Are Social Security Numbers Assigned by Race?
The Social Security "middle digit" rumor is yet another Big Brother conspiracy theory, this one purporting that the federal government and its policies help promote racism. We're told the fifth digit of Social Security numbers denotes race, thus identifying blacks and minorities to mortgage lenders, university admissions officers, employers, and others in application processes that should be color blind. Armed with the foreknowledge of who is black and who is white, perhaps the resumes and applications of African Americans are being shuffled to the bottom of the pile. It's a chilling thought because we know in our heart of hearts if an exploitable resource did exist for pegging sight unseen what color any of us was, there are bigots out there who would not hesitate to use it. Thankfully, it doesn't.   The e-mailed warnings quoted above are bunk; none of the digits in a Social Security number has anything to do with race. The only information 'hidden' in an SSN is where and when it was issued.  Each SSN is composed of nine digits, commonly written as three fields separated by hyphens: AAA-GG-SSSS. The first three-digit field is the area number and indicates what state was listed in the applicant's mailing address when the number was issued. Someone with a mailing address in Oregon, for instance, would have a SSN beginning with 540 to 544, while the SSN of someone with a mailing address in Alabama would begin with 416 to 424. The second set of numbers (a grouping of two, which includes the supposed infamous 'race' digit) shows when the SSN was issued, not to whom. Note that it does not directly correspond to the year of issue: a 42 in this field does not indicate this particular SSN was handed out in 1942. Different states go through this two-digit code at different rates.  Moreover, when a state is done with a particular group number, the next one it begins using comes off the line according to a numbering system which makes perfect sense to the government, but to no one else. (Even so, we're going to attempt to explain it here.) Before 1965, only half of the potential group numbers were used: odd numbers below ten and even numbers above nine. In 1965, the system was changed so that assignments continued with the low even numbers and the high odd numbers. Therefore, group numbers for each area number are exhausted in the following order:   Odd numbers, 01 to 09 Even numbers, 10 to 98 Even numbers, 02 to 08 Odd numbers, 11 to 99 The last four digits on an SSN are unique to the individual and are known as the series numbers. They are handed out in chronological order within each area and group number. Simply put, if two people living in the same area apply for a SSN during the same year, the first five digits of both numbers will be identical. If their applications hit the desk at the SSA at the same time, there will be a one-number difference, say, 3456 vs. 3457. Getting back to the 'race' digit  possessed of a better understanding of how the SSA assigns that number, we find that prior to 1965, a bushelful of SSNs with even numbers in this position were  generated (45) as compared to a mere handful of odd (5). The more densely populated the area, the greater the amount of group numbers exhausted, resulting in SSNs in highly-populated areas more closely patterning themselves to the pre-1965 nine-to-one optimal result for this field. In less populated areas, however, the discrepancy between odd and even is less noticeable, because the five odd numbers are used up first (e.g., if in Alaska only twenty group numbers have been used up, then five are odd and fifteen even, resulting in a three-to-1 ratio.) From 1965 on, group numbers continue to be assigned on the above basis, but now with the second set of potential codes (49 only this time; there is no 00) being called into service when the first fifty are used up. Consequently, group codes have to achieve a ten-to-one even-to-odd imbalance before the numbers begin resetting themselves towards parity. So how does this impact the rumor? At the wildest point of the numbering swing, the odds are 10-to-1 any given person's SSN group code is an even number. Therefore, the claim that "I polled 35 African-Americans, 34 had an EVEN fifth digit in their SS#, the 35th person was White/Puerto Rican," isn't all that surprising. Especially when you consider that the five odd group numbers were handed out first, it's almost a leadpipe cinch that the SSNs of most of the people you meet will contain an even group code. All of the foregoing can be summed up thusly: The first five digits of an SSN say nothing about who the number is assigned to  they merely reflect the state and year of issue. The last four digits are particular to the individual subscriber, but they're handed out randomly, with the sole determining factor being when the paperwork is processed. Other than his state of residence at the time of application, nothing about the SSN-holder's identity is coded into the number assigned to him. Let's face it, many of us don't trust the government. Any random tidbit that seems to confirm the rightness of that stance will be seized upon by those who already believe the worst of Uncle Sam. In this case, because Social Security numbers are constructed to conform with certain arcane and almost incomprehensible numbering schemes, it's not that far of a stretch to conclude that some of the 'secret information' encoded into them could be used against us. We already harbor mistrust over being identified by a number, and the revelation that secret stuff is going on with how the numbers are handed out only serves to heighten that anxiety. White, black, or green, no one likes being reduced to a number; it smacks too much of governmental impersonalization, and its Orwellian overtones disturb us. In the case of African-Americans, this more general unease is further enhanced because of how their government treated them in the past, as Patricia Turner, a University of California-Davis African-American and African Studies professor noted in her book, I Heard It Through the Grapevine: Rumor in African-American Culture:  There is no denying that African Americans have suffered unduly at the hands of the government. The Social Security number theory's got that sort of element of the government wanting to track Black people.  It's a theory typical of a suspicion or mistrust of the government that also exists in the non-Black community. Segments of the white community initially resisted implementation of the Social Security card system because they didn't like the idea of Big Brother government nationally numbering people" Additional information:  The SSN Numbering Scheme  (Social Security Administration)    A Myth About Social Security Numbers  (Social Security Administration)   Blocksma, Mary.   Reading the Numbers.
  New York: Penguin, 1989  ISBN 0-140-10654-5  (pp. 162-164).
 Reading the Numbers Johnson, L.A.  "Cyberconspiracy Theories."
  Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  30 July 1998  (p. E1).  Turner, Patricia.  I Heard It Through the Grapevine.
  Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California, 1993.   ISBN 0-520-08185-4  (pp. 103-104). I Heard It Through the Grapevine
During the Republican presidential debate on his home turf of Cleveland, Ohio Gov. John Kasich touted his economic record in the state. Repeating a claim he has often made --including on his campaign website-- Kasich said, I took the state of Ohio from an $8 billion hole  to a $2 billion surplus. We decided to take a closer look. An $8 billion hole? Theres an argument for $8 billion, but theres also an argument for something closer to $6 billion, according to adeep diveby the Cleveland Plain Dealer in 2011. The $8 billion figure is rounded up from a $7.7 billion gap between spending and expected revenues. It was an initial estimate from January 2011, based on the assumption made several months earlier that there would be no new revenue growth. However, revenues did grow as the economy rebounded that year, reducing the gap to between $5.9 billion to $6.1 billion -- a calculation that Kasichs budget director, Tim Keen, agreed with conceptually in a 2011 interview with the newspaper, though he took issue with some of the methodological details. Whatever the number, Kasich avoided a potential misstep when he spoke of this in the debate as a hole rather than a deficit, since Ohio, like most states, cannot run an actual budget deficit. The $8 billion gap is more accurately described as a projected shortfall rather than a deficit. A $2 billion surplus? This figure is clearer. The states Office of Budget and Managementreportedin July 2015 that the states rainy day fund had a little more than $2 billion in it, up from effectively zero when Kasich took office in 2011. Does Kasich deserve credit? Its not unreasonable to give Kasich some credit for the states improving economic fortunes -- he is a governor, after all, and he forged the states fiscal policy in concert with the Legislature. But its important to remember that he took office at the very beginning of the national economic recovery, and as the national economy has improved, so has Ohios. When Kasich was inaugurated in January 2011, the unemployment rate in Ohio was 9.2 percent -- exactly the same as the national rate. Today, the national unemployment rate is 5.3 percent and the rate in Ohio is 5.2 percent. So Kasichs timing has been fortunate. Our ruling Kasich said, I took the state of Ohio from an $8 billion hole  to a $2 billion surplus. Its possible to argue over whether the initial amount should be $6 billion rather than $8 billion. But Kasich didnt pull that figure out of thin air, and it certainly was high by historical standards. He also used the term hole, which is more appropriate than deficit would have been. Meanwhile, the $2 billion figure seems solid. Still, its worth noting that Kasich spoke a little grandly when he said that I did it, since the states fiscal improvement got a big assist from the national economic recovery. The statement is accurate but needs additional information, so we rate it Mostly True. Editor's note: Shortly after this article was published, U.S. President Donald Trump vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act. You can read more about Trump's veto here from the Associated Press. The original article continues below. Associated Press House Resolution 6395, or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (NDAA), was surprisingly controversial during the final weeks of 2020. U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to veto the military budget bill, which passed the House and Senate with more than a two-thirds majority vote, because it did not call for the removal of Section 230, an unrelated piece of legislation that provides internet publishers legal immunity from third-party content.  threatened to veto Section 230 On Dec. 22, 2020, conservative commentator Chuck Callesto claimed that there was another reason Trump might want to veto the bill. Callesto wrote that the NDAA contained a provision that "Nullifies the President's use of the Insurrection Act."   While Callesto presents his claim as if he is quoting directly from the bill, the phrase "nullifies the President's use of the Insurrection Act" does not appear anywhere in the NDAA (which numbers 1,480 pages, not 5,893 as Callesto claimed), the full text of which can be found here.  here Insurrection Act House Amendment 833 It's a bit of a moot point, however, as this amendment did not make it into the final bill. As of this writing, the NDAA does not include any language pertaining to the Insurrection Act.  The Hill reported on Dec. 6 that the amendment pertaining to the Insurrection Act was removed as Congress debated the NDAA: reported The NDAA also includes a modest rebuke of Trumps use of Pentagon funding on his southern border wall. The compromise includes House-passed language capping emergency military construction spending at $100 million annually for domestic projects. Trump took $3.6 billion from military construction funds to build the wall. The compromise jettisoned some rebukes of Trump, including House-passed language to restrict a presidents Insurrection Act powers and block funding for a nuclear test. But this year stands in stark contrast to last year, when most of House Democrats efforts to box in Trump on defense policy were stripped from the final product. In summary, the viral tweet claiming that the NDAA "nullified" the Insurrection Act is based on a House amendment proposed in July that would have restricted (not nullified) the president's use of the Insurrection Act. This amendment, which would have required the president to make certifications to Congress before invoking the Insurrection Act, did not make it into the final form of the legislation. Amid tense talks between Congressional Republicans and Democrats over the 2018 federal budget, the attention of many observers turned to each side's record on government spending, benefits and entitlements, and fiscal priorities.  In that vein, a widely-shared Facebook meme took aim at Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, accusing him of supporting a modified version of a long-standing liberal bte noire  drug-testing for welfare recipients.  On 21 January 2018, Facebook user Ken Stanley wrote: wrote Tom Cotton calls for every person who receives Social Security to be drug tested those who test positive will lose benefits.     This claim is false. We searched Cotton's speeches, op-eds, and press releases, as well as the Congressional Record and news archives, and found no evidence of the Senator ever having advocated such a policy. In an e-mail, a spokesperson for Cotton told us the meme was "completely false": Senator Cotton does not support (nor has he ever supported) drug testing for Social Security recipients.  Indeed, even those who call for drug-testing for welfare recipients do not typically propose the same policy for Social Security. This is because Social Security is more widely regarded as an earned benefit (workers contribute to it through payroll taxes), while programs such as housing assistance or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as food stamps) are regarded as welfare. Senator Cotton does, however, have a record of making statements and advocating policies around welfare assistance which have raised eyebrows.  In 2015, Salon and Raw Story headlines accused Cotton of "blaming" drug addiction on Social Security benefits, and claiming that receiving Social Security disability benefits causes individuals to "spiral" into drug addiction. The articles, as well as Cotton's actually comments were more nuanced.  blaming spiral In a speech at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think thank, Cotton advocated for reform of the Social Security disability system, and drew a link between population decline and social ills (including drug addiction) in certain counties and regions, and rates of Social Security disability insurance uptake:  It's hard to say what came first or caused the other: population decline or increased disability usage. Or maybe economic stagnation caused both. Regardless, there seems to be  at least at the county and regional level  something like a disability tipping point. When a county hits a certain level of disability usage, disability becomes a norm. It becomes an acceptable way of life and an alternative source of income to a good-paying, full-time job...After a certain point, when disability keeps climbing and becomes endemic, employers will struggle to find employees, or begin  or continue  to move out of the area.  Population continues to fall, and a downward spiral kicks in, driving once-thriving communities into further decline. Not only that, but once this kind of spiral begins, communities could begin to suffer other social plagues as well, such as heroin or meth addiction and associated crime. In 2014, while running for the Senate, a Huffington Post writer accused Cotton of "calling food stamp recipients addicts." Again, his comments were much more nuanced than that description.  accused According to a Huffington Post transcript of a virtual town hall hosted by Cotton in July 2014, the then-Congressman defended voting down a Democratic bill relating to agricultural payments and federal food aid, on the basis that it did not sufficiently reform the food stamps program, including by requiring drug testing for applicants: voting I dont think that we should be using farmers as a way to pack more welfare spending into Barack Obamas government, Cotton said. Nor should we have a food stamp program that isnt reformed, that doesnt have job training and work requirements, that doesnt have drug testing requirements, so we can get people who are addicted the help they need. Or make sure that long-term addicts or recidivists are not abusing taxpayer dollars. In March 2017, Cotton joined with Republican Senate colleagues in voting to nullify an Obama-era Department of Labor rule which limited the circumstances under which states could conduct drug-testing for individuals applying for unemployment insurance.  voting rule President Donald Trump later formally reversed the guideline, effectively giving states greater powers in conducting drug screening for jobless benefits. So Senator Cotton has certainly supported drug testing for welfare programs  but never for Social Security.  reversed Gauthier, Brendan. "Tom Cotton Blames Social Security for 'Heroin and Meth Addiction' Because Reasons."
 Salon. 10 November 2015. Edwards, David. "Sen. Tom Cotton: Social Security Benefits Cause People to 'Spiral Downward' Into Heroin Addiction."
 Raw Story. 9 November 2015. Lachman, Samantha. "GOP Senate Candidate Tom Cotton Calls Food Stamp Recipients 'Addicts.'"
 Huffington Post. 17 July 2014. Brady, Rep. Kevin. "House Joint Resolution 42 -- Disapproving the Rule Submitted by the Department of Labor Relating to Drug Testing of Unemployment Compensation Applicants."
 Congressional Record. 31 March 2017. U.S. Department of Labor. "Final Rule --Federal-State Unemployment Compensation Program; Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 Provision on Establishing Appropriate Occupations for Drug Testing of Unemployment Compensation Applicants."
 Federal Register. 1 August 2016. U.S. Department of Labor. "President Trump Nullifies Drug Testing Rule."
 U.S. Department of Labor. 31 March 2017. On 13 January 2016, the official web site for the Powerball lottery announced that three winning tickets had been sold (one in California, one in Tennessee, and one in Florida) for the $1.6 billion jackpot. Shortly thereafter, rumors started circulating about the identity of the winners. Powerball Several people took advantage of the hype surrounding the record breaking Powerball lottery and posted fake tickets to their social media accounts. Most of these posts followed the familiar "Like Farming" formula, in which people are promised monetary rewards in exchange for liking, sharing, or commenting on a Facebook message. Like Farming The above-displayed Facebook post, for instance, instructed people to share the photo for a chance to win $10,000. Rickstarr Ferragamo, however, did not win the lottery. The biggest giveaway in Ferragamo's post is that his "winning ticket" was purchased in New York, and not in one of the states which sold an actual winning ticket:   Ferragamo wasn't the only hoaxster to post a ticket from a non-winning state. Twitter user @BerenabasG, who promised to give $2000 to anyone who retweeted his image, and @Nerdout, who just wanted people to "hit him up" about his recent windfall of cash, posted fake "winning" fake from Texas and Ohio:     Some internet hoaxsters, however, did manage to produce fake tickets from one of the states that did sell a winning ticket. The most convincing example of thiscame from skateboarder and filmmaker Erik Bragg:OMG I WON $1.5 BILLION!!!!! I'm posting this in case anyone tries to jack me this is proof! Look it up, I bought in chino hills where I grew up! #powerball #powerball   While Bragg's photo has garnered 100,000 likes on Instagram, the above-displayed image also features a fake lottery ticket. The biggest giveaway here is the "ABCDE" displayed onthe left side of the ticket, which indicates that the ticket should feature four additional groups of lotto numbers. These numbers were removed, however, when the image was altered to display the winning lotto numbers of 4, 8, 19, 27, 34, and 10. As of 15 January 2015, $1.6 billion Powerball lottery winners who have been officially identified are John and Lisa Robinson of Mumford, Tennessee. Robinson UPDATE: Since publication, Californias economy moved up to the fifth largest in the world, according to data by the U.S. Department of Commerce and reported in May 2018 in theSacramento Bee. Its 2017 GDP was $2.747 trillion, surpassing the United Kingdoms $2.625 trillion GDP. State Senate leader Kevin de Len spotlighted Californias economic and social achievements during his speech this week at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. The Democrat from Los Angeles touted the states newly established $15 per hour minimum wage, efforts to keep college affordable and Californias hundreds of thousands of clean energy jobs. Weve made unprecedented progress in every area, De Len told a cheering crowd. And when we elect Hillary Clinton as our next president, I know that our progress will be Americas progress. The state senator then repeated a talking point California leaders love to make on national and international stages, about the size of the states economy: These are the progressive policies that have made California the sixth largest economy on planet Earth, De Len said. We wont wade into the debate over whether progressive or other policies have positioned the states economy on such a high perch. But we will examine the provocative sixth largest economy on planet Earth claim by itself. State Senate leader Kevin de Len makes the sixth largest economy claim at the 1:45 minute mark in this video. Our research State leaders have made this hypothetical comparison for years, examining Californias gross domestic product against nations across the globe. With nearly 40 million people, the state has a larger population than many countries. It also boasts a diverse set of industries from technology to tourism and entertainment. In June, Gov. Jerry Browns administrationreleased figuresshowing California, with a GDP of more than $2.4 trillion in 2015 had jumped two spots in these unique world rankings ahead of France and Brazil and into sixth place behind the United Kingdom. First on the list is the United States, followed by China, Japan and Germany. Californias place on the list has fluctuated over time. It had been 10th as recently as 2012 due to the effects of the financial and housing slumps. The rankings use International Monetary Fund data. California is the only state on the list of nations. Experts have said Californias rise in the rankings reflects its strong economic growth compared with the rest of the world. They have cited Silicon Valleys continued tech boom as a critical factor. It speaks to California doing relatively well in a sluggish global economy, Jeff Michael, director of the University of the Pacifics Center for Business and Policy Research,told the Sacramento Beein June. A more complex picture De Lens statement, made in a short 4-minute speech, did not include much context. When adjusting for the states high cost of living, Californias GDP ranking drops to 11th in the world, according to the California Legislative Analysts Office. A tweet on June 14, 2016 from the California's nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office. Carson Bruno, who studies California policy at the conservative Hoover Institution, says theres a lot missing from the sixth largest economy claim. In California, housing costs more; electricity and gas cost more; and even most goods and services cost more than the national average, he wrote in apost on RealClearMarkets.com. In many respects California's cost of living is much more like a Western European nation than it is like the rest of the U.S. The widely reported global rankings ignore this reality. De Lens spokesman did not respond to a request for comment. Our rating State Senate leader Kevin de Len recently claimed at the Democratic National Convention that California has the sixth largest economy on planet Earth. This hypothetical comparison rests on Californias $2.4 trillion GDP, which moved slightly above that of France and Brazil in 2015 to sixth in the world. The ranking, and De Lens statement, however, ignore Californias sky high cost of living and Silicon Valleys role in the states economic growth. The states GDP drops several places when adjusted for cost of living. De Lens statement, while accurate, could have used this additional information or clarification. We rate his 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. Share the Facts Widget Embed On Feb. 13, 2023, journalist Matt Bindertweeted, "Elon Musk deleted his Eagles tweet after they lost lol." The post included what appeared to be a screenshot of the alleged tweet reading "Go @Eagles!!!" with American flag emojis, and referenced the 38-35 loss by the Philadelphia Eagles to the Kansas City Chiefs in Super Bowl LVII.  We've seen countless fake tweets over the years; those are images that were created to look like famous people posted things that they didn't actually. However, in this case, Musk's "Go @Eagles!!!" tweet was real. It temporarily appeared on Musk's account the night of the Super Bowl, Feb. 12, and it was deleted hours later, after the Chiefs won. For that reason, we rated this claim  [Seealso:Did Elon Musk Sit with Rupert Murdoch at Super Bowl LVII?] Did Elon Musk Sit with Rupert Murdoch at Super Bowl LVII? According to the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, Musk's "Go @Eagles!!!" tweet was live for at least four hours, including for an unknown amount of time after the Kansas City Chiefs won the game around 10:15 p.m. (EST). The same page capture from the Wayback Machine showed that, about 3.5 hours later, Musk also tweeted "GG Kansas City @Chiefs !!" and described Rihanna's halftime show with two fire emojis. That post had also been deleted, as of this writing. It's unclear exactly when or why the tweets were deleted. same page capture Wayback Machine Rihanna's halftime show As of this writing,both links where the tweets once lived for public viewing read, "Hmm...this page doesn't exist. Try searching for something else." both links [See also:Was a Super Bowl LVII 'Script' Leaked Online?] Was a Super Bowl LVII 'Script' Leaked Online Binder, Matt. Twitter, 13 Feb. 2023, https://twitter.com/MattBinder/status/1625144529136324610. "Wayback Machine." Internet Archive, https://web.archive.org/. Ted Cruzs tax plan, envisioningtax returns that fit on postcards, would whack businesses twice over, Marco Rubio says. We wondered about that. In the Jan. 14, 2016, Fox Business Network Republican presidential debate in North Charleston, S.C., Sen. Rubio of Florida said that under the plan advocated by Sen. Cruz of Texas, businesses basically will have to pay a tax, both on the money they make, but they also have to pay taxes on the money that they pay their employees. A moment later, Rubio said Cruzs plan does not eliminate the corporate (income) tax or the payroll tax. Businesses will now have to pay 16 percent on the money they make. They will also have to pay 16 percent on the money they pay their employees. Cruz disputed that characterization, saying in part that a critical piece that Marco seems to be missing is that this 16 percent business flat tax enables us to eliminate the corporate income tax. It goes away. Cruzs plan replaces the corporate income tax, the payroll tax and others with a flat tax. Does it also make businesses pay 16 percent on profits and payroll, as Rubio said? Cruzs plan outlined After emailing Rubios campaign about how he reached his 16 percent conclusions, we turned to Cruzs tax plan asoutlined by his campaign. Under the Simple Flat Tax, Cruz says on a campaign webpage, the current seven rates of personal income tax will collapse into a single low rate of 10 percent. For a family of four, the first $36,000 will be tax-free. The Child Tax Credit will remain in place, Cruz proposes, and the plan revamps the earned-income tax credit while preserving deductions for charitable contributions and mortgage interest payments. Heres the flat-tax postcard as envisioned by Cruz:  SOURCE:Web page,The Simple Tax Plan,Ted Cruz presidential campaign (viewed Jan. 20, 2016) Next up: the 16 percent element. On Cruzs website, we spotted no direct indication the 16 percent would apply to payroll spending. For businesses, Cruz says there, the corporate income tax will be eliminated. It will be replaced by a simple Business Flat Tax at a single 16 percent rate. The current payroll tax system will be abolished, while maintaining full funding for Social Security and Medicare. Cruz further says the business flat tax will be based on revenues minus expenses such as equipment, computers, and other business investments. In general, Cruz says, his proposed tax overhaul will deliver a tremendous economic boost, according to the well-respected Tax Foundation, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit thatdescribes itselfas a leading independent tax policy research organization. Independent breakdowns We fetched the foundationsOctober 2015 analysisof Cruzs plan which, the foundation said, would replace the corporate income tax and all payroll taxes with a 16 percent Business Transfer Tax, or subtraction method value-added tax. In addition, his plan would repeal a number of complex features of the current tax code. Farther along, the analysis spelled out a payroll aspect. Specifically, the foundation said, Cruzs plan: Enacts a broad-based, 16 percent Business Transfer Tax or value-added tax. This tax is levied on all business profits, less capital investment. This would include the payroll of business, government, and nonprofit institutions, as well as net imports. The tax would exempt from taxation the purchase of health insurance. A business transfer tax is also often known as a subtraction-method value-added tax. While its base is identical in economic terms to that of the credit-invoice VAT seen in many OECD countries, it is calculated from corporate accounts, not on individual transactions. The foundation also said: Under current law, some taxes on labor are explicitly levied on nominal wages, reducing take-home pay, while others are implicitly passed on to workers through lower nominal wages. The business transfer tax would also fall substantially on payrolls, but it would do so entirely through implicit reductions in nominal wages rather than explicit reductions in take-home pay. Thats a bit gobbledy-gooky for us. A foundation official, Kyle Pomerleau, told us by phone and email that what Rubio said largely holds up, though it would be wrong to conclude businesses under Cruzs plan would pay 16 percent on the same money twice. That is, Pomerleau elaborated, Cruzs plan eliminates the existing payroll tax, which is 15.3 percent of wages (half of that paid by employers, the other half by employees), but the plan counts payroll expenditures as part of net business profits, which are taxed at 16 percent. Even though his plan gets rid of the payroll tax, Pomerleau emailed, his new Business Flat Tax will end up taxing that payroll by disallowing its deduction at the business level. Another authority, Joe Rosenberg of theUrban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, told us by phone that Rubio was accurate about Cruzs plan presuming he meant what most people define as profit by his phrase what you make. Rosenberg walked us through how he sees Cruzs plan working: Say a business buys something for 50 cents at wholesale and has to pay its employees 50 cents, accumulating $1 in costs. Then the business sells the something for $1.10, drawing a 10-cent profit. Under the Cruz plan, Rosenberg said, the business pays the flat tax solely on the 60-cent difference between the $1.10 in sales and the 50 cents spent on the wholesale purchase. And, Rosenberg noted, theres another way to pin what Cruzs plan subjects to the 16 percent tax -- by isolating what the business makes, the 10 cents, and then adding the 50 cents in employee payroll. Its very fair to interpret what Sen. Rubio said as correct, Rosenberg said, though its also worth mention (again) that Cruzs plan eliminates existing payroll and income taxes. Broadly, Rosenberg didnt agree that Cruzs plan whipsaws businesses, saying: Its a change in the way theyre taxed. Its not taxing something twice. We didnt hear back from Rubios camp about his claim nor did Cruz aides engage. Footnote: A Jan. 14, 2016,foundation postby economist Alan Cole says Cruz and Rubio arent proposing entirely distinct tax approaches. In fact, Cole wrote, if you put together two taxes from Rubios plan (and fiddle with the rates), you can actually synthetically construct the business flat tax from Cruzs plan! Our ruling Rubio said that under Cruzs tax plan, businesses will now have to pay 16 percent on the money they make. They will also have to pay 16 percent on the money they pay their employees. Under Cruzs plan, that rate applies both to net income and payroll expenditures though the way this description was phrased by Rubio merits clarification. That is, the 16 percent would not be applied to what a business makes and separately applied again to money paid to employees. Also unsaid: The proposed tax would replace taxes including payroll and income taxes. 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. An image purportedly showing NASA astronaut Chris Hadfield holding a bag of marijuana aboard the International Space Station (ISS) was posted by the "Pictures in History" Facebook page in November 2018, along with a caption stating that the astronaut was testing the effects of the drug in space: Facebook   Although followers might expect to see genuine historical images being posted by a social media page named "Pictures in History," that account frequently shares manipulated or miscaptioned images. In this case, an image of Hadfield holding a bag of Easter Eggs was doctored in order to make it appear as if the astronaut were showing off a pouch of marijuana frequently shares manipulated miscaptioned The genuine image was originally posted to Hadfield's Twitter account on Easter in 2013: posted   Not only is the image of Chris Hadfield holding a bag of marijuana fake, but it's unlikely that any similar (but genuine) photographs of astronauts with drug paraphernalia exist, as NASA has been a drug-free workplace since at least the mid-1980s.  drug-free workplace Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson has also warned against drug use aboard the International Space Station, arguing that it could be deadly for astronauts to get stoned in space: warned "The problem is, in space now, many things will kill you. So, if you do anything to alter your understanding of what is reality, that's not in the interest of your health. If you want to get high in space, lock yourself in your cabin, and don't come out. 'Cause you could break stuff inadvertently." Koren, Marina.  "Reefer Madness at NASA."
  The Atlantic.  21 November 2018.  Specktor, Brandon.  "Neil deGrasse Tyson Reminds Us Why Smoking Weed in Space Is a Bad Idea."
  Live Science.  17 September 2018. Texas Lt. Gov . Dan Patrick made such a dramatic claim about must-pass tax-rate legislation--$20,000 in savings for the average homeowner every year!--we launched a fact check. Patrick, during17 minutes of remarks to Capitol reporters May 17, 2017, namedSenate Bill 2, authored by Sen. Paul Bettencourt, R-Houston, as one of two measures--along with the Senate-backed proposal barring local governments and school districts from letting transgender residents use bathrooms of choice--that must pass, in Patricks view, for lawmakers to avoid one or more special sessions possibly called by Gov. Greg Abbott after the regular session that must end by midnight Memorial Day. Patrick, mindful the House then had yet to vote on SB 2, said the Senate-approved version of the measure would bring about the largest property tax reform in Texas history. It would bring local government spending under control, give the voters an automatic election on government spending, of anything over 5 percent, and, Patrick said, save the average homeowner in Texas $20,000 a year over the next 20 years or so. Patrick aide: He meant $20,000 cumulatively Is that correct? To our inquiry, Patrick spokesman Alejandro Garcia said by email that Patrick had intended to tout savings adding up to $20,000 over 20 years. He pointed out a Texas Tribunenews storyposted two days after Patrick spoke quoting an unnamed Patrick staffer saying the same. The Tribune story said Patrick provided its reporter with asheet of figuressuggesting $20,856 in cumulative savings to the average homeowner, a conclusionpredicatedon local tax-rate hikes running higher than usual. The story quoted Dick Lavine, a tax analyst for the liberal Center for Public Policy Priorities,which opposes SB 2, saying: This calculation certainly does not portray what an average homeowner could expect in any given year, to say nothing of experiencing these savings every year for the next 20 years. Bettencourt offers backup We didnt draw any backup from Patrick. But Bettencourt replied to our inquiry by offeringa chartsuggesting escalating savings for what he described as the owner of the median-valued Texas home based, he said, onresearch by the Texas Taxpayers and Research Association, which drew on data on home sales culled monthly by the Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University:           SOURCE:Chartprojecting homeowner savings from Senate-approved version of Senate Bill 2 (received by email from Lauri Saathoff, director of communications, state Sen. Paul Bettencourt, May 17, 2017) In phone messages, Bettencourt noted that the associations analysis suggests that over five recent years, through 2015, the owner of a median-valued home saw a nearly 34 percent escalation in property taxes paid to the local government entities targeted by SB 2, which averages out to increases of more than 6 percent a year. Those entities are cities, counties and special districts though not school districts. How the chart gets to a $22,761 cumulative savings in year 20 figure: It shows first-year savings under SB 2 for the median-value homeowner of $46, second-year property tax savings of $99 with annual savings exceeding $1,100 starting in year 12--and topping $2,100 a year starting in year 17. Each years savings, the chart shows, reflects the difference between what the homeowner would face in local property taxes if all government units raised taxes 8 percent minus what the homeowner would face if the local government entities all raised taxes 5 percent. Under existing law, local governments may raise effective tax rates up to 8 percent without residents being able to petition for a rollback election.The effective raterefers to the rate needed for the governing unit to raise the same total amount of taxes from the same local properties as the unit garnered the year before. Under the Senates version of SB 2, any of the affected entities could raise such taxes up to 5 percent with any additional bump automatically touching off a rollback election. Realistic tax-rate assumptions? We asked Bettencourt about the basis of the charts assumption that local governments will every year across-the-board raise effective tax rates 5 percent and if its realistic to compare that to an assumption that such governments would otherwise uniformly be driving up rates 8 percent every year. In phone messages, Bettencourt stressed the TTARA chart showing the recent average 6-percent-plus increases in property taxes charged the owner of a median-valued home. Separately, Dale Craymer of TTARA declined to comment. Bettencourt also gave  us analternate savings projectionpremised on all government entities affected by SB 2 annually raising effective rates 6 percent (rather than 3 percent) without a change in law. Upshot: Cumulative savings to the median-value homeowner would exceed $17,000 in year 20, the second chart suggests. We asked Bettencourt about available data showing local governments had widely maximized tax rates every year of late.In writing, he replied that hed heard testimony along those lines from an Arlington and a Dallas official during pre-session hearings of the Bettencourt-chairedTexas Senate Select Committee on Property Tax Reform and Relief. Actual county, city tax rate changes Advocates for cities and counties say the senators assumption--that local governments will always uniformly raise effective tax rates to the maximum level allowable without risking a rollback vote at the polls--doesnt reflect what Texas governments have been doing. By phone, Don Lee of the Texas Conference of Urban Counties,representing38 member-counties home to most of the states residents, said that from 2014 through 2016, the counties averaged 2.2 percent effective tax rate increases, falling far short of the 8 percent rate that would open the way to a rollback vote. Lee emailed us aspreadsheetindicating the member counties averaged effective tax rate increases of 3.1 percent in 2014; 3.2 percent in 2015; and 0.7 percent in 2016. We also queried the Texas Municipal League,which says it represents most of the states cities, and whose legislative counsel, Bill Longley, emailed spreadsheets he described as based on effective city tax ratesposted by the Texas state comptrollers officefor a couple of recent years. The sheets show, Longley noted, that the vast majority of cities havent been increasing their tax rates above the current 8 percent rollback rate. According to the sheets, in2014and2015, respectively, about 21 percent of the states cities adopted effective rates equal to or exceeding 8 percent. And, in keeping with SB 2s proposed 5 percent rollback rate, how many cities lately have escalated rates that much or more? According to the sheets, 38 percent (382 of 1,002 cities) in 2014 and 39 percent (376 of 963 cities) in 2015. In both cases, Longley wrote, more than 60 percent of cities were under a 5 percent rollback rate, if it had been in place. Texas A&M expert For an outside perspective, we askedJim Gaines, chief economist of the Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University, to appraise Bettencourts analysis and chart. By phone, Gaines said TTARA presented an accurate figure on its spreadsheet for a median-valued Texas home. But Gaines called highly questionable the assumptions behind the dollar figures in Bettencourts chart--both of local governments uniformly and annually driving up effective tax rates 8 percent without a change in law and of such governments under SB 2 all increasing rates 5 percent year after year. Counties, for instance, dont act identically, Gaines said. Each county is going to be unique, he said. Comptroller makes no homeowner savings estimate Next, we checked thefiscal noteon the Senate-approved version of SB 2 that was public by the time Patrick spoke (a more recentversionappeared May 19, 2017). The March 16, 2017,note, prepared by the advisory Legislative Budget Board staff, states up front that the financial effects of reducing the rollback rate cant be estimated. However, it also says, the table below is a hypothetical example of potential costs of the bill to counties, cities, and special districts based in part on assuming that no voters approve rates exceeding the 5 percent rollback rate and that future rate-setting practices would be similar to the rate-setting practices demonstrated in the available historical tax rate data. And in fiscal 2019, the first year of tax effects, cities, counties and special districts would lose nearly $199 million in revenue, the comptrollers office estimated, an indication of some taxpayer savings, it seemed to us. The  hypothetical shows additional costs to affected government entities in subsequent years. Does the hypothetical lost revenue, we wondered, mean the comptroller got a fix on how much homeowners and other property taxpayers might save? By phone, a spokeswoman for the comptrollers office, Lauren Willis, said the agency has not estimated particular savings for homeowners. Tim Wooten, a comptroller consultant who worked on the table, told us by phone thats because we cant predict what local taxing entities will do in setting rates or if voters indeed will reject all increases at the polls. We asked Wooten to unpack how he reached the hypothesized revenue losses. Wooten said he applied the SB 2 limits to 2015 tax rates set by the targeted entities, finding that in that year, 60 percent of cities and special districts and 70 percent of counties did not set rates high enough to touch off the rollback elections envisioned in SB 2. Wooten said too that a lot of the remaining government entities would have sustained small 2015 losses in revenue if SB 2 had been law then. Bettencourt stands by $20,000-plus figure Following up, we asked Bettencourt if most local entities covered by SB 2 dont reach existing or proposed rollback tax rates, arent homeowner savings impossible to precisely forecast? Of course, Bettencourt saidin writing, because we are dealing with future projections to a 20-year degree. However, downward pressure on property tax rates means tax rate reductions across the board in probability. When we said it looked to us like his projected homeowner savings were based on unrealistic assumptions about all the affected government entities maximizing tax rates every year, Bettencourt replied: Disagree strongly, urging us to revisit the spreadsheet he attributed to TTARA. Our ruling Patrick said legislation targeting local tax rate growth will result in the average Texas homeowner saving $20,000 a year over 20 years. Thats an absurd amount. Even if we look at what Patrick purportedly meant to say  $20,000 over 20 years  we find major flaws in the assumptions underlying that calculation. To reach that amount, one must assume that every city, county and special taxing district will raise tax rates by 8 percent every year without this legislation in place and by 5 percent a year with it. Neither assumption is in line with recent history, making the total savings figure highly suspect, at best a wild guess. Pants on Fire! PANTS ON FIRE The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. CORRECTION, 9:55 a.m., May 24, 2017: Thanks to a reader's nudge, we amended this story to correct our description of the second tax-rollback savings chart provided  by Bettencourt. This revision did not affect our rating of the claim. During a recent visit to the U.S.-Mexico border, Californias Democratic Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom claimed the Trump administrations temporary border closure last month cost $5.3 million in economic loss in the area and that future shutdowns could run into the billions of dollars. U.S. border officials on Nov. 25 stopped all traffic for several hours at the San Ysidro Port of Entry, which serves as the gateway between Tijuana and San Diego. Its the busiest land border crossing in the United States and among the busiest in the world. The six-hour shutdown happened as migrants from Central America protested just south of the crossing. A group later rushed a border fence and were met with tear gas fired by U.S. border agents, who said some threw rocks at them. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said in astatementthe same day that her agency will not hesitate to shut down ports of entry for security and public safety reasons, and would not tolerate this type of lawlessness. Days after the closure, heres what Newsom claimed at apress conferenceheld near the San Ysidro crossing: Every time, with respect, that there is a flippant comment about shutting down the border, it impacts the economy and the lives of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people that are reliant on that trade and commerce on a daily basis. [There was] an estimated $5.3 million of economic loss just for a few hours of shutting down the border. Youre talking about millions and millions of dollars  billions of dollars of economic consequence, if we continue with this rhetoric around shutting down the border without considering what that means. As the debate over the shutdown lingers, we wanted to know whether Newsom got his figures right about its economic impact. We set out on a fact check. U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents attend operational readiness exercises at the San Ysidro port of entry on the U.S.-Mexico border in November 2018. (AP Photo/Ramon Espinosa) Our research An average of 90,000 people legally pass north through the San Ysidro crossing each day, 70,000 in cars and 20,000 by foot. Many work, go to school or shop in the community of San Ysidro, which is the southernmost portion of San Diego, and points north, serving as an economic engine for the region. Californias other border crossings include Otay Mesa, about 11 miles east, along with Tecate, an hours drive east, and two in Calexico in Imperial County. For the specific dollar loss from the Nov. 25 closure, Newsom appears to have relied on an estimate from Jason Wells, executive director of the San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce. In an interview with PolitiFact California, Wells said the $5.3 million loss figure is an estimate based on an average day of sales for the 650 businesses in the area during the Nov. 20 to Jan. 6 holiday period. The area is home to outlet malls, money exchanges and many immigration and tax services, all a short distance from the border. Wells said it draws between 97 and 99 percent of its customers from Mexico. The threat of violence at the border led owners of The Las Americas Premium Outlets, a shopping center next to the port of entry, for example, to shut down the mall that day. Wells said some businesses in the area believe the $5.3 million figure is conservative, given the shutdown happened the Sunday after Black Friday. He added that approximately 75 percent of the areas businesses closed within about 90 minutes of the 11:30 a.m. closure of the border crossing. Just in that one Sunday alone, because of the Christmas and holiday season and so forth, we lost $5.3 million. Just in that one day, Wells added on theSan Diego Union-Tribunespodcast,The Conversation. Tijuana itself lost another $6.9 million. So, just between Tijuana and San Ysidro [there] was $12.2 million lost in one day. And thats not even counting Chula Vista, National City, San Diego, LA, all those areas that were affected by the closure. Lynn Reaser, chief economist at San Diegos Point Loma Nazarene University, said at least some of the economic loss was probably recovered. At this point, the impact on San Ysidro may have been primarily temporary during the relatively brief stoppage, Reaser said in an email. Shoppers appeared to have returned to stores at the Las Americas Premium Outlet, which means that sales could have been primarily delayed. Of course, if border closings start recurring, the picture could become much more grave. Wells said its our hope and prayers that the $5.3 million was made up by shoppers who returned to San Ysidro. Newsom didnt say anything about the potential recovery of this loss, but was generally on the mark. We also examined his claim that future shutdowns could cause billions, a figure thats a bit more difficult to assess. Billions in losses? Extended border closings and delays could mount to billions of dollars in economic losses over the coming months, Paola Avila, a vice president at the San Diego Chamber of Commerce, told Bloomberg in a recentarticle. The uncertainty of border closures occurring at any time is a substantial economic threat for our region, she said. Our economies are inextricably linked. We produce together, we work together, we have families together, we have an integrated supply chain worth $2.5 billion. Jerry Sanders, the former Republican mayor of San Diego and current head of the citys regional Chamber of Commerce, echoed those sentiments in aNew York Timesarticle. If people are staying home because they are worried, the economic impact is obviously huge  we have 73 million crossings a year and we know that the regions $255 billion gross regional product depends on cross-border commerce, Sanders told the paper. Newsoms spokesman said the news reports supported the claim. Our ruling California Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom claimed there was an estimated $5.3 million in economic loss from the temporary closure of the San Ysidro border crossing that separates San Diego and Tijuana on Nov. 25. He added billions of dollars are potentially at stake should future closures take place. Newsoms $5.3 million figure was supported by the head of the San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce, which represents hundreds of businesses on the U.S. side of the border. A leading economist in the region said San Ysidro is likely to recover at least some of that loss when shoppers who delayed their visits return, as long as there arent additional border closures. Newsom can also point to warnings from business groups about billions of dollars potentially being lost in future shutdowns. San Diegos regional chamber of commerce, including the citys former Republican mayor, said future closures could threaten the billions of dollars in economic activity that flows through the international gateway. This portion of Newsoms claim, however, assumes a worst-case scenario of a prolonged weeks- or months-long closure. While President Trump has threatened to close the border, theres been no evidence that his administration is seeking an extended shutdown. We found Newsoms overall statement was accurate but could use some clarifications. We rated it Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information.