Does 'Forrest Gump' Plot Include These Inconsistencies?
In early 2021, Snopes became aware of online posts alleging narrative plot holes in the 1994 film "Forrest Gump," which American screenwriter Eric Roth created based on a novel with the same title. One Reddit thread, for example, debated the accuracy of a scene in the latter half of the movie in which the fictional protagonist, Forrest Gump, played by Tom Hanks, received a letter from the computer software company, Apple. Reddit thread Additionally, a webpage on My Daily Magazine  a digital hub of self-improvement tips and other content  alleged Gump's famous cross-country run (which came after the Apple letter scene) spanned 1.5 years, based on other context clues, though Gump said he ran for more than three years. My Daily Magazine Below, we analyzed the legitimacy of those claims, which together asserted that the movie that mixed fictional characters and ideas with real events contained at least two plot holes. Before we proceed, let us note here: We requested an interview with Roth by reaching out to the Los Angeles-based talent company, called Creative Artists Agency, which represents the screenwriter, according to IMDB. We have yet to receive a response, and we will update this report when or if we receive one. Creative Artists Agency One Reddit user alleged: "Iconic 'Forrest Gump' Scene Has One Ridiculous Flaw No One Noticed | Forest Gump is set in 1975 and he got a letter from Apple, which wasn't founded until 1981." In other words, the post claimed Gump received a letter from the tech company before it was established. The Reddit post referenced a montage scene roughly one hour and 40 minutes into the movie, when Gump explained his life after working with "Lt. Dan" as a member of his platoon and later as shrimp boat partners. Gump narrates the scene: scene As Gump mentions the "fruit company," movie viewers saw him opening a letter addressed to him with Apple's retro rainbow logo and the title "Apple Computer, Inc." We took the below-displayed screenshot of the moment, via Amazon's digital rental version of the film:   As you can see, the letter was dated Sept. 23, 1975. While the Reddit post claimed the computer manufacturing company was actually formed in 1981  which we learned was inaccurate based on evidence we outlined below  we pieced together events showing when, exactly, college dropouts Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak created the company. As a 26-year-old engineering intern at Hewlett-Packard Company, or HP, Wozniak indeed developed a plan to build his own computer in 1975, after a New-Mexico-based tech firm announced the invention of the first-ever commercially successful microcomputer, the Altair 8800, the previous year, according to Encyclopedia Britannica and the Smithsonian National Museum of American History. Wozniak Encyclopedia Britannica Smithsonian National Museum of American History Wozniak initially pitched his design to his employer, historical records show. But after it expressed no interest in his idea, he teamed up with his former high-school classmate, 21-year-old Jobs, to act on his vision by piecing together equipment in Jobs' Silicon Valley garage. "Jobs and Wozniak named their company Apple," Britannica said.  Portrait of American businessmen and engineers Steve Jobs (left) and Steve Wozniak in 1977. (Photo by Tom Munnecke/Getty Images)  So while Wozniak first acted on a design that eventually led to the company's creation in 1975, Apple Computers, Inc, was not officially established until April 1, 1976, according to an arm of The Library of Congress that documents American business and economics, called Business Reference Services. Business Reference Services The underlying assertion of the Reddit post's claim was accurate: Jobs and Wozniak founded Apple after the date of Gump's letter. Additionally, Apple did not launch an initial public offering (IPO) of its stock  which would have hypothetically allowed Lt. Dan to invest his and Gump's money in the tech company until December 12, 1980, according to EDN, a trade magazine for electrical design and engineering news. EDN "The shares sold out almost immediately and the IPO generated more capital than any IPO since Ford Motor Company in 1956," the magazine reported. "Instantly, about 300 millionaires were created, some 40 of which were Apple employees and investors." In sum, since the letter supposedly depicting Gump's stock investment in Apple was dated in fall 1975, and the fact that Jobs and Wozniak did not officially launch the company until the following spring and allowed public shareholding years after that, it was true to say the movie scene included a narrative plot hole. The original "Forrest Gump" novel by Vietnam veteran Winston Groom, which was published about eight years before the movie's release, did not reference Apple or "some kind of fruit company" in its storyline, based on our keyword search of the text. Winston Groom, In an October 2020 slideshow of "Interesting Facts About Forrest Gump," My Daily Magazine alleged of a roughly seven-minute sequence in the movie, depicting the long run by Gump: alleged seven-minute sequence Forrest Gump said that he was running for three years and two months. But he actually started running the day President Carter collapsed from heat in October 1, 1979, and ran until he got Jenny's letter the day President Regan's [sic] assassination attempt was all over the news. Between the first and the second event, only a year and a half had passed. Put another way, the webpage claimed Gump only ran for 1.5 years  not three years and about two and a half months, like Gump claimed in his narration of the scene  based on surrounding details of the film that depicted real historical events. (Note: Winston's novel did not include the famous cross-country run by Gump.) However, the movie's famous "run scene" began on Gump's front porch in the fictional town of Greenbow, Alabama. The character said "for no particular reason, I decided to go for a little run." Within seconds, viewers saw Gump running past a business in which at least two men were watching a television news cast. The news program said in the background of Gump's narration: "President Carter, suffering from heat exhaustion, fell into the arms of ..." President Jimmy Carter indeed suffered from heat exhaustion while running a six-mile race in Maryland on Sept. 15, 1979, according to news archives obtained by Snopes. "The President was sweating excessively and had become weak and wobbly at the 4-mile point due to heat exhaustion," The New York Times reported two days later. "Carter fell to his knees and was given smelling salts." news archives reported While it was unclear whether the news anchor in in Forrest Gump was reporting on Carter's fall live or recapping the event days after it happened, the inclusion of the detail likely meant movie producers wanted viewers to believe Gump began his run in mid-September 1979. After passing the business, Gump's narration continued as images of him running past Alabama's state line to Mississippi, and eventually reaching the Pacific Ocean in Santa Monica, California, appeared on screen. He supposedly made the same multi-state trip multiple times, only stopping to sleep, eat, and use the bathroom. Then, at one point, movie viewers saw men inside a barbershop and people inside a cafe, including Gump's love interest Jenny Curran, watching TV news programs featuring Gump's run. One news anchor said he had been running for more than two years, which would put the date in mid-September 1981 or later, based on Carter's heat exhaustion episode.  By the end of the montage, when he apparently stopped running and returned to Alabama, Gump claimed, "I had run for three years, two months, 14 days and 16 hours."  Screenshot via Amazon's digital version of Forrest Gump.  The movie's next scene showed a news program playing footage of President Ronald Reagan approaching a limousine and people ducking from gunshots. "Five or six gunshots were fired by an unknown, would-be assassin," a news anchor said, as Gump listened to the broadcast. "The president was shot in the chest." That detail again referenced a real-life event, the attempted assassination of Reagan in Washington, D.C., on March 30, 1981, according to news archives. The president was leaving a hotel speaking event when gunman John Hinkley Jr. opened fire, wounding Reagan and three administration officials. the attempted assassination John Hinkley Jr. Based on back-of-the-napkin math, only one year, six months and 15 days passed between Carter's collapse and Reagan's assassination attempt, proving the underlying claim of The Daily Magazine webpage true  Gump's alleged timeframe for the run did not align with the actual timing of simultaneously-referenced historical events. According to ScreenCraft, an organization that aims to help aspiring screenwriters, cinematic storytellers should avoid such plot errors, big or small, that expose inconsistencies in characters' motivation or storylines. ScreenCraft "Even the best screenwriters make mistakes," wrote Ken Miyamoto, a ScreenCraft blogger and former Sony Pictures screenwriter. "The small ones are those that may slip by the average audience member." Ken Miyamoto
On 8 June 2016, the Facebook page "The Bern Report" shared a document authored by researchers Axel Geijsel of Tilburg University in The Netherlands and Rodolfo Cortes Barragan of Stanford University suggesting that "the outcomes of the 2016 Democratic Party nomination contest [are not] completely legitimate: That social media share described the document as "a fantastic research piece put together by a couple of college students, Rodolfo Cortes Barragan & Axel Geijsel." That document (properly termed a "paper," not a "study," as the latter term implies some form of professional vetting) concluded with the statement that the data examined by its author "suggest that election fraud is occurring in the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential Primary election" and that "this fraud has overwhelmingly benefited Secretary Clinton at the expense of Senator Sanders": document Are the results we are witnessing in the 2016 primary elections trustworthy? While Donald Trump enjoyed a clear and early edge over his Republican rivals, the Democratic contest between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernard Sanders has been far more competitive. At present, Secretary Clinton enjoys an apparent advantage over Sanders. Is this claimed advantage legitimate? We contend that it is not, and suggest an explanation for the advantage: States that are at risk for election fraud in 2016 systematically and overwhelmingly favor Secretary Clinton. We provide converging evidence for this claim. First, we show that it is possible to detect irregularities in the 2016 Democratic Primaries by comparing the states that have hard paper evidence of all the placed votes to states that do not have this hard paper evidence. Second, we compare the final results in 2016 to the discrepant exit polls. Furthermore, we show that no such irregularities occurred in the 2008 competitive election cycle involving Secretary Clinton against President Obama. As such, we find that in states wherein voting fraud has the highest potential to occur, systematic efforts may have taken place to provide Secretary Clinton with an exaggerated margin of support. In an appendix, Geijsel and Barragan stated that their research was still in progress and had not yet been subject to peer review, but since the information was highly topical they believed it better to pre-release their findings due to the ongoing primary ballot count in California (among other factors): Statement on peer-review: We note that this article has not been officially peer-reviewed in a scientific journal yet. Doing so will take us several months. As such, given the timeliness of the topic, we decided to publish on the Bern Report after we received preliminary positive feedback from two professors (both experts in the quantitative social sciences). We plan on seeking peer-reviewed publication at a later time. As of now, we know there may be errors in some numbers (one has been identified and sent to us: it was a mislabeling). We encourage anyone to let us know if they find any other error. Our aim here truly is to understand the patterns of results, and to inspire others to engage with the electoral system. The post-introduction portion of the paper began with a comparison of outcomes in "primary states with paper trails and without paper trails," holding that potentially inaccurate results led the researchers to "restrict [our] analysis to a proxy: the percentage of delegates won by Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders." After identifying via the Ballotpedia web site 18 states that use a form of paper verification for votes compared to 13 states without such a "paper trail," they concluded that states without "paper trails" demonstrated a higher rate of support for Hillary Clinton: Analysis: The [data] show a statistically significant difference between the groups. States without paper trails yielded higher support for Secretary Clinton than states with paper trails. As such, the potential for election fraud in voting procedures is strongly related to enhanced electoral outcomes for Secretary Clinton. In the Appendix, we show that this relationship holds even above and beyond alternative explanations, including the prevailing political ideology and the changes in support over time. The information included in the Appendix didn't explicate exactly what those alternative explanations might be: Are there other variables that could account for our main effect (states without paper trails going overwhelmingly for Clinton)? We conducted a regression model and included the % of Non-Hispanic Whites in a state as of the last Census, the states electoral history from 1992 to 2012 of favoring Democratic or Republican nominees for President (i.e., the blueness of a state), and our variable of interest: paper trail vs. no paper trail. As expected, race/ethnicity and political ideology played a role: The Whiter and more liberal a state, the less it favored Clinton. However, the effect for paper trail remains significant. States with paper trails show significantly less support for Clinton. As such, even beyond the potential for other likely factors to play a role, the potential for fraud is associated with gains for Clinton.  Dependent variable: Percent support for Clinton in the primaries  In the paper's second portion, the researchers examined discrepancies between exit polls and final results by state, a subject of debate (hashtagged #ExitPollGate on social media) that antedated the publication of their paper and was addressed in a Nation article disputing the claim that exit polls revealed fraud. The Nation's analysis held that fraud detection exit polling varied significantly from the type of exit polling typically carried out in the United States: While exit polls are used to detect potential fraud in some countries, ours arent designed, and arent accurate enough, to accomplish that purpose. [A polling company VP], who has conducted exit polls in fragile democracies like Ukraine and Venezuela, explained that there are three crucial differences between their exit polls and our own. Polls designed to detect fraud rely on interviews with many more people at many more polling places, and they use very short questionnaires, often with just one or two questions, whereas ours usually have twenty or more. Shorter questionnaires lead to higher response rates. Higher response rates paired with larger samples result in much smaller margins of error. Theyre far more precise. But it costs a lot more to conduct that kind of survey, and the media companies that sponsor our exit polls are only interested in providing fodder for pundits and TV talking heads. All they want to know is which groups came out to vote and why, so thats what they pay for. As well, standard exit polling conducted in the U.S. can be very inaccurate and systematically biased for a number of reasons, including: including o Differential nonresponse, in which the supporters of one candidate are likelier to participate than those of another candidate. Exit polls have limited means to correct for nonresponse, since they can weight only by visually identifiable characteristics. Hispanic origin, income and education, for instance, are left out. o Cluster effects, which happen when the precincts selected arent representative of the overall population. This is a very big danger in state exit polls, which include only a small number of precincts. As a result, exit polls have a larger margin of error than an ordinary poll of similar size. These precincts are selected to have the right balance of Democratic and Republican precincts, which isnt so helpful in a primary. o Absentee voters arent included at all in states where they represent less than 20 percent or so of the vote. As the New York Times put it, "[N]o one who studies the exit polls believes that they can be used as an indicator of fraud in the way the conspiracy theorists do." Nonetheless, Geijsel and Barragan contended in their paper that: Anomalies exist between exit polls and final results Data procurement: We obtained exit poll data from a database kept by an expert on the American elections. Analysis: On the overall, are the exit polls different from the final results? Yes they are. The data show lower support for Secretary Clinton in exit polls than the final results would suggest. While an effect size of 0.71 is quite substantial, and suggests a considerable difference between exit polls and outcomes, we expected that this difference would be even more exaggerated in states without paper voting trails. Indeed, the effect size in states without paper voting trails is considerably larger: 1.50, and yields more exaggerated support for the Secretary in the hours following the exit polls. The expert whose numbers were utilized for the paper wasn't expressly cited by name, but his moniker appeared on the linked spreadsheet: Richard Charnin. Charnin indeed lists some impressive statistical credentials on his personal blog, but he also appears to expend much of his focus on conspiracy theories related to the JFK assassination (which raises the question of whether his math skills outstrip his ability to apply skeptical reasoning to data). spreadsheet conspiracy theories Geijsel addressed questions about exit poll numbers in a subsequent e-mail to a blogger who was highly skeptical of his research: skeptical In short, exit polling works using a margin of error, you will always expect it to be somewhat off the final result. This is often mentioned as being the margin of error, often put at 95%, it indicates that there's a 95% chance that the final result will lie within this margin. In exit polling this is often calculated as lying around 3%. The bigger the difference, the smaller the chance that the result is legitimate. This is because although those exit polls are not 100% accurate, they're accurate enough to use them as a reference point. In contrast to the idea that probably 1 out of 20 results will differ. Our results showed that (relatively) a huge amount of states differed. This would lead to two possibilities, a) the Sanders supporters are FAR more willing to take the exit polls, or b) there is election fraud at play. Considering the context of these particular elections, we believe it's the latter. Though that's our personal opinion, and others may differ in that, we believe we can successfully argue for that in a private setting considering the weight of our own study, the beliefs of other statisticians who have both looked at our own study (and who have conducted corroborating studies), and the fact that the internet is littered with hard evidence of both voter suppression and election fraud having taken place. That blogger passed the anlysis on to his father ("a retired Professor Emeritus in Mathematics and Applied Statistics at the University of Northern Colorado"), Donald T. Searls, Ph.D., for comment: comment I simply asked him to review it in full and send me his comments as to its methodology and his view as to its validity. For the record, he has been a Republican for as long as I can recall and has no interest in voting for the Democratic nominee, whoever that might be. I received his response via e-mail today. Here is what he wrote: I like the analysis very much up to the point of applying probability theory. I think the data speak for itself (themselves). It is always problematic to apply probability theory to empirical data. Theoretically unknown confounding factors could be present. The raw data is in my mind very powerful and clear on its own. My personal opinion is that the whole process has been rigged against Bernie at every level and that is devastating even though I don't agree with him. I called him after receiving his response to [ask him to] clarify his remarks on the application of probability theory to the data. His comment to me was that he did not believe it was necessary for the authors to take that step. If he had done the study himself, he would not have bothered with doing so. As he said, the data speaks for itself. Although Geijsel cited a number of sources to substantiate the claim that fraud was well-documented in the 2016 primary season, most of those citations involved persons with an interest in the overall dispute (such as groups party to lawsuits). That factor doesn't necessarily cast doubt on the researchers' findings, but it highlights that not much independent and neutral verification of their conclusions has occurred yet.  Cohn, Nate.  "Exit Polls, And Why The Primary Was Not Stolen From Bernie Sanders."
  27 June 2016. Geijsel, Axel and Rodolfo Cortes Barragan.  "Are We Witnessing a Dishonest Election?"
  7 June 2016. Holland, Joshua.  "Reminder: Exit-Poll Conspiracy Theories Are Totally Baseless."
  The Nation.  7 June 2016. Booman Tribune.  "My Dad's View of Election Fraud Study."
  11 June 2016. Booman Tribune.  "Election Fraud Study Authors Respond."
  13 June 2016. In June 2021, as former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin faced sentencing for the murder of George Floyd, one widely-shared social media post accused Chauvin of other crimes, namely tax evasion. On June 25, @davenewworld_2 wrote on Twitter: "Derek Chauvin underreported half a million dollars in income while owing $20,000+ in taxes, and then fucking murdered George Floyd over an alleged $20 counterfeit bill..." wrote   That tweet, and the claims it contained, were further promoted in a popular Reddit post, on the following day. popular Reddit post On June 25, Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill sentenced Chauvin to 22 and a half years in prison for the murder of Floyd, a Black man who died after Chauvin kneeled on his neck for more than nine minutes, in May 2020. sentenced The claim that Chauvin "underreported half a million dollars in income" stems from an ongoing criminal case against him, and his former wife Kellie May Chauvin. However, Chauvin has not yet entered a plea in that case, and has not been tried or convicted, as of June 28, 2021. As a result, we are issuing a rating of "Unproven," for now. When the case is resolved, we will update this fact check accordingly. A brief note: Kellie May and Derek Chauvin divorced in February 2021, and during those proceedings she expressed an intention to change her last name. However, we have not been able to find any record of that name change, so this article refers to her using her last-known last name, Chauvin.  expressed an intention On July 22, 2020, the office of Washington County Attorney Pete Orput charged the Chauvins with nine counts each of felony tax evasion, claiming that they "failed to file income tax returns and pay state income taxes, underreported and underpaid taxes on income generated from various employments each year, and failed to pay proper sales tax on a vehicle purchased in Minnesota." charged The complaint against Derek Chauvin summarized the details of their alleged offenses, as follows: complaint The Chauvins did not file tax returns in 2016, 2017, and 2018. The filed tax returns for years 2014 and 2015 did not report income received from D. Chauvin's off-duty security work and K. Chauvin's photography income. Tax returns for years 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 filed on June 26, 2020, did not report D. Chauvin's off-duty security work and K. Chauvin's photography income.  According to prosecutors, the Chauvins under-reported a total of $464,433 in income between 2014 and 2019, just short of the "half a million dollars" included in the widely-shared tweet from June 2021:  Source: Washington County Attorney's Office  However, the Chauvins have not yet entered pleas in this case, as of June 28, 2021. An omnibus hearing, at which the two defendants could potentially enter pleas, was scheduled for June 30, the Washington County Attorney's office told Snopes.  could potentially enter pleas Since Derek Chauvin has not yet pleaded guilty or been convicted of the charges against him, and neither might ever occur, the claim that he "under-reported half a million dollars in income" was unproven, as of June 28. When the case is resolved, we will update this fact check accordingly. In October 2015, links began circulating on Facebook promising users a free carton of Marlboro cigarettes as a celebration of the brand's 100th anniversary:   The embedded links involved a variety of URLs (like the one above), some of which included entirely unrelated scam-bait terms like "iTunes" and "Apple." Users who clicked through to claim their purported free carton of Marlboros were routed to a page reading "Marlboro is Giving FREE Carton of Cigarettes to celebrate 100th Anniversary (150 Cartons Remaining)," which cloned the style of Facebook-based content (but was hosted on a non-Facebook URL):   As noted, URLs visible in the posts didn't point to any credible domains (or any sites linked to Altria, the brand's parent company). Marlboro didn't appear to even maintain any social media accounts, and the brand's official web site was locked to registered users only. So while no official refutations were issued, it seemed safe to assume cigarette brands largely refrained from participating on Facebook (or creating promotions that could land them afoul of strict tobacco advertising laws). By now, most social media users are familiar with survey scams; Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's, Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among retailers used as bait by scammers (seeking personal information and valuable page likes from Facebook users).  Kohl's Costco Home Depot Lowe's Kroger Best Buy Macy's Olive Garden Publix Target Walmart scammers A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau illustrated how folks might spot and avoid bad actors utilizing the reputations of brands on social media: article Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. While Marlboro occasionally sends coupons to registered customers, tobacco advertising and promotion is heavily restricted (including a prohibition on free samples) and is highly unlikely to ever occur on social media in the manner posited above. restricted [05/05/20] CORRECTION: A previous version of this article incorrectly identified the date of Marlboro's 50th anniversary. That reference has been removed. In a discussion of the economy during the Aug. 29, 2010, edition of ABC'sThis Week with Christiane Amanpour, Democratic strategist Donna Brazile addressed the plight of the long-term unemployed.She said that 45 percent of those who've been unemployed, they've been unemployed for six months or longer. They desperately need the skills and the tools to get back into the workplace.We thought we'd check to see if Brazile was right.We turned to the website of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the federal agency that calculates the national unemployment rate as well as a host of other labor-related statistics.We found two relevant numbers that are published monthly: the seasonally adjusted number of unemployed Americans age 16 and over, and the subset of that group that has been unemployed for at least 27 weeks, or a little over six months. We divided the second number by the first for each month of the Obama presidency -- January 2009 to July 2010. That produced the percentage at any given time of all unemployed workers who have been unemployed for more than six months.Brazile is on solid ground when assessing the past three months. The percentage of unemployed workers who were jobless for more than six months was 45 percent in May 2010, 46 percent in June 2010 and 45 percent in July 2010.But for most of the Obama presidency, the ratio was lower. It climbed slowly, starting at 23 percent in January 2009. It hit 30 percent in June 2009 and 40 percent in December 2009 before cracking 45 percent in May 2010.Brazile's only error here was to use the wrong verb tense. The way she phrased it suggested that 45 percent of those whohave beenunemployed during the current recession were unemployed for at least six months. That's actually been true only for the past three months -- that is, 17 months into the Obama presidency and 32 months into the recession. A more accurate way of phrasing it would have been 45 percent of thosewho are nowunemployed, they've been unemployed for six months or longer.Of course, Brazile's grammatical slip-up should not undercut the seriousness of the economic statistic she's citing. Her point about the long-term unemployed is generally accurate even if her encapsulation of it is a little misleading. On balance, then, we rate her statement Mostly True. On 24 October 2016, health insurance broker Tyler McClosky created a phenomenon on Facebook when he posted a screen shot of what it would cost for a family of four with a total household income of $98,000 in Lee County, Florida, to buy insurance on the Affordable Care Act's marketplace: We were able to recreate McClosky's viral post using the shopping tool at healthcare.gov and the same data he entered (two non-smoking parents with a combined income of $98,000 and two 8-year-old children in Lee County, Florida): tool   But data sent by a Department of Health and Human Services official pointed out that 81 percent of families of that size on an Obamacare plan have household incomes of less than $48,000. So the average family currently subscribing to Obamacare would not be paying nearly as much as the image above depicts in their out-of-pocket premium costs. We entered the same data but changed the income to $48,000 here:   McClosky created the post on 24 October 2016, the same day a report by the Department of Health and Human Services was released detailing an average 25 percent increase in costs to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) customers: customers Across states using the HealthCare.gov platform, the median increase in the second-lowest cost silver plan premium is 16 percent, while the average increase is 25 percent. This figure varies based on locale. For instance, a table compiled by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that people in Phoenix, Arizona will have a 145 percent premium increase, but a tax subsidy will mean a 40-year-old, non-smoking Phoenix resident with a $30,000 annual income will not have to pay any more than last year (which is roughly $207 a month, depending on the plan selected). table According to data sent by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), a majority of consumers covered by the ACA (85 percent) qualify for tax credits that keep pace with premium increases, so many won't see much of an impact on their out-of-pocket costs. data But McClosky was addressing people whose income disqualifies them from that assistance. He told us he used the $98,000 annual income as an example because that is the threshold at which households of four with two children do not qualify for tax credit assistance (you qualify if you make up to 400 percent of the federal poverty line). He said he created the post because he wanted to raise awareness about what it costs to insure a family in which each adult is making an annual salary of $44,000, and neither has access to employer-based health care  a fairly common situation in the United States. His concern, he said, is that only consumers who qualify for a tax subsidy can afford insurance under ACA. If their incomes are too high to qualify for assistance, they may simply go without. While the number of uninsured Americans dropped under ACA, as of 2015, 28.5 million people still lack coverage. Per the Kaiser Family Foundation: Even under the ACA, many uninsured people cite the high cost of insurance as the main reason they lack coverage. In 2015, 46% of uninsured adults said that they tried to get coverage but did not because it was too expensive. Many people do not have access to coverage through a job, and some people, particularly poor adults in states that did not expand Medicaid, remain ineligible for financial assistance for coverage. Some people who are eligible for financial assistance under the ACA may not know they can get help, and others may still find the cost of coverage prohibitive. In addition, undocumented immigrants are ineligible for Medicaid or Marketplace coverage. Eric Seiber, associate professor of health services management and policy at Ohio State, said that the health care system in the United States is the most expensive in the world, and costs have steadily increased over the years. Despite its name, the Affordable Care Act doesn't actually address the cost of health care itself: The ACA is not health care reform. Its health insurance reform. It really doesnt do that much about affordable care or patient protection beyond the subsidies and Medicaid. People's perception that their wages have been flat is an effect of compensation increases going to cover rising healthcare costs instead of into their paychecks, Seiber said. McClosky, who sells health and life insurance plans in Florida, said that the Affordable Care Act has had the effect of diminishing competition among carriers. For instance, Lee County residents can only purchase Blue Cross Blue Shield. Prices in Miami-Dade are lower than in Lee County, because there are more carriers competing with each other. McClosky says insurance carriers have been squeezed by part of the mandate which requires them to spend 80 to 85 percent on claim payouts and health care quality improvement. He pointed to Assurant, a 123-yea-old insurer that specialized in individual and small business plans. They could not survive under the ACA and filed for bankruptcy in 2015. Health care is a source of roiling political debate for years. While the cost of health plans under Obamacare will go up an average 25 percent as of 1 November 2016, the majority of consumers won't experience much change in their out-of-pocket costs when open enrollment starts for 2017, because the tax credits will buffer that increase. Further, as the New York Times pointed out, many Americans are shielded from the immediate costs of health care by employer-based insurance or the public programs: pointed out These increases really matter only for those who buy their own insurance. Most people are unaffected by the rate increases because they get their insurance through an employer or are covered through government programs like Medicare, Medicaid or the Department of Veterans Affairs. Only a small fraction of Americans who have insurance buy individual policies. There are about 10 million people in the Obamacare markets and around an additional seven million who buy health plans outside the marketplace, according to Obama administration estimates. The published rate increases apply only to people who shop in the markets, but premiums are expected to go up sharply for the other plans as well. However, as McClosky's post makes clear, whether people notice it or not, American health care costs are high  and not everyone can qualify for available assistance. Kaiser Family Foundation. "2017 Premium Changes and Insurer Participation in the Affordable Care Acts Health Insurance Marketplaces."
25 October 2016. ASPE Research Brief. "Health plan choice and premiums in the 2017 health insurance marketplace."
24 October 2016. Abelson, Reed, and Sanger-Katz, Margaret. "A Quick Guide to Rising Obamacare Rates."
The New York Times. 25 October 2016. Boulton, Guy. "Milwaukee-based Assurant Health to be sold off or shut down."
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 28 April 2015. The general election for one of Wisconsins U.S. Senate seats may still be months away, but Democrats have been gearing up to defeat Ron Johnson for much longer. Johnson, an Oshkosh Republican and Wisconsins senior senator, has held the seat since 2011. Earlier this year, he announced hedbreak with his initial pledge to only serve two termsand run for a third. In a news release, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin honed in on an action Johnson took at the beginning of his second term: He withheld his yes vote on the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act unless the bill included a tax break for companies calledpass-throughs those that pass all their income on to the owners or investors. Companies structured this way (often small, family owned businesses) are not subject to corporate income tax. And it worked. Once that tax break was added, Johnson voted yes and the bill passed. But Wisconsin Democrats argue it wasnt those small, family-owned businesses that reaped the bulk of the benefits. Multiple independent studies found that the tax carve out Johnson spearheaded overwhelmingly benefited the wealthiest, over small businesses, theApril 29, 2022, releasesaid. Is that correct? Lets break it down. When asked to back up the claim, Philip Shulman, Senate communications advisor for the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, sent a list of analyses of the tax law from news outlets and research organizations. Well start with anApril 2021 studyfrom Treasury economists for the National Bureau of Economic Research. The study found that the top 1% of Americans by income have received nearly 60% of the tax savings created by the provision. Most of that amount went to the top 0.1%. Thats because even though there are many American small businesses that also function as pass-throughs, most pass-through profits flow to the wealthy owners of a small group of large companies, according to an Aug. 11, 2021,ProPublica analysisof the tax law. That small group of the ultrawealthy  made up of Republicans like Dick and Liz Uihlein, whose shipping supply company Uline is headquartered in Wisconsin, and Democrats like former presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg  received close to $25 billion in total tax savings in 2018 as a result of the pass-through tax break benefits, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research study. The rest of the top 10% of Americans by income received a little over $12 billion in total, and everyone else in the country, about $6 billion. An April 23, 2018,congressional reportforecast the same breakdown. In 2018, the Joint Committee on Taxationestimatedthat roughly 53% of the pass-through deduction benefit, or about $21 billion, would go to a few hundred thousand Americans earning $500,000 or more a year. For comparison, the average salary for an American small business owner is about $61,000 per year,according to the salary comparison company Payscale. By 2024, just under $4 billion of the pass-through deduction benefit would go to Americans making less than $100,000 per year, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation Report. More than $31 billion would go to those making over a million dollars a year. To be sure, any broad-based tax cut willmostly benefit the wealthybecause they already pay a large share of income taxes, something Johnson has acknowledged. In an April 28, 2022, interview withCBS 58-TV, Johnson said his efforts were for the many, not the few becausemost businessesfunction as pass-throughs, and that when you start talking about taxation, if you cut taxes for everybody  people who make more money get more dollars cut, but thats our tax system. The Democratic Party of Wisconsin claimed that the pass-through tax break Johnson advocated for in 2017 overwhelmingly benefited the wealthiest, over small businesses. Multiple analyses show Americas millionaires and billionaires are receiving large chunks of those benefits. We rate their claim True. A Democratic legislator declared that state aid fully fuels Texas charter schools while schools serving the vast bulk of students field less money. State Rep.Donna Howardof Austin said in her July 18, 2018tweet: Here's the thing. In Tx, charters get 100% state $/pupil funding while district schools (95% students) get about 1/3 funding from state w/ rest coming from local prop taxes (which is why those taxes are so high). Districts getting less b/c scarce $ going to charters. Howard was reacting to a national Associated Pressnews storyon billionaires championing charter schools. Since 2006, the story says, philanthropists and their private foundations and charities--topped by the Walton Family Foundation, run by heirs to the Walmart fortune--gave almost half a billion dollars to 52 state-level charter support organizations to sustain, defend and expand the charter schools movement. Texas charter schools--public schools with charters run most often by private nonprofit entities--have boomed since the 1995 Legislature authorized them by law. Such schools must meet state-set academic accountability standards, but theyre exempted from other laws affecting districts such as teacher certification and elementary school class-size limits. To our inquiry, Bruce Marchand of theTexas Charter Schools Associationcalled Howards jam-packed claim factually squishy solid. The squishy part, Marchand said by email, is the implication that 100% funded charters have something to do with high property taxes and that districts get less money because that money is going to charters. Districts get less, Marchand said, because state dollars follow students based on where theyre enrolled. Lets break down Howards tweet by its factual elements. Howard said charter schools get all their funding from the state: Charter schools get nearly all their funding from state aid, Marchand agreed by phone, drawing 3 percent from grants and federal sources. That heavy state reliance is logical, Marchand and others said, because unlike districts, charter schools lack the authority to levy property taxes. According to a December 2017 Texas Education Agencydocument summarizing charter school funding, state aid to charter schools escalated from nearly $417 million for 2005-06 to about $2 billion in 2015-16. Howard said school districts serve 95 percent of students: Charter schools serve a growing handful of pupils--5.5 percent of Texas public school students in 2017, according to figures we fielded by email from the TEAs DeEtta Culbertson. That year, she said, 705 charter campuses enrolled 296,323 students--a doubling since 2011, according to an August 2018agency presentationnoted by Marchand. (The state caps the number of state-issued charters, but a charter-holder may open more than one school.) An implication: Districts in 2017 served 94.5 percent of public school students. Howard said districts get one-third of their aid from the state:Earlier this year, we reviewed Legislative Budget Board figures to conclude that in the 1980s, lawmakers voted for the state to cover 70 percent of theFoundation School Program, which is the states primary way of funding schools. State aid, we found, ended up covering a little more than half of related state-local costs. State aid covered 44 percent of such costs in 2016; its expected to cover 38 percent of such costs in 2019. Thats more than a third. When we sought Howards factual backup, Jacob Cottingham in her office responded with materials including aJanuary 2018 LBB chartdelivering percentages like what we previously reported. Cottingham also emailed us a spreadsheet isolating state aid going to districts alone.According to the sheet, which Cottingham said he built based on LBB data, in 2016, more than $17.8 billion in state aid sent to districts accounted for 39 percent of state spending on public education. The sheet says that in 2019, more than $15.7 billion in state funds projected to go to districts will account for 32 percent of state school aid. Howard said the states one-third share of what schools spend is why school property taxes are so high:  To the contrary, we asked Howard, isnt it changes in the value of local property tax bases that drive how much state aid a district is entitled to receive? Howard replied with a statement noting that a districts per-pupil tax wealth is key to how much state aid flows. When students leave a district for a charter (or private school or drop out), the (districts) property wealth per student increases as there are fewer students, and the state's required minimum share to the district is decreased, Howard said. The TEAs Culbertson separately responded by email: One of the primary drivers of the Texas school finance system is student attendance. If a student leaves a school district for any reason, including moving out of state, enrolling in another school district, public charter school, or private school (including home school), the original school district would no longer incur the costs of educating that student, and the original school districts total funding entitlement would be reduced. Howard said districts get less money because dollars go to charter schools: Cottingham told us Howard reached that conclusion by reviewing changes in per-student state spending on charter schools and districts. Cottingham emailed us anLBB chartshowing Foundation School Program state aid per student enrolled in districts compared with charter schools from fiscal 2010 through fiscal 2016 plus estimated and projected aid for fiscal 2017 through fiscal 2019. The chart shows charter schools consistently getting thousands of dollars more per student in average daily attendance:  SOURCE: Chart,Foundation School Program State Aid and Average Daily Attendance for School Districts and Charter Schools, Fiscal Years 2010-19,Legislative Budget Board, 2018 (confirmed by email, R.J. DeSilva, communications officer, Legislative Budget Board, July 31, 2018) According to the chart, charter schools in 2016 fielded $8,956 in state aid per ADA and school districts on average drew $3,800--meaning charter schools got 136 percent of what districts drew.By our calculations, the chart shows charter schools getting 149 percent of what districts would have gotten in 2017 and 167 percent of what districts would get in 2018 and 190 percent of what districts would get in 2019. Cottingham told us the fact that state aid to districts goes up or down based on the value of local tax bases helps explain why districts are projected to get increasingly less in state aid than charter schools. Charter schools, he said, can count by law on getting each years full average adjusted state-aid allotment in contrast to districts whose allocations are affected by how much theyre expected to reap in property taxes. By phone, Amanda Brownson of  the Texas Association of School Business Officials offered a similar analysis. Another facet noted by Cottingham: The state ponies up the full per-student entitlement cost of each student--costing the state more than each per-student payment sent to districts. Of late, the August 2018 TEA presentation says, charter schools draw an adjusted state allotment of $6,540--equivalent, the agency says, to what a small district receives. Meantime, the presentation says, more than 95 percent of students enrolled in districts are in districts getting less than $6,540 in state allotments. We also heard back from Greg Worthington, a University of Texas doctoral student. By email, Worthington saidlegislation revising the school finance system that passed into law in a summer 2017 special sessionwould result in numerous districts losing chunks of per-student aid as charter schools draw more. Asked how funding of charter schools results in less money for districts, Worthington offered adetailed replycentered on reductions in aid to districts caused by students transferring to charter schools. This shouldnt surprise, Worthington indicated, in that the concept of school choicepromulgatedby the late economist Milton Friedman relies on schools competing for funding tied to enrollment. Friedman said government might be responsible for funding schools, Worthington wrote, but he maintained it isnt supposed to administer education. School choice policies embraced by many ruling Republicans ultimately work to replace the public school system with a market-based education system, Worthington said. Our ruling Howard said Texas charter schools get all their per-student aid from the state while school districts, which serve 95 percent of students, get a third of their funding that way with the rest drawn from property taxes. Also, Howard said, districts get less because scarce dollars go to charter schools. Howards points about student enrollment and state funding going to charter schools and school districts hold up. Its also true that a student who leaves a district school to attend a charter school costs the district state aid while that student brings the charter school thousands of dollars more in per-pupil state aid than what the district would get. This dense tweet lacks the clarification that upticks or slides in local property values greatly affect whether a district faces ups or downs in state aid. We rate this claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. This years primary elections are getting so nasty that Lithonia Congressman Hank Johnson has taken to calling them slimary elections.In an op-ed on liberal website The Huffington Post, Johnson, a Democrat, blamed the viciousness on super PACs, political fundraising organizations that can raise unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations and unions alike.In the last two years, super PACs raised more than $180 million -- with roughly half of it coming from fewer than 200 super-rich people and roughly 20 percent from corporations, Johnson wrote in the Feb. 24 article.Those are some big bucks, wealthy people, and generous businesses. We wondered if Johnson got his numbers right.Super PACs became legal after a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision. They are an object of ire for those who think they can be used to buy elections and help donors obscure their identities.A Johnson spokesman said the congressman got his data from articles in Politico and Roll Call. The stories, which ran Feb. 8, lay out the findings of Auctioning Democracy: The Rise of Super PACs & the 2012 Election.The report was authored by left-leaning policy and advocacy group Demos and U.S. Public Interest Research Group, or U.S. PIRG, a consumer advocacy group. It argued that super PACs skew American politics by giving outsize influence to wealthy donors who hold views that do not represent those held by the broader public.Johnsons account matched both news accounts descriptions of the Auctioning Democracy report. One of these descriptions could have been more precise, but they were not unreasonable.From the advent of super PACs to the end of 2011, donors have contributed a total of $181 million in what are called itemized individual contributions to super PACs, the report states. These are contributions from donors who give more than $200. Super PACs must report donor names once their contributions pass this threshold.The report did not tally contributions by small donors, said Adam Lioz, a Demos official and an author of the report.Demos and U.S. PIRG found that 196 people donated $100,000 or more to super PACs, which is just shy of 200 individuals. Calling them super-rich is polarizing, but its reasonable to assume that people who can afford to make a $100,000 donation have unusually high incomes.We used the reports findings to calculate that donations of the super-rich amounted to about 43 percent of total contributions. This is some 7 percentage points lower than the roughly half figure that Johnson used.For-profit businesses contributed 17 percent of itemized donations, the report states. This is just shy of the 20 percent Johnson cited.We checked with the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan organization that advocates for more transparency in government. It is the source of much of the data used in the report, so we wanted to get the organizations take on the numbers. A spokesman said they found no problems with the conclusions of Auctioning Democracy.But for the sake of due diligence, we compared the reports numbers to data published by the Center for Responsive Politics, which keeps a rolling tally of super PAC contributions on its websiteOpenSecrets.org.The data from the CRP and the Auctioning Democracy report are not easy to compare. They track contributions over different time periods, and the CRP tallies a broader pool of contributions.However, we felt an analysis of the CRP data would give us a rough sense of whether Demos and U.S. PIRG overstated their results to make their case.First, we looked at the CRPs count of total super PAC donations.From 2010 to late February, about $215 million had been donated to super PACs, according to the CRP data. This is about $35 million -- or 20 percent -- more than the data published in Auctioning Democracy, but this difference did not signal major flaws.The CRPs number should be significantly higher than the figures in Auctioning Democracy. The report excludes donations of $200 or less as well as contributions for the 2012 calendar year. The CRP includes them.Next, we looked at whether roughly half of super PAC donations came from 200 super-rich people. The CRP publishes a list of the top 100 super PAC donors for the 2012 election cycle on its website. We found they donated about $74 million so far, or 57 percent of the cycles $130 million total.The count in Auctioning Democracy was lower, which suggests that Demos and U.S. PIRG did not overstate the significance of donations from the super-rich.We had difficulty using the CRPs data to check corporate or business donations. The CRPs Web page lists too few organizations, and does not distinguish between for-profit businesses and groups such as labor unions or advocacy organizations.Our rulingJohnson wrote that [i]n the last two years, super PACs raised more than $180 million -- with roughly half of it coming from fewer than 200 super-rich people and roughly 20 percent from corporations.On balance, Johnsons claim reflects the findings of a report by two advocacy groups that are critical of super PACs. The statistics Johnson uses also make sense in light of data published by a separate group.We give Johnson a True. In May 2021, a video started to circulate that supposedly showed U.S. President Joe Biden saying that people making less than $400,000 won't have to pay a single penny in taxes.  Joe Biden  This is a genuine clip showing a portion of the remarks Biden delivered during a visit to Tidewater Community College in Portsmouth, Virginia, on May 3, 2021. While the president said that people making under $400,000 would not pay a single penny in taxes during these remarks, that is not what is outlined in the Biden administration's tax plan. Biden misspoke here. A more accurate way of representing his tax plan would have been to say that people making under $400,000 would not see their taxes "raised" by a single penny.  remarks Biden delivered Here's how Fox News reported on this gaffe: Fox News reported President Biden reiterated his pledge that no American earning less than $400,000 would not pay "a single penny" in additional taxes with a slight twist on Monday, after he proposed several tax increases to fund two sweeping spending plans. Biden appeared to mistakenly leave out a key word during his speech at Tidewater Community College  instead saying that no one earning under his specified threshold would pay any taxes. Biden repeatedly promised during his 2020 presidential campaign that people making less than $400,000 "wont pay a penny more in taxes."  repeatedly promised 2020 presidential campaign   This campaign promise was included in Biden's proposal for the American Families Plan that was released in April 2021: released in April 2021 In all, the American Families Plan includes $1.8 trillion in investments and tax credits for American families and children over ten years. It consists of about $1 trillion in investments and $800 billion in tax cuts for American families and workers. Alongside the American Families Plan, the President will be proposing a set of measures to make sure that the wealthiest Americans pay their share in taxes, while ensuring that no one making $400,000 per year or less will see their taxes go up. When combined with President Bidens American Jobs Plan, this legislation will be fully paid for over 15 years, and will reduce deficits over the long term. Biden has repeatedly promised that people making less than $400,000 would not see their taxes raised under his plan. Although a video that showed him saying that people making less than a $400,000 won't "pay a single penny in taxes" is real, the president clearly misspoke during this portion of his speech. Claim:  Maps show similarity between 2004 U.S. presidential election results and pattern of free vs. slave states in pre-Civil War America.   Multiple  see below. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004]  2004 U.S. Presidential Election Results Pre-Civil War Free vs. Slave States  Origins:  This is another example for which it is difficult to assign a value of "" or ""  there is a basic (and somewhat superficial) underlying fact which is true, but interpretations of that fact's significance are subjective and can be widely varied. It is true that a map showing the locations of free and slave states (and territories) in the pre-Civil War U.S. bears a rough resemblance to a map showing the electoral vote results for the 2004 U.S. presidential election. Senator John Kerry won most of the states in the northeast, the Great Lakes, and the Pacific coast regions, while President George W. Bush captured all of the south plus most of the midwestern, western, and plains states.  However, the similarities between these maps mask some very significant differences. On the eve of the Civil War (which began in April 1861), the United States was very sharply divided along regional lines.  Going into the 1860 campaign, the two major parties both essentially  split in two, each creating a northern and a southern wing.  In the subsequent presidential election the northern Whig/Republican party (represented by Abraham Lincoln of Illinois) didn't even appear on the ballot in most southern states, and while the Southern Democratic party (represented by John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky) did make the ballot throughout most of the north, they rarely drew more than a relative handful of votes in those states.  All four candidates captured at least one state's electoral votes, a rarity in U.S. election history. election captured The electorate in 2004 was not nearly so sharply divided along regional lines, however  an electoral map just makes it appear that way because of the "winner take all" nature of the U.S. electoral system.  Both the popular and electoral vote totals in 2004 were quite close (President Bush won the popular vote by a 51%-48% margin, and a single strongly-contested state such as Ohio could have tipped the electoral vote balance in the other direction), and although the states won by each candidate were largely clumped into regional clusters, both candidates generally ran very strongly even in the states they did not win.  An election map with finer gradation (i.e., displaying results on a county-by-county basis rather than a state-by-state one, and providing color shading to reflect the closeness of the vote in each area) produces a better picture of how strongly both candidates in the 2004 election ran even in states which they lost: 2004  (Click here for a larger version of this map.) here According to exit polls and analysis of county-by-county election returns, the sharpest geographic distinction between the two candidates did not primarily correspond to region but to size of community: Senator John Kerry had a substantial 60%-39% edge in large cities (representing roughly 13% of the total U.S. population), while the reverse was true in rural areas (representing roughly 16% of the total U.S. population), where President Bush garnered a 59%-40% majority.  What we saw in the 2004 election was more of an urban vs. rural division, regardless of state. exit polls Last updated:  11 November 2004    Sources:   Alexander, Kate.  "Election Officials Urge Voters to Check Ballots for Errors."   Austin American-Statesman.  23 October 2004  (p. B1).