Did Muslims Demand the Cross Be Removed From the Swiss Flag?
In late September 2019, the anti-Muslim hate site Frontlines News published a bogus story reporting that "Muslims in Switzerland are demanding that the white cross be removed from the Swiss national flag because as a Christian symbol it 'no longer corresponds to todays multicultural Switzerland.'" bogus story The story contains a thumbnail image of men holding up a flag and burning it.The image was not taken recently and it wasn't taken in Switzerland  in fact, the flag being burned is Danish, not Swiss. The photograph in question was taken by Agence France-Presse photographer Rizwan Tabassum in February 2006 in Karachi, Pakistan. According to the picture's caption, it depicts men burning a flag in response to outrage over cartoons in European newspapers depicting the Prophet Muhammad, the central figure of Islam. Generally, depicting Muhammad in images and statues is forbidden for observant Muslims.  photograph forbidden Frontlines News quotes and links to a story that was originally published by the Gatestone Institute, an anti-Muslim, non-profit organization that, as NBC News reported in April 2018, "promoted misleading and false anti-Muslim news, some of which was amplified by a Russian troll factory" in the lead-up to the 2016 U.S. presidential elections. Gatestone Institute reported The Gatestone story cited by Frontlines News quotes only one source, Ivica Petrusic, who was the vice president of the Swiss social justice advocacy group Second@s Plus. Petrusic was quoted saying the cross should be removed from the flag to reflect a separation between church and state and the country's growing cultural diversity. Petrusic makes no mention of Muslim people making that demand. The only element of the story linking to Muslims is Gateway's unfounded assertion that Second@s "represents mostly Muslim second-generation foreigners in Switzerland." Because the image took place at a different time and in a different place than Frontlines News reported, and because the underlying story originated in 2011 from an already-unreliable source, we rate this claim "False. Przybyla, Heidi."John Bolton Presided Over Anti-Muslim Think Tank."
NBC News.23 April 2018. McManus, John."Have Pictures of Muhammad Always Been Forbidden?"
BBC.15 January 2015.
Claim:  President Obama signed an executive order to lend $2 billion to a Brazilian oil company, with no financial gain for the U.S. false Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] This is a perfect example why many refrain from watching the news on ABC, NBC, CBS, or MSNBC. Today on a segment of the "Glen Beck Show" on FOX (Fox Cable News) was the following: "Today, even though President Obama is against off shore drilling for our country, he signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company (which is the 8th largest company in the entire world) to drill for oil off the coast of Brazil!  The oil that comes from this operation is for the sole purpose and use of China and NOT THE USA! Now here's the real clincher... the Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil". We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever! Wait, it gets more interesting. Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company and who would benefit most from this? It is American BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was one of President Obama's most generous financial supporter during his campaign. If you are able to connect the dots and follow the money, you are probably as upset as I am. Not a word of this transaction was broadcast on any of the other news networks! Forward this factual e-mail to others who care about this country and where it is going. Also, let all of your Government representatives know how you feel about this. Is this the kind of "transparency" you want from your government? Below is the Wall street Journal article to confirm this. Wall Street Journal editorial Wall Street Journal editorial Origins:  The above-quoted article references a segment attributed to Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck criticizing President Obama for signing an executive order to lend $2 billion to a Brazilian oil company to finance offshore drilling, all without securing reciprocal oil exports from Brazil or any other benefit to the U.S.   Nearly all of the substantive claims made in that article are false, as detailed below:  [President Obama] signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company This statement is false: President Obama signed no such executive order.  On 14 April 2009, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im), an agency whose mission "is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets," issued a preliminary approval for a $2 billion loan to Brazil's national oil company, Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras), to help fund offshore oil exploration and development. Ex-Im preliminary approval The approval of the loan was an action undertaken not by officials who had been appointed by President Obama, but by his predecessor, President George W. Bush, as Ex-Im itself stated: The Bank's bipartisan Board unanimously approved the preliminary commitment to Petrobras on April 14, 2009, before any Obama appointees joined the Bank. In fact, at the time the Bank's Board consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by George W. Bush. Despite the claim that the money committed to Petrobras is "taxpayer dollars," Ex-Im notes that "the vast majority of our financing consists of guarantees of loans made by commercial lenders," that "the bank is self-sustaining and does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress," and that "the Bank's activities do not cost the American taxpayer a dime."    We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever! This statement is also false, one predicated on the mistaken assumption that the only tangible financial benefit of lending money to Petrobras was to guarantee a supply of Brazilian oil for the United States.  The Ex-Im's mission statement declares: mission statement The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) is the official export credit agency of the United States. Ex-Im Bank's mission is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets. Ex-Im Bank enables U.S. companies  large and small  to turn export opportunities into real sales that help to maintain and create U.S. jobs and contribute to a stronger national economy. Accordingly, as set forth in a 29 July 2009 press release, Ex-Im's chairman and president, Fred P. Hochberg, declared that the bank approved the $2 billion preliminary commitment not as a downpayment to ensure future oil purchases from Brazil by the U.S., but "to encourage purchases of U.S. goods and services by Petrobras": press release I chose Brazil as my first international destination for good reason: Brazil is a powerhouse among South American economies and offers tremendous opportunities for U.S. exporters in many sectors. I want Brazilians to know that Ex-Im Bank has the will and the capacity to finance their purchases of U.S. equipment, products and services. (Although Fred P. Hochberg is an Obama appointee, the President did not nominate Hochberg for the position of Ex-Im president until 20 April 2009, a week after the board approved the loan to Petrobras.) nominate    The Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil. China does have an agreement to buy Brazilian oil from Petrobras, but not literally to purchase the entire output of Brazilian offshore oil fields.  In May 2009, the China Development Bank (CDB) agreed to lend Petrobras $10 billion (five times the amount of the Ex-Im loan); in exchange, "the two sides agreed to increase actual crude oil exports from Brazil to China." At the same time, Petrobras and Sinopec (the China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation) signed a separate long-term export agreement providing for  Petrobras to export 200,000 barrels of oil to China per day from 2010 to 2019. agreed    Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company and who would benefit most from this? It is American BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was one of President Obama's most generous financial supporter during his campaign. Billionaire financier George Soros has donated large sums of money to groups that support the goals of the Democratic Party (including an estimated $23.5 million towards defeating the re-election effort of President George W. Bush in 2004),  and his hedge fund (Soros Fund Management LLC) does hold stock in Petrobras.  However, the implication that President Obama unilaterally directed the issuance of a loan to Petrobras as quid pro quo repayment to George Soros is erroneous since, as noted above, the loan was approved and made by a Republican-majority board of Ex-Im officials who had been appointed by  George W. Bush. Soros' hedge-fund firm  sold off 5 million of its 37 million Petrobras shares in May 2009, and the firm sold off another 22 million shares in August 2009, before Petrobras received any loan funds from Ex-Im. sold sold   In a letter published by the Wall Street Journal on 21 August 2009, Ex-Im president Fred P. Hochberg refuted the criticisms expressed in that newspapers' editorial of three days earlier: Your editorial "Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling" (Aug. 18) more correctly should have read, "Obama Underwrites U.S. Jobs." That's because the mandate of the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. (Ex-Im Bank) is to help create and sustain U.S. jobs by financing U.S. exports. Our offer to provide financing to Brazil's state-owned oil company Petrobras does exactly that. That's what is behind our decision to offer at least $2 billion in loans or loan guarantees to help finance purchases of U.S. goods and services by Petrobras. This increases the likelihood that  American  not foreign   workers will be employed to satisfy part of the company's planned $175 billion investment during the next five years. Ex-Im Bank does not make U.S. policy. In fact, our charter prohibits us from turning down financing for either nonfinancial or noncommercial reasons, except in rare circumstances including failure to meet our environmental standards. We make no grants. The vast majority of our financing consists of guarantees of loans made by commercial lenders, not Ex-Im Bank direct loans. The foreign buyers that use Ex-Im Bank products pay us in full. Over the past 16 years the fees that we collect have netted American taxpayers more than $4.9 billion plus the jobs those exports have created. Thanks to the fees we charge, the bank is self-sustaining and does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress. At a time when jobs, and exports, are more important than ever in helping our economy recover, Ex-Im Bank is achieving its mission to keep Americans working, and we're doing it without burdening the U.S. taxpayer. Additional information:  Facts About the Proposed Ex-Im Bank Loans  Last updated:  10 February 2010 On the 2020 presidential campaign trail, California Sen.Kamala Harrisoften describes the economic hardships faced by American families. She cites statistics on the cost of housing, college, healthcare and how, if elected president, her policies would lessen the burden. Harris took the same approach while speaking on the Pod Save Americapodcastthis week, where she made this claim about economic instability: It's clear in our country right now, almost half of American families are a $400 unexpected expense away from complete upheaval. Weve seen similar versions of this claim before and wanted to know whether Harris statement was accurate. We set out on a fact check. Our research In January, PolitiFact ratedMostly Truea similar claim by Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz. He claimed in a 60 Minutes interview that Over 40 percent of the American people don't have $400 in the bank. Schultz had relied on a May 2018 Federal Reservereporton the well-being of U.S. Households in 2017. It found that Four in 10 adults, if faced with an unexpected expense of $400, would either not be able to cover it or would cover it by selling something or borrowing money. Those findings generally support Harris contention of almost half of American families facing hardship with a $400 cost. A Harris campaign spokeswoman said the senator relied on the Fed report. But we took a deeper look at the survey to examine her contention this would really lead to complete upheaval for almost half of American families. What did the survey ask? Heres the survey question that led to the finding that 40 percent of adults couldnt immediately pay for a $400 unforeseen cost. EF3. Suppose that you have an emergency expense that costs $400. Based on your current financial situation, how would you pay for this expense? If you would use more than one method to cover this expense, please select all that apply. a. Put it on my credit card and pay it off in full at the next statement b. Put it on my credit card and pay it off over time c. With the money currently in my checking/savings account or with cash d. Using money from a bank loan or line of credit e. By borrowing from a friend or family member f. Using a payday loan, deposit advance, or overdraft g. By selling something The findings show that 59 percent of adults in 2017 said they could easily cover (the $400 expense), using entirely cash, savings or a credit card paid off at the next statement. Among those who couldnt easily pay it, 43 percent said they would put it on a credit card and pay it off over time; 26 percent reported they would borrow from a friend or family member; 19 percent said they would sell something; 9 percent responded that they would use a bank loan or line of credit; 5 percent said they would use a payday loan, deposit advance, or overdraft; and 4 percent said they would fined an undefined or other way to pay. And 29 percent said they would not be able to pay the expense right now. Respondents were able to select multiple answers. SOURCE: U.S. Federal Reserve,Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2017, May 2018 Experts weigh in Daniel Schneider, a UC Berkeley sociology professor whose research specialties include economic instability, reviewed Harris statement, along with the survey and its findings. I think it is an open question about how those other options  map with complete upheaval. Is putting something on your credit card to pay off over time complete upheaval? Maybe, he wrote in an email. One could certainly imagine that facing an expense shock and having to resort to (those options) would be stressful. The overall idea behind Harris statement is accurate, Abdur Chowdhury, an economics professor emeritus at Marquette University told us in an email. Chowdhury added, however, that the percentage of people who face a hardship due to a $400 unanticipated cost may be lower today. The survey, from which the figure was quoted, was conducted a few years ago. With the low unemployment rate and increases in wage rate, fewer people are in that 'close to bankruptcy' category, the professor added. A spokeswoman for the Harris campaign provided a written statement: Millions of hard-working Americans can't cover an unexpected $400 expense. They are a medical bill, a car repair, or a rent increase away from having to make painful choices like turning to a neighbor hat in hand to ask for a loan, putting themselves in spiraling credit card debt, selling their car, or heading to a pawn shop with their wedding ring. To presume any of these things would not upend someone's daily life is out of touch. Our rating Sen. Kamala Harris recently claimed: It's clear in our country right now, almost half of American families are a $400 unexpected expense away from complete upheaval. The portion of Harris statement about almost half of families is on the right track. A 2018 Federal Reserve report found 40 percent of adults surveyed could not easily pay for an unforeseen $400 cost. But the report doesnt describe complete upheaval for that group. Instead, it found many would place that expense on a credit card and pay it off over time, borrow money from a friend or family or sell a possession. Those represent very real hardships for families. But to characterize them as leading to complete upheaval is not supported by the facts and takes the survey results out-of-context. We rated Harris claim Half True. HALF TRUE The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. RELATED: Kamala Harris calls her LIFT plan the most significant middle-class tax cut in generations. Is it? Kamala Harris gets it mostly right on Americas rapid growth of student loan debt Are paychecks failing to keep up with inflation? Does teacher pay fall short of the living wage in 30 states, as Kamala Harris said? Infrastructure is one of Gov. Mike Parsons top priorities in the 100th legislative session, and some representatives have followed suit. House Budget Chairman Rep. Cody Smith, R-Carthage, presented a budget plan to fund road and bridge improvements throughout the state. Smith said his plan would fund the infrastructure improvements without raising taxes or accruing new debt. Smith wanted to do this by appropriating funds from general revenue to state infrastructure instead of taking out more bonds. Our state transportation department already has a heavy debt load and has paid more than $700 million in debt payments in just the last two years, Smith wrote in a Capitol report sent by his office. Has the Missouri Department of Transportation really paid more than $700 million in debt payments in the last two years? Lets take a look at the numbers Documents from MoDOTshow that his numbers are on point. MoDOTs 2018 Financial Snapshot shows the department paid a little more than that, totaling $702 million in 2017 and 2018. My preference is to avoid debt when possible, Smith said. But, the debt paid doesnt tell the whole story. The department paid $412 million in debt in 2017. The departments average payment since 2004 is about $242 million a year. The number was higher in 2017 than past years because the agency paid off some of its debt early. In 2017, $117.8 million of bonds were paid off early, saving future interest costs of $29.4 million, said Sally Oxenhandler, MoDOT interim spokeswoman. This helped inflate Smiths point when he said MoDOTs debt reached more than $700 million in just two years. This graph of MoDOTs borrowed funds and annual payments helps visualize the amount of debt MoDOT paid in 2017, compared to debt payments in the past. (Look for the mountain peak.) Graph courtesy of MoDOTs Financial Snapshot, November 2018 Compared to other state transportation departments, Missouri does not have a lot of debt, said Todd Grosvener, MoDOT assistant financial services director. Still, Smith wants to limit the state department accruing any more debt. Keeping our road funds stable over the coming years is of the utmost importance, Smith said. When MoDOT takes on more debt, it has fewer dollars to improve our roads and bridges. What is the borrowed money used for? The borrowed funds were and are still being used for hundreds of road and bridge projects throughout Missouri, the agency said. The department borrowed the most money in 2010 when it took on an additional $100 million to replace the Mississippi River Bridge in St. Louis. In 2010, the department also borrowed $685 million for theSafe and Sound Bridge Improvement Program. This three-and-a-half-year project replaced or rehabilitated more than 800 bridges across the state. On behalf of the House of Representatives, Ill be keeping a close eye on the amount of debt the state takes on to improve and maintain our transportation infrastructure, Smith said. Smith said, Our state transportation department already has a heavy debt load and has paid more than $700 million in debt payments in just the last two years. His numbers match MoDOTs records. They need clarification, however, because MoDOT paid off a big chunk of debt early, in order to avoid more interest accumulation. Because the statement is accurate and needs clarification, we rate the statement Mostly True. In May 2016, syndicated talk radio host Sean Hannity aired an item claiming that Donald Trump had sent a plane to give 200 stranded U.S. marines a much-needed ride home after Operation Desert Storm in 1991: item When Corporal Ryan Stickney and 200 of his fellow Marines prepared to return to their families after Operation Desert Storm in 1991, a logistics error forced them to turn to a surprising source for a ride home: Donald J. Trump. Today, Stickney would like to say "thank you." Stickney (left), was a squad leader in a TOW company of a Marine reserve unit based in Miami, FL and spent approximately six months in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War between 1990 and 1991. Upon his units return to the United States, the former Marine says the group spent several weeks decompressing at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina before heading back to Miami. Stickney recalls being told that a mistake had been made within the logistics unit and that an aircraft wasnt available to take the Marines home on their scheduled departure date. This  according to Stickney  is where Donald Trump comes in. "The way the story was told to us was that Mr. Trump found out about it and sent the airline down to take care of us. And thats all we knew ... I remember asking 'Who is Donald Trump?' I truly didn't know anything about him," the former Marine said. Corporal Stickney snapped a photo to remember the day by:   The story came up several times during the course of the 2016 presidential campaign (Cpl. Stickney even told it in person at a Trump rally), but skeptics questioned its validity despite a statement from the Trump campaign allegedly confirming it: "The Trump campaign has confirmed to Hannity.com that Mr. Trump did indeed send his plane to make two trips from North Carolina to Miami, Florida to transport over 200 Gulf War Marines back home. No further details were provided." told confirming The few details we do have about Trump's alleged participation don't, in fact, add up. We can confirm, based on military records, that the 209-member Anti-Tank (TOW) Company, part of the 8th Tank Battalion for Operation Desert Shield, deployed to Camp LeJeune, North Carolina, from their home base in Miami on 26 November 1990. And we can confirm that the company deployed from Camp LeJeune to Saudi Arabia on 22 December, served throughout the combat phase of Operation Desert Storm (from 17 January to 28 February 1991), and returned to North Carolina in April. A command chronology of the deployment notes that a "Cpl. Stickey" was among those receiving certificates of commendation. deployed command chronology We can also confirm, via a 23 April 1991 article from the Sun-Sentinel, that a series of flight delays stalled the company's homecoming to Miami on 22 April, but that they finally did arrive home after split across two separate flights. Stickney's photograph shows that he arrived on a plane marked "Trump," but it also proves something else: that even if Trump did send the plane, it wasn't his private jet. article That Trump didn't send the pictured plane at all was something noted by a sharp-eyed reader, who wrote to us to note: First, thats not Trumps private 727 jet; its one of the jets in the Trump Shuttle fleet. I wondered if maybe Trumps jet back in those days was painted differently, so I researched his private jet as of April 1991. I found that Trump was deep in the red, financially, and having to liquidate assets, one of which was his personal 727. The sale of that jet was finalized in the first week of May 1991, making it highly unlikely he was also flying reservists around while discussing the sale at the end of April. jet Shuttle The markings of the plane in Stickney's photo match those of the Trump Shuttle fleet, so the question becomes: Did Trump himself send a Trump Shuttle to retrieve the stranded Marines, or was it procured some other way? To arrive at an answer, it's necessary to go into a bit of the history of Trump Shuttle. A July 2015 article in NYC Aviation detailed Trump's short-lived airline industry involvement, beginning with an entirely separate carrier, Eastern Air Shuttle, which he immediately rebranded with his own name: article carrier rebranded CEO Frank Lorenzo ... began selling off assets including the prized Shuttle operation. Donald Trump placed a winning bid for the Shuttle, its aircraft and landing slots at LaGuardia and National for $380 million dollars that was financed through no less than 22 banks. The newly branded Trump Shuttle took the skies on June 7, 1989. Timing is everything in business, and unfortunately for Trump he entered the airline game at the wrong time. The US entered an economic recession in the late-80s leading many corporations to cut back on business travel. In addition, tensions in the Middle East leading up to the first Gulf war caused oil prices to spike. This 1-2 punch was devastating for the airline industry and led to the demise of a number of airlines including Eastern and Pan Am. Given these circumstances, the Trump Shuttle lost money, and with Trump continuing to accumulate debt in his other ventures it was becoming increasingly difficult to pay back the loans taken to purchase the airline. In September of 1990 Trump defaulted on his loan and control of the airline went back to the banks led by Citibank. Given that the bankers, not Donald Trump, owned Trump Shuttle from September 1990 until it was sold to U.S. Air in 1996, Trump wasn't in a position to send the planes anywhere, much less on a spur-of-the-moment Marine transport mission. So who did? As it turns out, the U.S. military itself chartered the flights -- a common practice in the day, according to an 11 August 2016 report by The Washington Post: Lt. Gen. Vernon J. Kondra, now retired, was in charge of all military airlift operations. He said that relying on commercial carriers freed up the military cargo aircraft for equipment transport. Vernon J. Kondra Kondra's notes on the flight are declassified and available online and show a contract for Trump Shuttle to "move troops in [the] continental United States" during the 1990-91 timeframe: online There are several references to a 1990-91 contract for Trump Shuttle to carry personnel across the United States, between the East and West Coasts, on a standard LaGuardia-Dover-Charleston-Travis-Chord-Kelly-Dover-LaGuardia run.   "It worked very well, and the crews loved it, and really thought that we'd done something special for them," Kondra recalled in the oral history. "It was a helluva lot better than using 141s [cargo craft], which we could use for something else." But Kondra said that the notion that Trump personally arranged to help the stranded soldiers made little sense. "I certainly was not aware of that. It does not sound reasonable that it would happen like that. It would not fit in with how we did business. I don't even know of how he would have known there was a need." So the real story underlying the claim that Donald Trump personally sent his jet to pick up stranded soldiers and return them to the U.S. is that the military paid to charter a plane from an airline Trump no longer owned in order to bring those service personnel home. Kessler, Glenn.  "Too Good to Check: Sean Hannitys Tale of a Trump Rescue."
  The Washington Post.  11 August 2016. Reed, Ted.  "Trump: I Ran a Great Airline."
  The Globe and Mail.  26 September 2011. Rodriguez-Florido, Lourdes.  "Grand Homecoming Welcomes War-Weary Marine Reservists Company Looks Forward to Settling Into Life's Regular Routines."
  Sun-Sentinel.  23 April 1991. CNN.  "Inside Donald Trump's Private Jet."
  10 November 2009. GulfLINK.  "8th Tank BN Command Chronology 8th Nov 90 to March 91."
  12 April 1991. On July 12, 2022, a Facebook page called "Just Boxing 101" posted a meme that claimed former heavyweight champ Mike Tyson once said, "Social media made y'all way to [sic] comfortable with disrespecting people and not getting punched in the face for it." An official social media account for Tyson really did share this quote with an image of him, and he appears to be the original author of the message. posted Mike Tyson The post on the boxing page received over 14,000 shares in three days.  For our research, we searched Twitter for the quote, and found a tweet that claimed Tyson had posted the message on Facebook in 2020. That information led us to his original post. Twitter tweet Tyson Facebook post  This post truly did come from Tyson's official, and verified, Facebook page. For that reason, we rated this claim "Correct Attribution." While we were looking around for evidence of the Tyson quote, we noticed a user in a Facebook group named "Snowflake Central" shared the above-mentioned meme, generating hundreds of additional views of it.  Snowflake Central shared This Facebook group, with its more than 30,000 members, deserved a closer examination because it included characteristics that are often indicative of foreign-run social media accounts that spread propaganda and disinformation to a U.S. audience.  Firstly, this Facebook group claimed that it was based in California City, California. While California City is a real city with around 14,000 residents, we have found in several past investigations that many politically-oriented Facebook accounts, pages, or groups that showed the town as their location were actually managed by foreign users pretending to be Americans. 14,000 residents several past investigations  Why California City? It's plausible to suppose that foreign propagandists and disinformation purveyors mistakenly typed the state name in the city field when filling out the various questions to set up accounts, pages, and groups on Facebook. The first city to auto-populate when typing "California" into the city field on Facebook is California City. Another indication of the "Snowflake Central" group's suspicious origins: its administrators. Four administrators were publicly displayed on the page, and one of those accounts had a duplicate account and claimed to be the "CEO at eBay" (and it wasn't Jamie Iannone, the e-commerce site's real CEO). Meanwhile, another a Facebook page, not a profile, for a political organization named "Criminal Illegal Aliens - CIA Report" was listed as another administrator for the "Snowflake Central" group. Jamie Iannone Criminal Illegal Aliens - CIA Report We will continue to monitor this Facebook group's future activities. In sum, aside from the separate issue of the suspect Facebook group, Tyson truly did once endorse the idea that, "Social media made y'all way too comfortable with disrespecting people and not getting punched in the face for it." California City, California. City-Data.com, https://www.city-data.com/city/California-City-California.html. Can I Create Multiple Facebook Accounts? Facebook Help Center, https://www.facebook.com/help/975828035803295. Just Boxing101. Facebook, 12 July 2022, https://www.facebook.com/SwankyBoxing/. @LetsGoBackToWCW. Twitter, 21 Apr. 2022, https://twitter.com/LetsGoBackToWCW/status/1517200419763761152. Mike Tyson Internet Trolls Speech Becoming the Legends Best Quote. WBN - World Boxing News, 17 May 2022, https://www.worldboxingnews.net/2022/05/17/mike-tyson-internet-trolls-truth/. Snowflake Central. Facebook, 14 July 2022, https://www.facebook.com/groups/928256410610708/. Tyson, Mike. Facebook, 3 July 2020, https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100044612701436. On 9 September 2015, Minister Louis Farrakhan announced on Facebook that actor Will Smith and his wife Jada Pinkett Smith had donated $150,000 to help cover the cost of the "Justice or Else! Million Man March" event planned for 10 October 2015: Facebook event While neither Will Smith nor Jada Pinkett Smith commented on the announcement, their donation was seemingly confirmed on Twitter by Brother Jesse, a journalist and Million Man March supporter: Shortly after news of the reported donation broke, several conservative media outlets picked up on the story and asserted that Will Smith had donated to a "black Muslim" who planned to "kill all whites." Many of these stories were posted along with a photograph of Will Smith in a kaffiyeh: stories Reports have begun to surface that Smith and his wife, Jada Pinkett-Smith, have given a huge sum of money to Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the radical group Nation of Islam. Nation of Islam also has ties to the Black Panthers, a black power movement that borders on being terrorist organization. That should be interesting to explain on their tax returns. Farrakhan is proudly stating that Smith gave $150,000 to his Justice ... or Else! march. This march, which is theoretically supposed to honor the 20-year anniversary of Farrakhan's Million Man March, will take place on October 10 in Washington D.C. The reality is that this event will most likely be used to call for violence against the police and could well lead to rioting and more than a few arrests. The image of Will Smith in a kaffiyeh was not a genuine photograph of the actor. It was a piece of artwork created by Mohammad Kanoo: artwork His series "A Question of Identity" (2012) presents a range of recognizable international public figures  political leaders and celebrities  dressed in the traditional kandoorah and ghutra for the men, and for the ladies in the abayya and hijab, once again using disjunction as a means of engaging viewers. Using Photoshop, Kanoo gives us an idea of what politicians such as Barack Obama, George Bush and Margaret Thatcher, and celebrities like George Clooney, Oprah Winfrey and Paris Hilton, would look like "out of their comfort zone," that is, if they adopted an Arab sartorial identity. Will and Jada Pinkett Smith's reported donation would go towards sponsoring the "Justice Or Else! Million Man March" event, not to Louis Farrakhan personally. And while Minister Farrakhan is the leader of the Nation of Islam (and did once say that "if the federal government will not intercede in our affairs, then we must rise up and kill those who kill us), those are the views of an individual and not the official position of the organization. say Farrakhan's controversial positions have inspired criticism of his involvement ever since the first "Million Man March" in 1995: criticism March supporters point out that instead of the stereotypes, often perpetuated by the media, of criminals, druggies or dropouts, most African-American men are hardworking people with families and communities. And many are troubled themselves by the reality that some black men have not measured up to their responsibilities. "I have taken the position that this march is directed first at the African-American community, and secondly at the nation at large," said Ron Walters, a professor at Howard University. But both the nation and the African-American community have reservations. Not with the message, but with the messenger: Farrakhan. The controversial head of the nation of Islam is, to many, a racist and separatist. A number of black churches, especially Baptists, have refused to endorse his march. "If it had originated from our end, we would be there," said Levi Chaplin of Pleasant Lane Baptist Church. "But we can't support somebody that talks against us in one breath, and in one breath hugs us. I mean, that's not right." Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith may have donated to an event sponsored by Farrakhan's organization, but the associated cause was supporting equal rights for the black community and not funding the murder of white people. State schools superintendent Tony Evers, the Democratic challenger facing Gov. Scott Walker, has pledged to seek$606.1 million increasein funding for special education programs, which would bring funding for such services to $900 million by 2021. School districts have a legal obligation to kids with disabilities, and they are required to provide those services, Evers said when he made the announcement. That, in turn, puts pressure on the rest of the school budget. Its time to change that momentum. States use different methods to allocate special education funds. Wisconsin is one of five that reimburse schools for the costs incurred for educating special-needs students. It is considered categorical aid -- that is, based on a category outside of the regular funding formula. According to areport from the state Department of Public Instruction: This categorical aid is the states primary direct fund source to recognize the additional costs of educating pupils with disabilities. This critical aid program has widespread statewide impact providing funding for all pupils with disabilities, approximately 14 percent of Wisconsin pupils, providing equal benefit across all school districts. Evers request would more than double the state reimbursement rate for school districts special education costs, from 27 percent to 60 percent by 2019. Were going to add $600 million to special education categorical aid; it hasnt been raised in over a decade, Evers said at a primary election forum broadcast Aug. 16, 2018, byWRRD Resistance RadioDevils Advocates. Is Evers right? The evidence When asked about special education funding, a spokesman for the state Department of Public Instruction directed PolitiFact Wisconsin to theWisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau, a nonpartisan entity considered the gold standard on state budget matters. According to the fiscal bureau, in the 2006-2007 budget, the number was just over $350 million. In every year since then, the total has been just under $369 million -- $368,939,100, to be exact. Abdur Chowdhury, Marquette University Department of Economics Professor Emeritus, said inflation in the U.S. from 2007-18 averaged between 1 percent and 2 percent. Thus, he said, in later years, you need to provide more nominal aid in order to be equal to real aid in the early years. So, to keep up with inflation, the$368,939,100in fiscal year 2007 aid would have to have amounted to this much in subsequent years: 2008-09 -- $381,741,700 2009-10 -- $388,003,320 2010-11-- $400,250,755 2011-12 -- $408,533,744 2012-13 -- $414,517,781 2013-14 -- $421,242,038 2014-15 -- $421,742,043 2015-16 -- $427,062,373 2016-17 -- $436,160,315 At the same time, the report notes that while costs have increased, Wisconsin has experienced adecrease in special education enrollmentsince fiscal year 2007: 2007-2008 -- 124,520 2008-2009 -- 123,734 2009-2010 -- 123,412 2010-2011 -- 122,763 2011-2012 -- 121,881 2012-2013 -- 121,378 2013-2014 -- 120,698 2014-2015 -- 118,601 2015-2016 -- 118,923 2016 -2017 -- 118,209 That represents an enrollment drop of 5.07 percent from 2007-08 to 2016-17. The enrollment counts for 2018-19 are not final, but they are expected to again decrease. So, all this raises a question about what has happened with the per-student average -- and whether that has kept up with inflation. According to the Department of Public Instruction, special education costs per pupil in 2008-09 was $10,388, with the state on average paying $2,981, or nearly 29 percent per pupil. In 2018, the estimated cost per pupil is at $12,084, with the state on average paying $3,140, or nearly 26 percent per pupil. So, had the per-pupil amount being paid by the state kept pace with inflation, it would be an estimated$3,489.18in 2018, not the projected $3,140. A DPI spokesman pointed out that the per pupil figures are just special education costs, and those ride on top of regular education costs. The Walker team When asked about Evers claim, Walker campaign spokesman Austin Altenburg pointed PolitiFact Wisconsin to Walker education initiatives that feature targeted aid in the form of grants and other avenues for special education students: Altenburg did not say whether he was arguing these programs more than make up for the lack of increase in the main aid program. In any case, Evers was talking about the main categorical state aid for education, and that is what we are focusing on here. Our rating Evers said special education categorical aid from the state hasnt been raised in over a decade. The Walker administration has launched several initiatives that feature targeted aid in the form of grants for special education students, but the special education categorical aid continues to be set at nearly $369 million. Data shows a per-pupil increase in raw dollars paid by the state, from $2,981, or 28.6 percent, per pupil in 2008 to an estimated $3,140, or 25.98 percent, paid per pupil in 2018. But that increase is more than eaten away byinflation. And the state is paying a lower share of the cost per pupil. We rate Evers statement Mostly True. After Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick saluted legislation potentially giving voters more sway over local property taxes, we wondered afresh about how Texas ranks nationally in terms of property tax burden. Patrick, talking upa proposalhatched by fellow Republicans led by Houston state Sen. Paul Bettencourt, said in a Nov. 29, 2016,press release: Texans pay the sixth-highest property tax in the nation, and Texans have told us loud and clear that common-sense property tax reform legislation is long overdue. In January 2016,we found Mostly Truethe same claim by a Bexar County legislative aspirant. The business-orientedTax Foundation, a national group, drew on 2013 Census Bureau datato mapthe average amount of residential property tax paid as a percentage of home value state by state. By that metric, the Texas rate of 1.9 percent proved higher than the rates in 44 states; it was topped by the rates for Wisconsin, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Illinois and No. 1 New Jersey at 2.38 percent. Still, we noted, property taxes in Texas are levied locally in Texas, resulting in ample differences in the burden depending on where taxpayers live. Rankings yet to be updated Not a lot has changed since we reached that conclusion. For starters, the rankings  showing Texas with the sixth highest mean effective property tax rate on owner-occupied housing  havent been updated, the foundations Jared Walczak said to our inquiry. Yet, Walczak also told us by email, this does not make Texas a high-tax state. Texas has chosen to rely more heavily on property taxes, and less heavily on other taxes, than many peer states, foregoing some altogether. The state's tax structure is an important part of its economic success, and it is inevitable that, when a state foregoes an individual income tax, some other tax will be somewhat higher than it might otherwise have been. In fact, the foundation has previously reported that in 2012Texas ranked 46thin state-local taxes per resident. Why property taxes can be high Property taxes might be higher here becauseunlike most states, Texas levies no state income tax. Notably too, unlike in some states, Texas property tax rates are set locally, not by the state,according to the Texas state comptroller, with government units spending the revenue to provide local services including schools, streets and roads, police and fire protection and many others. Moreover, the state lacks the constitutional authority to levy a property tax, as the Texas Legislative Council noted in a2002 overviewof local taxes statewide. Generally under the current system, a county appraisal district does an annual property valuation, then each area city, county, school and special district (like hospital and road districts) sets the respective tax rate necessary to raise the money needed to fund the related adopted budget. And according to Census data, property taxes in 2013, the latest year of available data, were the source of 81.6 percent of local tax revenue in Texas (the national average for this figure was 46.7 percent). Updated information is to be posted Dec. 9, 2016, bureau spokesman Sean Patrick told us by email. Regional differences When we looked into this topic before, advocates including Dick Lavine of the liberal-leaning Center for Public Policy Priorities and Dale Craymer of the business-backed Texas Taxpayers and Research Association suggested we consider acomparison studyby the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy showing that property owners in the biggest cities of Texas, especially Houston and San Antonio, had some of the highest property taxes in 2014 compared with large cities in other states. That remained so the next year, according to aJune 2016 institute studyindicating, for instance, that El Paso homeowners in 2015 ranked No. 3 among the countrys 50 most populous cities in homestead property taxes on a $150,000 property or $300,000 property. Among the 50 cities, homestead taxes in large Texas cities including Austin, Dallas and San Antonio ranked No. 5 (Fort Worth) to No. 13 (Houston), according to the report. The disparity between property taxes by county comes through in real-dollar terms, although measures of taxes in terms of dollars paid can be distorted by the difference in home prices from county to county. A Tax Foundationmapshows in real dollars just how much property taxes vary from county to county based on IRS data reflecting the amount of real estate taxes deducted from federal taxes. In 2013, Texas counties with residents paying the most were Travis ($7,553), Kendall ($6,916) and Fort Bend ($6,813), while those paying the least are Dickens ($1,325), Stonewall ($1,425) and Hudspeth ($1,450). Another factor to think about when considering the property tax burden for the average Texan is the rate of home ownership. The Tax Foundation map showing Texas tied for sixth-highest in property taxes considered the percentage of home value thats paid in property taxes on owner-occupied housing. In 2015, 61.1 percent of Texas housing was owner-occupied, tying the state with Oregon for the nations sixth-lowest rate,according tothe Census Bureau. Our ruling Patrick said: Texans pay the sixth-highest property tax in the nation. While it may be true that on average, Texas property taxes are the sixth-highest in the nation, the actual taxpayer burden on residents can vary greatly by locality, making the average less representative. We rate the 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 As state Sen. Barbara Buono kicked off her campaign to unseat Gov. Chris Christie, state Democratic Party Chairman John Wisniewski said she had a record on which to run.That record, he said, belongs to the Republican governor.With supporters holding up Buono signs behind him, Wisniewski sounded off on Christies tenure during a Feb. 2 campaign kickoff rally at New Brunswick High School. Buono forms the perfect contrast to Christie, said Wisniewski, a state assemblyman from Middlesex County.We have a governor whos vetoed measures like increasing our minimum wage and restoring the Earned Income Tax Cut, Wisniewski said, eliciting boos from the crowd.The assemblymans charges are pretty solid. By different means, Christie has vetoed bills to raise the minimum wage and to increase the Earned Income Tax Credit after reducing that benefit in his first state budget.But Wisniewskis statement ignores the fact Christie also has offered alternatives to both.First, lets talk about the minimum wage.In late 2012, the Democrat-controlled Legislature passed a bill to increase the hourly minimum wage from $7.25 to $8.50 and implement annual cost-of-living increases. But on Jan. 28, Christie conditionally vetoed the legislation and recommended certain changes, including scrapping cost-of-living increases and phasing in over three years a $1 increase.Democrats have rejected that plan and vowed to ask voters in November to amend the state Constitution with a minimum wage hike tied to annual cost-of-living increases.Now, well address the Earned Income Tax Credit for low-income residents who work.As part of the fiscal year 2011 budget, the state tax credit was reduced from 25 percent to 20 percent of the federal amount. That reduction began with tax year 2010.The Legislature passed a bill in June 2011 to restore the credit to the original 25 percent figure, but Christie later vetoed the bill without proposing any changes. In June 2012, Christie vetoed a second bill to restore the credit.However, around the same time, he offered to restore the credit as part of a plan to provide an income tax cut That proposal was outlined in Christies conditional veto of a separate bill that would have raised the income tax rate on taxable income of more than $1 million.The Legislature has not acted on the governors proposal.More recently, Christie agreed to increase the tax credit as part of his conditional veto on the minimum wage bill.So, while its correct the governor vetoed two bills to restore the Earned Income Tax Credit, he also has offered at least two proposals that included increasing the tax credit.Alicia DAlessandro, a spokeswoman for Wisniewski, said in an e-mail that the governors alternative proposals are not worth acknowledging.The conditions attached to his vetoes undercut the purpose of the bills and do not even merit acknowledgement, she said. In what world would the Democratic state chairman give credit to the Republican governor for alternative measures that were clearly offered only for show?Anyone who believes that would happen at a campaign rally must think this election is happening in Fantasyland.Our rulingAt a campaign rally for Buono, Wisniewski said: We have a governor whos vetoed measures like increasing our minimum wage and restoring the earned income tax cut.Wisniewski is right about those vetoes. Christie conditionally vetoed a bill to raise the states minimum wage and issued absolute vetoes on two bills to increase the Earned Income Tax Credit.But the governor has offered alternatives to increase the minimum wage and restore the tax credit to its previous level.We rate the statement Mostly True.To comment on this ruling, go toNJ.com. 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.