments terms. The Time story noted that student loan debt was at $1 trillionand of that, the federal government backed $864 billion. Also, most of the debt was being carried at an interest rate higher than 6 percent, a figure Time attributed to a Feb. 13, 2013,reportfrom the left-leaning Center for American Progress. Thats almost twice the rate of an average 30-year mortgage, Time said. By telephone,Heather Jarvis, a North Carolina attorney specializing in student loan law, said that some graduates may be able to refinance student loans at lower rates through private lenders, though she said this would only happen in cases of substantial income. (Car owners, in contrast, have four-wheeled collateral.) By email, Jarvis said refinancing federal loans with a private loan is risky. The borrower gives up important protections that accompany federal loans (like flexible repayment and discharge provisions). Students repaying federally backed loans, Jarvis said, are effectively barred from refinancing opportunities because federal law makes no provision for the government to make such offers. Also by phone,Brian Stewartof the Center for American Progress -- which has urged the Democratic-backed action -- said its possible but difficult to refinance student loans with private lenders while there's no way for students to get the federal government to refinance a government-backed loan. Stewart, a spokesman for Generation Progress, a center project focused on young adults, said the center has been researching student-loan issues for about two years. Our ruling Gallego said the average student loan debt in Texas is over $22,000...the cost of an average size pickup truck. But unlike car owners, he said, students are not allowed to refinance their loans at lower rates. This claim reflects the latest estimate of average student-loan debt and a findable price for an average-size pickup. Its also so that most college loans are federally backed and Uncle Sam doesnt offer a way for students and graduates to refinance. On the other hand, students taking loans from banks or other private lenders arent prevented from refinancing; this claim lacks that clarification. We rate this statement as Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Shortly after outgoing House Speaker Paul Ryan fired House Chaplain Patrick Conroy in a closed-door meeting at the end of April 2018, a rumor that the House Speaker had nominated televangelist Joel Osteen as his replacement started to spread online: fired spread   Paul Ryan did not nominate Joel Osteen to be the new House Chaplain. This rumor originated with a satirical post on the message board Democratic Underground: post In a surprise move during the weekend, Speaker Ryan proposed that Prosperity Gospel champion, Joel Osteen, become the new chaplain for the U.S. House of Representatives. In a brief comment, the Speaker said, "America needs to become more prosperous. It needs a new approach to individual wealth. Pastor Osteen carries that message and shows us the way. Working Americans should be grateful to pay more taxes to the Federal Government. As Jesus, himself, said, 'It will be returned an hundred-fold.' Joel, my good friend, suggests that the road to a more prosperious America will come through even higher taxes on low-income citizens, who will benefit in the end, of course. I agree with the good Pastor, and will be introducing new legislation to that effect soon."    The author of this post, a user identified as "MineralMan," wrote in the comments that the "evil grin" emoticon included at the bottom of the post indicated that the text was satirical. Forum users also compared the text to articles on the Borowitz Report, a well-known satirical blog published in the New Yorker: Borowitz Report   Zanona, Melanie.  "Ryan Explains Decision to Dismiss House Chaplain."
  The Hill.  27 April 2018. In March 2016, photos showing a bottle of Coca-Cola with the words "share a Coke with the KKK" written on its label started circulating online:    This is not a real product sold by Coca-Cola. While the "Share a Coke" campaign allows Coca-Cola drinkers to personalize their cans, some words or phrases (such as "KKK") are not available:    The image showing the "KKK" bottle was created for an online petition on the web site Color Of Change, asking the company to pull its sponsorship of the Republican National Convention due to Donald Trump's failure to condemn the KKK in an interview: petition interview Even with Trump refusing to disavow the support of the Ku Klux Klan this weekend and declaring All Lives Matter at a rally, Coca-Cola and other companies still have not canceled their sponsorship of the RNC. How can Coca-Cola, a company that heavily markets to and profits from Black people, fund a platform for a presidential nominee that is being bolstered into office by former Grand Wizard David Duke, the KKK, and other white supremacists? The petition presupposes both that Coca-Cola will be sponsoring the 2016 Republican National Convention, and that Coca-Cola would be effectively endorsing the Ku Klux Klan by sponsoring the RNC. On 23 February 2016, representatives from the advocacy groups ColorofChange, Americas Voice, CREDO Action, Million Hoodies, MoveOn, and Presente.org admitted as much in an open letter to Coca-Cola and other alleged sponsors of the 2016 RNC: letter Based on your corporate sponsorship of the 2012 Republican National Convention we have reason to believe that your company is planning to again sponsor the RNC this year. We believe it is a sign of strong corporate leadership for you and your company to refrain from sponsoring Donald Trumps hateful and divisive rhetoric. While Coca-Cola did sponsor the Republican National Convention in 2012, the company also sponsored the Democratic National Convention that year: sponsored Many of the sponsors of the Democratic convention were also sponsors of the host committee in Tampa for last week's Republican National Convention. "The Coca-Cola Company believes we have a role to play in the political process and that includes helping to make the political conventions a success," said Coca-Cola spokeswoman Nancy Bailey. False accusations alleging protesters at confirmation hearings for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh were paid as part of a nefarious liberal conspiracy to block his confirmation resulted in intense harassment for two people whose images were posted online along with misleading information. Internet trolls widely shared a photograph of demonstrator Vickie Lampron being handed cash by an organizer while she waited to enter the U.S. Capitol, where she would be one of the first persons to be arrested protesting at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for Kavanaugh on 4 September 2018. Although she was merely given a small amount of cash so she could pay post and forfeit fines, conspiracy theorists falsely claimed a photograph of her was evidence that protesters were paid for personal gain in exchange for disrupting the hearings.The picture was originally posted by self-described international conference speaker Adam Schindler to his eponymous website and to Twitter. He also made a YouTube video in which three of his friends claimed to have witnessed "paid political operatives" in action:Proof the protestors were paid off in line. #Kavanaugh #ConfirmKavanaugh #ActivismInAction pic.twitter.com/hMLpP4zWPn Adam W. Schindler (@AdamSchindler) September 4, 2018Theyre back at it today. Exercising free speech. pic.twitter.com/K7GPFCeusM Adam W. Schindler (@AdamSchindler) September 5, 2018The first image was also widely shared on Facebook with the following caption: "This woman disrupted the Kavanaugh hearing held on September 4 and was thrown out. A few minutes later someone got a photo of her being paid."While it's true the photograph indeed shows Lampron being given money, she wasn't being paid a fee in exchange for protesting. The man wearing a backpack in the photograph is Vinay Krishnan, a consultant who helps organize legal support for the progressive activist organization Center for Popular Democracy (an organization that has been heavily involved in organizing protests against Kavanaugh's confirmation).Krishnan told us the money was raised via small donations from around the country, and protesters were given about $35 to pay related fees in the event they were arrested; if they weren't arrested, the money was to be returned."These protesters are coming from across the country believing they are fighting for their very right to exist in this country," he told us. "Thats why theyre there. Not for $35 which they returned immediately if they didn't give it to D.C. Capitol Police."Both Lampron and Krishnan faced online harassment as a result of the misinformation spread online about them. Krishnan received racially-tinged death threats, forcing him to close down his social media accounts, and a laundromat that had offered Lampron a job reportedly rescinded the offer as a result of the controversy.Vickie Lampron declined to be interviewed for this story, so we spoke instead to Shay Totten, spokesman for the Vermont activist organization Rights and Democracy, of which Lampron is a member. Totten told us:Vickie is not a paid protester. She felt very strongly that she wanted to go to D.C. on behalf of herself and her granddaughters because she feared she was seeing women's rights on the line when it came to this Supreme Court nomination. We fundraised to send our members down so they dont have to pay out of pocket. But they dont make any money.Adam Schindler's tweets and video were picked up and widely shared by a large number of social media users and junk news sites, including the Gateway Pundit (which incorrectly referred to Schindler as a "reporter"), Your News Wire, and conspiracy trolling site Infowars.RealClearPolitics meanwhile ran with the headline "Three Texas Doctors: We Saw Protesters Paid in Cash to Disrupt Brett Kavanaugh Hearing on Line to Enter." (We reached out to both Schindler and RealClearPolitics publisher Tom Bevan about their posts but received no response.)The images of a "paid protester" have popped up repeatedly since the 4 September hearing in the service of false claims that Kavanaugh's confirmation process was being picketed for profit instead of principle.A detail that many junk sites failed to pick up on was that the same day Schindler published his posts claiming to have witnessed the paying of protesters, he began walking those same claims back:Spoke to the protest organizer. She confirmed handing out cash, but said they intend cash to be used to pay fines they know come when protestors break the law. A small price to pay to be heard I suppose. #KavanaughConfirmation Adam W. Schindler (@AdamSchindler) September 5, 2018On 6 September 2018, Schindler authored a blog post recounting his discussion with organizers from the activist group:I went back to the public ticket line mid-afternoon and approached the gentleman from the photos. I greeted him and the moment he saw me he hurried away. A woman sitting on the bench saw this and stepped in. She identified herself as Jennifer (Flynn Walker), the protest organizer from a group called Center for Popular Democracy. We had a very civil discussion about what they were doing and why.I made an audio recording of this conversation and it is posted in its entirety below. I have also transcribed some key moments in the conversation and posted them below.During our 12 minute discussion, a half dozen protestors gathered around and some participated. The gentleman in the photos did not. The protest leader confirmed her group was providing cash to protestors. She took issue with my use of the term payment, saying the provided cash was only to be used to pay the fines. I was unclear how she was able to enforce this vital distinction for her. But nonetheless, she, and the half dozen members surrounding us, all confirmed her group was giving cash to protestors.She then asked if I was interested in knowing the source of her cash. She had good instincts! I didnt even have to ask. I could sense her pride as she told an emotional story about how it was crowdsourced from donors across the nation. I asked if that was the only source of funding for this protest. I had no reason to doubt the truthfulness of her story. But I did doubt it was the only source of funds. She was quick to ask a clarifying question before answering, as her organization is funded with tens of millions of dollars from George Soros. A fact Im sure she was familiar with. But she said very precisely, Thats how we pay for the fines, yes. And that was that.Billionaire philanthropist George Soros contributes large sums of money toward progressive causes (the Center for Popular Democracy does receive funding from Soros, for example). He is also the boogeyman in many right-wing conspiracy theories that often veer into anti-Semitism, in which he is typically portrayed as a puppet master orchestrating a vague world take-over.We found no evidence, however, to support the claim that Soros was directly paying out money to Kavanaugh hearing protesters, nor did we find evidence to support accusations that persons demonstrating at the hearings were there because they were being paid to protest.  Internet trolls widely shared a photograph of demonstrator Vickie Lampron being handed cash by an organizer while she waited to enter the U.S. Capitol, where she would be one of the first persons to be arrested protesting at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for Kavanaugh on 4 September 2018. Although she was merely given a small amount of cash so she could pay post and forfeit fines, conspiracy theorists falsely claimed a photograph of her was evidence that protesters were paid for personal gain in exchange for disrupting the hearings. first post and forfeit The picture was originally posted by self-described international conference speaker Adam Schindler to his eponymous website and to Twitter. He also made a YouTube video in which three of his friends claimed to have witnessed "paid political operatives" in action: website video Proof the protestors were paid off in line. #Kavanaugh #ConfirmKavanaugh #ActivismInAction pic.twitter.com/hMLpP4zWPn #Kavanaugh #ConfirmKavanaugh #ActivismInAction pic.twitter.com/hMLpP4zWPn  Adam W. Schindler (@AdamSchindler) September 4, 2018 September 4, 2018  Theyre back at it today. Exercising free speech. pic.twitter.com/K7GPFCeusM pic.twitter.com/K7GPFCeusM  Adam W. Schindler (@AdamSchindler) September 5, 2018 September 5, 2018 The first image was also widely shared on Facebook with the following caption: "This woman disrupted the Kavanaugh hearing held on September 4 and was thrown out. A few minutes later someone got a photo of her being paid."   While it's true the photograph indeed shows Lampron being given money, she wasn't being paid a fee in exchange for protesting. The man wearing a backpack in the photograph is Vinay Krishnan, a consultant who helps organize legal support for the progressive activist organization Center for Popular Democracy (an organization that has been heavily involved in organizing protests against Kavanaugh's confirmation). Krishnan told us the money was raised via small donations from around the country, and protesters were given about $35 to pay related fees in the event they were arrested; if they weren't arrested, the money was to be returned. "These protesters are coming from across the country believing they are fighting for their very right to exist in this country," he told us. "Thats why theyre there. Not for $35 which they returned immediately if they didn't give it to D.C. Capitol Police." Both Lampron and Krishnan faced online harassment as a result of the misinformation spread online about them. Krishnan received racially-tinged death threats, forcing him to close down his social media accounts, and a laundromat that had offered Lampron a job reportedly rescinded the offer as a result of the controversy. Vickie Lampron declined to be interviewed for this story, so we spoke instead to Shay Totten, spokesman for the Vermont activist organization Rights and Democracy, of which Lampron is a member. Totten told us: Vickie is not a paid protester. She felt very strongly that she wanted to go to D.C. on behalf of herself and her granddaughters because she feared she was seeing women's rights on the line when it came to this Supreme Court nomination. We fundraised to send our members down so they dont have to pay out of pocket. But they dont make any money. Adam Schindler's tweets and video were picked up and widely shared by a large number of social media users and junk news sites, including the Gateway Pundit (which incorrectly referred to Schindler as a "reporter"), Your News Wire, and conspiracy trolling site Infowars. users Gateway Pundit Your News Wire Infowars RealClearPolitics meanwhile ran with the headline "Three Texas Doctors: We Saw Protesters Paid in Cash to Disrupt Brett Kavanaugh Hearing on Line to Enter." (We reached out to both Schindler and RealClearPolitics publisher Tom Bevan about their posts but received no response.) RealClearPolitics The images of a "paid protester" have popped up repeatedly since the 4 September hearing in the service of false claims that Kavanaugh's confirmation process was being picketed for profit instead of principle. popped up repeatedly A detail that many junk sites failed to pick up on was that the same day Schindler published his posts claiming to have witnessed the paying of protesters, he began walking those same claims back: Spoke to the protest organizer. She confirmed handing out cash, but said they intend cash to be used to pay fines they know come when protestors break the law. A small price to pay to be heard I suppose. #KavanaughConfirmation #KavanaughConfirmation  Adam W. Schindler (@AdamSchindler) September 5, 2018 September 5, 2018  On 6 September 2018, Schindler authored a blog post recounting his discussion with organizers from the activist group: authored I went back to the public ticket line mid-afternoon and approached the gentleman from the photos. I greeted him and the moment he saw me he hurried away. A woman sitting on the bench saw this and stepped in. She identified herself as Jennifer (Flynn Walker), the protest organizer from a group called Center for Popular Democracy. We had a very civil discussion about what they were doing and why. I made an audio recording of this conversation and it is posted in its entirety below. I have also transcribed some key moments in the conversation and posted them below. During our 12 minute discussion, a half dozen protestors gathered around and some participated. The gentleman in the photos did not. The protest leader confirmed her group was providing cash to protestors. She took issue with my use of the term payment, saying the provided cash was only to be used to pay the fines. I was unclear how she was able to enforce this vital distinction for her. But nonetheless, she, and the half dozen members surrounding us, all confirmed her group was giving cash to protestors. She then asked if I was interested in knowing the source of her cash. She had good instincts! I didnt even have to ask. I could sense her pride as she told an emotional story about how it was crowdsourced from donors across the nation. I asked if that was the only source of funding for this protest. I had no reason to doubt the truthfulness of her story. But I did doubt it was the only source of funds. She was quick to ask a clarifying question before answering, as her organization is funded with tens of millions of dollars from George Soros. A fact Im sure she was familiar with. But she said very precisely, Thats how we pay for the fines, yes. And that was that. Billionaire philanthropist George Soros contributes large sums of money toward progressive causes (the Center for Popular Democracy does receive funding from Soros, for example). He is also the boogeyman in many right-wing conspiracy theories that often veer into anti-Semitism, in which he is typically portrayed as a puppet master orchestrating a vague world take-over. boogeyman We found no evidence, however, to support the claim that Soros was directly paying out money to Kavanaugh hearing protesters, nor did we find evidence to support accusations that persons demonstrating at the hearings were there because they were being paid to protest. Schindler, Adam.  "Story Behind Kavanaugh 'Paid Protesters.'
  AdamSchindler.com.  6 September 2018. Hulse, Carl.  "A New Reality for Court Confirmations: Pandemonium, Protesters and Partisanship."
  The New York Times.  4 September 2018. Brown, Emma. "California Professor, Writer of Confidential Brett Kavanaugh Letter, Speaks Out About Her Allegation of Sexual Assault."
  The Washington Post  16 September 2018. You Bet Your Life was the post-World War II vehicle that provided Groucho Marx with a career apart from his brothers and introduced him to a generation of viewers too young to remember him from his stage or film work. The interview-quiz show, featuring the famous $100 bonus paid to any contestant who said the "secret word" (displayed on a cartoonish stuffed duck that dropped from above if a contestant uttered the word of the day) debuted on radio in 1947, aired on both radio and television through 1960, and continued on television only for its final season in 1960-61  all in all, an amazing fourteen-year run for a quiz show with a tiny budget, a plain set, and a small jackpot (even by 1950s standards).   Although You Bet Your Life was structured to make it appear as though every show was completely ad-libbed by Groucho (who issued a steady stream of impromptu questions, off-the-cuff remarks, and cutting put-downs to contestants he had met only moments earlier), a good deal of preparation went into each episode. Potential contestants were selected and interviewed in advance, scripts for each week's show were prepared by writers and reviewed by Groucho, and the comedian used a mechanical teleprompter to read his lines during the recording of the program. (In early telecasts of You Bet Your Life, Groucho can be seen reading off sheets of paper propped up in front of him on something resembling a music stand.) It was true, however, that Groucho didn't actually meet the contestants until they walked onstage, and he certainly had plenty of latitude to depart from the prepared gags and questions (as did the contestants), with the result that much of the show's banter was indeed improvised on the spot. About a hour's worth of material was recorded for each half hour program so that flubs, uninteresting segments, and any troublesome or offensive remarks by Groucho could be edited out. The most notable remark of Groucho's You Bet Your Life years, that one that has gone down in legend as one of pop culture's most notorious comeback quips, supposedly occurred when Grouch was interviewing a Mrs. Story, a contestant with a remarkably large number of children (a number that varies anywhere from 10 to 21 in different tellings of the legend): GROUCHO: "Why do you have so many children? That's a big responsibility and a big burden." MRS. STORY: "Well, because I love my children and I think that's our purpose here on Earth, and I love my husband." GROUCHO: "I love my cigar, too, but I take it out of my mouth once in a while." But did Groucho really say this, or is it a remark that (like so many other infamous quips) originated elsewhere and was later attributed to the notable figure deemed most likely to have said it?   Since You Bet Your Life was taped in advance, heavily edited, and not aired live, this remark (if it truly occurred) would certainly have been cut from the finished program as too offensive for the standards of the times; so we can state definitively that (claims to the contrary notwithstanding) nobody ever actually heard it broadcast. If Groucho had really made this quip, the only people who would have heard it would have been the people present during the recording of the program (i.e., the cast, crew, contestants, and studio audience). So, did Groucho in fact utter this risqu remark, even if his bon mot never made it onto the airwaves? The one person who would undoubtedly know the truth is Groucho himself, and he maintained in a 1972 interview with Roger Ebert for Esquire magazine that he never said it: I got $25 from Reader's Digest last week for something I never said. I get credit all the time for things I never said. You know that line in You Bet Your Life? The guy says he has seventeen kids and I say: "I smoke a cigar, but I take it out of my mouth occasionally"? I never said that. This debate really should end here, based on a complete lack of evidence that Groucho ever said any such thing, coupled with his unequivocal statement affirming that he did not (and Groucho had no motive to disclaim one of the most famous lines associated with his celebrity if he really had said it). Instead, the legend persists in large part because misinformation about it is propagated over and over. Take, for example, the following account, presented as a first-person telling in a 1976 book often touted as a Groucho Marx autobiography, The Secret Word Is Groucho: Wherever I go, people ask me about a remark I purportedly made to Mrs. Story. Folklore about the encounter has been so broadly disseminated that it has been variously described as occurring with a mother having any number from ten to thirty children. The story, however, is not apocryphal. It did happen. "Why do you have so many children?" I asked Mrs. Story. "That's a big responsibility and a big burden." "Well," she replied, "because I love children, and I think that's our purpose here on earth, and I love my husband." "I love my cigar too," I shot back, "but I take it out of my mouth once in a while." That kind of remark can have one of two reactions. It will either cause a sharp intake of breath at having crossed some forbidden frontier or it will bring the house down. The studio audience loved it, but the people out there in Radioland never got a chance to react. The exchange was clipped out by Dwan, the house censor. But even though Groucho is credited as the primary author of The Secret Word Is Groucho, it isn't really an "autobiography." The book was actually put together in the waning years of the comedian's life by freelance writer Hector Arce, who ostensibly obtained input from Groucho; and it's unlikely that Groucho's declining health and memory allowed him to contribute much (if anything) to the finished work, leaving Arce to rely on secondary sources. Arce consulted various personnel associated with You Bet Your Life in producing the book; almost certainly one (or more) of those people proffered the "cigar" story as true to Arce, who rewrote it in Groucho's voice and inserted it into the book, unaware that his subject had denied it just a few years previously. Arce's account doesn't sound like Groucho's speaking or writing style at all, and it presents a Groucho who has suddenly "remembered" details he was previously unfamiliar with in his Esquire few years earlier (i.e., he's corrected the gender of the person he was addressing from male to female, he now recalls the contestant's name, and he's fixed the wording of the remark from "I smoke a cigar, but I take it out of my mouth occasionally" to the pithier "I love my cigar too, but I take it out of my mouth once in a while"). While the 1972 Esquire interview in which Groucho discussed this quip unideniably contained Groucho's own words, the same can't be said for what was presented in Arce's book.  The Secret Word Is Groucho account quoted above also has Groucho asserting that the purported exchange with Mrs. Story was "clipped out by Dwan, the house censor." Groucho of course would have known that Robert Dwan was not a "house censor"; he was one of the producers who worked on You Bet Your Life for its entire run, staging the weekly performances and supervising the editing of each episode for broadcast. In his own book about the program (As Long As They're Laughing: Groucho Marx and You Bet Your Life), Dwan wrote: Last summer in Maine, a respectable New York dealer in rare books sidled up to me and said, conspiratorially, "Is it true Groucho made that crack about his cigar?" I knew immediately what he meant. For a long time, I, too, believed it was a figment of the mass libido. But, after discussions with my late partner, Bernie Smith, I am convinced that it did happen. I now believe that Groucho said it, but that he didn't mean what the dirty joke collectors think he meant. That remark, taken at its burlesque show level, was simply not his style. But outside of that studio audience and the 200 people who laughed that night, no one else ever heard that joke, because the exchange was never broadcast. It was never heard beyond the confines of NBC Studio C in Hollywood, and yet the story has spread to become an underground legend. This account is even more curious: Robert Dwan, the man who was onstage for every performance of You Bet Your Life and who supervised the editing of the show, didn't remember hearing Groucho make such a remark, yet he came to "believe" the legend was real because someone else told him so many years after the fact. And although Dwan noted that he consulted "20 volumes of the original scripts" and a "collection of acetate recordings of the unedited performances and tapes of the edited broadcasts" and four reels of 16mm film consisting of "the funniest and most audacious of the sequences which we were required to delete from the broadcasts as being unsuitable for viewing in the 1950s" in the preparation of his book, he made nary a mention of turning up anything supporting the "cigar" story. Steve Stoliar, who worked as a secretary in Groucho's household during the last few years of the comedian's life, also made an affirmative case for this legend in his 1996 book, Raised Eyebrows: My Years Inside Groucho's House: You may have heard about a legendary line concerning a certain cigar that Groucho was alleged to have uttered during one program. Some say it never happened; others swear they've seen it on TV. As it turns out, the truth is somewhere inbetween. One of the unexpected pleasures of spending time with the people behind the scenes was getting to the bottom of this infamous incident. For the record, it was [You Bet Your Life head writer] Bernie Smith who provided us with the details. To our amazement, Bernie had kept a chart throughout the life of the show, in which he had meticulously recorded the names of the contestants, what the secret word was and how much they ended up winning. There was, it seems, a sign painter named Mr. Story who lived in Bakersfield, California. He and his wife had what was reputed to be the largest family in America. Originally there were twenty-two children, but three had died. During the first season of "You Bet Your Life," when it was broadcast on radio only, the Story family was bused in from Bakersfield to be contestants on the show. After a bit of small talk, the conversation went like this: Groucho: "How many children do you have?" Mrs. Story: "Nineteen, Groucho." Groucho: "Nineteen?! Why do you have so many children? It must be a terrible responsibility and a burden." Mrs. Story: "Well, because I love my children  and I think that's our purpose here on Earth  and I love my husband." Groucho: "I love my cigar, too, but I take it out of my mouth once in a while!" The studio audience went wild, but director Bob Dwan ordered the exchange deleted before it could be aired because it was obviously too racy for 1947 sensibilities. So the Story story is true, but anyone who claims to have seen that program is either mistaken or lying because it occurred three years before the show's 1950 television debut and it was edited out of the radio show before anyone but the studio audience had a chance to hear it. Unfortunately, no copies of that legendary outtake are known to have survived. Although the imagined dialogue between Groucho and the female contestant is lifted directly from The Secret Word Is Groucho, this account does at least introduce some detail to the story (e.g., a specific number of children, the hometown of the contestants, the father's occupation, the year of the interview) indicating actual research rather than mere repetition of legend. As we'll see shortly, however, some of this detail is inaccurate. The most recent presentation of the "cigar" legend we're aware of is the background booklet enclosed with the 2003 DVD release You Bet Your Life: The Lost Episodes (a collection of some of the show's preserved TV episodes), which contained the following information about an audio bonus feature included on one of the discs: In December 1950 DeSoto distributed a twelve inch 78rpm recording featuring highlights from You Bet Your Life and a holiday message from Groucho to their dealers. The nine minute recording includes an excerpt from Groucho's November 17, 1947 radio interview with Mr. and Mrs. Story of Bakersfield, California, the parents of twenty children. This interview has become legendary for a portion of it that never aired. Groucho: "Why do you have so many children? It must be a terrible responsibility and a burden." Mrs. Story: "Well, because I love my children and I think that's our purpose here on Earth, and I love my husband." Groucho: "I love my cigar, too, but I take it out of my mouth once in a while." Considering how many people have claimed to have seen or heard that exchange over the years it would seem likely that it must exist somewhere. But of the ninety-nine radio episodes of You Bet Your Life that aired prior to the show's television debut, fewer than half of them survive. And the show with Mr. and Mrs. Story is not among them. The famous exchange would certainly have been edited out anyway. The brief clip from Season's Greetings from DeSoto  Laughs with Groucho is all that remains of this episode. And the only people who witnessed that legendary moment were in the studio audience that fateful night in 1947. (Note that the imagined dialogue between Groucho and Mrs. Story is lifted directly from the book The Secret Word Is Groucho, another indication that it came from someone associated with the You Bet Your Life program and not Groucho himself.) It is true that Marion and Charlotte Story of Bakersfield, California, the parents of twenty children, were once featured as contestants on You Bet Your Life. According to announcer George Fenneman's introduction, Mr. and Mrs. Story were selected to participate because the producers thought it would be interesting to go through the audience and find the couple with the largest number of offspring for Groucho to interview, and as the parents of twenty children (not nineteen, as stated in Raised Eyebrows), Mr. and Mrs. Story qualified for that honor. (Since You Bet Your Life was a well-planned show that interviewed and prepped its contestants in advance, Mr. and Mrs. Story likely appeared on the program by invitation and were not merely present in the audience by happenstance, with George Fenneman's introduction of them probably stretching the truth a little to create an exaggerated sense of spontaneity for the listening audience.) It is also true that this interview took place during You Bet Your Life's days as a radio-only program (it didn't begin airing on television in addition to radio until October 1950); so even if the "cigar" quip had sprung from this encounter, anyone who now claims to have seen Groucho make the remark on television is clearly mistaken.   As usual, however, the DVD booklet's account is rife with misinformation. A complete audio recording of (the broadcast portions of) Marion and Charlotte Story's appearance on You Bet Your Life does indeed exist (and is linked below). Moreover, that recording couldn't possibly date from 17 November 1947, as claimed, because Groucho can be heard making promotional references to DeSoto-Plymouth, who did not become sponsors of You Bet Your Life until partway through the 1949-50 season. (External evidence indicates this recording actually dates from the broadcast of 11 January 1950, the first show aired after DeSoto-Plymouth took over sponsorship of You Bet Your Life from Elgin-American.)  What do we find in this recording? It does not include anything like the infamous "cigar" quip, Groucho's only mention of stogies coming when he inquires of Mr. Story, "With each new kid, do you go around passing out cigars?" ("I stopped at about a dozen," Mr. Story responds.) And for those who would claim that the "cigar" remark was indeed uttered by Groucho but excised from the aired version of the show, we note that none of the claimed dialogue ancillary to that remark is present in the recording, either: Groucho does not ask Charlotte Story why she has so many children, neither Mr. nor Mrs. Story professes to thinking that having children is "our purpose here on Earth," nor does Mrs. Story proclaim that she loves her husband. As we touched on earlier in this article, it's a common phenomenon of urban legendry that amusing stories involving clever repartee often retroactively place words into the mouths of the famous people deemed most likely to have said them. Sometimes, however, the designated mouths don't really match up with the words assigned to them. Johnny Carson's image has long been saddled with the claim that he made a risqu remark to a cat-carrying starlet on the Tonight Show, even though he was never known for employing that sort of crude sexual humor in his TV talk show host role. Likewise, although it might seem that no one would fit a sexual double entendre involving a cigar better than Groucho Marx, even You Bet Your Life producer Robert Dwan acknowledged (as quoted above) that it was too burlesque and not really Groucho's style. It was the kind of dirty put-down Groucho might blurt out in private, but not to a kindly couple on a national radio program. Groucho's style on You Bet Your Life was typically much gentler, as exemplified by the following exchange made under similar circumstances (i.e., when he questioned a female contestant who came from a family of seventeen children): remark Groucho: How does your father feel about this rather startling turn of events? Is he happy or just dazed? Daughter: Oh, my daddy loves children. Groucho: Well, I like pancakes, but I haven't got closetsful of them ... It's not inconceivable that the infamous "cigar" quip might have originated with this very exchange, when someone later misremembered or deliberately "naughtied up" the dialogue to better fit Groucho's public image and changed "pancakes" to "cigar." NOTE: Various "blooper" records purport to offer an "actual recording" of Groucho's remark. However, those record makers typically employed recordings they made themselves using sound-alikes in order to "re-create" events for which no actual recording existed (in most cases because the events were apocryphal ones that never took place). blooper  Brooks, Tim and Earle Marsh. The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network TV Shows.
New York: Ballatine Books, 1999. ISBN 0-345-42923-0 (p. 1138-1139). Dunning, John. On the Air: The Encyclopedia of Old-Time Radio.
New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1998. ISBN 0-19-507678-8 (pp. 732-734). Dwan, Robert. As Long As They're Laughing: Groucho Marx and You Bet Your Life.
Baltimore: Midnight Marquee, 2000. ISBN 01-887664-36-X (p. 129). Ebert, Roger. "A Living Legend, Rated R." 
Esquire. July 1972 (p. 143). Kaltenbach, Chris. "Also 20 Years Dead: Groucho."
The Baltimore Sun. 19 August 1997 (p. E1). Kanfer, Stefan. Groucho.
New York: Vintage Books, 2000. ISBN 0-375-70207-5. Marx, Groucho and Hector Arce. The Secret Word Is Groucho.
New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1976. ISBN 0-399-11690-7 (pp. 43-44). Stoliar, Steve. Raised Eyebrows: My Years Inside Groucho's House.
Los Angeles: General Publishing, 1996. ISBN 1-881649-73-3 (pp. 124-125).