Datasets:

Cartinoe5930

/

Politifact_fake_news

like 0

The Department of Veterans Affairs has "a manual out there telling our veterans stuff like, 'Are you really of value to your community?' You know, encouraging them to commit suicide. Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele jumped into the so-called VA "death book" debate, calling it just the kind of thing that makes people nervous about the Democrats' health care reform plan. "If you want an example of bad public policy, just look at the situation with our veterans where you have a manual out there telling our veterans stuff like 'Are you really of value to your community?' You know, encouraging them to commit suicide," Steele said in a Fox News interview on Aug. 25, 2009. "I mean, this is crazy coming from the government. And this is exactly what concerns people and puts them in fear of what government-controlled health care will look like." But like the claim about "death panels" in the health care reform bill, we find this is another ridiculous falsehood about an important end-of-life issue. At issue here is a 10-year-old VA-funded pamphlet on end-of-life issues called "Your Life, Your Choices: Planning for Future Medical Decisions." The pamphlet entered the national discussion on health care after President George W. Bush's director of Faith-Based Initiatives, Jim Towey, wrote an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal on Aug. 18, 2009, in which he took issue with what he called the "hurry-up-and-die message" of the pamphlet. The issue takes on larger import, of course, due to the heated debate over funding for end-of-life counseling included in the Democrats' health care reform bill. In his op-ed piece, Towey zeroed in on an exercise in the manual designed to "help you think about and express what really matters to you." The worksheet poses a number of scenarios and asks users to finish the phrase "Life like this would be..." by checking options that include "difficult, but acceptable," "worth living, but just barely" and "not worth living." While the scenarios include such things as relying on a feeding tube or breathing machine to keep them alive, Towey notes that it also includes circumstances common among the elderly and disabled such as: living in a nursing home, being in a wheelchair and "cannot seem to shake the blues." "There are also guilt-inducing scenarios such as 'I can no longer contribute to my family's well-being,' 'I am a severe financial burden on my family' and that the vet's situation 'causes severe emotional burden for my family,'" Towey wrote. "This hurry-up-and-die message is clear and unconscionable," Towey concluded. Towey also noted that one of the principle authors of the pamphlet, Dr. Robert Pearlman, was among 42 bioethicists who argued in a 1996 case that physician-assisted suicide should be recognized by the courts as a fundamental right. Worse, he said, is that after the Bush administration shelved the pamphlet in 2007 in order to make revisions, the Obama administration revived it in a July 2009 VA directive that "instructs its primary care physicians to raise advance care planning with all VA patients and to refer them to 'Your Life, Your Choices.' Not just those of advanced age and debilitated condition — all patients. America's 24 million veterans deserve better." We should note that Towey, president of St. Vincent College and founder of the nonprofit Aging with Dignity, years ago created his own advance care planning document called "Five Wishes," and he made an unsuccessful pitch to VA officials in 2007 to have the government buy and distribute his pamphlet. In his op-ed, Towey says that unlike the VA's document, his "does not contain the standard bias to withdraw or withhold medical care." Featured Fact-check Blake Masters stated on October 15, 2022 in a tweet Immigrants illegally in the country are treated “better than military veterans.” By Jon Greenberg • October 21, 2022 In response, the Obama administration's veterans agency issued a fact sheet to the Plum Line's Greg Sargent on Aug. 25 in which they state that the "Your Life, Your Choices" pamphlet, developed by the VA more than 10 years ago, "helps veterans consider the types of health care they would want to receive if they were unable to make decisions for themselves, and encourages them to discuss their views with their loved ones and their health care providers, and, if they so desire, to complete an advance directive." The pamphlet "does not promote limitation of life-sustaining treatment, assisted suicide, or euthanasia," the fact sheet states. However, the VA did acknowledge in November 2007 that although "clear in its presentation," it has been "interpreted by some to be too negative in tone and not sufficiently sensitive to the perspectives of veterans with prolife perspectives and veterans living with lifelong disabling conditions." At that point, the VA officially suspended use of "Your Life, Your Choices" pending review by an expert panel, including input from faith-based groups as well as disability experts. The pamphlet is currently undergoing final revisions before being posted online, which is set for the spring 2010. But the pamphlet is still posted on the VA Web site, albeit with a disclaimer that it is undergoing revisions. And a July 2, 2009, memo on Advance Care Planning and Management of Advance Directives states that when patients request additional information about advance directives, "Patients may be directed to the exercises in 'Your Life, Your Choices' or other published resources." According to the White House fact sheet, the pamphlet is still officially suspended, but is available on the Web site because, "it is the official policy of the Obama administration not to suppress or alter information or products resulting from federal research grants." Whether the pamphlet should continue to be made available pending its revision is a matter for political debate. Here, however, we are focusing on Steele's claim that the manual encourages veterans to commit suicide. After reading the 51-page pamphlet, we conclude unequivocally that it does not. Rather, the pamphlet encourages vets to think about the kind of advanced care they'd like to receive in various situations, to communicate those wishes to loved ones, and to formally put them into writing (including steps on how to prepare a personalized living will). Alongside positions such as "I believe there are some situations in which I would not want treatments to keep me alive" is the position, "My life should be prolonged as long as it can, no matter what its quality, and using any means possible." The pamphlet also respects that some people may have religious beliefs that come into play. One position is described as "I'd want my religious advisers to be consulted about all medical decisions made on my behalf to make sure they are in keeping with my religious teachings." The document begins like this: "There’s only one person who is truly qualified to tell health care providers how you feel about different kinds of health care issues — and that’s you. But, what if you get sick, or injured so severely that you can’t communicate with your doctors or family members? Have you thought about what kinds of medical care you would want? Do your loved ones and health care providers know your wishes? Many people assume that close family members automatically know what they want. But studies have shown that spouses guess wrong over half the time about what kinds of treatment their husbands or wives would want. You can help assure that your wishes will direct future health care decisions through the process of advance care planning." With regard to the issue of suicide, the pamphlet is quite clear: Q: Can I specify that I want assisted suicide in my directive? A: No. Assisted suicide is currently illegal. Advanced care scenarios are upsetting to think about and discuss. And we certainly can see how some might think it's insensitive to disabled or aged veterans to have a pamphlet with an exercise that poses scenarios such as being in a wheelchair or living in a nursing home, and then to even include the option to check a box saying that life like this would be "not worth living." But we think Steele goes way too far and sensationalizes an important issue when he says the pamphlet "encourages (vets) to commit suicide" — particularly when you consider the pamphlet in its entirety. This is a pamphlet intended to encourage vets to make choices about the kind of advanced care they want. And for the record, there is nothing in the manual that tells vets "Are you really of value to your community?" We rule Steele's statement Pants on Fire. Note: We added information about Dr. Pearlman on Aug. 28, 2009.

"There's no rationing in any of these bills. It is perhaps the most polarizing word in the health care debate: rationing. Countless conservative opponents of the Democrat-backed health care reform plans have used the word. Their argument goes like this: You get government more involved in running health care, you set a goal of reducing costs, and it will inevitably mean rationing of medical services. It's not a long road from there to images of Grandma being denied a life-saving operation as a cost-saving measure. Everyone from former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to Sen. Chuck Grassley has warned that people have reason to worry about rationing, while Democratic proponents of the plan have dismissed the claims as uninformed fearmongering. The term rationing has become so ubiquitous in the health care debate, we could've chosen to fact-check statements from any number of politicians as a way to talk about this issue. In a separate item, we looked at a claim about rationing from House Republican Leader John Boehner. In this item, we opted for one from Howard Dean, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, if only because he was so definitive about a subject with a lot of gray. "Let me just say, A, there's no rationing in any of these bills, so we don't have to worry about that," Dean said on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos on Aug. 9. Before we examine his specific claim, let's look at the criticisms that have led to charges of rationing. The critics have often focused on two areas of the health plan to back up their accusations. The first is a proposal to expand comparative effectiveness research. That's a bureaucratic way of saying the government would do studies to find out which medical treatments and medications work better than others, and which are most cost-effective. The idea is that this would help doctors and patients make better informed decisions about the most effective treatment strategies. It's also expected to save money over time. Some opponents, however, claim the government would use findings from this research to ration care. We looked into this issue in detail and concluded that claim is False . Other opponents of the plan have pointed to the Obama administration's proposal for an Independent Medicare Advisory Council (IMAC). The board would make annual recommendations for changing federal payments for various services covered by Medicare, as well as recommendations on ways to reform the Medicare delivery system. Michael Cannon, a health policy expert with the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, argues that price controls recommended by IMAC's unelected board amount to implicit rationing. Judith A. Stein, director of the Center for Medicare Advocacy, a group that helps seniors get care under the federal program, doesn't agree. Stein is no fan of IMAC, but she said its goal is not to "ration" care but to seek out ways to improve the efficiency of Medicare services, not necessarily cut them. We note that while IMAC has been recommended by the Obama administration, it was not included in any of the House bills so far. It has been discussed as an option by the powerful Senate Finance Committee. Still, we think it's a little premature to suggest this is part of the health care reform plan. And we think claims that IMAC might lead to wholesale rationing are alarmist. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office looked at the IMAC proposal and concluded it would save the government $2 billion from 2016–2019. That doesn't sound to us like the CBO expects any kind of dramatic cuts in service. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 In fact, we think much of the rhetoric from opponents about how the Democrats' health plan would lead to wholesale rationing has been wildly distorted, fanning the flames of public fear that the health care plan would have the government setting dollar limits on how much could be spent in a year to care for a patient, or deciding that some groups of people — older or disabled people, for example — should not get care because it's too expensive for the common good. And so it's understandable that Dean would want to knock down these wild claims. But we think Dean goes too far when he says the bills have "no rationing," because it ignores a hard reality of health care — there is rationing now and there would be rationing in the Democrats' plan too. "This whole notion of rationing as it applies to a public option, I think, is really ridiculous," Stein said. "It is what insurance is. Right now, Congress and any health care plan 'rations.' No health insurance I know pays for 'whatever it costs.'" "Everyone hates the word rationing," said Katherine Baicker, a health economics professor at Harvard University. "From an economics perspective, there's no way around rationing. Some care is being rationed now. Everyone isn't getting everything." And you can bet people who can't get health insurance due to a pre-existing condition feel like there's already rationing. Ditto for those who can't afford health insurance. Proponents of the health reform plan — which seeks to provide basic coverage to everyone, regardless of whether they have a pre-existing condition — argue that it would clearly reduce that form of rationing. You could spend an unlimited amount on health care that would have some chance of helping people, Baicker said. But we have a limited amount of public resources. And so decisions have to be made about how to prioritize to allocate those resources. The idea, she said, is to provide adequate, basic health care in a public plan. Above that threshold, she said, people with more money could buy extra care. John Holahan, the director of the Urban Institute Health Policy Research Center, said he has not seen anything in any of the plans that will result in explicit rationing, but "if you define rationing as 'people can't get everything they want,' it's true. But it's also true today." Interestingly, he said that Medicare is much less likely to deny a health service than a private insurer. "That's the argument you hear people making (that the reform bills would lead to government rationing)," Holahan said. "But I think they have it backwards." Even Obama acknowledged the reality of health care rationing in a town hall on health care on Aug. 16: "When we talk about reform, you hear some opponents of reform saying that somehow we are trying to ration care, or restrict the doctors that you can see, or you name it," Obama said. "Well, that's what's going on right now. It's just that the decisions are being made by the insurance companies. "Now, in fairness, we probably could not construct a system in which you could see any doctor anywhere in the world any time, regardless of expense. That would be a hard system to set up. So if you live in Maine, you know, we're going to fly you into California, put you up. I mean, you can see — and I'm not trying to make light of it — you can just see the difficulty. "So any system we design, there are going to have to be some choices that have to be made in terms of where you go to see your doctor, what's going on, et cetera. That's being done currently in the private marketplace. All we're trying to do is to make sure that those decisions that are being made in the private marketplace aren't discriminating against people because they're already sick; that they are making sure that people get a good deal from the health care dollars that they are spending." In other words, rationing is just a fact of life in a world with limited resources. Or as Cato's Cannon puts it: "Asking if there will be rationing under the Obama plan is like asking if there will be gravity. It is ubiquitous and unavoidable." We realize some may read our ruling and conclude that we believe the Obama plan will mean more drastic rationing. But we think it's more accurate to say the bill seeks a more rational way to ration. Whether it can succeed is a topic for legitimate debate. The Democrats' health care plan calls for a health care exchange that will be a vigorous marketplace of companies offering different plans that will compete for customers by offering more or less coverage. But each of those choices about coverage — a lower or higher cap on out-of-pocket expenses, perhaps, or more or less generous coverage for doctor visits — are rationing. And the same goes for three-fourths of Americans who would probably keep their current employer-sponsored health insurance. Those plans too have limits and caps — and rationing. We rule Dean's statement Fals

"If you're over 65 years old in America today, you have no choice but to be in Medicare. Even if you want out of Medicare, you have to forfeit your Social Security to get out of it. To demonstrate how much control the government already has over our health care system, former House Republican Leader Dick Armey made this comment about Medicare on a recent episode of the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer : Senior citizens "see this as a hostile government takeover of all health care, where they will be forced into a government-run program, and their health care lives will be managed by the government, just as today's the case in Medicare," Armey, currently chair of FreedomWorks, a conservative activist group, said on the Aug. 13, 2009, episode. "If you're over 65 years old in America today, you have no choice but to be in Medicare. Even if you want out of Medicare, you have to forfeit your Social Security to get out of it." We wondered if the rules for Medicare were are rigid as Armey described, and, as usual with government programs, we found it's more complicated than we expected. First, we wanted to find out how Medicare enrollment works. According to the Social Security Web site, anyone who files for Social Security benefits at the age of 62 is automatically enrolled in Medicare Part A and B — coverage for hospital and doctor's visits, respectively — at the age of 65. Patients must enroll independently for private coverage or prescription drug benefits. In some cases, people never sign up for retirement benefits and therefore they must enroll in Medicare on their own, said Dorothy Clark, spokeswoman for the Social Security Administration. Either way, "Medicare is a voluntary program," said Clark. No one is ever required to sign up for government health benefits, nor are they required to keep them. Nevertheless, Armey is right that beneficiaries collecting Social Security will lose those payments if they drop Medicare Part A — so long as they were enrolled in both programs in the first place, Clark said. We were curious why Social Security and Medicare are linked, and when we asked, we found that the issue is the matter of a lawsuit that was brought against the Social Security Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services in 2008. Among the plaintiffs is none other than Dick Armey. The plaintiffs argue that, under the Medicare Act signed in 1965 and under the Social Security Act, there are no rules requiring enrollment in Medicare Part A to receive retirement benefits. Rather, a series of subsequent policy statements have linked the two programs, which are illegal because the two departments did not follow the traditional procedure to write the new rules, according to a press release issued by the plaintiffs on Oct. 9, 2008. The policy essentially traps retirees into participating. We asked the plaintiff's lawyer, Kent Masterson Brown, why the government had done this and he had a simple answer: power. "That's the curiosity here," Brown said. "[The departments] want to control every body." It turns out the NewsHour got a few viewer inquires angry that host Judy Woodruff did not do enough to challenge Armey on that point, according to Michael Getler, PBS ombudsman. Instead, Woodruff asked the other guest, Richard Kirsch with the liberal advocacy group Health Care for America Now, to challenge Armey's claim, but he didn't offer a specific rebuttal, leaving Armey's claim up in the air. So, back to Armey's claim. He's wrong that Medicare is required for everyone over the age of 65, but he's correct that those who want out of the program will lose their Social Security benefits as well. To us, that's a clear-cut Half True. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022

If you don't count illegal aliens, people who qualify for other insurance, and people who make more than $75,000 a year, "it leaves about 15 million people" who are uninsured 0

"We spend twice as much per capita on health care as any other nation on Earth. One of the common themes from supporters of the Democratic health plan is that the United States spends too much on health care and gets too little in return. But in a recent interview, Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who caucuses with the Democratic majority, stretched the evidence too far. On the Aug. 19, 2009, Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC, Sanders responded to a question about corporate interests' role in the health care reform debate by saying, "We spend twice as much per capita on health care as any other nation on Earth. And there is a reason why the insurance companies, year after year, make huge profits and pay their CEOs tens and tens of millions of dollars in compensation salaries. And the reason for that is that these guys exert enormous influence over the political process in Washington." With this item, we'll address his international comparisons on health spending. We looked at two widely used sources of international health care comparisons — statistics from the World Health Organization, the public health arm of the United Nations, and from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group that represents 30 wealthier, industrialized countries, most of them in Europe and North America. We also confirmed with three international health care experts that these were the best statistics available. According to the 2009 edition of WHO's World Health Statistics report, which uses figures from 2006, health care spending in the United States — both public- and private-sector — amounted to $6,719 per capita. Ranking next were Luxembourg and Monaco at $6,506 and $6,353 per capita, respectively. All told, either 11 or 15 countries told the WHO they spent more than $3,360 per capita, the point at which the United States no longer doubles their spending. (We provide two possible figures here because the WHO offers both raw figures and statistics adjusted for currency valuations.) The other nations that rank near the top with the United States include Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland, in addition to tiny Malta and San Marino. The OECD's numbers tell a similar story. In 2007, the OECD said that the United States spent $7,290 per capita on health care, ranking it first among the 30 countries studied. Five other nations spent more than $3,645 per capita, the point at which the United States no longer doubles their spending. The highest is the Netherlands at $4,417. The other four were Austria, Canada, Norway and Switzerland. Sanders would have been on completely firm ground had he simply said, "We spend more per capita on health care than any other nation on Earth." But instead he said "twice as much." And for that reason we rate his statement False. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022

76 percent of Americans want a public health care option A Web site called "We Want the Public Option" includes this headline at the top of the home page: "76% of Americans Say We Want the Public Option." The Web site also includes a video that has no voice-over, just a list of signatures supporting a public option in the health care reform plan, plus a smattering of statistics about reform. The signatures were collected by the two liberal groups — Democracy for America and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee — that paid for the ad. The ad aired for the first time on July 23, 2009, in Washington, D.C., and Montana. It's no longer on the air, but the video remains prominent on the Web site. The video opens with this claim: "76% of Americans support President Obama's public health insurance option." That number seemed high to us, especially in the light of recent polls, so we decided to check it. The statistic comes from a poll conducted June 12-15 by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal that asked, "In any health care proposal, how important do you feel it is to give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance — extremely important, quite important, not that important, or not at all important?" About 41 percent of respondents said it was extremely important, and about 35 percent said it was quite important. Add those numbers together, and you get 76 percent. But in the health care debate, June was a long time ago. Since that poll was published, rowdy town hall meetings and a barrage of criticism have made Americans more skeptical of health care reform. The public option has become less popular as well; several surveys done since that first NBC/ Wall Street Journal poll indicate declining support for a public plan. Here are just a few examples: • The Kaiser Family Foundation , a health care think tank, polled 1,205 people July 7-14 and found that 59 percent of people questioned would favor "a government-administered public health insurance option similar to Medicare to compete with private health insurance plans" and that 36 percent would oppose the idea. • A second NBC/ Wall Street Journal poll done July 24-27 asked 1,011 people whether they "would favor or oppose creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies." Forty-six percent said they would favor the plan while 44 percent said they opposed the idea. The two news organizations asked the same question to 805 people between Aug. 15-17 and found that 43 percent favor a public option and 47 percent who oppose it. Both statistics fall within the three-point margin of error of the July poll. • A New York Times/CBS poll of 1,050 people between July 24-28 asked whether they would "favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get — that would compete with private health insurance plans." Around 66 percent favored the idea and 27 percent opposed it. • From July 27-Aug. 3, Quinnipiac University asked 2,409 voters whether they "support or oppose giving people the option of being covered by a government health insurance plan that would compete with private plans." Around 62 percent were in support and 32 percent were opposed. That's down from a July 1 Qunnipiac survey in which 69 percent supported the public option and 26 percent opposed it. House Democratic leaders and the group Health Care for America Now, which is supporting the Democratic plan, say the July and August NBC/ Wall Street Journal polls are misleading because they changed the framing of the question. Instead of asking if the choice of a public plan was important, they simply asked whether respondents were in favor of a public plan. "These polls are not comparable," the group wrote in it blog. "The first poll (June) accurately framed the question — should people be able to choose a public health insurance option. The second poll (July and August) pushed them towards an answer by leaving out the essential question of choice and asking a yes or no question." Regardless, these numbers are all over the map, and the only thing we can say with certainty is that they are each well below the 76 percent figure cited by Democracy for America and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. We also wondered whether the two groups accurately characterized the original NBC/ Wall Street Journal poll in the first place, and we got a mixed response. "It's fine to add those two numbers together," said Karlyn Bowman, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "But [respondents] were responding to a question about choice, not necessarily the idea of a public plan," she said. Democratic pollster Mark Mellman, president of the Mellman Group, said that the ad does a "fair reading of the question. Basically, you have 76 percent in favor of a choice." Humphrey Taylor, chairman the Harris Poll, Harris Interactive, agrees that the group characterized the two-month-old poll results correctly, but that "it's a mistake to say that large numbers of people support the public plan, because they don't understand what it would do," Taylor said, noting that "most people don't have an opinion until they are asked." Language often skews opinion polls, Taylor said. When it comes to the public plan, supporters often call it the "public option" while opponents call it a "government-run plan," so the Harris Poll tried to bridge that gap during a survey of 2,276 people between July 9-13. Respondents were asked whether they supported a "public, or government-sponsored, health plan," and the group found that 52 percent were in favor while 30 percent opposed the idea. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 That brings us back to the ad's original claim that 76 percent favor the public plan. That's a classic case of cherry-picking where they have found the highest number possible. They've also relied on a poll with wording that might lead people to think they were being asked if they favor choice in picking their health plan rather than whether they support a government-run option. Most of the other polls show support, but not nearly the landslide as the June poll. What's more, they continue to display the ad on their Web site even though the poll is sorely out of date and eclipsed by more recent and more precisely worded surveys. By most accounts, there's slightly more support for the public plan than there is opposition, but that support has dwindled throughout the summer. As a result, we give the Progressive Change Campaign Committee a False

"I'm 59. In either Canada or Great Britain, if I broke my hip, I couldn’t get it replaced. Critics of President Barack Obama's health care plan have often cited problems with government-run health care in Canada and Britain to make a point that there could be long lines or inadequate care under the Democratic plan. During a meeting with with reporters and editors at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in early August 2009, Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said he was living proof of the drawbacks of the Canadian and British systems. "I'm 59. In either Canada or Great Britain, if I broke my hip, I couldn't get it replaced," he told them, asserting that he was too old to be eligible for the expensive surgery. Our friends at the Post-Dispatch checked the assertion and found it to be false. We did our own fact-checking and verified their work. In an Aug. 16 editorial challenging Blunt's assertion, the newspaper wrote that "at least 63 percent of hip replacements performed in Canada last year and two-thirds of those done in England were on patients age 65 or older. More than 1,200 in Canada were done on people older than 85." Let's take those numbers individually. On the question of Canadian hip replacements, the Post-Dispatch cited a report by the Canadian Institute for Health Information, which describes itself as "an independent, not-for-profit organization that provides essential data and analysis on Canada’s health system and the health of Canadians." The report draws on information from several databases, including nationwide figures on medical procedures undertaken in hospitals. Using those statistics, it found that in all of Canada (except for the province of Quebec, for which information was unavailable), 63 percent of all hip replacements in 2006-2007 were performed on patients 65 and older. So Blunt was wrong, and the newspaper was right. As for the the number of Canadian hip replacements for the 85-and-older demographic, the newspaper actually underestimated how many there were. The number for 2006-2007, according to the same report, was 1,577. Just to make sure these numbers were valid, we checked with Shirley Chen, a senior analyst at the Canadian Joint Replacement Registry, a project of CIHI and orthopedic surgeons in Canada that collects statistics on hip and knee joint replacements. She confirmed the numbers reported here. For Britain, the Post-Dispatch got its figures from a 2000 report by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, a group that determines whether particular treatments are covered by the British National Health Service. The report said that "the over 65-year age group accounts for two in every three" hip replacements. When we called Britain's National Health Service's Information Center for Health and Social Care — the NHS's hub for medical statistics — they provided new numbers showing that 87 percent of hip replacements were performed on people age 60 or over. That's a different age bracket than what the newspaper used, but it still means Blunt was wrong. Blunt acknowledged his mistake to the Post-Dispatch and promised to do better. "I'm glad you pointed that out to me," he told the newspaper. "I won’t use that example any more." He blamed the bad information on testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, given by "some people who are supposed to be experts on Canadian health care." We looked through past congressional testimony using both Congressional Quarterly and Google but we couldn't find a reference that fit the description. Blunt's office did not respond to our request for an explanation. Unlike others who have been caught in falsehoods in the health care debate, it's notable that Blunt has acknowledged his mistake and said he was sorry. But still, he was wrong about both countries and would be eligible for hip replacements for many years to come. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 Public officials have a duty not to get things wrong, especially when it has the potential to frighten people. (You may recall we gave Vice President Joe Biden a Pants on Fire for saying during the swine flu scare that when you sneeze, it travels through the whole plane.) Likewise, this claim could scare many senior citizens. So we have to set the meter ablaze and give Blunt a Pants on Fir

Pregnant women trying to buy health insurance on their own are barred from maternity coverage because they have a "pre-existing condition. You've probably heard of "pre-existing conditions," which provide an escape clause for health insurance companies. If you have a pre-existing condition, an insurance company typically won't pay for treatment. J. James Rohack, president of the American Medical Association, cited them when he was asked during an appearance on Fox News Sunday on Aug. 16, 2009, whether the Democratic health plan would lead to rationing for older patients. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 "Well, there's a myth that rationing doesn't occur right now," Rohack said. "In the United States, if a woman's pregnant and on the individual market (and) tries to get health insurance, that's called a pre-existing condition and it's not paid for. That's why this bill's important. It gets rid of some of the rationing that's occurring right now." The AMA endorsed the House version of health care reform legislation in July. First, we should emphasize that he's only talking about the relatively small number of women who buy their coverage through what insurers call the individual market. About two-thirds of women have health insurance through their employer or their spouse's employer, and about 13 percent have public coverage such as Medicaid or military health care. So the people affected by these limitations include the 19 percent now uninsured and the 6 percent that have coverage purchased on the individual market. These policies are sold directly to an individual by a private insurer, and the purchaser doesn't get the same consumer protections routinely given to those who have coverage through an employer. For example, people in employer-based health plans have benefited from requirements for maternity coverage that date back to the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. But individual plans are not included under that umbrella and are regulated state by state. In 39 states, listed here , insurers can turn down anyone for virtually any reason. It can be because you have a pre-existing condition, like cancer or diabetes. And pregnancy almost always counts too, according to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, which represents the state government officials who regulate insurance sold within their borders. So if you're pregnant and living in one of these 39 states, you're very likely out of luck in securing individual health coverage. You'll have to pay for your care out of your own pocket or seek out charitable assistance. And the coverage isn't much better in the remaining 11 states. These states have "guaranteed issue" laws that say insurers cannot turn applicants down based on their health or risk status. But there's a caveat: Even if an insurer must offer you a plan, it can place exclusions on what the plan covers. Typically, the NAIC says, these exclusions last from six to 12 months, which rules out most or all maternity coverage. (After the exclusion expires, the insurer does have to cover those conditions, meaning that a subsequent pregnancy could be covered.) One category of individual policyholders has it slightly better ? those who leave an employer's plan that had given them uninterrupted coverage for the pre-existing condition in question. Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, people in this category can obtain a plan that covers their pre-existing condition once they have exhausted their old employer's coverage under the law known as COBRA. However, a state only has to provide a minimum of one "HIPAA plan" within its borders, rather than requiring that every insurer operating in the state offer one. Such plans may have unfavorable terms and high premiums. So back to Rohack's claim. Health care reform legislation now under consideration in Congress would, if enacted, improve the situation for pregnant women seeking health insurance by prohibiting restrictions based on pre-existing conditions. But for now, Rohack is correct that pregnancy is considered a pre-existing condition and prevents many women from getting coverage if they seek insurance on the individual market. We find his statement True

Republicans Chuck Grassley, John Boehner and John Mica flip-flopped on providing end-of-life counseling for the elderly We've had to set the Truth-O-Meter on fire in the past several weeks because of the ridiculously false claims about end-of-life counseling in the health care reform bill. So it looked like a real gotcha when bloggers dug up what appeared to be hypocrisy – that a number of Republicans who have recently harrumphed about end-of-life consultations in the health care bill had voted for something similar in the 2003 Medicare drug bill. This was MSNBC host Rachel Maddow’s take on this discovery: "As we have reported recently, many Republican officials have enthusiastically embraced the conspiracy theory that health care reform is a secret plot to kill old people," Maddow told viewers. "Health reform really isn‘t really a secret plot to kill old people. The part of the House bill that is cited by the conspiracists to supposedly prove their point actually says that Medicare will cover consultations about living wills, advanced directives — if patients want to talk to their own doctors about what they want to happen at the end of their own life. That's it. "But that hasn‘t stopped people like Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on health care in the Senate, who said, quote, 'We should not have a government program that determines if you‘re going to pull the plug on grandma.' Then there was House Minority Leader John Boehner who said, quote, 'This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia.' And putting the exclamation point on ridiculous — Florida Rep. John Mica, who said, quote, 'There are death counselors. There is authorization for reimbursement for those counselors for Medicare. You have a whole new cottage industry.' "Well, as Amy Sullivan reports on Time magazine's 'Swampland' blog today, Sen. Grassley and Congressman Boehner and John Mica have another thing in common in addition to being 'deathers.' They all also voted for the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Bill. That bill in part provided funding for end-of-life counseling. And I quote, 'Counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning.' Or as these things are now known in Republican circles, death panels. "In all, 204 Republicans in the House and 42 Republicans in the Senate voted for the death panels. And there was not a peep about then-President Bush having a secret plan to kill old people. "Bottom line? Either Republicans like Chuck Grassley and John Boehner and John Mica have totally changed their minds about whether living wills are really a secret plot to kill old people or they voted for something just a few years ago that they actually thought was a secret plot to kill old people. Take your choice." Maddow (unlike her cited source, Sullivan) glossed over an important difference in the language of the two bills. The 2003 bill applied to terminally ill patients, including those in hospices, whereas the 2009 bill applies to Medicare recipients — that is, everyone over 65. The current bill would reach many more Americans than the 2003 language did — all healthy seniors nationwide, rather than just those who are terminally ill. The current bill would allow consultations every five years — something that, almost by definition, cannot happen in a hospice setting, where stays are often two months or less. It would shift the time frame for discussing these issues to years before someone falls seriously ill. We turned to independent experts to see whether they thought the bills were significantly different, as Boehner’s staff suggested to us. And the consensus of the experts was that the bills are indeed different. Robert Applebaum, a gerontologist at Miami University in Ohio, said that "calling advanced planning a 'death panel' is ridiculous, but comparing this legislation to (the drug bill version) is not factual either." Applebaum said that the drug bill "really focused on hospice care, while the proposed legislation is really about planning for future health care. … One of the problems with hospice is that the vast majority of patients wait until they are very close to death to even consult hospice. … So the (drug bill) legislation was relatively inconsequential" in terms of the numbers and types of people it affected. We presented Applebaum’s reasoning to three other academic experts in gerontology — J. James Cotter of Virginia Commonwealth University, Julie Masters of the University of Nebraska at Omaha and John Krout of Ithaca College — and all agreed that Applebaum’s reasoning was sound. We also asked Amy Tucci, the president and CEO of the Hospice Foundation of America, and she said she agreed that the two bills are "apples and oranges." "The 2003 legislation did not encourage or compensate doctors generally for having the conversation with people before a health crisis was looming," Tucci said. "The 2003 legislation really only pertained to hospice doctors, who could be compensated for providing an evaluation of a patient and/or having a discussion with a prospective hospice patient about care plans, which would mean the services they're entitled to under hospice, other options for care, and so on. These evaluations would be to ensure that the patient was hospice eligible, which would be an evaluation that certified that the patient had six months or less to live." By contrast, Tucci said, the current legislation "intends for the conversation to be held with … doctors who a patient would see, theoretically, long before the onset of some kind of terminal illness." When PolitiFact asked Maddow what she thought of our experts’ perspective, she said she still believes the lawmakers’ positions on the two bills are hypocritical. She cited a quote that Grassley reportedly made to a crowd of 300 in Winterset, Iowa, on Aug. 12, 2009, that "in the House bill, there is counseling for end of life. You have every right to fear. You shouldn’t have counseling at the end of life, you should have done that 20 years before. Should not have a government-run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma." Grassley, Maddow said, "supported the 2003 bill covering 'end-of-life' counseling and 'advanced care planning' specifically for patients who were terminally ill. To be clear: he voted for it for terminally ill people, and he's railing against it for all seniors, despite saying, 'You shouldn't have counseling at the end of life, you should have done that 20 years before." It's not only disingenuous for Sen. Grassley to deride measures he earlier supported as 'pull[ing] the plug on grandma,' it is rank hypocrisy for him to state that he has a particular objection to this counseling when it occurs at the actual end-of-life." We see her point, but it's clear to us from our interviews with experts that there's a distinct difference between the 2003 law and the 2009 bill. Yes, there's the appearance of inconsistency given the similar purpose for both bills, but the 2009 bill is more far-reaching than the 2003 law, which was focused narrowly on hospice patients. So we find Maddow's claim that they flip-flopped to be Half True. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022

Preventive care does not save the government money The logic behind preventive care seems simple enough: stopping illnesses before they happen will mean fewer pricey procedures at the hospital and lower health care costs for all. Not so, says columnist David Brooks, who was interviewed on the Aug. 14, 2009, edition of the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer . He said President Barack Obama claims that "preventive care saves money," but the reality is "that's not true. ... If you're testing people, say, for an illness, you have to give 100 people a test to get five people — to find five people. Now, preventive care is good for health. Everyone agrees on that. But if you look at the CBO studies and the other research, it doesn't save you money. We should do it. But because you have to test so many people to get the few you're really going to prevent serious illness from, you're really not adding up to a lot of cost saving." Brooks was talking about a core principle of Obama's health care overhaul: That many costly procedures and treatments can be prevented by catching disease earlier or preventing it all together. Operating under that logic, the House health care bill expands access to procedures such as hypertension screening and vaccines. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer sang the praises of preventive care in an Aug. 10 USA Today op-ed. "Reform will also mean higher-quality care by promoting preventive care so health problems can be addressed before they become crises," they wrote. "This, too, will save money. We'll be a much healthier country if all patients can receive regular checkups and tests, such as mammograms and diabetes exams, without paying a dime out-of-pocket." Brooks's critique relied on new numbers from the Congressional Budget Office that indicate that preventive care isn't as cost-effective as Pelosi and Hoyer claim. "The evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall," CBO director Douglas Elmendorf wrote in an Aug. 7 letter to Rep. Nathan Deal, the top Republican on a congressional subcommittee involved in the debate. Elmendorf explained that, while the cost of a simple test might be cheap for each individual, the cumulative cost of many tests could be quite expensive: "But when analyzing the effects of preventive care on total spending for health care, it is important to recognize that doctors do not know beforehand which patients are going to develop costly illnesses. To avert one case of acute illness, it is usually necessary to provide preventive care to many patients, most of whom would not have suffered that illness anyway. ... Preventive care can have the largest benefits relative to costs when it is targeted at people who are most likely to suffer from a particular medical problem; however, such targeting can be difficult because preventive services are generally provided to patients who have the potential to contract a given disease but have not yet shown symptoms of having it." In fact, a new government policy to encourage prevention could end up paying for services that people are already receiving, including breast and colon cancer screenings and vaccines, Elmendorf went on. The CBO did not put a price tag on the costs or savings associated with preventive care measures in the House bills because budgeting rules prevent them from doing so. But a few other studies back up the CBO's analysis, including a Feb. 14, 2008, article in the New England Journal of Medicine that was written in response to campaign promises for more preventive care. "Sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention ... are overreaching," according to the paper. "Studies have concluded that preventing illness can in some cases save money but in other cases can add to health care costs." And a study conducted by researchers from the American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society concluded that, while interventions to prevent cardiovascular disease would prevent many strokes and deaths, "as they are currently delivered, most of the prevention activities will substantially increase costs." So, the consensus is that, while preventive care will almost certainly save lives, it's a stretch to say that it will save government spending on health care. As a result, we give Brooks a True. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022

The health care reform plan being proposed in Congress would mean "big tax increases. The Campaign for Responsible Health Reform, sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, released a 30-second TV commercial that warns the health plans kicking around in Congress will translate to "big tax increases." With the visual of a red balloon expanding until it pops, the announcer says: "Washington's latest health reform idea: a trillion-dollar health plan, and a government-run public option, with big tax increases, even on health benefits. And the federal deficit? The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says the deficit will grow $239 billion. Inflated taxes. Swelling deficits. And expanded government control over your health. Tell Congress, 'Let's slow down and reform health care the right way.'" There's no denying the health care plans being considered in Congress would be expensive. In order to meet the plan's goal of reducing the number of uninsured, the government would be providing more in health care subsidies. That costs money. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the plan would cost in the neighborhood of $1 trillion over 10 years. But would it mean "big tax increases, even on health benefits?" The answer: It depends. There is not a single health care plan, there are several versions kicking around various committees in the House and Senate. And they have different approaches on how the plan would be paid for. Most of the discussion has focused on the the House plans because there is not a detailed Senate version yet. In the House plan, the tax increases are targeted at the wealthy. So if you make $1 million a year, yes, the plan would mean a big tax increase. We can be even more precise. The House versions of the bill would help pay for the health plan with a surtax on high earners that would break down as follows: for couples making between $350,000 and $500,000 (or $280,000 to $400,000 for individuals), a new 1 percent tax; between $500,000 and $1 million ($400,000 to $800,000 for individuals), 1.5 percent; and over $1 million (or over $800,000 for individuals), 5.4 percent. In other words, a family making $1 million would have to pay $9,000. Small businesses filing as individuals would face the same levies at those income levels. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 In all, that is estimated to bring in about $540 billion over 10 years. "That hits the very top earners," said Bob Williams of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. "But that proposal would not affect many people." In fact, he said, less than 2 percent of the population fall into those income categories. But according to the Chamber, the high earners aren't the only ones who will see tax increases. In the House versions of the health plan, there's a tax penalty — anywhere from 2 percent to 8 percent on payroll taxes — for large companies that do not provide government-approved health care plans. There's also a tax penalty on uninsured people who refuse to buy insurance (that's the incentive to get everyone on some health plan). As for the Chamber of Commerce claim that the plans would even include taxes on health benefits, you need to go to the Senate side for that discussion. Although there's nothing currently in writing in a bill, the Senate Finance Committee is mulling a tax on so-called "Cadillac" or "gold-plated" health plans, plans that cost well above average. Essentially it would tax any amount paid for insurance plans over a certain threshold — perhaps $8,000 for an individual, or $21,000 for a family, said James Galfand, senior manager of health policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. While it would not directly tax employees' health benefits, he said, it would amount to the same thing, as those costs would be passed on by the insurance company or employer. We think the Chamber of Commerce ad is a bit premature in warning that the health plan would include taxes on health benefits. It might, but so far, that's not in any published version of the bill, and the House specifically did not include it in its plan. The Chamber of Commerce ad does raise some legitimate concerns about how the health care plan would be paid for. But we think it's slightly misleading to say it would lead to "big tax increases." That's true for some high earners. But it's not true for the vast majority of people who do not make that level of income. Uninsured people who decline to purchase insurance will see a tax hit, but that's also expected to be a small minority. Things may change as these bills seek to solve the question of paying for the plan, but as the plans are now, some people would see a big tax increase, but most would not. That leaves us at a Half True

Obama's plan for health care reform "ends exorbitant out-of-pocket expenses, deductibles or co-pays. The White House is fighting chain e-mails with chain e-mails. After spending days responding to inaccurate e-mails about the health care reform plan, the White House responded with its own e-mail from David Axelrod, senior adviser to President Barack Obama. The subject line was "Something worth forwarding." Axelrod began his e-mail with a list of ways that reform provides "security and stability to those with or without coverage." One of his claims is that refom "ends exorbitant out-of-pocket expenses, deductibles or co-pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses." We recognize that "exorbitant" is subjective, but we thought it would be helpful to research whether Axelrod is right that the plan limits charges that a typical person or family would find excessive. The main health care reform bill in Congress does set annual limits on out-of-pocket expenses. That means there's a cap on what people would have to pay in a year for medical costs. And insurance companies won't be allowed to require patients to pay for preventive treatments such as check-ups. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 In the House legislation, outlined in section 122, the annual cap on out-of-pocket expenses is $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family. Those numbers are indexed for inflation. The policy would be phased in. Employer-provided policies would have a grace period of five years, as outlined in section 102, before they are required to comply with the caps. If you get a new individual policy through the health care exchange, it would have to comply right away. We asked Sara Collins of the Commonwealth Fund about the caps. The Commonwealth Fund is a nonpartisan private foundation that advocates for a better health care system. She said the caps are a good form of consumer protection. Axelrod is correct that the main health care reform bill requires insurance companies to "abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses." But ending "exorbitant" out-of-pocket expenses, deductibles or co-pays? 'Exorbitant' may be in the eye of the beholder. For a family, $10,000 in the course of a year can be a serious financial hit. (The median income for a family of four is $67,000.) Still, the new limits are better than nothing, and health care advocates praise them as an important safeguard for consumers. So we rate Axelrod's statement Mostly True

Health care reform will not affect veterans' benefits The White House is fighting chain e-mails with chain e-mails. After spending days responding to inaccurate e-mails about the health care reform plan, the White House responded with its own e-mail from David Axelrod, senior adviser to President Barack Obama. The subject line was "Something worth forwarding." Featured Fact-check Blake Masters stated on October 15, 2022 in a tweet Immigrants illegally in the country are treated “better than military veterans.” By Jon Greenberg • October 21, 2022 "This is probably one of the longest e-mails I’ve ever sent, but it could be the most important," Axelrod wrote. "Across the country we are seeing vigorous debate about health insurance reform. Unfortunately, some of the old tactics we know so well are back — even the viral e-mails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions.” One such distortion, Axelrod said, is the suggestion that veterans' access to health care will be blocked by the bill. "It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now," Axelrod wrote. "To the contrary, the president's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA health care system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans." The White House has also posted a video about the issue on its Web site. The rumor may have started when a coalition of six veterans groups wrote a letter on July 30, 2009, to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressing concern that the bill might penalize vets who get health coverage through the VA but don't have private health insurance. The House version of the bill mandates coverage by requiring individuals to have a health insurance plan or pay a penalty based on their income. And businesses would have to contribute 65 percent of workers' family insurance premiums or pay an 8 percent penalty. "We wanted to make sure that, if someone is enrolled with the [U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs], they didn't fall into this category" of having to pay a fine because they didn't have private coverage, said David Autry, a spokesman for the Disabled American Veterans. "Businesses might have been less willing to hire vets who may be enrolled in the VA health care plan," said Tom Zampieri, director of government relations for the Blinded Veterans Association. Those concerns have since been addressed through a series of amendments to the House bill, according to Zampieri and Autry. Nothing in the House bill would affect veterans' current coverage, they both said. Vets will continue to get those services from the VA. "What the White House is saying is true," said Bernard Edelman, deputy director for policy and government affairs for the Vietnam Veterans of America. Edelman said that another part of the White House claim – that “the president's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded” – also adds up. Obama’s first budget plan opened the VA’s doors to about that many vets previously excluded from care. So, by all accounts, the administration is correct that health care reform will not keep veterans from getting the care they currently receive. So for this one, Axelrod earns a True

"I just want to assure [you] we're not talking about cutting Medicare benefits. "I just want to assure [you] we're not talking about cutting Medicare benefits." Those were President Barack Obama's words to a town hall audience in Portsmouth, N.H; they were meant to ease fears that health care reform will slash Medicare benefits and deprive seniors of the treatments and procedures they need. A "myth that we've been hearing about is this notion that somehow we're going to be cutting your Medicare benefits," Obama said on Aug. 11, 2009. "We are not. AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare, okay? So I just want seniors to be clear about this, because if you look at the polling, it turns out seniors are the ones who are most worried about health care reform. And that's understandable, because they use a lot of care, they've got Medicare, and it's already hard for a lot of people even on Medicare because of the supplements and all the other costs out of pocket that they're still paying." "So I just want to assure we're not talking about cutting Medicare benefits," Obama said. Listening to Obama, you'd think that Medicare will remain intact. Yet, others claim Medicare spending will be trimmed quite a bit. AARP has said about $231.4 billion could come out of Medicare's budget, while the 60Plus Association, a group that opposes the bill, says cuts could top out at $500 billion. Confused? We were, too. There are three versions of health care reform floating around the House, and each dedicates hundreds of pages to Medicare. For this Truth-O-Meter item, we're going to be focusing on the biggest changes to the program. (So far, the Senate Finance Committee, which holds the purse strings to all things health care, hasn't put any ideas on paper.) Before delving into the bill and Obama's claim, a little Medicare 101: There are two basic ways most people get Medicare coverage. They enroll in traditional Medicare and a prescription drug plan through the government and maybe buy a supplemental policy to cover most out-of-pocket costs. Or they enroll in Medicare Advantage programs (they include drug plan), which are run by private insurers. They typically have more generous benefits such as dental and vision coverage. Some plans even pay the patient’s monthly Medicare premium, which can amount to about $100. We found some disagreement about whether Obama is correct that Medicare benefits would not be cut. The House bill will not cut any benefits, said Tricia Neuman, vice president and director of the Medicare Policy Project at the Kaiser Family Foundation. "What it will do is cut growth in Medicare spending," Neuman said. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 Indeed, some of the biggest savings in the bill — about $196 billion — would come from a permanent reduction in the annual payment adjustments for some Medicare services, including inpatient hospital services and ambulatory care, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That doesn't mean health care providers will stop being paid for taking care of the elderly; rather, they won't see pay increases in the future. Obama also wants to save money on the Medicare Advantage program, which covers about one-fifth of all Medicare patients. "We do think that systems like Medicare are very inefficient right now, but it has nothing to do at the moment with issues of benefits," Obama said in his speech in New Hampshire. "The inefficiencies all come from things like paying $177 billion to insurance companies in subsidies for something called Medicare Advantage that is not competitively bid, so insurance companies basically get a $177 billion of taxpayer money to provide services that Medicare already provides. And it's no better — it doesn't result in better health care for seniors. It is a giveaway of $177 billion." Indeed, a June 2009 MedPAC analysis said that the Advantage plan costs taxpayers on average of 14 percent more than the traditional Medicare plan. The House bills propose to change the benchmarks that set the payments, making them equal to what the government pays for traditional Medicare services. According to the Congressional Budget Office, those changes would translate to a savings of $156 billion over 10 years. We asked experts from both sides of the debate whether all these changes constituted a cut, and most had the same answer: yes and no. On one hand, they might not be considered cuts because nowhere in the bill are benefits actually eliminated, they said. And other parts of the bill expand coverage for seniors and ultimately make some components of Medicare less expensive for patients. For instance, the bill would require the pharmaceutical industry to help pay for prescription drugs. That savings will ultimately help the government cover more drug benefits for more patients. But experts told us the cuts in the Advantage program could lead to some changes. The basic benefits that mirror regular Medicare will stay the same, but the extra benefits that people receive under Advantage could be changed. "The core benefits of Medicare won't change," said Marc Steinberg, deputy director of health policy for Families USA, an advocate for health care consumers. "Most [Medicare Advantage] plans are solid and resemble traditional Medicare." However, some insurance plans have entered the program "to make a quick buck. They may have to reconsider their budget, which could mean some patients will see changes in the services provided above and beyond traditional Medicare." Stuart Guterman, assistant vice president for the Commonwealth Fund’s program on payment system reform, had a similar view. "People enrolled in (Medicare Advantage) get services that people in traditional care do not get under Medicare," he said. "Insurance companies can afford to cover these services because taxpayer money is subsidizing them. Plans will most likely not offer those extra services, but in no case will [patients] get less Medicare benefits than people in the rest of the program." Another example involving regular Medicare coverage: The House bill proposes a $20 billion cut in hospital readmission subsidies. This has to do with patients who re-enter the hospital to be retreated or have procedures fixed. Gail Wilensky, who ran the Medicare program under President George H.W. Bush in the early 1990s, said this is just one example of how cuts to Medicare payments could ultimately trickle down to patients. "Most of the ways to get money with any certainty is to have it happen quickly, which you do by either raising taxes or whacking prices," said Wilensky, now an economist and senior fellow with Project Hope, a health care advocacy group. "In this case they're whacking prices. ... Are these patients in jeopardy? You can't guarantee they're not." That leaves us with Obama's claim that, under the health care reform proposal, Medicare benefits will not be cut. He's right that the bill does not directly trim Medicare benefits; instead, the government is proposing ways to slow or eliminate some Medicare spending to beef up other aspects of the plan. But experts told us it's conceivable or even likely that those financial changes could lead to reduced benefits, particularly for people in the Advantage program. From that perspective, it's a stretch for Obama say that Medicare patients won't see changes in their plans as a result. We give Obama a Half Tru

A provision in the health care reform bill for end-of-life counseling for seniors is not "entirely voluntary. After wide denunciation ( including here ) of Sarah Palin's claims last week that the proposed health care reform bill would create "death panels," the former Alaska governor again went to her Facebook page to answer the critics and reassert her claim that end-of-life counseling authorized in the House version of the health plan is not "entirely voluntary." We've looked at this claim before when Betsy McCaughey, former lieutenant governor of New York, went on the radio show of former Sen. Fred Thompson on July 16, 2009, and said, "Congress would make it mandatory — absolutely require — that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner." We gave that statement got our lowest rating, Pants on Fire! But the issue has hardly dissipated. In fact, on Aug. 13, 2009, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, announced that the Senate Finance Committee has "dropped end-of-life provisions from consideration entirely" from its version of health care overhaul legislation because it could be "misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly." But it remains in the House bill. Palin may have stepped down as Alaska governor last month, but she remains a prominent Republican voice. In a town hall meeting on health care on Aug. 11, President Barack Obama specifically referenced Palin's "death panel" phrase when discussing what he said was incorrect information that has been circulating about the health care bill. "It turns out that I guess this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, etc.," Obama said. "So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything." In her Facebook response the following day, Palin accused Obama of fudging the truth. "With all due respect, it’s misleading for the president to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context." Palin then accurately cited some of the language Section 1233 of the House version of the health care plan, which is titled "Advanced Care Planning Consultation." Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 As Palin says, the provision "authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often 'if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual ... or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility... or a hospice program.' During those consultations, practitioners must explain 'the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,' and the government benefits available to pay for such services." Palin then argues that this provision must be viewed in the context of a health care bill whose stated purpose is "to reduce the growth in health care spending." "Is it any wonder," Palin writes, "that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care?" That's an opinion. What we're trying to get at here is Palin's claim that the end-of-life counseling is not "entirely voluntary." When we wrote about McCaughey's claim that the end-of-life counseling was mandatory, we cited several health care experts who said McCaughey was simply misreading the provision, that the bill would make the counseling available, but voluntary. In no way would these sessions be designed to encourage patients to end their lives, said Jim Dau, national spokesman for AARP, a group that represents people over 50 and has lobbied in support of the advanced planning provision. Dau called McCaughey's comments "not just wrong, they are cruel. ... We want to make sure people are making the right decision. If some one wants to take every life-saving measure, that's their call. Others will decide it's not worth going through this trauma just for themselves and their families, and that's their decision, too." When Palin reasserted the not "entirely voluntary" claim on Aug. 12, we spoke with Dr. Gail Wilensky, who was administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration, directing the Medicare and Medicaid programs, under President George H.W. Bush. She is now a health care policy researcher who focuses on health care for the military and veterans. "There are a lot of things not to like about the House bill," she said. "I don't think this is one of them." Wilensky also confirmed that the end-of-life counseling sessions in the House bill are voluntary. "If you want to be in a position to determine your own fate, this is what you want to do," she said. "If you don't want to deal with that, or think about that, that's fine, too." The legislation ensures that people do not have wait until they become ill to get an appointment with their doctor paid for by Medicare, she said. "This is the kind of conversation you'd like people to have when they're not under physical duress or emotional duress and with their physicians and their families," she said. Later in her Facebook post, Palin seems to acknowledge that the counseling isn't explicitly mandatory, but that in practice it would be. She cites an opinion piece from the Washington Post's Charles Lane, in which he writes, "Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren't quite 'purely voluntary,' as Rep. Sander M. Levin, D-Mich., asserts. To me, 'purely voluntary' means 'not unless the patient requests one.' Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive — money — to do so. Indeed, that's an incentive to insist. "Patients may refuse without penalty," Lane wrote, "but many will bow to white-coated authority." The bill would, in fact, authorize Medicare to reimburse doctors who provide this kind of counseling. And we think it's fair to opine that this creates an "incentive" for doctors to provide end-of-life counseling. We also think it's fair to argue that a frail elderly person in poor health might "bow to white-coated authority." But given the leaps in logic that have been popular in some conservative circles in recent weeks that this provision translates to government-mandated euthanasia, we think it's important to be clear about what the bill says. The fact is that there is nothing in the health care bill that would require people to get the end-of-life counseling. Perhaps, as Lane — and by extension Palin — argues, patients might feel some subtle pressure from a doctor to get the counseling. But the patients make the call. That's the definition of voluntary. We've said in our previous item that it was voluntary, and we see nothing in Palin's argument that proves otherwise. And so we rule her claim False

AARP is "endorsing" the health care reform bill With polls showing seniors are the most skeptical about the health care reform bills working their way through Congress, President Barack Obama sought to ease some of their concerns during a town hall meeting with a little high-powered name-dropping. The name: AARP. Several times at the town hall in Portsmouth, N.H., on Aug. 11, Obama specifically mentioned AARP's support for health care reform. It's little wonder why: The AARP is the country's largest and most powerful advocate for seniors. "We have the AARP on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors," Obama said at one point. And later, in response to a question about whether the health care plan would reduce the availability of medications through Medicare, Obama said, "Well, first of all, another myth that we've been hearing about is this notion that somehow we're going to be cutting your Medicare benefits. We are not. AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare, okay?" It was that last comment that caught the attention of AARP executives. Not the part that AARP would not support a bill that undermines Medicare benefits. That's true. It was the suggestion that AARP had formally endorsed any particular version of the still-evolving health care plan working its way through Congress. AARP chief operating officer Tom Nelson immediately fired off a press release saying that "indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate." The rebuke likely confused a lot of AARP members who have read or heard numerous AARP statements in recent weeks that have supported various aspects of the health care plan. Just a few weeks ago, on July 14, the AARP issued a press release gushing about the introduction of the House health care reform bill saying, "This bill would make great strides for all of our members and their families." The group said it was pleased with the legislation for giving "every American has access to affordable, quality health care choices." Specifically, the release said the bill would make prescription drugs less expensive for seniors, would block insurance companies from denying coverage based on age, and for capping out-of-pocket expenses for some insurance plans. AARP did not explicitly say it was endorsing the bill, but there was not a single negative comment in the statement. In a July 14 ad sponsored by Healthy Economy Now — a coalition including AARP, the American Medical Association and the pharmaceutical industry, among others — the tone was decidedly upbeat. "The president and Congress have a plan to lower costs and stop denials for pre-existing conditions," the ad says. "It's time to act." Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 The following day, AARP released a statement about the version of the bill being debated in the Senate. This time, the group was slightly less complimentary; while it said most parts of the legislation were good, AARP remained concerned about a provision in the bill that would prevent some generic drugs from entering the market faster. Since then, the climate in the health care debate has taken a decided nasty turn, with a deep and clear divide between Republicans and Democrats. But AARP spokesman Jim Dau said AARP was not reacting by tempering its stance. He said AARP supports a lot of changes that both the House and Senate bills would make, such as making drugs cheaper for seniors and ending discriminatory practices against the elderly, but the group has been clear all along that it has not endorsed any of the big bills. "We have endorsed specific measures," Dau said. "We're praising the pieces that we think are good for members." Dau pointed to a statement made by AARP CEO Barry Rand during a July 28 town hall meeting with Obama. "I want to make it clear that AARP has not endorsed any particular bill, any of the bills that are being circulated around Congress today and debated in Congress today," Rand said. "We continue to work with the members on both sides of the aisle, and we continue to work with the administration to achieve what is right for health care reform." Nelson echoed that bipartisan tone in his statement after Obama's town hall this week. "AARP has been working with Democrats and Republicans to fix our broken health care system," Nelson stated. "AARP supports specific measures that would help older Americans and their families – including bipartisan proposals to create a new follow-up care benefit in Medicare that would help prevent hospital readmissions, as well as to address the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap known as the ‘doughnut hole.’ We also support the need for lawmakers and the administration to act this year to fix what doesn’t work in the health care system." So was Obama incorrect to say the AARP had endorsed the bill? The July 14 statement sure sounds to us like an endorsement, even if it didn't specifically contain that word. But in Washington, the word "endorse" means you have put the weight of your name behind an official stamp of approval for a bill, candidate or policy. And the fact is, AARP has not formally endorsed any specific bill. It strongly supports some aspects of the bills. But that's not a formal endorsement. And in fact, Obama was present two weeks ago when AARP's CEO said the group "has not endorsed any particular bill." So we rate Obama's statement Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly Fals

Ezekiel Emanuel, one of President Obama's key health care advisers, "says medical care should be reserved for the nondisabled. So watch out if you're disabled. Update: After we published this item, Ezekiel Emanuel responded at length to these claims in an interview with ABC News. See the interview here . You know Rahm Emanuel, President Barack Obama's intense chief of staff. And maybe you've heard of his brother, Ari Emanuel, a Hollywood talent agent who provided the inspiration for the Ari Gold character on HBO's Entourage . Now a third Emanuel brother, Ezekiel Emanuel, has been thrust into the spotlight. Ezekiel Emanuel is a health policy adviser at the White House Office of Management and Budget, and is a member of the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, but until last week, he had largely flown under radar of the national political media. That changed when Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., made a statement from the floor of the House on July 27 in which she said the American public needed to know what the people who advise Obama about health care reform think. Specifically, she said, Dr. Emanuel "says medical care should be reserved for the nondisabled. So watch out if you're disabled." Emanuel is a well-known oncologist and bioethicist, which means he ponders such moral questions as "You have three people who need a liver, but you've got just one liver, who gets it?" Like other academics (see our article on claims about science czar John Holdren ), Emanuel has found that highbrow articles for academic journals make great fodder for opponents trying to score political points. Academics often write theoretically about ideas that are being kicked around. And they repeat and explore those ideas, without necessarily endorsing them. Bachmann's comments from the House floor substantially repeat claims made in a July 24, 2009, New York Post op-ed piece written by Betsy McCaughey, former lieutenant governor of New York. Under the headline, "Deadly Doctors: O Advisers Want to Ration Care," McCaughey argues that "Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else. "Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time. "Emanuel, however, believes that 'communitarianism' should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the nondisabled, not given to those 'who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens. . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.' (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96). "Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy." Bachmann quoted heavily from McCaughey's op-ed in her floor statement, and sprinkled in her own two cents. Here's what Bachmann said: "The president's adviser, Dr. Emanuel, believes communitarianism should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the nondisabled. So watch out if you're disabled." She noted, "We just lost my father-in-law to dementia two months ago. I thank God that the doctors were able to alleviate my poor father-in-law's symptoms at the end of his life at age 85. Apparently, under the Democrats' health care plan, my father-in-law would not have received the high quality of care that he received in his last two months of life. Or if you're a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy, watch out." The quote in question comes from an essay Emanuel wrote for the Hastings Center Report in the November-December 1996 issue. It ran under the title, "Where Civic Republicanism and Deliberative Democracy Meet." The title alone should give you an idea of the kind of academic, philosophical discussion that will ensue. In the article, he addresses the idea of what's good for society at large when it comes to allocating health care resources, and that it "suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be guaranteed." Under that philosophy, he writes, health services would be guaranteed to ensure the health of future generations as well as for "full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations." Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 That's the lead-in to the part that contains the stuff McCaughey cited: "Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason." So the question is, is Emanuel saying that he thinks health services ought not to be guaranteed to patients with dementia? No, said Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for the White House Office of Budget and Management. "He just unequivocally doesn't believe that." In fact, he said, one need look only as far as the next paragraph: "Clearly more needs to be done to elucidate what specific health care services are basic; however, the overlap between liberalism and communitarianism points to a way of introducing the good back into medical ethics and devising a principled way of distinguishing basic from discretionary health care services." Yeah, we sorta got lost there too. What it means, Baer said, is that Emanuel was exploring different views of political theory as they apply to health care decisions and following one school of thought through to the point where he notes that it would lead to "potentially disturbing types of policy ramifications." Furthermore, he said, you need to balance McCaughey's claim against Emanuel's 25-year record of caring for very sick people, and specifically providing quality care to very ill patients at the end of their life. "He's a little surprised at how his record is being twisted and turned," Baer said. "It is preposterous that Ezekiel Emanuel would deny care to someone who needed it, or that he believes we should be making the sort of horrific medical decisions he's been accused of." Some of Emanuel's academic writing is confusing for nonacademics. But Emanuel has also written extensively in more mainstream media — the Atlantic and Wall Street Journal , for example — about his opposition to euthanasia and his belief in appropriate end-of-life care. Here's a quote from a Jan. 7, 1997, commentary written by Emanuel for the Wall Street Journal : "For the millions of others, legalizing euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide would be of no benefit. To the contrary, it would be a way of avoiding the complex and arduous efforts required of doctors and other health-care providers to ensure that dying patients receive humane, dignified care." There's no question Emanuel has written some things that some would consider controversial. For example, in another paper cited by McCaughey, a June 18, 2008 commentary for the Journal of the American Medical Association , Emanuel talks about how overutilization of health care is the most important contributor to the cost of health care in America. He takes aim at a medical culture that rewards "meticulousness, not effectiveness" and leads to a mindset in which doctors view it as "imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others." He concludes that in order to rein in costs, we ought to "devise financial incentives for physicians and patients that result in greater health care value." Those kinds of opinions are fair game for political debate. And we certainly think it's fair to question where such ideas might lead in a practical sense. Emanuel is a key health care adviser. But to make the sensational claim that Emanuel says health care should not be extended to the disabled is a gross distortion of his position, lifted out of context from an academic paper in which he poses philosophical ideas but doesn't necessary endorse them. Emanuel's hefty medical record also counts for something, as well his unequivocal public position against euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide. We rule Bachmann's statement False

"I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter. 0

The health care plan for members of Congress "is no better than the janitor who cleans their offices. During a town hall meeting in Portsmouth, N.H., on Aug. 11, 2009, an audience member asked President Barack Obama why members of Congress have a different health care plan than the rest of us. "Why have you not used the bully pulpit to chastise Congress for having two systems of health care, one for all of us and one for them," an audience member asked. Obama answered that lawmakers get a good deal on health care, but that "their deal is no better than the janitor that cleans their offices because they are part of a federal employee plan. It is a huge pool. You've got millions of people who are part of the pool which means they have enormous leverage with the insurance companies. ... That drives down their costs, and they get a better deal." Republican critics of the president's plan have made an issue of coverage for members of Congress, saying that lawmakers should be forced to take the public option, the most basic government-run plan under Obama's proposal. We found Newt Gingrich was largely correct that Democrats have voted against that idea. The administration has studied the federal benefits program, which gets high marks for efficiency, to get ideas for its own health care proposal. Obama's description of the federal plan is accurate. Under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, federal employees and elected officials can choose from an array of plans, ranging from very basic options that have high deductibles and only carry catastrophic coverage to more expensive coverage that is more comprehensive. It is the largest employer-sponsored program in the world, covering over 9 million employees, retirees, former employees, family members and former spouses, according to the Office of Personnel Management's Web site. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 People who opt for the same package will get the same treatment, said Michael Ornstein, a spokesman for the Office of Personnel Management. "The benefits, co-pays and deductibles are no different whether you are a career employee like myself or an elected official," he said. For the most part, janitorial staff on Capitol Hill are federal employees, said Eva Malecki, communications officer for the Architect of the Capitol, the office involved in the day-to-day operations of the Capitol complex. "We do have a few contract workers," she said. "But the majority are federal employees and are therefore covered by the federal employee benefits program. The custodial staff has access to the same benefits as members of Congress." We should note that while janitors and members of Congress can choose from the same menu of plans, members of Congress generally have more money to spend on, well, anything. Many members of Congress are millionaires. But Obama is right that lawmakers and janitors are eligible for the same benefits, deductibles and co-pays. We rate his statement True

Seniors and the disabled "will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska, urged her supporters to oppose Democratic plans for health care reform on her Facebook page. "As more Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is dropping, and we’re saying not just no, but hell no!" wrote Palin in a note posted Aug. 7, 2009. She said that the Democrats plan to reduce health care costs by simply refusing to pay for care. "And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil." We agree with Palin that such a system would be evil. But it's definitely not what President Barack Obama or any other Democrat has proposed. We have read all 1,000-plus pages of the Democratic bill and examined versions in various committees. There is no panel in any version of the health care bills in Congress that judges a person's "level of productivity in society" to determine whether they are "worthy" of health care. Palin's claim sounds a little like another statement making the rounds, which says that health care reform would mandate counseling for seniors on how to end their lives sooner. We rated this claim Pants on Fire ! The truth is that the health bill allows Medicare, for the first time, to pay for doctors' appointments for patients to discuss living wills and other end-of-life issues with their physicians. These types of appointments are completely optional, and AARP supports the measure. Palin also may have also jumped to conclusions about the Obama administration's efforts to promote comparative effectiveness research. Such research has nothing to do with evaluating patients for "worthiness." Rather, comparative effectiveness research finds out which treatments work better than others. The health reform bill being considered in the House of Representatives says that a Comparative Effectiveness Research Center shall "conduct, support, and synthesize research" that looks at "outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of health care services and procedures in order to identify the manner in which diseases, disorders, and other health conditions can most effectively and appropriately be prevented, diagnosed, treated, and managed clinically." Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 The idea here, which Obama and his budget director Peter Orszag have discussed many times, is to make it easier for doctors, health care workers, insurance companies and patients to find out which treatments are the most effective, as determined by clinical studies and other research. Obama has said he believes a comparative effectiveness commission should advise health care workers, not require them to follow certain treatments. "I actually think that most doctors want to do right by their patients. And if they’ve got good information, I think they will act on that good information," Obama said during an interview with the New York Times on April 28, 2009. He also specifically addressed end-of-life care for seniors, discussing the last week of his grandmother's life in 2008, and how her family and doctors decided on treatment for her. "It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels," Obama said. "And that's part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It's not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that's part of what I suspect you'll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now." And in fact, the House bill states in the section creating the Comparative Effectiveness Research Center and an oversight commission, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Commission or the Center to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer." In other words, comparative effectiveness research will tell you whether treatment A is better than treatment B. But the bill as written won't mandate which treatment doctors and patients have to select. Palin's statement seems extreme, but other Republicans, like Newt Gingrich, are backing her up. "You're asking us to trust turning power over to the government, when there clearly are people in America who believe in establishing euthanasia, including selective standards," Gingrich said in an interview on This Week with George Stephanopolous on Aug. 9, 2009. We've looked at the inflammatory claims that the health care bill encourages euthanasia. It doesn't. There's certainly no "death board" that determines the worthiness of individuals to receive care. Conservatives might make a case that Palin is justified in fearing that the current reform could one day morph into such a board. But that's not what Palin said. She said that the Democratic plan will ration care and "my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care." Palin's statement sounds more like a science fiction movie ( Soylent Green , anyone?) than part of an actual bill before Congress. We rate her statement Pants on Fir

During the 2005 fight over Social Security, "there were noisy demonstrations — but they were outside the events," and opponents were "not disruptive — crowds booed lines they didn’t like, but that was about it. As congressional town halls across the country increasingly draw loud protests from critics of Democratic health care legislation, a debate is brewing about whether the protests are more raucous than those four years ago against President George W. Bush’s effort to create private accounts for Social Security. In an Aug. 5 blog posting, liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote: "Indeed, activists made trouble in 2005 by asking congressmen tough questions about policy. Activists are making trouble now by shouting congressmen down so they can’t be heard. It’s exactly the same thing, right?" He continued, "Seriously, I’ve been searching through news reports on the Social Security town halls, and I can’t find any examples of the kind of behavior we’re seeing now. Yes, there were noisy demonstrations — but they were outside the events. That was even true during the first month or two, when Republicans actually tried having open town halls. Congressmen were very upset by the reception they received, but not, at least according to any of the reports I can find, because opponents were disruptive — crowds booed lines they didn’t like, but that was about it. "After that, the events were open only to demonstrated loyalists; you may recall the people arrested at a Bush Social Security event in Denver for the crime of … not being Bush supporters. "So please, no false equivalences. The campaign against Social Security privatization was energetic and no doubt rude, but did not involve intimidation and disruption." We decided to join Krugman in looking back to the news clippings. We conclude that while some of the recent conservative protests — such as ones at town halls in Tampa, Little Rock, Ark., Houston, Philadelphia, and Green Bay, Wis.— may have been angrier and more widespread than the ones in 2005, it would be incorrect to suggest, as Krugman does, that the noisy demonstrations against Bush's policies were only taking place outside the events or that disruptions were limited to the occasional boo. We used the Lexis-Nexis news database to find newspaper and wire service stories in calendar year 2005 that included the words "town hall," "Social Security," and a variant of either "protest," "heckler" or "shout." The search returned just under 250 articles. Not all were relevant, and a majority of ones that were relevant addressed town halls hosted by President Bush rather than Members of Congress. Generally speaking, the Bush events were, as Krugman correctly notes, held in front of largely handpicked crowds, which meant that little disruption went on inside the hall. Most of them, as he also notes, inspired protests outside, some of them loud and unruly, and all of them kept at a distance by the Secret Service. (At one event in Westfield, N.J., for instance, a protest that included "hundreds" of people led to the arrest of nine people on disorderly conduct charges.) But for this comparison, we need to look at town halls sponsored by members of Congress. News coverage was more spotty, but here is a sampling of examples we found in which journalists reported conflict inside an event: — "At two stops, morning at Drexel University, afternoon at Widener University, [Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.] encountered skepticism and hostility as he voiced his support for the White House plan to allow creation of personal accounts using payroll taxes. He was heckled by protesters, called a liar, and told that his views were unconscionable. Those sentiments ranged across the age spectrum. … "Santorum asked the audience what would happen in 2008. The response he wanted was that the oldest baby boomers would turn 62 and be eligible for early retirement. "What he got instead, shouted out by an unfriendly voice, was: ‘George Bush will leave office!’ "Actually, that's scheduled for 2009. But many in the crowd cheered anyway." (Feb. 23, 2005, Philadelphia Inquirer ) — "Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., delivered a PowerPoint presentation Thursday night to a packed auditorium in Phoenix. As he laid out the long-term demographic problems for Social Security and expressed his support for private accounts, Shadegg encountered scattered heckling, boos and hisses. (Feb. 26, Chicago Tribune ) — A session sponsored by Rep. Chris Chocola, R-Ind., in South Bend, at the downtown branch of the St. Joseph County Public Library "was a raucous affair, with many of the 100 or so people who attended shouting questions and insults, talking over each other and still bubbling with questions when it was all over. "One gentleman was so angry when Chocola indicated the hour-long session was coming to an end and wouldn't be extended that he walked out." ( South Bend Tribune , Feb. 27, 2005) — John Busch, a letter-writer to a newspaper in Chico, Calif., said, "I attended Congressman Wally Herger's recent town hall meeting in Chico regarding Social Security. I must have witnessed more rude, disrespectful behavior from an audience somewhere along the line, I just can't remember where. The congressman's efforts to provide and gather information were continually thwarted by hecklers who seemed not to care what the congressman had to say, but whose sole reason for attending the meeting was to be rude and disruptive. They certainly accomplished that." (May 8, 2005, Enterprise-Record of Chico, Calif.) Republican officials at the time said that about 95 House lawmakers took part in 287 Social Security-related events in February, with more held in March, so in all likelihood, there were many, many events that did not result in news coverage we could find. So we can't say whether there were protests or shouting matches. And some stories noted the meetings were civil. For example, a Feb. 26, 2005, Chicago Tribune report found that a meeting held by Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz., had "no booing or shouting or threatening tirades. A volunteer from AARP took notes and politely reminded Renzi that ‘Social Security is a retirement plan and a family protection plan. It is not an investment plan.’" And a different Chocola event, according to the news account, "was quiet, orderly and polite, with the 60 or so persons on hand taking turns asking questions and listening to Chocola's response." Still, the protests inside and outside town halls, even if they were not universal, clearly rattled Republican leaders. On March 17, 2005, USA Today reported: "Shaken by raucous protests at open ‘town hall’-style meetings last month, House Republican Conference Chairwoman Deborah Pryce of Ohio and other GOP leaders are urging lawmakers to hold lower-profile events this time. … This month, Republican leaders say they are chucking the open town-hall format. They plan to visit newspaper editorial boards and talk to constituents at Rotary Club lunches, senior citizen centers, chambers of commerce meetings and local businesses. In those settings, ‘there isn't an opportunity for it to disintegrate into something that's less desirable,’ says Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Senate Republican Conference." And leaders of the movement against changing Social Security made no bones about being aggressive. Brad Woodhouse, then a spokesman for Americans United to Protect Social Security, the labor-backed group that was a key player in the fight against Bush’s proposal, told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on March 20, 2005 that "we are going to be getting in the faces of people who are for privatization; they're going to feel the heat. ... It's vociferous, it's rough, it's tough." It’s worth noting that today, Woodhouse is on the other side, so to speak — criticizing the people who are disrupting town halls. He is the communications director for the Democratic National Committee and issued a statement on Aug. 4, 2009, blasting "the Republican Party and Allied Groups’ Mob Rule," saying it was "inciting angry mobs of a small number of rabid right wing extremists funded by K Street Lobbyists to disrupt thoughtful discussions about the future of health care in America taking place in Congressional Districts across the country." He continued, "The right wing extremists’ use of things like devil horns on pictures of our elected officials, hanging members of Congress in effigy, breathlessly questioning the president's citizenship and the use of Nazi SS symbols and the like just shows how outside of the mainstream the Republican Party and their allies are. This type of anger and discord did not serve Republicans well in 2008 — and it is bound to backfire again." It is true that there’s nothing in the clips from 2005 about burning members of Congress in effigy or the use of devils’ horns. But Woodhouse’s group employed 28-foot gorillas, duck suits, plates of hot waffles and sheet cakes as props, according to an Aug. 13, 2005, report in the Albuquerque Tribune . So while the protests may be more intense this time (devils' horns instead of duck suits), it's clear that there was plenty of disruption inside town hall meetings in 2005, contrary to Krugman's assertions. We find his claim False. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022

Health care reform legislation is “likely to mandate free ‘sex change’ surgeries. In trying to build opposition to President Barack Obama's health care proposal, critics have suggested that health care would be government-controlled , that people would be left to die if their treatment exceeded a certain cost and that it would require counseling telling people " how to end their life sooner ." (We've ruled versions of each of those False or Pants on Fire.) Now comes a new one: that taxpayers may soon be footing the bill for free sex-change operations. On Aug. 4, a news release to that effect went out under the name of Matt Barber, who is director of cultural affairs with Liberty Counsel, a conservative legal group, and the associate dean of Liberty University School of Law, which was founded by the late televangelist Jerry Falwell. It was quickly spread by blogs on the left and the right. Titled, “ObamaCare Likely to Mandate Free ‘Sex Change’ Surgeries,” the release asserted that “the weight of the evidence indicates that cosmetic ‘gender reassignment’ surgeries for both U.S. citizens and illegal immigrants who suffer from [the American Psychiatric Association-] recognized ‘Gender Identity Disorder’ (GID) may also be provided – free of charge – courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. The current price tag for such a procedure can exceed $50,000.” To confirm Barber’s authorship and learn more about his reasoning, we tried to reach him through the phone number and e-mail address listed on the release, as well as through a call to a different number at Liberty Counsel. But he did not respond. Because we couldn't confirm his authorship, we're attributing this item to our generic category "bloggers," since they have spread it so widely. Before we delve into our findings in detail, here's an overview of why we found the claim was False: The news release tries to stitch together a patchwork of unrelated items to back up the sex-change claim, but the health care bills as they appear today simply don't do what the release alleges. There is no mandate for sex-change coverage. The news release offers three pieces of evidence: • An exchange between Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., about the legislation covering treatments that would be "medically necessary." • Language in the House version of the health care bill that provides for "standards, as appropriate, for the collection of accurate data on health and health care" based on "sex, sexual orientation [and] gender identity." • And language in a draft Senate bill that requires the Department of Health and Human Services to “‘develop standards for the measurement of gender’ (i.e., officially recognize subjectively self-determined "transgender" or "transsexual" gender identities). It further mandates ‘participation in the institutions’ programs of individuals and groups from ... different genders and sexual orientations.” Let’s take these assertions one by one. The Hatch-Mikulski exchange It came during a session held by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee to revise a Senate version of the health care bill. The committee was discussing an amendment by Mikulski that would require health insurance plans to include preventive women's health services. Hatch asked his colleague whether that meant that coverage of abortions would be required. She replied that the measure would not “mandate” abortion coverage but would “provide for any service deemed medically necessary or medically appropriate.” The amendment narrowly passed the committee and was appended to the bill. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 It's worth noting that Mikulski's amendment may not survive to enactment. And her comments quoted in the news release aren’t, in and of themselves, binding. Still, the news release used Mikulski’s explanation on abortion to assert that sex-change treatments would also be covered under the same doctrine. Before we get to the substance of that claim, let’s look at the significance of Mikulski's phrase "medically necessary." Seth Chandler, the co-director of the Health Law and Policy Institute at the University of Houston, said that the phrase does carry weight. “That is kind of a magic word in health insurance, in that virtually every private insurance plan I know of contains an exclusion for procedures that are not medically necessary,” he said. “It’s designed to preclude fraudulent or highly experimental procedures.” The American Medical Association, the nation’s leading doctors’ group, has already gone on record saying that gender-reassignment surgery can be medically necessary. In 2008, the AMA passed a resolution on gender identity disorder that opposes coverage limitations “when such care is based upon sound scientific evidence and sound medical opinion.” Even so, insurers have not made such coverage universal today. The Web site of the National Center for Lesbian Rights posts a fact sheet that says that such surgeries have long been banned by Medicare and CHAMPUS, the federally run military health plan. Medicaid does not specifically bar those surgeries, the fact sheet added, but some states have statutes barring them. As for the private sector, neither America’s Health Insurance Plans, the trade group for private insurers, nor the Transgender Law Center could provide us with figures on how common it is for transgender surgeries to be covered by insurance. But AHIP’s vice president of communications, Susan Pisano, said that, anecdotally, “my understanding is that there is less coverage for those procedures and treatments. … Some employers do provide it, but I don’t think most people have coverage for those services.” Indeed, the AMA resolution noted that “many health insurance plans categorically exclude coverage of mental health, medical, and surgical treatments for GID, even though many of these same treatments, such as psychotherapy, hormone therapy, breast augmentation and removal, hysterectomy, oophorectomy, orchiectomy, and salpingectomy, are often covered for other medical conditions.” Still, there is at least a nugget of plausibility in the news release citing Mikulski’s language. It may indeed make it into the final version of health reform, and if so, it could provide justification for expanding (though not necessarily mandating) coverage of procedures that are controversial but deemed medically necessary. The House and Senate language But in its other points, relating to language in the House and Senate bills, the news release offers little evidence to back up its claim. The release's discussion of the House bill's language focuses on one mention of collecting health care data based on “sex, sexual orientation [and] gender identity.” We looked up the passage, and it comes in a section that lays out the job description for a new assistant secretary of Health and Human Services for health information. That official is charged with setting standards for data collection on a number of factors, including such commonplace categories as race, sex, ethnicity, primary language and geographic setting in addition to “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” While it’s true that the section mentions gender identity, it merely addresses how health care data on a wide variety of subgroups should be collected. It is not a green light to cover sex-change surgeries. The evidence is even flimsier in the release's claim about the Senate bill’s language. The first phrase the news release cites – that a Senate draft bill requires the Department of Health and Human Services to “develop standards for the measurement of gender” – would, according the release, “officially recognize subjectively self-determined ‘transgender’ or ‘transsexual’ gender identities.” We find that's a ridiculous leap of logic. The passage in question is the equivalent of the House bill’s language on data collection, not mandated coverage. The full passage cites the development of statistical standards to measure not just for gender but also for “geographic location, socioeconomic status, primary language and disability measures.” The second passage cited from the Senate bill addresses mental and behavioral health grants that may be awarded by the federal government to students. Its reference to “participation in the institutions’ programs of individuals and groups from ... different genders and sexual orientations” merely constitutes a requirement that schools receiving support under the grant program adhere to principles of nondiscrimination and diversity in “racial, ethnic, cultural, geographic, religious, linguistic, and class backgrounds” as well as for “different genders and sexual orientations.” That's simply a requirement that the participating educational institutions not discriminate — not a mandate for covering sex-change surgeries. The bottom line is that neither bill talks specifically about gender-reassignment surgery. The news release has attempted — poorly, in most cases — to piece together a patchwork case. But the health reform plans as they stand now don't do what the release claims. In theory, the House bill does offer one path by which coverage of sex-change surgeries could be made mandatory. If that part of the bill survives to enactment, a new panel called the Health Benefits Advisory Council could eventually recommend that sex-change surgeries be covered. The council, chaired by the surgeon general, would be tasked with recommending to the HHS secretary what “treatments, items and services” constitute “essential benefits.” If the HHS secretary agreed with the recommendations, they would initially take effect for public-option plans if such plans were part of the final legislation. After a five-year transitional period, private plans would have to adhere to this basic package of services. So in theory, it would be in the Health Benefits Advisory Council’s power to decide to include gender-reassignment surgery in the package of essential benefits. But that's a far cry — and many political hurdles away — from "mandating" sex-change coverage. Given the public’s squeamishness about the topic, it doesn't seem to us that it's “likely,” as the news release suggested. So let’s recap. The release may have a point that Mikulski’s comment could open the door to "medically necessary" coverage which conceivably may include sex-change operations. But it's unclear whether her amendment will remain in the legislation, and there's nothing specific in the legislation on sex-change procedures and nothing else solid that indicates such coverage will be provided. The news release cherry-picked a few fleeting references to “gender” and “sexual orientation” in completely unrelated contexts to argue that proposed health care legislation would mandate free sex-change surgeries (and allow them for illegal aliens, no less). To us, these bits of evidence are wholly unpersuasive. We find the claim False

A loophole "still exists which allows members of Congress and high-powered executive branch appointees to exploit 'insider' knowledge of the financial industry in order to turn personal profit. Little-known fact: Members of Congress are exempt from rules that prevent insider trading. Or so says the left-leaning advocacy group Public Citizen in a July 10, 2009, e-mail sent to supporters. "The federal government has finally got the message that it’s time for stronger oversight of Wall Street and the financial services sector. It’s also time to put an end to secret spending and insider trading," the e-mail reads. "A dangerous legal loophole still exists which allows members of Congress and high-powered executive branch appointees to exploit 'insider' knowledge of the financial industry in order to turn personal profit." It goes on to describe an army of lobbyists and traders who "haunt the halls of Congress seeking insider tips from staff — known as 'political intelligence consultants'" who may also use the confidential information. The e-mail asks supporters to write their representatives to support the Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, a bill sponsored by Reps. Louise Slaughter of New York and Brian Baird of Washington, that would ban insider trading by lawmakers, members of the executive branch and staff, and require that they publicly disclose stock trades of more than $1,000 within 90 days. It would also require the "political intelligence consultants" to register as lobbyists in both chambers of Congress. We hadn't heard the allegation that members of Congress had a leg up for insider trading and wondered if it's true. Thomas Newkirk, a partner with the law firm Jenner and Block, told us that indeed there's some uncertainty about how insider trading rules impact members of Congress and their staff. For example, in 2001, a financial consultant meeting with the Treasury Department learned that the department planned to kill off the 30-year bond. In turn, the consultant tipped off traders at Goldman Sachs who proceeded to use that information to make the firm lots of money. It was considered insider trading because the consultant knew he was not supposed to release the information, Newkirk said. Federal regulators settled with Goldman Sachs and the consultant for about $10.3 million in September 2003. But with members of Congress, it's different. Unless lawmakers have some express confidentiality agreement — whether it's in writing or in word — they can do whatever they want with the information they obtain on Capitol Hill, Newkirk said. Bruce Carton, a former Senior Counsel with the SEC's enforcement division and current editor of Securities Docket, agreed there is uncertainty about the rules. "Insider trading depends on some kind of duty. You can steal information, but unless you have some sort of duty of confidentiality to it, you're not going to be held liable," Carton said. Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 15, 2022 in Instagram post Seattle authorities are investigating a string of serial killings. By Michael Majchrowicz • October 17, 2022 Right now, there is no duty of confidentiality for Congress, their staff or executive branch employees, he said. "It may be unethical, and it may be unseemly, but it's not illegal," Carton said. So yes, it seems there is a way for members of Congress to engage in insider trading. Whether they are actually doing it is another story. So far, there are no specific examples of lawmakers engaging in "secret spending and insider trading," as the e-mail indicates. But for its factual claim, we give Public Citizen a True

Stimulus tax cuts "began showing up in paychecks of 4.8 million Indiana households about three months ago. When President Barack Obama gave a speech on the economy in Wakarusa, Ind., on Aug. 5, 2009, one of his statements raised the eyebrows of one alert PolitiFact reader. Obama, touting an element of his stimulus package, said that a tax cut “began showing up in paychecks of 4.8 million Indiana households about three months ago.” That struck our reader as odd because the Census Bureau pegs Indiana’s population at 6.3 million, of which one quarter are under 18. What’s the likelihood that the remaining 4.8 million Indiana adults each constitute their own household? Not likely at all. When we asked the Indiana Department of Revenue how many tax returns are filed annually in the state, they said the number is around 3.2 million, and that includes both joint filers and individuals. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 So clearly Obama was wrong. A White House official confirmed for us that it was a goof, pure and simple. A staffer mistakenly used the number of households in Illinois in Obama's speech, 4.8 million, instead of Indiana, which is 2.4 million. So there aren't as many Hoosier households as Obama claimed, and he earns a False on the Truth-O-Mete

Under President George W. Bush, the U.S. "spent $1.3 trillion on tax cuts for the wealthy" and "trillions" each on a war and on Medicare drug benefits Republicans have been attacking President Barack Obama for proposing an expensive health care overhaul on top of a costly economic stimulus. But some Democrats have been growing frustrated at the GOP attacks, saying that the same Republican Party agreed to massive spending and deficits when it controlled the presidency and Congress. Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist and pundit, gave voice to these frustrations on Aug. 2, 2009, on CNN’s State of the Union. "The Bush administration doubled the national debt and it did not help the middle class with the basics of their everyday living," Brazile said. "So we're all concerned about the deficit, but this is needed investment to ensure that we give Americans who have lost their jobs a lifeline, whether it's providing food stamps, whether it's giving states (money to continue) Medicaid funding, or giving these American workers the ability to go out there and retrain and retool themselves." She continued, “We spent $1.3 trillion on tax cuts for the wealthy that we could not afford. We spent trillions on a war that we could not afford. We spent trillions on Medicare with the expensive program that gives money to the drug companies, and nobody raised a peep about the deficit.” We won’t pass judgment on the more subjective issue of whether the tax cuts, the war costs or the Medicare drug plan were, as Brazile, claims, unaffordable. But we think it’s worth checking to see whether Brazile did the math right. We'll take her assertions one by one. On the tax cuts, Brazile was right: President George W. Bush’s 2001 tax package was expected to reduce federal revenues by roughly $1.3 trillion, according to Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation, the key arbiter for the cost of tax legislation. Featured Fact-check Rick Scott stated on October 30, 2022 in an interview on CNN's "State of the Union" “All Democrats in the Senate and House voted to cut $280 billion out of Medicare just two months ago.” By Louis Jacobson • October 31, 2022 Brazile also asserted that the Bush tax cuts were for the wealthy. The Joint Committee on Taxation found the changes in the tax rates were roughly the same among different groups, but analyses using other measurements have found a disproportionate benefit to wealthier Americans; even supporters of the tax cuts conceded that the rich, under a system of progressive taxation, already paid a large share of the tax burden, and thus reaped a disproportionate share of the gains when taxes were cut. The Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the centrist-to-liberal Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, looked at all of the Bush-backed tax cuts enacted between 2001 and 2008 and found that the richest one-fifth of the population saw its after-tax income rise by 5.4 percent, compared to 0.7 percent for the bottom one-fifth. Meanwhile, the richest 1 percent saw its after-tax income rise by 7.3 percent. Brazile’s second claim was that "a war" cost trillions of dollars. She wasn't specific about which war, but since most assessments of this question have combined the costs for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — in part because untangling those costs is so difficult — we'll look at them together. A partial answer to this question comes from a May 15, 2009, report by the Congressional Research Service, “The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11.” That report found that $864 billion had been spent for “military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs and veterans’ health care.” That number can be updated to take into account the slightly more than $77 billion allocated for ongoing war operations in May, when Obama signed a supplemental war spending bill. Finally, one can also include the $130 billion sought by the president for regular fiscal year 2010 for operations in Afghanistan. In all, these three numbers add to about $1.07 trillion — crossing the 13-digit threshold, but not reaching the multiple "trillions" suggested by Brazile. Some budget analysts believe future costs will ultimately hike the overall pricetag into the trillions. Former Clinton administration economic adviser and Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, writing with Harvard University scholar Linda J. Bilmes, published a book last year titled The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict . It includes $700 billion for veterans’ costs that exceed peacetime levels, including disability payments and health care coverage; $1 trillion for the interest on funds borrowed to finance the war; and another $1 trillion to cover the loss of life and severe disability caused by the war, including the provision of caregivers for wounded veterans and the removal of productive assets from the economy. Economists we spoke with said it's reasonable to include those costs in the ultimate pricetag. But most of that additional money has not yet been "spent," as Brazile claimed. Finally, we looked at how much the Medicare drug plan has cost the taxpayers. According to the 2008 annual report of the Medicare Board of Trustees, a total of $549 billion is expected to be spent on the program in fiscal years 2006 through 2015. (Budget wonks take note: We did not include the full amount paid out by the drug plan, but rather took that number and subtracted the costs footed by beneficiary premiums and transfers from the states. Our number includes what was actually paid by the taxpayers through the general treasury.) Because costs for the program are expected to rise as the years go on, the total amount spent will eventually cross the $1 trillion threshold. But during the standard, 10-year budget window, the amount only gets a little more than halfway to that level. And it will be many, many years before it hits "trillions," as Brazile suggested. So she is incorrect to say that amount has been spent. So let’s recap. The numbers support her broad point that there was lots of spending when Republicans controlled the White House and Congress. But individually, the accuracy of her assertions is more mixed. Brazile correctly described the cost of the 2001 Bush tax cut, but she overstated the cost of the wars. Although the pricetag may ultimately be trillions, that hasn't been spent yet. And she exaggerated the 10-year cost of the Medicare drug plan. So we rate her claim Half True

A former Clinton administration official and other economists agree that "if you keep extending these temporary unemployment benefits, you're just going to extend joblessness even more. It's a conundrum of compassion: If you provide someone with unemployment benefits, does he lose the incentive to find a job? On the Aug. 2, 2009, edition of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, conservative blogger Michelle Malkin asserted that even a liberal economist believes that unemployment benefits have a negative impact on joblessness because those benefits discourage people from taking jobs. "It was Larry Katz, who was the chief labor economist under the Clinton Labor Department, who came out with a study, and there are a lot of these smart economists who say this – that if you keep extending these temporary unemployment benefits, you're just going to extend joblessness even more," she said. Stephanopoulous expressed skepticism at the idea that Americans would choose "to take the unemployment benefits when a job is available." But Malkin was undeterred. "Well, it's 79 weeks already," she said. "And then they're going to extend it by another 13 weeks. And what happens is, according to these economists who have seen it, including this Clinton economist, is that people will just delay getting a job until the three weeks before the benefits run out." Malkin's fellow panelists joined Stephanopoulos in pushing back against Malkin's assertion. "But when businesses advertise the few job openings they have — they'll advertise 20 openings — they have 6,000 applicants," said Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution . "So I don't think that's the problem at the moment." We decided to see if Malkin was correct. We contacted Katz, now a Harvard professor, and he said Malkin was probably referring to two papers he co-wrote in 1990 with fellow economist Bruce D. Meyer. One, "The Impact of the Potential Duration of Unemployment Benefits on the Duration of Unemployment," was published in the Journal of Public Economics in February 1990. The other, "Unemployment Insurance, Recall Expectations and Unemployment Outcomes," was published in The Quarterly Journal of Economics , in November 1990. We looked at the papers, and the first seems especially on point. The paper noted that in certain European countries, generous unemployment benefit policies often had a strong correlation with high rates of long-term unemployment. After looking at U.S. unemployment data from 1979 to 1983, the authors concluded that "the potential duration of [unemployment insurance] benefits has a strong impact on the duration of the unemployment." In fact, the authors wrote, "an increase in potential benefit duration from 6 months to 1 year is predicted to increase mean duration of unemployment by 4-5 weeks, and an increase from 6 months to 2 years is predicted to generate a 13-16 week increase in unemployment duration." To scholars, this was not a shocking result: It confirmed other research, and it has regularly been cited in subsequent studies. So Malkin was correct in summarizing Katz's work. But there is a significant caveat: Katz himself argues that his two-decade-old finding isn't valid in today's recession. In fact, the day before Malkin went on the air, the New York Times ran a front-page story headlined, "Prolonged Aid to Unemployed Is Running Out" that happened to quote Katz. The article said: "Traditionally, many economists have been leery of prolonged unemployment benefits because they can reduce the incentive to seek work. But that should not be a concern now because jobs remain so scarce, said Lawrence Katz, a labor economist at Harvard. For every job that becomes available, about six people are looking, Dr. Katz said. ‘Unemployment insurance gives income to families who are really suffering and can't find work even if they are hustling to look,' he said. With the economy still listing, he added, a temporary extension can provide a quick fiscal stimulus. And, Dr. Katz said, when people exhaust unemployment and health insurance, many end up applying for disability benefits, which become a large, unending drain on the Treasury." When we asked Katz about the discrepency between his remarks then and now, he explained that labor markets in the late 1970s and early 1980s were significantly different from today. Back then, it was common for companies making layoffs to later recall workers, and often workers accepted those jobs right as their benefits were coming to an end. Today, recalls rarely happen, and with the job market so tight, a job search can prove fruitless for many months. Most unemployed workers don't have the luxury of timing when they accept a job. For that reason, Katz told us in an interview, "I strongly favor extensions of UI benefits when the labor market is weak and the ratio of job seekers to job openings is very high" – in other words, like the situation is right now. As for Malkin's claim that other economists agreed with Katz' 1990 view that extending benefits merely prolongs unemployment, we found that they concurred that his old papers were sound — but they also agreed that the papers' conclusions aren't applicable to today's recession. They said that today's job market is so tight that if someone does turn down a job in order to remain on unemployment benefits, someone else who's unemployed will take that job instead, canceling out any extra time the first person stays on unemployment benefits. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 We spoke with several economists and found a consensus that the broader stimulative effect on the economy that comes from extending unemployment benefits outweighs any potential lengthening of how long some people choose to stay on unemployment. So let's review what Malkin said. She correctly characterized Katz's writings from nearly 20 years ago. However, due to the changed nature of the labor market in today's recession, neither Katz nor most economists we talked to believe that his findings have much relevance to the current situation. This undercuts Malkin's assertion that "there are a lot of these smart economists who say this – that if you keep extending these temporary unemployment benefits, you're just going to extend joblessness even more." For this reason, we rate her statement Half Tru

If you log into the government's Cash for Clunkers Web site (cars.gov) from your home computer, the government can "seize all of your personal and private" information, and track your computer activity.   On Glenn Beck's Fox News program on July 31, 2009, Fox anchor Kimberly Guilfoyle suggested that clicking on the government's Cash for Clunkers Web page (cars.gov) would give the government complete access to your home computer. The accusation came in a back-and-forth exchange among Beck, Guilfoyle and Jonah Goldberg, author of Liberal Fascism. After warning viewers not to try this at home, Beck typed in cars.gov., the U.S. Department of Transportation Web site for the program better known as Cash for Clunkers. "Here is Cars.gov," Beck said. "Let's say you go in. If I understand this right, I go in and I say, 'I want to turn in my clunker.' The dealer goes to Cars.gov, and then they hit 'submit transaction.' Here it says 'privacy act and security statement,' and it's like, oh, it's the Privacy Act of 1974. Whatever. I agree." But when you pull it up, he noted, here's how the warning statement read: "This application provides access to the DOT CARS system. When logged on to the CARS system, your computer is considered a federal computer system and it is property of the United States Government. Any or all uses of this system and all files on this system may be intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected, and disclosed to authorized CARS, DOT, and law enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic and foreign." "Good God Almighty!" Beck said. Said Guilfoyle: "Could it be any more broad and frightening? Here you are trying to be a good citizen and make a charitable contribution, do something that's good — and guess what? They are jumping right inside you, seizing all of your personal and private (information) ... And it's absolutely legal, Glenn. They can do it." "They can continue to track you basically forever," Guilfoyle warned. "Once they tap into your system, the government, of course, has like malware systems and tracking cookies and they can tap in anytime they want." "Can you believe that?" she asked. "I mean, seriously, they can get all your information." Later, Goldberg said it was "all very troubling. And, look, let me give you a hard example of this. Say you use Skype or some other Internet phone system, right? If you're on the phone while logged in on this thing, according to this, according to a lawyer I talked to before ... the government can legally listen to your phone call. They can check out what Web sites you've been searching." "Because it says ... your computer is a government's property," Goldberg said. "That's correct, if you log on to this at your home, everything in your home is now theirs?" Beck asked. "Basically," Guilfoyle said, "and there's nothing you can do." To dissect this one, we have to begin by noting the small amount of truth in their comments. The statement Beck read was on a government Web site for auto dealers, but Guilfoyle twists that into some incorrect claims about the government getting access to individuals. Here's the true part: The Department of Transportation confirmed the language was on the cars.gov Web site, but on Aug. 3 it was removed. The DOT released this statement to PolitiFact: "A security warning on the CARS.gov dealer support page that stated computers logged into the system were considered property of the Federal Government has been removed. We are working to revise the language. The language was posted on the portion of the website accessible by car dealers and not the general public." Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 "It would be factually inaccurate to say that any computer that went to cars.gov would become the property of the U.S. government," said Sasha Johnson, a DOT spokeswoman said. Although Beck began his segment by noting that the warning was on a part of the site for dealers, Guilfoyle then distorted the truth by suggesting it applied to members of the general public coming to the site for information about Cash for Clunkers. The allegations escalated as she and Goldberg issued warnings about anyone even typing in that address at home. And that's just wrong. Beck seemed to concede that point when raising the issue again on Aug. 3. "Now, these blogs have come out this weekend and said, 'Oh, there goes Glenn Beck trying to stir up trouble again. It doesn't affect the average person. It's just the car dealerships.' I'm sorry. I'm sorry. It's just the car dealerships. Oh, so then I shouldn't care? It's not the average people? It's just the average people who are in small business running the car dealerships," Beck said. DOT's Johnson said the government has no plans to take over the computer of auto dealers either. And, again, the language was removed on Aug. 3. But the language was there when Beck and Guilfoyle first raised their concerns. And clearly the language was overly broad, and bad enough to give ammunition to conspiracy theorists. That much is implied by the fact the government felt the need to remove the language. So in that sense, we think the DOT bears some blame for the confusion. Had she said from the start that this just applied to dealers completing transactions, we might be more generous in our ruling. But we think anyone who saw the July 31 program — in which she claimed "seriously, they can get all your information" — would be left with the clear impression that anyone who logged into the cars.gov site was opening their computer to Big Brother. And that's Fals

President Barack Obama suggested on national TV that the Democratic health care bill "will have government decide" that a healthy, 100-year-old woman in need of a pacemaker "should take a pain pill" instead Rep. Dan Lungren, a Republican from California, says President Barack Obama's health care plan is so mixed up that the government would tell 100-year-old ladies who need pacemakers to take pain pills instead. During a speech on the House floor on July 28, 2009, Lungren cited comments that Obama made in a TV special to suggest that Obama's plan was callous and bureaucratic. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 "If we are being told that this week we have to make the decision as to whether or not the program we put forward will have government decide whether a 100-year-old woman who is in extraordinarily good health but needs a pacemaker ought to instead be told by the government that merely she should take a pain pill — as the president suggested on television not too long ago — then maybe we owe it to the American people to give ourselves sufficient time” to study this legislation further. Lungren was referring to remarks Obama made during the ABC News' June 24 special, Questions for the President: Prescription for America, which was anchored by Diane Sawyer and Charles Gibson. We went to the transcript of the event and found that Lungren is distorting Obama's words. While Obama did bring up the example of patients and their families possibly having to choose between a pill and a pacemaker at some point, he did it as a hypothetical example while emphasizing that the government’s role should be to provide background information so that patients and doctors can better sort through thorny, end-of-life issues. The exchange began when Sawyer introduced Jane Sturm, who takes care of her mother, Hazel, now 105. When Hazel was 100, Sturm said, the doctor told her she needed a pacemaker. Both mother and daughter said they were game, but an arrhythmia specialist initially said no, before seeing Hazel’s “joy of life” in person. Sturm asked the president, “Outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody elderly, is there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of living, quality of life? Or is it just a medical cutoff at a certain age?” After joking that he’d like to meet Sturm’s mother and “find out what she’s eating,” the president said, “I don't think that we can make judgments based on peoples' spirit. That would be a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that say that we are going to provide good, quality care for all people.” After Gibson interjected with a comment about how money may not have been available for a pacemaker, Obama responded, “Well, and — and that's absolutely true. And end-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we're going to have to make. I don't want bureaucracies making those decisions, but understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If they're not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they're being made by private insurers. We don't always make those decisions explicitly. We often make those decisions by just letting people run out of money or making the deductibles so high or the out-of-pocket expenses so onerous that they just can't afford the care.” Obama continued, “And all we're suggesting — and we're not going to solve every difficult problem in terms of end-of-life care. A lot of that is going to have to be, we as a culture and as a society starting to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves. But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller. And those kinds of decisions between doctors and patients, and making sure that our incentives are not preventing those good decisions, and that — that doctors and hospitals all are aligned for patient care, that's something we can achieve.” Looking at the full transcript, it’s clear that Obama voluntarily brought up the example of having to choose between a surgery and a pill. But he did so as a hypothetical example of difficult decisions about medical treatment for older patients. He was not advocating, much less requiring, bureaucrats to make a potentially life-ending decision for a centenarian. “I don’t want bureaucracies making those decisions,” Obama said. One can be skeptical about whether Obama’s promises to keep the government out of doctor-patient decisionmaking will hold if health care legislation becomes a reality. But Lungren goes beyond that to distort what the president actually said. We rate Lungren’s claim False

"The Congressional Budget Office most recently came out and analyzed the current (health care) plan and said that it was not only deficit-neutral, but also that over 10 years it would create a $6 billion surplus. During a town hall meeting, U.S. Rep. Russ Carnahan, a Democrat from Missouri, tried to reassure constituents that his party's health care reform bill would cost less than expected. "The Congressional Budget Office most recently came out and analyzed the current plan and said that it was not only deficit-neutral, which has been one of the important factors for the president and congressional leaders, but also that over 10 years it would create a $6 billion surplus," Carnahan told an audience on July 20, 2009, at Forest Park Community College in St. Louis. The audience laughed in response. (To see for yourself, fast forward this video to the 7-minute mark.) It's a claim that's been repeated by many Democrats since the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan group that does all the number crunching for Congress, released its cost estimate for the health care bill on July 17. In its report, the CBO estimated the bill will cost about $1.04 trillion over 10 years. That sum would be partially offset by $219.3 billion in Medicare savings and by $583 billion in tax increases over the same amount of time. Still, the bill would create a $239 billion deficit, according to CBO. We were perplexed: How could Carnahan proclaim a $6 billion surplus if the budget office was projecting a deficit? The confusion comes down to an accounting question about how to treat $245 billion in the House bill that would cover the cost of adjusting Medicare reimbursement rates so doctors don't face the potential of a 21 percent cut in fees. In 1997, Congress agreed that, should Medicare reimbursement rates grow faster than the economy, they would be cut. But instead of following its own rules, Congress has put off those cuts year after year with a Medicare "fix." CBO considers that sum as part of the cost of the bill. But many Democrats don't. Two days after Carnahan's town hall meeting, the House approved a bill that would require all new spending be paid for by new taxes or spending cuts to other government programs, a practice widely known as pay-as-you-go. That bill exempts the Medicare pay fix from these rules, which effectively reduces the cost of the health care reform bill by that same $245 billion. The pay-as-you-go bill is pending in the Senate. But in the meantime, CBO will continue to include it as part of the legislation's price tag until the pay-as-you-go rules are put into law. Back to Carnahan's math: If you accept his assumption that pay-as-you-go ultimately passes both houses of Congress and is signed into law, the health care bill will only cost $797 billion over 10 years. The $219.3 in spending cuts and the $583 billion in tax revenue total $802 billion, so that leaves $5.3 billion extra. (That's not quite $6 billion, but it's in the ballpark. We can assume this is the result of rounding.) Whether Republicans or Democrats are in charge, this kind of budget trickery is nothing new to Washington, said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "It's the best way to do business in Washington," he said. "You inflate the baseline [of a bill] to make it seem like you're spending less." So as for Carnahan's statement, he is definitely misstating CBO's findings. The budget office did not say there would be a $6 billion surplus, it said there would be a $239 billion deficit. Only when Carnahan added some optimistic assumptions did the math work the way he claimed. We find his claim False. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022

Forty-five percent of Americans went without needed care because of costs in 2007 The debate over reforming the U.S. health care system has inspired a torrent of often-conflicting statistics. We will look at three assertions made by Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell of New Jersey. In this item, we will test his assertion that 45 percent of Americans went without needed care because of costs. On July 28, 2009, Pascrell took to the House floor to counter assertions by Republicans and others that a Democratic bill under consideration in the chamber would lead to the rationing of health care. Pascrell’s larger point was that rationing already exists today, just a different type — thanks to the financial barriers to coverage faced by millions of Americans. Specifically, Pascrell said: “Forty-five percent of Americans went without needed care because of costs in this country in 2007. That’s rationing. Fifty-three percent of Americans cut back on their health care in the last year because of costs. That’s rationing. … As many as 22,000 Americans die each year because they don’t have health insurance. My brothers and sisters, that’s rationing.” We are not going to weigh in on the question of whether it’s fair to equate Pascrell’s examples of “rationing” with what the bill’s critics charge the bill would do if enacted. Rather, we wanted to gauge whether Pascrell’s numbers were sound. So we looked at these three claims individually. The first claim comes from a biennial survey by the Commonwealth Fund, a widely respected nonprofit that studies health care policy. The survey sampled the views of 3,501 U.S. adults age 19 and older, between June 6 and October 24, 2007. The 2007 version of Commonwealth’s survey did indeed find that 45 percent of adults aged 19 to 64 had one of four “access problems” related to cost — not filling a prescription; not seeing a specialist when needed; skipping a recommended medical test, treatment or followup; or not visiting a doctor or a clinic when they had a medical problem. That rate is notably higher than the 29 percent who reported similar actions in the 2001 survey. Surveys, especially where participants need to recall for survey-takers what they did or didn’t do in the past, are always somewhat less reliable than research methodology that checks verifiable facts. “As a survey it’s reasonable, but surveys are inherently imperfect yardsticks for this kind of policy research,” said Ed Haislmaier, a scholar at the conservative Heritage Foundation. Moreover, the numbers are now two years out of date. (The next Commonwealth survey is scheduled for release later this year.) And it’s obvious, but worth noting, that individually, the rates for each of those four actions was quite a bit lower than 45 percent: 31 percent of respondents didn’t fill a prescription, 31 percent didn’t go to a doctor or clinic for a medical problem, 25 percent skipped a test, treatment or followup, and 20 percent didn’t see a specialist. Still, we do not believe these problems detract in any serious way from the congressman’s claim, but they are worth noting. These are the most recent numbers available from Commonwealth — and it’s hard to imagine that the rates of access problems would have dropped precipitously since the 2007 poll was taken. Back then, the national unemployment rate was averaging 4.7 percent. Today, it’s almost twice that. We rate this claim by Pascrell to be Mostly True. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022

"All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services. It may be the longest chain e-mail we've ever received. A page-by-page analysis of the House health care bill argues that reform will end the health care system as we know it: "Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed! ... Page 42: The 'Health Choices Commissioner' will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. ... Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services." Most of the e-mail's claims are wrong, and you can read our extended analysis to find out why. One of its most bizarre claims is the one about free health care for noncitizens, "illegal or not." We read the bill and its legislative summary, and could find nothing about free health care for anyone, much less noncitizens. To confirm our examination, we turned to Jennifer Tolbert, an independent health care analyst at the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan foundation that studies health care reform. Tolbert has read and analyzed all the major health proposals, including those of the Republicans, and the foundation provides point-by-point analyses of the plans on its Web site. Featured Fact-check Blake Masters stated on October 15, 2022 in a tweet Immigrants illegally in the country are treated “better than military veterans.” By Jon Greenberg • October 21, 2022 "No one's provided with free health care. That's ridiculous," she said. Page 50, which the e-mail references, is part of Section 152, which includes a generic nondiscrimination clause saying that insurers may not discriminate with regard to "personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services." The section says nothing about "non-US citizens" or immigrants, legal or otherwise. In fact, the legislation specifically states that "undocumented aliens" will not be eligible for credits to help them buy health insurance, in Section 246 on page 143. The bottom line here is the e-mail is making things up. The bill does not say anything close to "All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services." We rate this chain e-mail statement Pants on Fire

"All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange. It may be the longest chain e-mail we've ever received. A page-by-page analysis of the House health care bill argues that reform will end the health care system as we know it: "Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed! ... Page 42: The 'Health Choices Commissioner' will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. ... Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services." Most of the e-mail's claims are wrong, and you can read our extended analysis to find out why. But one of the claims is actually true: "All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange." To explain this one, we will start with an explanation of the overall bill, which was unveiled July 14, 2009. The bill envisions that everyone will be required to have health insurance. People who get health insurance through work satisfy this requirement right off the bat. People who don't get insurance through work or other groups will go to the health care exchange; it's designed to help people who have to go off on their own to buy health insurance, and for small businesses with few employees. The reason for the exchange is that the government wants to regulate insurers to make sure that health plans clearly explain what they offer, can't refuse people for pre-existing conditions, and must offer basic levels of service. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 "This is designed to protect consumers from plans that have outrageous cost-sharing or really limited benefits," said Jennifer Tolbert, an independent health care analyst at the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan foundation that studies health care reform. Tolbert has read and analyzed all the major health proposals, including those of the Republicans, and the foundation provides point-by-point analyses of the plans on its Web site. The exchange is meant to ensure that people are "actually getting coverage and not a junk policy," Tolbert added. We should note that the e-mail says this rule is listed on page 72 of the health care bill. We found that the requirement that insurance companies must conform is also presented much earlier in the bill. We spotted an earlier reference on page 15, Section 101. That doesn't change the fact that the assertion is correct. We've ruled that many of the e-mail's other claims are wrong, but not this one. The e-mail said, "All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange." We rule that True

John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, "has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population. As evidence that the country is closer to socialist than capitalist these days, radio and talk show host Glenn Beck recently made this claim about John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy: "I mean, we've got czars now," Beck said during his July 22, 2009, program. "Czars like John Holdren, who has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population." Political figures like Holdren, who are little-known by most Americans, make easy targets. And Beck's biting quick hit on Holdren provides a healthy enough dose of outrage on which to hang his argument. But is it true? Beck's allegation has its roots in a book Holdren co-authored with Paul and Annie Ehrlich more than three decades ago called Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment . Conservative bloggers have quoted the book extensively, and often out of context, to make the point that Holdren has advocated positions such as the ones Beck stated. We obtained the book to see exactly what Holdren, then a young man, wrote (or co-wrote). The book is just over 1,000 pages, and it clearly makes that case that an explosion in population presented a grave crisis. Although it is a textbook, the authors don't shy away from presenting a point of view. As the preface states, "We have tried throughout the book to state clearly where we stand on various matters of controversy." In a section on "Involuntary Fertility Control," Holdren and the other authors discuss various "coercive" means of population control — including putting sterilants in the drinking water. But they stop well short of advocating such measures. Here's a few excerpts: "The third approach to population limitation is that of involuntary fertility control. Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some countries may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means. ... "Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. ... "Again, there is no sign of such an agent on the horizon. And the risk of serious, unforeseen side effects would, in our opinion, militate against the use of any such agent, even though this plan has the advantage of avoiding the need for socioeconomic pressures that might tend to discriminate against particular groups or penalize children." Later, the authors conclude, "Most of the population control measures beyond family planning discussed above have never been tried. Some are as yet technically impossible and others are and probably will remain unacceptable to most societies (although, of course, the potential effectiveness of those least acceptable measures may be great). "Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying. As those alternatives become clearer to an increasing number of people in the 1980s, they may begin demanding such control. A far better choice, in our view, is to expand the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while redoubling efforts to ensure that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly against population growth, perhaps the need for the more extreme involuntary or repressive measures can be averted in most countries." Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 And here's the part that some have interpreted as Holdren advocating for forced abortions. "To date, there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. For example, under the United States Constitution, effective population-control programs could be enacted under the clauses that empower Congress to appropriate funds to provide for the general welfare and to regulate commerce, or under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such laws constitutionally could be very broad. Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. Few today consider the situation in the United States serious enough to justify compulsion, however." This comes in a section discussing population law. The authors argue that compulsory abortions could potentially be allowed under U.S. law "if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society." Again, that's a far cry from advocating or proposing such a position. In the book, the authors certainly advocate making abortions readily accessible for women who want to get them. But they never advocate forced abortions. Big difference. In response to the comments from Beck and others, Holdren's office issued this statement: "The quotations used to suggest that Dr. Holdren supports coercive approaches to limiting population growth were taken from a 1977 college textbook on environmental science and policy, of which he was the third author. The quoted material was from a section of the book that described different possible approaches to limiting population growth and then concluded that the authors’ own preference was to employ the noncoercive approaches before the environmental and social impacts of overpopulation led desperate societies to employ coercive ones. Dr. Holdren has never been an advocate of compulsory abortions or other repressive means of population limitation." Holdren's office also provided a statement from Annie and Paul Ehrlich, the co-authors: "We have been shocked at the serious mischaracterization of our views and those of John Holdren in blog posts based on misreadings of our jointly-authored 1000-page 1977 textbook, ECOSCIENCE. We were not then, never have been, and are not now 'advocates' of the Draconian measures for population limitation described — but not recommended — in the book's 60-plus small-type pages cataloging the full spectrum of population policies that, at the time, had either been tried in some country or analyzed by some commentator. Under questioning by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., during his Senate confirmation hearing, Holdren said he "no longer thinks it's productive to focus on optimum population for the United States. ... I think the key thing today is that we need to work to improve the conditions that all of our citizens face economically, environmentally, and in other respects. And we need to aim for something that I have for years been calling 'sustainable prosperity.'" Vitter continued with his line of question, asking directly, "Do you think determining optimal population is a proper role of government?" Said Holdren: "No, senator, I do not. ... I think the proper role of government is to develop and deploy the policies with respect to economy, environment, security, that will ensure the well-being of the citizens we have." But with regard to Beck's claim that Holdren "has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population," the text of the book clearly does not support that. We think a thorough reading shows that these were ideas presented as approaches that had been discussed. They were not posed as suggestions or proposals. In fact, the authors make clear that they did not support coercive means of population control. Certainly, nowhere in the book do the authors advocate for forced abortions. Some have argued that Holdren's view of the imminent and grave global dangers posed by overpopulation should provide pause, given Holdren's current view that global warming now presents imminent and grave global dangers. That's a matter for reasoned debate. But in seeking to score points for a political argument, Beck seriously mischaracterizes Holdren's positions. Holdren didn't advocate those ideas then. And, when asked at a Senate confirmation hearing, Holdren said he did not support them now. We think it's irresponsible to pluck a few lines from a 1,000-page, 30-year-old textbook, and then present them out of context to dismiss Holdren's long and distinguished career. And we rate Beck's claim Pants on Fir

"The Senate voted this week to allow illegal aliens access to Social Security benefits. You asked, so we're delivering. For nearly six months, loyal PolitiFact readers have encouraged us to look into a chain email about undocumented immigrants getting Social Security benefits. The e-mail has come in several forms, but most often goes as follows: "It does not matter if you personally like or dislike Obama. It is already impossible to live on Social Security alone. If the government gives benefits to illegal aliens who have never contributed, where does that leave those of us who have paid into Social Security all our working lives? Please sign this petition and flood President Obama's e-mail box with e-mails that tell him that, even if the House passes this bill, he needs to veto it. ... The Senate voted this week to allow illegal aliens access to Social Security benefits." Typically, the text is followed by hundreds of signatures asking President Barack Obama to veto said bill. The e-mails provide no bill number, no bill name and — oddly — they all insist that the Senate "voted this week" on the legislation. Yet, we've been getting the same petition for months. Digging back through our own archives we found the first version of this e-mail was sent on Feb. 13, 2009, a Friday. As with the many that have followed, the e-mail claimed the Senate had just voted on the bill, so we went back to the Congressional Record to see what the Senate had been debating that week, and we found that the stimulus was on the chamber's agenda. At first we thought the e-mail might have something to do with the stimulus package, but upon further investigation, we found that the claim goes back as far as 2006, as our friends at FactCheck.org have pointed out. (Then, the claim was used against senators who voted against an amendment to the Comprehensive Immigration Act that would have blocked Social Security benefits to legal immigrants who paid taxes before they obtained the right to work.) But back to 2009. We ran a search in Thomas, the Library of Congress's bill database, and found no such legislation. And just to be sure we hadn't missed anything, we contacted several groups that typically weigh in on the immigration debate to see if they'd heard otherwise. The answer from all corners was a resounding "no." "We're not aware of any such bill," said Ira Mehlman, communication director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a group that advocates for stronger border security and stricter immigration laws. "This garbage has been floating around since 2006" when Congress was debating the immigration bill, said Jon Blazer, who is an attorney with the National Immigration Law Center. "First it was George Bush, and they just changed the name to Obama." Like most chain e-mails, it seems this letter has morphed through a Web-based game of telephone. What started as a specious campaign attack back in 2006 has hung around as a rumor under the new administration. We've been getting this e-mail for six months, and every time, it exclaims that the Senate voted "this week" on such a bill. Unless our senators are trapped in a time warp, debating and passing the same bill every week, such a claim is impossible. It's Pants on Fire for this chain e-mail! Featured Fact-check Blake Masters stated on October 15, 2022 in a tweet Immigrants illegally in the country are treated “better than military veterans.” By Jon Greenberg • October 21, 2022

"Four percent of American citizens are black males, but they are 35 percent of murder victims. Ever since the arrest of black Harvard University scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr., and the comments about the controversy by President Barack Obama, pundits have analyzed and reanalyzed what the incident says about crime and race in America. On the July 26, 2009, edition of CNN’s State of the Union with John King , conservative commentator Bill Bennett urged that the Gates case not obscure larger social realities about crime. "Well, I guess they are going to have a beer at the White House, the president has backed off from his ridiculous statement at the press conference. And, of course, Sgt. Crowley [the arresting officer, who is white] has shown himself to be an exemplary police officer. I hope if we get to so-called teachable moments and underlying issues, we'll get to some real problems. There obviously are wayward cops, not in this case, but let's talk about the fact that young black men in this country grow up 75 percent of the them without fathers. And if we talk about crime in America, let's remember that 4 percent of American citizens are black males, but they are 35 percent of murder victims. This doesn't come from the police. These are big and serious problems and I think this whole issue has obscured those more serious problems because of the ego of a Harvard professor." The issue of single parenthood is a good one to investigate further, but for now we'll look at the second part of his assertion — that "4 percent of American citizens are black males, but they are 35 percent of murder victims." On the first part of this claim, Bennett underestimated the black male percentage of the U.S. population by roughly one-third. The Census Bureau’s latest population estimate for the entire country, covering 2008, is 304,059,724. We determined the number of black men in America by taking the 2008 population estimate for African-Americans as a whole and multiplying that number by .477. (For various actuarial reasons, the Census Bureau found that 47.7 percent of African-Americans were male and 52.3 percent were female in 2007.) This left us with 18,631,063, or 6.1 percent of the U.S. population — a number notably higher than Bennett’s estimate. (Because Bennett specifically mentioned "American citizens," we also tried an alternative calculation, subtracting from the total U.S. population the 11.6 million undocumented Americans estimated by the Department of Homeland Security. Calculated this way, the result is 6.4 percent, making little difference in the result.) On the more important statistic of murder victimization rates, Bennett actually understated his own point. According to Crime in the United States, a statistical survey published annually by the FBI, 6,223 black men were murdered nationally in 2007 out of 14,831 total murder victims, or 42 percent. The percentages for the two prior years were consistent — 42 percent in 2006 and 41 percent in 2005. So, Bennett got the numbers wrong on both ends of his assertions, and not by insignificant amounts. But on the general point — that black men are murdered at disproportionately high rates — he is unquestionably correct. For this reason, we give his statement a rating of Mostly True. Featured Fact-check Tim Michels stated on October 24, 2022 in News conference Tony Evers “wants to let out between 9,000 and 10,000 more” Wisconsin prisoners By Madeline Heim • November 4, 2022

"Doctors, nurses, hospitals, even the pharmaceutical industry, (and) AARP" say that health reform "makes sense to do. In his recent speech, President Barack Obama said the time is ripe for health care reform because most health care professionals support a new plan. "The default position is inertia," he said during his July 22, 2009, speech on health care when asked why he was so eager to pass health care reform before the end of the summer. "Because doing something always creates some people who are unhappy... And the fact that we have made so much progress where we've got doctors, nurses, hospitals, even the pharmaceutical industry, AARP, saying that this makes sense to do, I think means that the stars are aligned and we need to take advantage of that." Obama was talking about some key industry endorsements he picked up for a health care overhaul. In early May, the hospitals, insurers and the drug industry pledged to save $2 trillion in health care spending over 10 years. That victory was followed by a July 8 announcement that hospitals would contribute $155 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings to cover health care cost reform. So, at first blush it seems that Obama is right that the stars are aligned for health care reform. However, we found that some storm clouds are overshadowing Obama’s starry sky. First, it's important to note that there’s a big difference between supporting a health care overhaul generally and supporting the legislation being considered by the House and the Senate. Nearly all industry sectors believe our health care system needs an overhaul. But they disagree on what to change. Those divisions are best illustrated by industry support or opposition to the House and Senate health care bills. Among many other things, both bills would create a government-run insurance option and would require that most employers extend some sort of health insurance to their employees. People would be required to have some form of coverage, and insurers would not be able to deny coverage because of a person’s medical history. The House bill would tax the wealthiest people to help pay for the legislation, while the Senate hasn't unveiled how it will pay for the overhaul. The American Medical Association — a coalition of doctors and medical societies — endorsed the House bill, because the "legislation includes a broad range of provisions that are key to effective, comprehensive health system reform." However, several of AMA's members, including the Texas Medical Association, have not endorsed the bill because it includes a government-run health insurance option. Another sticking point is an administration proposal that would create an independent group of medical experts to look for inefficiencies in the Medicare system to save money. The American Hospital Association says the plan will hit rural and teaching hospitals hardest because they get extra Medicare payments to help cover their relatively high cost of doing business. AARP supports the House bill, but believes the Senate bill still needs some work. Specifically, the organization, which represents people over 50, is concerned the bill would prevent some less costly generic drugs from entering the market fast enough. The leading pharmaceutical industry trade group, PhRMA, does not support the House bill, but says the Senate bill "marks an important step toward achieving comprehensive health care reform." And the American Nurses Asssociation supports the House bill, but has no clear position on the Senate bill. Those are a lot of details to keep track of, so we've provided you with a handy guide here . But back to Obama's claim. He's correct that most in the health care industry support some sort of reform, but when we're talking about the overhauls that have been put to paper — specifically, the House and Senate bills — there is quite a bit of disagreement among hospitals, nurses, Medicare patients, doctors and the drug industry over which plan is best; industry support isn't as rock-solid as Obama would make it seem. As a result, we give him a Mostly True. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022

"14,000 Americans . . . lose their health insurance every single day. In his nationally televised news conference on July 22, 2009, President Barack Obama cited a dramatic statistic to emphasize the need for health care reform. He said, “If we don't act, 14,000 Americans will continue to lose their health insurance every single day.” The White House told us the number came from a report published by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, and authored by researchers James Kvaal and Ben Furnas. A chart in the report was headlined, “14,000 People Became Uninsured Every Day in December and January.” We wondered about the methodology and whether the December and January numbers were out of date. We couldn't reach the authors of the study (one has since joined the White House staff). But we tracked down Urban Institute health care scholar John Holahan, whose work was cited in the Center for American Progress study. Holahan was the co-author, with A. Bowen Garrett, of the January 2009 study, “Rising Unemployment, Medicaid and the Uninsured,” published by the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. That study provided the underpinning for the Center for American Progress report by estimating how many people can expect to lose their insurance when the national unemployment rate goes up. Holahan and his co-author, using a baseline of 4.6 percent unemployment in 2007, calculated that 2.6 million people would lose coverage if the unemployment rate climbed to 7 percent; 3.7 million if it went to to 8 percent; 4.8 million at 9 percent; and 5.8 million at 10 percent. The estimates took into account people who lost their jobs but then switched to a spouse’s plan or extended their coverage through COBRA, the federal law that guarantees people who lose their job can still get continued health coverage. Applying Holahan's calculations to the actual rise in unemployment from November 2008 to June 2009, we came up with 3.2 million people losing health coverage, or an average of 15,238 per day, so it is close to the 14,000 Obama cited. We asked other health care experts about Holahan’s work, and they uniformly agreed that he is a respected researcher. Only one complicating factor emerged, when we spoke with Edmund F. Haislmaier of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. He noted that Holahan’s paper was written before passage of the federal stimulus package, which contains provisions subsidizing 65 percent of COBRA costs for the unemployed. If these new subsidies end up boosting the use of COBRA — the data hasn't been compiled yet — then it could reduce the number of newly uninsured Americans from the levels that Holahan had predicted and that Obama cited. Obama was very close to Holohan's calculations — in fact he was slightly low. But as Haislmaier pointed out, the stimulus COBRA provisions could reduce the numbers because more people will still be covered. We can't be sure until the data is in. So in the meantime, we find Obama’s claim Mostly True. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022

The health care reform bill "would make it mandatory — absolutely require — that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner. Republicans have found many reasons to oppose the Democrats' health care proposal, but this is one of the oddest. Betsy McCaughey, chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and former lieutenant governor of New York state, says the bill goes too far to encourage senior citizens to end their lives. On the radio show of former Sen. Fred Thompson on July 16, 2009, McCaughey said "Congress would make it mandatory — absolutely require — that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner." She said those sessions would help the elderly learn how to "decline nutrition, how to decline being hydrated, how to go in to hospice care ... all to do what's in society's best interest or in your family's best interest and cut your life short." Her point has caught on with conservative pundits. On his July 21 show, Rush Limbaugh said the following: "Mandatory counseling for all seniors at a minimum of every five years, more often if the seasoned citizen is sick or in a nursing home. ... That's an invasion of the right to privacy. We can't have counseling for mothers who are thinking of terminating their pregnancy, but we can go in there and counsel people about to die." McCaughey is no stranger to the health care debate. In 1994, she wrote a scathing review of the Clinton administration's health care plan in the New Republic, a left-leaning magazine, arguing that the proposal would lead to rationing of treatment and would prevent patients from choosing health insurance. Republicans seized on the key points of "No Exit," forcing the Clintons to issue a response to the article. She jumped back into the fray earlier this year while Congress was debating a $787 billion stimulus package. In a Feb. 9 Bloomberg op-ed column, McCaughey criticized the bill for including a plan to monitor health treatments to see which are most cost effective. The elderly, she said, would be denied treatment as a result. Now the Democratic health care bill is in her sights. In her chat with Thompson, McCaughey said the language can be found on page 425 of the health care bill, so we started there. Indeed, Sec. 1233 of the bill, labeled "Advance Care Planning Consultation" details how the bill would, for the first time, require Medicare to cover the cost of end-of-life counseling sessions. According to the bill, "such consultation shall include the following: An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to; an explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses; an explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy." Medicare will cover one session every five years, the legislation states. If a patient becomes very ill in the interim, Medicare will cover additional sessions. Jon Keyserling, general counsel and vice president of public policy for the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, which supports the provision, said the bill doesn't encourage seniors to end their lives, it just allows some important counseling for decisions that take time and consideration. "These are very serious conversations," he said. "It needs to be an informative conversation from the medical side and it needs to be thought about carefully by the patient and their families." In no way would these sessions be designed to encourage patients to end their lives, said Jim Dau, national spokeman for AARP, a group that represents people over 50 that has lobbied in support of the advanced planning provision. McCaughey's comments are "not just wrong, they are cruel," said Dau. "We want to make sure people are making the right decision. If some one wants to take every life-saving measure, that's their call. Others will decide it's not worth going through this trauma just for themselves and their families, and that's their decision, too." Both Keyserling and Dau were particularly troubled that McCaughey insisted — three times, to be exact — that the sessions would be mandatory, which they are not. For his part, Keyserling said he and outside counsel read the language carefully to make sure that was not the case. "Neither of us can come to the conclusion that it's mandatory." he said. "This new consultation is just like all in Medicare: it's voluntary." "The only thing mandatory is that Medicare will have to pay for the counseling," said Dau. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 For our ruling on this one, there's really no gray area here. McCaughey incorrectly states that the bill would require Medicare patients to have these counseling sessions and she is suggesting that the government is somehow trying to interfere with a very personal decision. And her claim that the sessions would "tell [seniors] how to end their life sooner" is an outright distortion. Rather, the sessions are an option for elderly patients who want to learn more about living wills, health care proxies and other forms of end-of-life planning. McCaughey isn't just wrong, she's spreading a ridiculous falsehood. That's a Pants on Fire

Health insurance companies are "making record profits, right now. President Barack Obama has often argued that health insurance companies need more competition, and he's proposed a public option for health insurance to provide it. "There have been reports just over the last couple of days of insurance companies making record profits, right now," Obama said during a prime-time news conference. "At a time when everybody's getting hammered, they're making record profits, and premiums are going up. What's the constraint on that? ... Well, part of the way is to make sure that there's some competition out there." We wanted to know if he was correct that insurance companies are making record profits during one of the worst economic recessions on record. It seems likely that Obama was referring to the latest earnings report from UnitedHealth Group, one of the largest publicly traded health insurance companies. The day before Obama's news conference, UnitedHealth had announced unexpectedly robust profits that prompted the company to revise its annual earnings guidance upwards. There are many ways to look at a company's earnings, but Obama said "profits," so we looked at net income, which is revenue minus expenses. For the quarter, UnitedHealth earned $859 million. But that's not a record for quarterly net income. During the same period in 2007, for example, its net income was $1.23 billion. We reviewed the income statements of the other largest publicly traded health insurance companies — WellPoint, Aetna, Cigna, Humana and Coventry Health Care — and found similar trends. Generally speaking, profits were higher during 2007 and 2006, before the economy began its slide. So Obama's modifier "record" does not appear to be correct. Of these companies, only UnitedHealth has announced its second quarter earnings. Coventry Health Care is set to announce earnings on July 28; Aetna and WellPoint on July 29; Cigna on July 30 and Humana on Aug. 3. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 Still, UnitedHealth did make healthy profits, and we asked Steve Shubitz, a health care financial analyst with the investment firm Edward Jones, about it. "The profits are still significant, there's no question about that. But the reality is they're losing a lot of customers in this economy," Shubitz said. When companies lay off workers and the workers lose their health insurance, the insurance companies lose customers, and that's why UnitedHealth has seen declining enrollments, he added. If UnitedHealth only offered insurance to companies, "they would not have had a very good quarter because of the numbers of customers they've lost," Shubitz said. But UnitedHealth has diversified, and its business with the government health programs Medicare Advantage and Medicaid performed well, as did divisions that handle pharmaceuticals and health information technology. Shubitz added that the stock prices for health insurance companies are not as high as one might expect, because of impending efforts at health reform. "There are so many different possibilities of what can happen," said Shubitz, who also follows WellPoint and Aetna and has "hold" recommendations on all three. "A lot of this uncertainty is already priced into these stocks." Getting back to our ruling, we wonder if Obama was simply remembering a story he'd read in the paper that day and puffed it up a bit. One health insurance company did report unexpected profits. But it's not clear yet whether others will. And the profits UnitedHealth reported were not "record profits." We find his statement False

There were more job losses per month in the last three months under President Bush than in the past three months under President Obama In a spirited exchange on the House floor the other day, Republican Rep. Mike Pence used a popular GOP talking point about the economic stimulus package. “Where are the jobs?” he asked. Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, responded by saying job losses were worse under President George W. Bush. “We have lost 200,000 less jobs per month than Bush lost in his last three months in office, over the last three months.” His syntax was a bit spotty, but the point was clear — that the scale of job losses was greater during the end of the Bush administration than it has been over the past few months under President Barack Obama. We turned to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the government agency that keeps employment data, to sort this out. When we asked how the bureau would go about checking Hoyer's math, Gary Steinberg, a BLS press officer, told us to look at the monthly changes in seasonally adjusted, nonfarm payrolls. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 First we compiled the numbers for Bush's last three months. Between October and November, 597,000 jobs were lost; between November and December, 681,000 were lost; and between December and January, 741,000 were lost. For the most recent three months under Obama: 519,000 jobs were lost between March and April, 322,000 from April to May, and 467,000 May to June. There are two ways to look at these numbers. While Hoyer’s language leaves some room for interpretation about what he meant, the most reasonable measurement may be to average the three months for each president and then compare the result. Calculated this way, the average job losses under Bush’s three months were 673,000, versus 436,000 for Obama. Subtract Obama’s number from Bush’s and you find that Obama had, on average, 237,000 fewer monthly job losses — meaning that Hoyer was correct. In fact, he understated the difference. Another way to look at it would be to see if any single month-to-month comparison netted a difference smaller than 200,000. Looking at all nine possible month-to-month comparisons, it turns out that six of the nine comparisons, or two-thirds, match or exceed Hoyer’s benchmark difference of 200,000. So by this measure, Hoyer isn’t perfect, but he’s right more often than he’s not. We used the above methodology to calculate the numbers after we spoke with two economists — Gary Burtless, an economist with the moderate-to-liberal Brookings Institution and a former economist with the Labor Department, and Anna Turner, a research assistant with the liberal Economic Policy Institute. They agreed with the BLS spokesman about using the change in nonfarm payrolls. But there is another way to slice and dice BLS’ statistics. When we asked the Employment Policies Institute, a think tank funded by businesses, how it would sift the numbers, a spokeswoman suggested looking at month-to-month changes in unemployment, rather than employment. The employment figures come from a payroll survey of 400,000 work sites, whereas unemployment figures come from a survey of 60,000 households. Lo and behold, using this measurement dramatically changes the outcome. The monthly increases in unemployment during Bush’s final three months were 255,000 from October to November, 632,000 from November to December, and 508,000 from December to January. Averaged out, that’s an increase of 465,000 unemployed Americans per month under Bush. By contrast, under Obama, the nation lost 563,000 jobs between March and April, 787,000 between April and May and 218,000 between May and June. On average, the changes in unemployment were 523,000 per month under Obama — a number that’s actually higher than what it was under Bush. So using these figures, Hoyer would be wrong. We asked a cross-section of economists whether one measure was inherently better than the other. On this question, the conservatives and liberals we spoke to agreed: Charting employment by using the payroll survey, as Hoyer appears to have done, is indeed the economist's preferred way of doing it. “Using payroll employment is the way to go — looking at unemployment levels is messy because the labor force is always changing,” said Heidi Shierholz, an economist with the liberal Economic Policy Institute. “A general rule of thumb: Look at payroll employment changes, or unemployment rate changes.” J.D. Foster of the conservative Heritage Foundation agreed. “If you’re not employed, you get into various issues of why you’re not employed,” he said. “Did you retire? Are you leaving because you’re discouraged about finding a job?” By contrast, he said, “if you’re employed, you’re employed.” So Hoyer’s figures mostly hold up under scrutiny. He's right if you calculate an average, but he's only right six of nine times when you look at the monthly changes. So we rate his statement Mostly Tru

The health care reform bill -- on Page 16 -- outlaws private insurance We got several e-mails from readers asking if new health care legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives bans private health insurance for individuals. We tracked the statement back to its source, an editorial from Investor's Business Daily. "It didn't take long to run into an 'uh-oh' moment when reading the House's 'health care for all Americans' bill," the editorial says. "Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal." The editorial continues, "Under the Orwellian header of 'Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage,' the 'Limitation On New Enrollment' section of the bill clearly states: 'Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day' of the year the legislation becomes law." The editorial, published July 15, 2009, adds, "So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers." Since then, the allegation about Page 16 has been repeated in many blogs and by at least one member of Congress. We read the section of the bill to which Investor's Business Daily referred, as well as a summary of the legislation provided by the House Ways and Means committee. While the quotation is correct, it's taken out of context. Individual private health insurance means coverage that someone buys on his or her own from a private company. In other words, it's for people who can't get coverage through work or some other group, and the rates tend to be much higher. Under the House bill, companies that offer insurance to individuals will do it through an exchange, where the government sets minimum standards for coverage. The new regulations require insurance companies to accept people even if they have previously existing conditions and to provide a minimum level of benefits, among other things. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 To be sure we were reading the bill correctly, we turned to an independent health care analyst at the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. The foundation has analyzed the major health care proposals, including those of the Republicans, providing point-by-point analysis . Jennifer Tolbert, the foundation's principal policy analyst, told us that Page 16 doesn't outlaw private insurance. "There will be individual policies available, but people will buy those policies through the national health insurance exchange," she said. The House bill allows for existing policies to be grandfathered in, so that people who currently have individual health insurance policies will not lose coverage. The line the editorial refers to is a clause that says the health insurance companies cannot enroll new people into the old plans. The IDB editorial has caught the attention of some of the bill's most direct supporters. Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat who is guiding the legislation through Congress, wrote a letter to the publication saying the editorial was "factually incorrect and highly misleading." The conservative Heritage Foundation also said the editorial misread the legislation, writing on its Foundry blog, "So IDB is wrong: individual health insurance will not be outlawed." Heritage believes that the new regulations will be so onerous as to drive private insurance out of business "which is effectively the same thing." But that is a substantially different argument than what the editorial said. President Barack Obama had the chance to personally quash the IDB editorial himself when asked about it in a conference call with left-leaning bloggers. He said he wasn't familiar with the provision, before reiterating his general commitment to not forcing people out of health insurance that they like. (Impress your friends at parties by referring to the proper section on page 16 of the bill: It's Section 102.) In response to Waxman's letter, Investor's Business Daily says it's sticking to its guns. In a follow-up editorial, it said that private insurance offered on the exchange will be too regulated to be considered true private insurance, hence its original editorial is correct that the bill bans private insurance. This seems like a creative way of covering up a factual error, though. Many private companies are highly regulated but are still considered to be private. The original editorial said, "Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal." That's not what the legislation says. When the error was pointed out, a subsequent editorial said it was still true. For perpetuating misinformation and then standing by it in the face of facts, we rate the Investor's Business Daily editorial Pants on Fire

"The government is going to tell Americans they need to replace functioning stoves in their homes with 'government-certified' stoves and use taxpayer dollars to do so. 0

The Obama administration has spent millions of taxpayer dollars for roadside signs to tout the economic stimulus Critics of the $787 billion economic stimulus package are up in arms about a particularly visible reminder of the legislation: roadway signs that are sprouting up across the nation, touting construction projects funded by the bill. In June, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., included the signs as an example of questionable spending in his report, “100 Stimulus Projects: A Second Opinion.” In July, Rep. Chris Lee, R-N.Y., issued a statement saying that the signs are “just the most recent in a series of examples demonstrating how dollars from the stimulus are being wasted or misspent.” Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin, mocking the red, blue and green logo of the stimulus, has gone so far as to label the signs “stimulus hype propaganda sporting the mark of the porkulus beast." Democrats, such as Rep. Dan Maffei of New York, have even joined the chorus of critics. On July 15, 2009, Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, and Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., took aim at stimulus-touting signs with an amendment that “would prohibit the use of stimulus funds to pay for signage promoting the administration's spending of taxpayer dollars on (stimulus) projects.” (The amendment has not yet been taken up by the Senate.) In a statement announcing the amendment, Sen. Bennett asserted that “the administration is wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on a PR campaign.” We’ll leave it to others to decide whether spending stimulus money on roadside signs is worthwhile. Instead, we’ll look at whether the senator’s assertion is accurate. This requires breaking his statement into two parts. The first portion of Bennett’s statement — his assumption that “the administration” is the primary actor in the signage drama — isn’t entirely correct. It’s true that the federal government is providing the stimulus money for these highway construction projects. It’s also true that the U.S. Department of Transportation has issued three versions of guidance on stimulus-related signs, saying that states are “strongly encouraged” to post the signs. But the department did not make the signs mandatory, and news reports indicate that Texas, Florida and Virginia have opted not to post the signs. Indeed, the feds have delegated most of the responsibility for carrying out stimulus efforts to the states, from choosing the projects to negotiating the contracts. If states want to put stimulus money to uses other than signs, they may do so. The other portion of Bennett’s assertion has to do with whether “millions” of dollars are being spent on these signs. That number is not easy to nail down. Stimulus spending is decentralized and the states have broad discretion; there’s also no specific budget line for signs. No one — including the U.S. Transportation Department — knows for sure how much is being spent on these signs. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 So we did some calculations to create our own estimate. We found that it's possible that spending on stimulus signs has reached into the millions, but it’s no certainty. One of the challenges in making this determination is the large variation in the cost of a sign. In July, the Associated Press reported that Michigan estimated a sign costs $400 to $500. Illinois officials suggested $300 for the sign and an additional $700 when labor is included, while Colorado officials said materials plus labor would run between $750 and $1,200 per sign. Other estimates ran the gamut. The Tennessean newspaper reported that the cost in its state was $38 per sign from one vendor and $55.16 from another. In New York state, the estimates have been far pricier. The Syracuse Post-Standard reported that published engineering instructions had the largest signs running between $6,000 and $8,300, with smaller versions costing $3,600 to $4,800 and the smallest sizes costing $1,600 to $2,100. After a spate of bad publicity over those numbers, the state Department of Transportation first lowered its costs, according to a spokesman, and then on July 17, 2009, issued an engineering directive suspending the installation of the signs altogether, pending further advice from the U.S. DOT. Meanwhile, in his statement, Bennett himself cited figures of $1,700 per sign in Georgia, $2,000 per sign in Pennsylvania and $3,000 per project in New Jersey. He did not provide sourcing and his office did not return a call and an e-mail. So, excluding the now-dated New York prices, the cost of a single sign ranged from $38 to $2,000, or perhaps $3,000 on the extreme. According to the U.S. DOT, there were 1,995 stimulus-funded highway projects that had “notices to proceed” as of July 10. Many, but likely not all, of these were far enough along to be ready to host a sign, according to DOT. The actual number of signs posted so far is probably lower than that, DOT added, once you eliminate the states that aren’t posting signs at all and the sites that do not yet have signs erected. So, whether stimulus signage is costing “millions,” as Bennett suggests, depends heavily on what you assume to be the prevailing national price of making and posting a sign. Assuming one sign per project and an average installation cost of $1,000 — and without reducing the total number of sites lower than the full 1,995 — the total would be just under $2 million spent for signs, which is the bare minimum for Bennett to be accurate in saying “millions.” Any lower cost per sign would mean that the senator was exaggerating. So let's read the signs for the Truth-O-Meter. The first part of his statement is a stretch because the federal government doesn't actually mandate the signs and some states have opted out. But it's clear the feds are encouraging the signs. The second part of his statement appears to be just in the ballpark based on an average cost of $1,000, but it's an exaggeration if the cost is lower. Add it up and we've got a Half Tru

"Only about 6.8 percent of the (stimulus) money has actually been spent. One of the most common Republican attack lines against President Barack Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus package has been that the money isn't flowing to the nation's economy quickly enough. If the bill's supporters really wanted to help the economy quickly, the argument goes, they should have spent the stimulus money right away rather than using it on projects that will take more time to get up and running. Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., the No. 2 Senate Republican, made that point on ABC's This Week With George Stephanopoulos on July 12, 2009. "The reality is (the stimulus) hasn't helped yet," Kyl told Stephanopoulos. "Only about 6.8 percent of the money has actually been spent." It's a matter of opinion and interpretation whether the stimulus has helped the economy since it passed in February. So we won't rule on that. But Kyl is mostly right about the amount that's been spent. The Obama administration publishes u pdated spending figures on Recovery.gov , the administration's Web site tracking the stimulus money. It includes a graph showing the week-by-week trend in spending, which shows how it has steadily increased. As of July 3, $60.4 billion in stimulus money had been spent, according to the chart. If you divide this by the full stimulus amount of $787 billion, you get 7.7 percent — a bit higher than Kyl's 6.8 percent, but in the ballpark. It appears that Kyl was a few weeks out of date in his statistics. The figure spent by June 19 was 6.7 percent; in the subsequent two weeks of reported data, the government shelled out an additional $7.5 billion, boosting the percentage slightly. But on the larger point, Kyl is accurate: A relatively small portion of the stimulus has been spent. So we find his claim Mostly True. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022

"Across the country, $174 billion of the Recovery Act have been committed in its first 130 days. To counter Republican criticism that the stimulus money is not being spent fast enough, Vice President Joe Biden has been traveling the country to boast about the recovery plan's success stories. In conjunction with a July 9, 2009, trip to Ohio, Biden's office put out a news release with this talking point: "Across the country, $174 billion of the Recovery Act have been committed in its first 130 days." The White House says it is getting the numbers from its own Web site, Recovery.gov. We counted 130 days after Obama signed the bill on Feb. 17, which took us to June 27. On that day, the government had committed $157.8 billion, slightly less than the $174 billion cited by Biden. Those numbers are culled from weekly reports submitted by all federal agencies. The total stimulus cost will ultimately be roughly $787 billion, with about $499 billion for new spending. (The other $288 billion is for tax relief.) So that means that about 35 percent of the spending ($174.9 billion of $499 billion) has been allocated so far. That might sound like a lot, but Republican critics complain the money is just trickling out. For example, Sen. Jon Kyl, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, complained last week that only 6.8 percent of the stimulus package has been spent. The numbers can be confusing, making you wonder whether Kyl is right about the 6.8 percent or Biden is right about the 35 percent. So we investigated and found that, like so many things in the federal budgeting process, it all comes down to semantics. John Porcari, deputy secretary of the Department of Transportation, wrote how this confusion is playing out in miniature at his agency, after getting what he considered some bad press in a USA Today story that maintained that only $132 million of the total $27.5 billion earmarked for road construction funding has been spent. Indeed, there's a big difference between how much money the government has already spent — that figure is about $60 billion, according to the White House — and how much the government has obligated or committed to a project. "Whenever a state obligates or dedicates their Recovery dollars to a project that means it is green-lighted," Porcari wrote on Recovery.gov. "States can start advertising the project and soliciting bids and once a bid is awarded contractors can buy supplies, bring workers on board and start breaking ground. It could be weeks before the reimbursement process starts so those outlays are in no way an indicator of how much money is getting to states, how much work is being done or how many people are working. The $16 billion obligated to thousands of highway projects is the true measure of how much highway money is reaching states." Using his definition, about $16 billion has been obligated to road construction projects, far more than what's actually been spent. So for practical purposes, money "committed" is the same as "obligated" and "allocated." It's money that will be spent on a particular project. It's fair to use those broader terms, according to Jim Horney, a budget expert at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, because the guarantee of the money can sometimes be enough to keep an agency or a company from laying off a worker. "It's not just when the check has been written that we see an impact," he said. Take Virginia, for example. Earlier in the year, lawmakers were planning to lay off teachers to save cash. But when the stimulus passed, the state knew it would be getting some financial relief, so officials changed their budget to keep those teachers employed. The money isn't in the state treasury at that moment, but it still has a ripple effect on the economy, Horney said. "If [teachers] knew they would be laid off, they would have started saving money, stopped buying clothes, preparing for hard times ahead," he said. Knowing they would have a job in the coming school year, teachers were less likely to adopt austerity measures. Horney had this caveat: Impact on the economy depends on how quickly the money is actually spent or reimbursed. If it takes five years for the government to pay a state back for a project, then the state may take some cost-cutting measures in the meantime. Conservatives, though, say the true measurement of economic impact is money actually spent, said Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. "The economic theory behind the stimulus suggests only actual outlays can create jobs and drive money through the economy," he said. So back to Biden. He said that $174 billion had been committed at the 130-day mark. Federal records show he was a little off. The administration's Recovery.gov site shows that $157.8 billion had been committed. So we give Biden a Mostly True. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022

Rep. Adam Putnam was silent when Rush Limbaugh called Sonia Sotomayor a racist UPDATE: We've updated this item after hearing back from Presente.org, but we haven't changed our ruling. A group called Presente.org is using some political sleight-of-hand to suggest that a Republican House member from Florida endorses Rush Limbaugh's comment that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is a racist. The sleight-of-hand is the tricky wording in a radio ad from the left-leaning Latino advocacy group's "Action" arm. Instead of directly saying that Putnam, who is running for Florida agriculture commissioner, endorses Limbaugh, the ad says that he "refused" to reply to the group's inquiry. A similar ad was used against Rep. John Mica, a Republican from the Orlando area. Here's a translation of the Spanish-language ad: (Spanish) "Sonia Sotomayor is set to be the first Latina, and the first Puerto Rican, to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. It is a proud moment for our community. Yet Republican leaders insist on attacking her. (English) "'She doesn't have any intellectual depth. She's got a — she's an angry woman, she's a bigot. She's a racist.' (Spanish) "That's Republican leader Rush Limbaugh calling Judge Sotomayor a racist and a bigot. It's insulting to all Latinos and Americans. We asked Republican Congressman Adam Putnam if he would denounce Limbaugh's words. He refused to reply. Let's put a stop to the hate. Call Congressman Putnam today at 863-534-3530 and tell him to condemn this language." The ad is unusual because House members don't have any say in the confirmation of Supreme Court nominees. That's up to the Senate. With its insinuation, the ad is incorrect. Most notably, Putnam has not "refused" to comment on this. He told the Orlando Sentinel very specifically that he thought Sotomayor was not a racist in response to Limbaugh's comments. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 His comments were published in a Sentinel column on May 31, 2009, by Scott Maxwell, about how Republicans were responding to the Sotomayor nomination and Limbaugh's controversial remarks. "I have not seen anything that would disqualify her," Putnam said. "And I certainly would not call her a racist based on anything we have seen so far." We also spoke with Putnam's communications director, Keith Rupp. Rupp said if Presente.org called Putnam's office looking for comment on Limbaugh, he couldn't find a record of it. He looked after they started getting calls off the radio ad. "The bottom line is we're not aware of them having contacted us," Rupp said. "When people call, we make a record of it, usually in writing." Presente.org, however, said they did call, and spokesperson Jennifer Fernandez Ancona provided us with a copy of their phone record that shows a 4-minute call to Putnam's Bartow office and a 1-minute call to his D.C. office on June 19. The group knew about Putnam's previous comments, she said, but felt it was important that Putnam and Mica denounce Limbaugh's remarks as the Sotomayor hearings began. She said it's not sufficient that Putnam said he didn't think Sotomayor was a racist, because of how influential Limbaugh is and how much attention his comments receive. "We were asking (Putnam) to specifically denounce Rush's comments," she said. "It's a different question." Rupp said that Putnam's statements to the Sentinel were his definitive comments on the matter. The phrasing of the ad is very artful, but the thrust of the message is that Putnam was silent when asked about Limbaugh's remarks. That's not the case. Presente.org said there's a difference between saying you disagree with someone's comments and specifically denouncing the person's comments. We don't think that's a meaningful distinction in the context of a 60-second radio ad. We rule Presente.org's statement Fals

The Obama administration offered "$900 million to Hamas, a recognized terrorist organization, to rebuild Gaza. The Republican National Committee recently put out a questionnaire called the "2009 Obama Agenda Survey" in which it asks Republicans to rate their agreement or disagreement with a number of so-called Obama administration positions. But it looks to us more like a push poll, a political technique in which the questions are written in a way that aims to convince the respondent of a particular political position. In other words, they are political statements masquerading as questions. We decided to fact-check two "questions" from the survey, and you'll see what we mean. One is an allegation that the Obama administration has ordered a new initiative that requires FBI agents to read Miranda Rights to high-value terrorist detainees captured on the battlefield. We deal with that one in another Truth-O-Meter ruling . Here, we address the GOP question, "Do you support the Obama administration’s decision to offer $900 million to Hamas, a recognized terrorist organization, to rebuild Gaza?" As you can see, built into the "question" is a statement of fact, that the Obama administration offered $900 million to Hamas to rebuild Gaza. During a trip to Egypt in early March 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the United States intends to provide $900 million for humanitarian, economic and security assistance for the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian people. Here's how that money would be split: $200 million to the Palestinian Authority to address part of its 2009 budget shortfall; $400 million "to help the Palestinian Authority solidify economic and institutional reforms in the West Bank"; and $300 million in humanitarian aid for Gaza following January's 22-day violent conflict between Israel and the Islamic militant group Hamas. The humanitarian aid to Gaza would be distributed primarily through U.N. agencies and nongovernmental organizations. The strategy, according to State Department officials, was to specifically make sure the money did not go to Hamas. In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee on April 30, Clinton assured that disbursement of the money "will be implemented with stringent requirements to prevent aid from being diverted into the wrong hands." Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 Translation: Hamas. Some have argued, however, that the aid, while not going directly to Hamas, would still benefit them. "Whatever officials in Washington might intend, the Obama administration's new Gaza aid package is likely to turn out to be a financial boon for Hamas, which wields actual physical control over the places the aid is destined to go," wrote Ilan Berman, vice president for foreign policy at the American Foreign Policy Council, in an April commentary distributed by Tribune Media Services. Steven A. Cook, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations and an expert in U.S.-Middle East policy, said there are legitimate concerns about aid ending up in the hands of Hamas. The problem, he said, is that supposed nongovernmental groups that purport not to have ties with Hamas sometimes do. "We have yet to devise a foolproof system to ensure that money doesn't bleed out," Cook said. Still, he said, it's a wild distortion to claim that the United States has offered Hamas $900 million. First of all, most of the $900 million is going to the West Bank, not Gaza. And while some of the humanitarian aid disbursed through U.N. and other nongovernmental agencies could "bleed out" to Hamas unintentionally, that's far different from giving money directly to Hamas. Not only that, but the claim that the money would be used to "rebuild" Gaza after January's 22-day violent conflict between Israel and the Islamic militant group Hamas is also misleading. The money to Gaza is for humanitarian aid — food, medicine, repairing damaged infrastructure, removing rubble, etc. It is specifically not for reconstruction, he said, as Israel was concerned that reconstruction money might be used to build tunnels, weapons factories or the like. "I'd give this one a D-minus," Cook said of the GOP claim. We agree that it's possible that even with safeguards, some of the humanitarian money could wind up in the hands of Hamas. But when you read the GOP survey, you are left with the impression that the U.S. government intends to write a big, fat $900 million check that says "Pay to the order of Hamas." To the contrary, Washington is taking steps to try to specifically make sure none of that money winds up in the hands of Hamas. We also note that only $300 million of the $900 million is even going to Gaza, for humanitarian aid. And the money is specifically not to be used for reconstruction. It is limited to humanitarian aid — food, medicine, that kind of thing. So the GOP is wrong on that point too. We rule the RNC's Hamas claim to be False

"Under the new and little known 'global justice' initiative," the Obama administration has ordered FBI agents to "read Miranda Rights to high-value terrorist detainees captured on the battlefield. The Republican National Committee recently put out a questionnaire called the "2009 Obama Agenda Survey" in which it asks Republicans to rate their agreement or disagreement with a number of so-called Obama administration positions. But it looks to us more like a push poll, a political technique in which the questions are written in a way that aims to convince the respondent of a particular political position. In other words, they are political statements masquerading as questions. We decided to fact-check two "questions" from the survey, and you'll see what we mean. One is the question/statement, "Do you support the Obama administration’s decision to offer $900 million to Hamas, a recognized terrorist organization, to rebuild Gaza?" We rate the truth of that one with another Truth-O-Meter ruling . But in this item we address this question: "Are you in favor of FBI agents reading Miranda Rights to high-value terrorist detainees captured on the battlefield as the Obama administration has ordered under the new and little- known 'global justice' initiative?" Implied in the question, of course, is that the Obama administration — in a "new and little-known 'global justice' initiative" — is ordering FBI agents to read Miranda Rights to terrorist detainees captured in Afghanistan or Iraq. You know the Miranda Rights: you have the right to remain silent, you have the right to an attorney, etc. The claim was first made by Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., who said that during a congressional trip to Afghanistan in May, he visited Bagram Air Base and sat in on a law enforcement and intelligence officer meeting in which officials talked about a new policy of FBI agents Mirandizing suspected terrorists at U.S. military detention facilities. In an interview with Fox News on June 11, Rogers, who serves on the House Intelligence Committee, said soldiers were confused and frustrated by the policy. “Yes, as shocking and unbelievable as it may seem, it is true that under the new administration’s 'Global Justice Initiative,' special agents of the FBI are administering Miranda rights to enemy combatants caught trying to kill American soldiers or our Afghan partners in Afghanistan," Rogers said in a June 12 news release. "These terrorist suspects are not accused of a common crime, they are suspected of acts of war against the United States and her allies," Rogers stated. "Miranda rights should not apply for dealing with enemy combatants." Rogers, a former FBI special agent who served in the U.S. Army, warned that applying criminal law on the battlefield hinders the process of gathering crucial intelligence. "This could have deadly results for the men and women fighting for America and our Afghan allies," he said. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 17, 2022 in una publicación en Facebook "Ministros de Defensa de OTAN deciden invadir a RUSIA para prevenir ataque de Putin”. By Maria Ramirez Uribe • October 17, 2022 FBI and military officials, however, say Rogers is just wrong. "The real rumor yesterday is whether our forces were reading Miranda rights to detainees and the answer to that is no," Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. military's Central Command chief, said on June 12. But according to a story in the Australian , Petraeus said the FBI was continuing the practice of reading detainees their rights in a limited number of cases where accused militants would face trials in civilian courts. Those sentiments were echoed in a more detailed June 12 letter sent by FBI director Robert S. Mueller III to U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf, and forwarded to Rogers. "Regarding Miranda, there has been no policy change and no blanket instruction issued for FBI agents to Mirandize detainees overseas," Mueller wrote. "For years, FBI agents have been trained to analyze whether Miranda is appropriate to use on a case-by-case basis and to consider providing Miranda warnings if prosecution in the United States may occur. For detainees held in military custody overseas, approval by the Department of Justice is required before Miranda warnings may be given. "There are cases in which FBI agents have provided Miranda warnings to persons captured and held overseas, at Bagram and elsewhere. In those cases, a determination was made that a prosecution in ... court may be in the interest of national security and that providing Miranda warnings ... was therefore desirable to maximize the likelihood that any resulting statements would be admissible at trial. In practice, Miranda warnings have been provided to Bagram detainees in only a small handful of cases out of over 4,000 individuals detained and interrogated by the FBI." Mueller went on to explain that the "Global Justice" proposal is intended to improve collaboration between military and law enforcement officials relative to terrorists overseas. The proposal is still preliminary, he stated, and would "ensure, when possible that intelligence is gathered in a manner that best preserves future options vis-a-vis the individual terrorist at issue, including gathering evidence in a manner that ensures its integrity in the event a prosecution becomes the most desirable approach. Far from a policy change, the proposal would focus on the best way to manage and deploy interagency teams overseas, train the teams, and provide them forensic support. The proposal has never had any connection to changes in FBI policy on when Miranda warnings should be administered to detainees overseas." Rogers isn't backing off. In an interview with CQ Politics, Rogers said everything he saw at Bagram and has been told since is contrary to the assurances he got from Mueller. Rogers is moving ahead with an amendment to the intelligence authorization bill prohibiting government funds from being used to Mirandize detainees. But back to the "question" in the GOP survey, "Are you in favor of FBI agents reading Miranda Rights to high-value terrorist detainees captured on the battlefield as the Obama administration has ordered under the new and little-known 'global justice' initiative?" This one is a tougher call than it might seem. On the one hand, you have a congressman who says he heard what he heard. And we think that Rogers' history as a former FBI agent and member of the House Intelligence Committee gives him credibility. He knows the lingo. On the other hand, you have the FBI director saying there is no new policy instructing FBI agents to Mirandize detainees overseas. FBI officials acknowledge they have done so on a handful of occasions to preserve evidence in cases that seem likely to go to trial down the road. But they say that's not new policy. And, FBI officials note, they have to clear it with the Department of Justice before they do. And lastly, they say the "Global Justice" proposal which seeks more interagency cooperation overseas has never had anything to do with FBI policy on whether or not to Mirandize a detainee overseas. At the least, we can say the GOP question/statement is a bit misleading. It suggests every detainee captured in Afghanistan is read his rights. That has only happened in a small number of cases, and only with Department of Justice approval. And according to the military, that has nothing to do with the Global Justice proposal. And so we rule this one Half True

A new Rasmussen poll shows people "oppose (Sotomayor's) confirmation. Only 37 percent support it. The day before the Supreme Court nomination hearing for Sonia Sotomayor began, Sen. Jon Kyl said President Barack Obama's nominee was losing the support of the American public. "It's interesting that I just reviewed the Rasmussen poll, most recent poll about American public opinion about Judge Sotomayor. They oppose her confirmation. Only 37 percent support it," the Arizona Republican said during an appearance on This Week with George Stephanopolous. Stephanopolous seemed surprised by that, and said he wasn't familiar with the poll. We wanted to check the poll for ourselves and see what it said. The Rasmussen Reports poll was conducted June 29-30, 2009, and was a national survey of 1,000 likely voters. The poll asked this question: "The United States Senate has the constitutional authority to confirm all Supreme Court nominees. Based upon what you know at this time, should the United States confirm Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court Justice?" Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 The results were very close. Thirty-seven percent said yes, the Senate should confirm, 39 percent said no, and 23 percent said "not sure." And it's important to note that the margin of error on the poll was 3 percentage points. So the 37-39 split is within the margin of error, and could be considered a statistical tie. As a side note, the same poll showed that most respondents expected Sotomayor to be confirmed, with 58 percent saying it was "very likely" and another 26 percent saying it was "somewhat likely." And a Gallup poll, conducted after the Rasmussen poll but released the day after Kyl made his remarks, found that 53 percent favored Sotomayor's nomination, with 33 percent opposed and 13 percent having no opinion. Kyl specifically cited the Rasmussen poll, though, and he got the number who favored confirmation right. But his comment leaves the impression that a solid majority opposes Sotomayor's nomination. Sotomayor fans could use the same data to say that "only" 39 percent oppose her nomination. In fact, the polling data reads more like a tie, with a significant percentage of people not having a firm opinion. We rate Kyl's statement Half Tru

"Obama's Justice-designate Sotomayor threw out (the New Haven firefighters') lawsuit in a sneaky, unsigned opinion -- the judicial equivalent of 'talk to the hand.' Columnist Ann Coulter wrote recently that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor tried to hide her participation in a controversial race discrimination case involving firefighters in New Haven, Conn. In a July 1, 2009, column in Human Events headlined "So much for wise Latinas," Coulter wrote that "Sotomayor threw out their lawsuit in a sneaky, unsigned opinion — the judicial equivalent of 'talk to the hand.'" This part of Coulter's claim is right: The opinion was unsigned. But the truth stops there. In legal terms, "unsigned" means the ruling was "per curiam," or "for the court" — simply, that everyone on the panel agreed with the decision and decided to issue a single opinion. "Generally, an 'unsigned' opinion means the opinion was issued per curiam, meaning no one judge took credit for authoring the opinion, but it represents the opinion of the court," Sarah Ricks, a law professor at Rutgers University who has analyzed types of judicial opinions, wrote us in an e-mail interview. Ricks added that "it is not unusual for a federal appellate court to issue a per curiam opinion; even the Supreme Court very occasionally issues a per curiam opinion. ... A per curiam opinion does not preclude separate opinions by members of the court but it does represent the reasoning for the judgment of the court." Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, said that "unsigned just means that the three judges agree not to have one author, but all three are agreeing to what the opinion says. It is not uncommon and it is not sneaky. All three judges stand behind the opinion, signed or not." In Ricci vs. DeStefano, more than a dozen white firefighters, as well as one Hispanic, sued New Haven, Conn., for discrimination after the city threw out the results of its lieutenant and captain exams because black firefighters performed disproportionately poorly and wouldn't have been promoted. A federal district court judge found in 2006 that the city was justified. The firefighters appealed, and the case was assigned to a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals that included Sotomayor. In February 2008, the panel issued a summary order, without comment, upholding the lower court's finding. Another 2nd Circuit judge asked the full appeals court to rehear the case, but the court's other judges declined. After that, Sotomayor and her two colleagues on the panel, Rosemary Pooler and Robert Sack, issued a new "per curiam" order that adopted the lower court's ruling as their own, calling it "thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned." They also added two paragraphs expressing sympathy for the firefighters who passed the exam but who were not promoted. "In this case, the Civil Service Board found itself in the unfortunate position of having no good alternatives," they wrote. "We are not unsympathetic to the (white firefighters') expression of frustration." So Coulter — an attorney who is billed as the "legal affairs correspondent for Human Events — is seriously distorting what the judges did. The term "unsigned" has nothing to do with judges trying to duck responsibility for the ruling. The suggestion that appellate court judges could somehow hide their participation is preposterous — the judges' names are on every opinion they issue, unsigned or not. In fact, their names are right near the top. So we find Coulter's claim False. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022

On the day the House voted on the climate change bill, "there was not even a copy of the bill in the well of the House, which is standard. It wasn't even written. In Washington, it's not unusual for lawmakers to get as heated about the arcane rules of Congress as they do about the substance of a bill. Such was the case with a plan to slow climate change passed by the House of Representatives on June 26, 2009. Republican lawmakers not only opposed cap-and-trade because they fear it will be too expensive, but they were angry that they'd had only a few hours to vet 300 pages of last-minute changes to the already massive legislation. With such a quick turnaround, "pages of text were being passed around the speaker's desk by clerks," wrote Florida Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite on her party's blog. "Who knows what we voted on? Members of Congress sure didn't." Then came this lament from Rush Limbaugh: On the day the House voted on the climate change bill, "there was not even a copy of the bill in the well of the House, which is standard. It wasn't even written," he said during his June 29 radio show. Limbaugh is right on at least one point: It is standard for the reading clerk — you've probably seen them on C-SPAN reciting the text of a bill — to have a copy of the legislation at their desk. So, we found it hard to believe that there was not one complete copy of the cap-and-trade plan in the chamber the day the House passed the bill. But before we can solve the Case of the Missing Bill, we'll need a brief lesson in congressional procedure. Before the House debates a bill, it goes to the chamber's Rules Committee, a group controlled by the majority party that has the important role of deciding which amendments can come up for a vote and how long debate will last. Frequently, the Rules Committee will also adopt last-minute changes to the bill, which can range from minor technical tweaks to big compromises. All those decisions are compiled in one long document — which is called, simply, a rule — and brought to the House floor where it becomes the chamber's first order of business before lawmakers can get to the meat of the legislation. If the rule is adopted, lawmakers have officially agreed to make all those changes to the original version of the bill. The House then takes up the bill itself. The cap-and-trade bill followed this process. After the bill was passed by the Energy and Commerce Committee on May 21, its two lead authors, Reps. Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, set out to find enough votes in the full House. In the process, it appears the duo had to cut some deals; for example, one change made farms exempt from the emissions cap. And, not coincidentally, some farm-state lawmakers ultimately backed the bill. In the early morning of June 26, more than 300 pages of changes were adopted by the Rules Committee. And later in the day, the House voted 217-205 to accept those changes. After that, the chamber got down to debating the newly updated bill, and that's when the controversy over the missing copies began. "Is there somewhere physically in the House of Representatives a copy of what we are voting on?" asked Joe Barton, who is the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee. "My inquiry is how do I get a copy of the other 300 pages that people here on the floor haven’t had a chance to read or see? Where do we get that before we slam this and cram this down on the American people?" echoed Louie Gohmert of Texas. Markey came to the floor to reassure Barton and Gohmert that they could find the latest changes on the Rules Committee Web site. And besides, they had just voted on the new language and it could be found at the reader's desk, Markey said. But Gohmert wasn't satisfied. Here's an excerpt from the Congressional Record of his conversation with the the speaker pro tempore, the House member who then had the rotating duty of running the House: GOHMERT. My parliamentary inquiry, I was just at the dais and the clerks, as always, were immensely helpful. But apparently the official copy of the 1,090 pages are there, and then the additional 300 pages are sitting beside it, and the clerk is having to go through and is in the process as we speak of going through and figuring out where the extra 300 pages that has been added goes in the official copy. So even as I speak, Madam Speaker, the official copy is not truly an official copy because it doesn’t have all of the amendments in it. And since the rule says there is an official copy at the desk, my inquiry is whether it is truly an official copy if it, as yet, does not have all of the pages in the official copy. SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The clerk is currently executing the order of the House in House Resolution 587. GOHMERT. Right, to put the extra pages into the official copy. But is it required that it actually be a full official copy put together before you satisfy the requirement of having an official copy at the desk? SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The two components of the official copy are there together, so it is, in effect, the official copy. GOHMERT: So the two together in two different piles that are being worked out together is the official copy. In theory, House leadership could have called a recess to meld the 1,090 pages of the original bill with the more than 300 pages of changes as Gohmert and Barton wanted. But the leadership did not. So to determine if Limbaugh is correct, we have to decide if two stacks of paper at the reading desk instead of one mean the bill was not on the House floor. We went to House Parliamentarian John Sullivan, the guru of all things having to do with chamber procedure. He's been advising members on their rules since 2004. "It's not true," he said of Limbaugh's claim. "Obviously 'the' copy of the bill was at the reading clerk's desk the entire time. ... All the ingredients that made the final bill were at the desk," he said. In fact, it's not at all unusual for pages of legislation to be in flux during debate, Sullivan said. For example, as amendments are adopted on the House floor, someone literally sits at the front of the chamber, adding or subtracting language in a bill. And it's a time-tested tactic for the minority to complain that the majority has rushed a bill through and not given members enough time to read it. Limbaugh claimed that "there was not even a copy of the bill in the well of the House. . . . It wasn't even written." And indeed, it's clear from the Congressional Record that many lawmakers were frustrated that the copy at the desk consisted of two parts: the original bill and a second part that included changes that were compiled by the Rules Committee and adopted by the entire chamber. So in that sense, there is some truth to Limbaugh's claim that the bill "wasn't even written." But the Congressional Record and our interview with the parliamentarian show that Limbaugh is wrong to say that there was no copy of the bill in the chamber during the vote. As Sullivan said, every component of the final version was in the chamber from the start, available for members to read. The final House bill, the one that was sent to the Senate on July 6, included all those changes; two documents effectively became one. So we give Limbaugh a Barely True. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.

"We were promised. The president said we would keep unemployment under 8.5 percent (if the stimulus passed). With unemployment rates continuing to rise nearly five months after the economic stimulus plan was passed, House Republican Whip Eric Cantor said the Obama-backed plan is a bust. "Clearly the stimulus or so-called stimulus plan that spent almost $800 billion dollars has not worked," Cantor said in a PBS interview on July 8, 2009. "We were promised, the president said we would keep unemployment under 8.5 percent. We're now over 9.5 percent, on our way to 10 percent." The claim that the Obama administration "promised" the stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent is a popular talking point among Republican critics of the stimulus. We've heard it from House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, Reps. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., as well as conservative talk show host Sean Hannity, to name a few. They all called it a "promise." They are referring to a Jan. 9, 2009, report called "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" from Christina Romer, chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice president's top economic adviser. Their report projected that the stimulus plan proposed by Obama would create between three and four million jobs by the end of 2010. The report also includes a graphic predicting unemployment rates with and without the stimulus. Without the stimulus (the baseline), unemployment was projected to hit about 8.5 percent in 2009 and then continue rising to a peak of about 9 percent in 2010. With the stimulus, they predicted the unemployment rate would peak at just under 8 percent in 2009. But in June, the unemployment rate was 9.5 percent. In the past week, the administration has acknowledged its projections were wrong. Here's what Romer herself said in a July 2 interview on Fox: "None of us had a crystal ball back in December and January. I think almost every private forecaster realized that there were other things going on in the economy. It was worse than we anticipated. What the private forecasters are saying now is that they do anticipate that the economy will start growing again in the second half of the year, and that usually, then, employment and unemployment start to respond shortly after that. So I think that is a realistic expectation." Biden also acknowledged the discrepancies in a July 5 interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 "The truth is, we and everyone else misread the economy," Biden said. "The figures we worked off of in January were the consensus figures in most of the blue chip indexes out there. ... And so the truth is, there was a misreading of just how bad an economy we inherited. Now, that doesn't — I'm not laying — it's now our responsibility. So the second question becomes, did the economic package we put in place, including the Recovery Act, is it the right package given the circumstances we're in? And we believe it is the right package given the circumstances we're in." Stephanopoulos correctly noted that projections from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office at the time were slightly less optimistic than the administration's. In January, the CBO projected the unemployment rate would climb to 8.3 percent in 2009 and peak at 9 percent in 2010. By February, the prediction was even higher — 9 percent in 2009 without the stimulus, and 7.7 to 8.5 percent with a stimulus. In a White House news conference on June 8, 2009, Bernstein, the co-author of the February projections, said they were off because the fourth-quarter economic numbers weren't available at the time. When they were released a short time later, they revealed the economy was in more dire shape than economists realized. Bernstein maintained in that June news conference that the stimulus is working, and that without it, the unemployment rate would be even worse. The debate about the numbers comes from the inherent uncertainty in economic forecasting. How can you ever prove that if the unemployment rate gets to X percent, it would or would not have gotten a point or two higher if not for the stimulus? The same holds true for Republicans who say the rising unemployment rates prove the stimulus isn't working. Again, it's difficult to empirically prove whether they're right or wrong. We're certainly not going to try here. What we can rule on, however, is whether the Obama administration "promised" that unemployment rates would not rise above 8 percent if the stimulus were passed. We could find no instance of anyone in the administration directly making such a public pledge. What we saw from the administration in January was a projection, not a promise. And it was a projection that came with heavy disclaimers. "It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error," the report states. "There is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity." There's also a footnote that goes along with the chart that states: "Forecasts of the unemployment rate without the recovery plan vary substantially. Some private forecasters anticipate unemployment rates as high as 11% in the absence of action." That sure doesn't sound like a full-fledged promise to us. We think it's a big stretch to call an economic projection a "promise." The administration never characterized it that way and included plenty of disclaimers saying the predictions had "significant margins of error" and a higher degree of uncertainty due to a recession that is "unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity." And so we rule the statement by Cantor — and other Republicans who have said the same thing — Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly Fals

"We import more oil today than ever before. In an interview with Novaya Gazeta , a Russian newspaper, President Barack Obama was asked what caused the economic crisis. Obama answered that oil imports were partly to blame. "Our economy did not fall into decline overnight," he said in the July 6, 2009, interview. "We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy. Yet we import more oil today than ever before." Obama said the same thing on February 24, 2009, during his first address to Congress. At first, it sounded plausible to us that the United States would be importing more oil these days. But as our friends at FactCheck.org first pointed out , crude oil and petroleum imports have actually declined in recent years after peaking in 2005 and 2006. FactCheck cites the Energy Information Administration, a branch of government that keeps an enormous database of all things energy-related, and we confirmed it on the EIA's Web site. In two decades, imported oil will be down by about 20 percent, according to a March 2009 EIA report. And in April 2009, the American Petroleum Institute said that imports have fallen to their lowest levels in three years. The reason? "The big one is the decline in consumption," said Ron Planting, an economist with the API, a trade group representing oil and natural gas companies. "Our figures through May are that domestic consumption has declined 4.7 percent from a year ago." Through 2008, high gas prices spurred the decline, he said. Now, it's the recession. The proliferation of gasoline-ethanol blends and a 4.4 percent increase in domestic oil production have also contributed, Planting said. So Obama needs to check his figures. Twice this year, he has said that oil imports are higher than ever, but studies by the government and the energy industry show that's not true. As a result, we give Obama a False. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022

Mitch McConnell opposed "legislation to create and protect Kentucky jobs . . . help for the unemployed. . .  health care for Kentucky's children," and "fair pay for women. A television ad from the Democratic National Committee gives the impression that Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell hates jobs, unemployment compensation, health care for little children and equal pay for women. Here's the full text of the ad: "When George Bush asked Mitch McConnell to support the policies that brought our economy to its knees, what did he say? Yes, Yes, Yes. But this year, when it came to supporting legislation to create and protect Kentucky jobs, he said no. Help for the unemployed? No. Health care for Kentucky's children? No. Fair pay for women? No. "Call Mitch McConnell. Tell him after eight years of being part of the problem, it's time to be part of the solution." As the announcer talks, tiny type indicates Senate bill numbers to support the ad's claims. The problem is that the ad takes McConnell's votes and then exaggerates what the votes signify. We'll take the issues in order. McConnell said no to "legislation to create and protect Kentucky jobs" and to "help for the unemployed." The Democratic National Committee's documentation on the ad says that the evidence for this statement is that McConnell voted against the economic stimulus bill, also known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It's true that McConnell voted against the act, as did all but three Republican senators. (The exceptions were Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who subsequently switched parties.) But we found evidence that McConnell opposed the bill because of its significant expense, not because he opposed creating jobs or helping the unemployed. The week before the vote, for example, McConnell said he opposed the bill because it "lacked focus, didn't create enough jobs, had too much permanent government expansion, and was just way too expensive with the national debt already reaching frightening new dimensions." Republicans in both the Senate and the House supported extensions for unemployment compensation in alternative proposals, but the proposals couldn't pass the Democratic-controlled Senate. McConnell said at the time that Republicans weren't trying to derail the stimulus but make it more efficient. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 We also found a long list of jobs-oriented projects for which McConnell is requesting money in the next appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010. All this contradicts the impression the ad gives that McConnell said no to creating jobs or helping the unemployed. McConnell said no to "health care for Kentucky's children." The DNC backs up this claim by citing McConnell's vote against an expansion for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP. The program provides health insurance to children in families with low income. The bill passed anyway with about eight Republicans voting with Democrats, and President Barack Obama signed it into law. McConnell recently sponsored legislation to continue SCHIP under more restrictive eligibility terms than the 2009 legislation. He also voted for the creation of SCHIP in 1997 during the Clinton administration. So again this seems to be a case where McConnell disagreed with the legislative specifics, not the underlying value of health care for children. McConnell said no to "fair pay for women." Here, the DNC pointed to McConnell's vote against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the first law Obama signed after taking office. This bill reversed the effects of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that said workers had to file lawsuits for pay discrimination within 180 days of the first instance of discriminatory pay. The new law says a lawsuit may be filed 180 days from the most recent instance of disciminatory pay. McConnell voted against the bill, but not because he opposes fair pay. "We have heard a lot of debate over the past few days on fairness," McConnell said in a statement. "Every member of this body supports equal pay for equal work. The Ledbetter bill isn't about fair pay. Pay discrimination has been illegal since 1963. This bill is about effectively eliminating the statute of limitations on pay discrimination." McConnell supported an amendment proposed by Sen. Kay Baily Hutchison of Texas that said the clock for a lawsuit started ticking when the worker knew or could reasonably have been expected to know about the pay disparity, as well as other restrictions. But the motion failed. All the Democrats voted for the Ledbetter bill, along with five Republicans: Collins, Snowe, Specter, Hutchison and Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. To summarize: The ad from the DNC makes sweeping generalizations about what McConnell opposed, to the point of distorting what the votes actually signified. When we dug into the nitty gritty of the Senate votes, we found that McConnell supported alternatives or objected to the legislation for other reasons. The ad says that McConnell opposed legislation to "create and protect Kentucky jobs," "help for the unemployed," "health care for Kentucky's children," and "fair pay for women." Actually, McConnell said he supported all of those values, but he didn't agree with Democratic methods for achieving them. It's an important distinction. We rate the ad from the Democratic National Committee as Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly Fals

"The ACLU has filed a suit to have all military cross-shaped headstones removed. We received the following chain e-mail from a reader, who asked us to check it out. "Subject: In Jesus' Name — No! No! "Did you know that the ACLU has filed a suit to have all military cross-shaped headstones removed and another suit to end prayer from the military completely? They're making great progress. The Navy Chaplains can no longer mention Jesus' name in prayer thanks to the wretched ACLU and our new administration." There's a lot packed into that e-mail, but here, we're checking whether the American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit to have all military cross-shaped headstones removed. We couldn't find any news stories or court cases to support such a claim. We asked the ACLU if they had filed such a suit. No way, said spokesman Will Matthews. "The ACLU has never once advocated for or initiated any litigation in favor of, removing cross-shaped headstones from federal cemeteries," he said in an e-mail. For good measure, he added the ACLU has also not filed suit to stop voluntary prayer in the military, either. Not content with the ACLU's denial, we went to the National Cemetery Administration of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. They are responsible for maintaining the national cemeteries and issuing headstones and markers for deceased military veterans. "To begin with, we don't have cross-shaped headstones at VA national cemeteries," said spokesman Michael Nacincik. The headstones and markers the government issues are rectangular. He also said there was no lawsuit concerning headstones. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 17, 2022 in una publicación en Facebook "Ministros de Defensa de OTAN deciden invadir a RUSIA para prevenir ataque de Putin”. By Maria Ramirez Uribe • October 17, 2022 Family members of the deceased can select an emblem of religious belief to be inscribed on the headstone or marker. Currently, there are 39 different emblems from which to choose. The symbols include different types of crosses, the star of David, the Muslim crescent and star, the Buddhist Wheel of Righteousness, and many others, including symbols for atheists and secular humanists. "Many people choose to have a Christian cross inscribed, but people can choose other symbols, or no symbol at all," Nacincik said. "We're not going to be removing emblems of belief that people have chosen," he added. Those emblems are the closest we could find to the origin of this claim: In 2006, the ACLU helped the families of three deceased veterans sue the National Cemetery Administration to add the Wiccan symbol, a pentagram, to the list of approved emblems. The administration did end up adding the symbol. Believe it or not, we still didn't feel we had exhausted every avenue here, because hadn't we seen photos before of military cemeteries with rows of crosses ? It turns out these cemeteries are mostly in Europe, the final resting place for some of the American troops killed during World War I and World War II. The cemeteries are maintained by the American Battle Monuments Commission, an agency of the executive branch established in 1923. "I'm not aware of any efforts to remove cross-shaped headstones at our site," said Thomas Sole, director of engineering for the commission. Generally speaking, the cemeteries are located at the sites of battles where many troops died. Families had the choice of having the remains repatriated to the United States or being buried overseas. The graves in these cemeteries are marked with crosses or, if the deceased were Jewish, with stars of David, Sole said. The graves of deceased who were neither Christian nor Jewish also are marked by crosses. In the immediate aftermath of a battle, troops would bury their fallen and mark the graves with wooden crosses. "Our marble crosses are a reflection of those temporary wooden crosses," Sole said. Technically, the cemeteries are owned by the foreign country in which they are located, but the land is "given to the U.S. for use in perpetuity as commemorative cemeteries," Sole said. The cemeteries are closed to new interments, even to veterans, except for the remains of any servicemen and women lost during the World Wars that may be found on the battlefields. But just to repeat, Sole said he didn't know about any lawsuits to remove the crosses. So to sum up, the ACLU said it was not suing over that. ("The ACLU believes very deeply in the cherished value of religious freedom, and the right of all Americans to practice the religion of their choosing — or to practice no religion at all — freely and without fear or compulsion," Matthews said.) The U.S. Department of Veterans doesn't know about any lawsuit. And the American Battle Monuments Commission said there is no lawsuit. So we rate this statement Pants on Fire

"If the United States moves ahead by itself (on cap-and-trade)... after 30 or 40 years, we're going to reduce CO2 by less than 1 percent. Shortly after the House of Representatives passed a cap-and-trade bill, some Republicans made this claim about the plan: Lowering carbon emissions in the United States will do little to slow climate change unless other countries do the same. The GOP's position is that putting a cap on carbon dioxide emissions will be too costly for businesses and for consumers, and if the United States is going it alone those costs outweigh the environmental benefit. Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley, who has been one of the more vocal skeptics, made this argument on June 28, 2009, on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. "If the United States moves ahead by itself (on cap-and-trade) ... after 30 or 40 years, we're going to reduce CO2 by less than 1 percent," he said. He reiterated his opinion during a conference call with reporters on July 1, 2009, saying, "If the United States would go ahead — because we're supposed to so-called set an example for the rest of the world — and if the rest of the world doesn't go along, then we're turning out to be suckers because we're — we're going to just reduce total CO2 by a spit in the ocean by ourselves." We wondered whether our cap-and-trade plan could be as limited as Grassley maintains — or at least whether Grassley's 1 percent prediction is even close. Before digging into his claim, here's a little background on this complicated issue, one we've already explored in terms of how much it might cost consumers. The bill, authored by Democratic Reps. Henry Waxman of California and Edward Markey of Massachusetts, was approved by the House of Representatives on June 26, and would essentially limit the amount of carbon dioxide companies can emit each year. The cap will become tighter and tighter over time, and ultimately, lawmakers say their plan will reduce carbon pollution by 17 percent by 2020, and 83 percent by 2050. Of course, those big reductions apply only to carbon emissions produced in the United States. Cap-and-trade opponents say it's foolhardy for the United States to move forward without some indication that other countries will adopt similar restrictions. But the European Union already has agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020. And in July, members of the Group of Eight are expected to hammer out a deal on global emissions reductions. Of greatest concern remains China, a country that has recently become the world's biggest producer of greenhouse gases. According to the Energy Information Administration, a government-run database of energy statistics, the United States contributed about 5,907 million metric tons in 2006 — or about 20 percent of the world's total. In the same year, China surpassed that amount by about 100 million metric tons, becoming the leading contributor to global warming. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman pointed out exactly this problem in a May 14 op-ed about China's economic development. "China cannot continue along its current path because the planet can’t handle the strain," he wrote. "The scientific consensus on prospects for global warming has become much more pessimistic over the last few years. Indeed, the latest projections from reputable climate scientists border on the apocalyptic. Why? Because the rate at which greenhouse gas emissions are rising is matching or exceeding the worst-case scenarios. And the growth of emissions from China — already the world’s largest producer of carbon dioxide — is one main reason for this new pessimism." The Pew Center on Global Climate Change, an organization that produces analysis on climate issues, had this to say: "Climate change is a global problem and will require nations of the world to work together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is true that the United States has recently been overtaken by China as the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, but the United States still contributes 20 percent of global emissions, so what we do is critically important. It is also true that if the United States acts alone, we cannot solve climate change." And Harvard economics professor Martin Feldstein offered some numbers to back up a similar opinion: "Since the U.S. share of global CO2 production is now less than 25 percent (and is projected to decline as China and other developing nations grow), a 15 percent fall in U.S. CO2 output would lower global CO2 output by less than 4 percent," he wrote in a June 1 Washington Post op-ed. "Its impact on global warming would be virtually unnoticeable. The U.S. should wait until there is a global agreement on CO2 that includes China and India before committing to costly reductions in the United States." Less than 4 percent is close to what Grassley said, but we wanted to see some real data. So, we turned to a memo produced by two professors at Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions who concluded that, "the success of (Waxman-Markey) depends on whether other nations also pursue equivalent reductions." To illustrate their point, professors Tim Profeta and Prasad Kasibhatla plotted three possible scenarios using this handy modeling system (yes, you can play along , too). In the first, most developed countries — including the United States and some European nations — adopt something similar to Waxman-Markey, but developing countries do not; in the second, developing nations reduce emissions as well; and in the third, developing nations delay a reduction in their emissions, but eventually participate. Their work shows that, under the first scenario, there would actually be a steady increase in carbon emissions, while under the other two scenarios — where developed countries pitch in — carbon emissions would decline over time. So, Grassley's prediction is right — sort of, said Profeta. "It's true that if the U.S. acts solo, we will see little impact," he said, adding that he's not sure where Grassley got his "1 percent" prediction. "But that's a very unlikely assumption." We're more likely to see something along the lines of scenario three, he said, where China will adopt cap-and-trade at a later date, when its per capita carbon emissions equal those from developed countries. We posed a similar question to Mark Radka with the United Nations Environment Program via e-mail. "With no one else doing anything other than growing — a lot — and the U.S. singlehandedly reducing emissions along a not so aggressive path you might come up with a number like 1 percent," he wrote. "This would be one of those absurd baseline scenarios that really doesn’t represent a baseline in any other than a theoretical sense." And Alden Meyer with the Union of Concerned Scientists said it's a myth that China's doing nothing, pointing out that the country has embraced renewable technologies and set fuel economy standards that are arguably more stringent than those announced by the Obama administration earlier this year. "You could say it's a drop in the bucket, but that could be said for any country," Meyer added. "The risk of not adopting Waxman-Markey is that we give China the excuse to say, 'Why should we do it if the wealthiest country isn't doing it?'" Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 30, 2022 in a photo “There are no greenhouse gas emissions in this photo” of cows grazing. By Kristin Hugo • November 7, 2022 So where does that leave us? The experts we spoke with all agree that our impact on climate change will be relatively small without the involvement of other countries, particularly China. On this point, Grassley is correct. But, those same experts say it's highly unlikely that we would be the only nation limiting our carbon emissions in the coming decades. In fact, Grassley's statement is misleading in this regard because Europe already has adopted stricter goals than the targets we're considering, and China is taking other steps to reduce carbon production. As for Grassley's prediction that our cap-and-trade bill alone would only reduce climate change emissions by 1 percent, things are still murky. His office did not return calls or e-mails to back up that claim, our experts had never heard the statistic before, nor could we find any studies or documents to support it. The only number we've got comes from an opinion article written by a Harvard economist, who says 4 percent, which is in the Grassley ballpark. But given his lack of documentation and some clear flaws in his assumptions about international involvement, we give Grassley's claim a Half Tru

The Free Flow of Information Act of 2009 "would guarantee Barack Obama will never be held accountable for producing forged birth documents. Who knows where some political ideas originate. Any anonymous person can post a statement on the Internet. It can be passed around, repeated, added to and commented on in blog after blog. It can be circulated in chain e-mails. And pretty soon it gathers such steam, its very reach seems to add credibility. Here, we deal with just such an idea. It's the claim that the Free Flow of Information Act of 2009 passed by the House in March is actually a "stealth" law aimed at protecting President Barack Obama from having to produce his "actual" birth certificate. That's why some conservative bloggers derisively call it the "Obama Birth Certificate Protection Act." Readers sent us an e-mail that claimed the bill "would guarantee Barack Obama will never be held accountable for producing forged birth documents." Most versions call for readers to contact their local legislator to oppose the bill, which has been introduced in the Senate. As for the claim that Obama produced "forged" birth documents, that's a matter we have been following for quite some time, and we direct your attention here . In this item, we wanted to set the record straight about the Free Flow of Information Act. Passed by the House in March, the bill is designed to protect journalists from having to reveal confidential sources in federal court. Here's what the bill says: "A federal entity may not compel a covered person to provide testimony or produce any document related to information obtained or created by such covered person as part of engaging in journalism, unless a court determines by a preponderance of the evidence." You can read the bill in its entirety here . Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 Many bloggers insist it would also protect federal employees of the executive branch from being compelled to release documents. But the key words are "covered person." And this is how it's defined later in the bill: "The term 'covered person' means a person who regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, or publishes news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public for a substantial portion of the person's livelihood or for substantial financial gain and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such covered person." In other words, "a covered person is simply a journalist," said Sophia Cope, legislative counsel for the Newspaper Association of America, which has lobbied hard for the bill. "The White House would not fall under that." This bill has been kicking around Congress for four years, long before Obama announced his candidacy for president. The idea that it is a covert attempt to block Obama from producing his birth certificate is absurd. We also note that the bill has enjoyed widespread bipartisan support. It was so noncontroversial it passed the House on March 31 with a voice vote rather than a roll call. Last Congress, it passed by a vote of 398-21. A Senate version of the bill is under consideration. Cope isn't quite sure how the intent of the law has been so grossly distorted. "The bill's intent is to protect reporters and their confidential sources from being subpoenaed to testify, or from having to disclose the identity of those sources," Cope said. "I don't see how it would relate to Obama's birth certificate." One could argue that this law has simply been misread by some well-intentioned government watchdogs. But this is just the latest conspiracy theory from the fringe of a conservative group convinced that Obama hasn't provided sufficient documentation to prove he was born in the United States, and therefore cannot serve as president. Even among these folks, the claim about the Free Flow of Information Act is more than a stretch. We give it a Pants on Fir

During a town hall meeting on health care, "ABC didn't even allow ads that opposed the president's health care plan to be aired. Rep. Lamar Smith was outraged that ABC News was dedicating a day of coverage to health care reform, capping it off with an exclusive town hall with President Barack Obama. "It was like a rigged football game," Smith told Greta Van Susteren during an interview on Fox News. "The president had home field advantage. ABC was the only referee. The opposing team wasn't allowed on the field. But ABC didn't even allow ads that opposed the president's health care plan to be aired." Smith, a Republican from Texas, made his comments even before the special aired on June 24, 2009. We wanted to know if it was true that ABC "didn't even allow ads that opposed the president's health care plan to be aired." A call to ABC confirmed that this was true. Though ABC accepts advertising for political candidates, it has a policy of rejecting ads that advocate for general political issues, a spokeswoman told us. We tried to ask more detailed questions about the policy, but she wouldn't talk about specifics. We were able to find several news reports about ABC rejecting other ads over the years, including ads that opposed the oil industry and the Iraq war. Adding another wrinkle, local ABC affiliates set their own standards to sell ads. Naturally, viewers at home have no way of knowing if the ad was sold by the local affiliate or the parent network. Smith complained after the advocacy group Conservatives for Patients' Rights tried and failed to buy ads during the president's town hall. The group is opposed to Democratic plans for the health care system because they say it would create a socialized medical system similar to Canada's or Britain's. (We examined one of their ads back in April and rated a claim about health effectiveness research as Barely True .) Conservatives for Patients' Rights disputed ABC's claim that it did not accept advocacy ads. In a letter to ABC, the group cited a report from TNS Media Intelligence, a respected independent media firm, that showed ad buys by T. Boone Pickens, who argues for energy independence, and the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, which promotes fiscal responsibility. We asked Andrew Tyndall, who monitors the major network news programs at his Web site the Tyndall Report, about advocacy ads appearing on the networks. He said it's true that ABC and the other major networks forbid issue advocacy ads, but there is a gray area: The networks will accept public-interest ads from lobbying groups that are generally positive in tone and message. These types of ads usually air during the Sunday morning shows, he said. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 "You can't address matters of public controversy in those. You can only burnish your image," Tyndall said. In theory, if Conservatives for Patients' Rights had designed an ad that talked about how wonderful the private insurance system is, that might have passed muster with ABC. "You can say the good part, but not the bad part," Tyndall concluded. The network's rules are internal standards that are holdovers from the days when broadcast networks were more closely regulated, Tyndall said. In fact, advocacy ads usually air on local affiliates and cable channels, and there are several reasons for this, said Evan Tracey, president of the Campaign Media Analysis Group that is part of TNS Media Intelligence. On cable news channels, advertisers feel like they're reaching a demographic that includes news junkies and policymakers. When Congress is in session, advocacy groups will buy time with affiliates in Washington, D.C. That advertising follows members of Congress home to local affiliates during the breaks, especially if the member is a swing vote or chairs a committee with jurisdiction over a particular issue. The handful of national networks, though, just want to avoid controversy. "By and large, historically, they've stayed away from this stuff as much as possible, though no one is 100 percent pure," Tracey said. "There's probably stuff they've taken in the past where the salespeople said, 'This isn't very controversial,' and so they took it." In this case, things may have worked out well for both sides, Tracey said. "ABC is probably happy they didn't take the spot, and Conservatives for Patients' Rights is just as happy because they didn't have to pay for it, and they still get their publicity." The congressman is right, though. He said, "ABC didn't even allow ads that opposed the president's health care plan to be aired." Groups who opposed Obama's plan tried to buy advertising during his town hall meeting and were turned down. Even ABC said that was the case. We rate Smith's statement True

Every year tobacco kills more Americans than did World War II — more than AIDS, cocaine, heroin, alcohol, vehicular accidents, homicide and suicide combined Congress recently gave the Food and Drug Administration the ability to regulate tobacco, and George Will is not impressed. He said the new law is flawed because it restricts advertising (new rules could "merit a constitutional challenge"), because it is supported by the tobacco industry ("a crystalline example of Washington business as usual") and because it it perpetuates what Will calls a government "addiction to tobacco tax revenue." "The February expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program is supposed to be financed by increased tobacco taxes, so this health care depends on an ample and renewable supply of smokers," he wrote in a June 18, 2009, Washington Post column. Governments will never outlaw smoking because "governments cannot loot tobacco companies that do not flourish." Will thinks the new law is no good, but he's certainly no fan of smoking either, and he made this claim to demonstrate his aversion to the habit: "Three decades ago, public outrage killed an automobile model (Ford's Pinto) whose design defects allegedly caused 59 deaths," he wrote. "Yet every year tobacco kills more Americans than did World War II — more than AIDS, cocaine, heroin, alcohol, vehicular accidents, homicide and suicide combined." More than AIDS? More than car accidents? We were skeptical, so we decided to take a look ourselves. It seems that Will plucked part of his claim from the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a leading advocate for the new law. According to the organization, about 400,000 people die from their own smoking each year, and about 50,000 die from second-hand smoke annually. And according to the group's Web site, "Smoking kills more people than alcohol, AIDS, car accidents, illegal drugs, murders and suicides combined." Even though that fact is repeated by many antismoking campaigns, and by the American Cancer Society, we decided to crunch the numbers ourselves. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2006, when their database was last updated, 22,073 people died of alcohol, 12,113 died of AIDS, 43,664 died of car accidents, 38,396 died of drug use — legal and illegal — 18,573 died of murder and 33,300 died of suicide. That brings us to a total of 168,119 deaths, far less than the 450,000 that die from smoking annually. As for the part about World War II, Will came up with this comparison himself. About 292,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines were killed in battle during World War II, according to a U.S. Census Bureau April 29, 2004, report in commemoration of the new World War II memorial in Washington, D.C. An additional 114,000 members of U.S. forces died of other causes during the war, bringing the total to 406,000 people. Will's claim — that smoking kills more people annually than in World War II or from other dangerous diseases and habits — holds up with the CDC and the Census Bureau. As a result, we give Will a True. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022

Says the Constitution only requires her to tell the census "how many people are in our home. U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., is no stranger to the Truth-O-Meter. So far, her comments have decidedly bent the needle to the left and, on one occasion, set the meter on fire. We swear we're not trying to pick on her, but we just couldn't let this latest one go. Recently, Bachmann went on record to declare that because of ACORN's involvement in the Census and other privacy concerns, she would only tell 2010 Census takers how many people are in her household — and nothing more. Here's how she explained it in a Washington Times interview (which you can listen to here ): "Now ACORN has been named one of the national partners, which will be a recipient again of federal money," Bachmann said. "And they will be in charge of going door-to-door and collecting data from the American public. This is very concerning because the motherload of all data information will be from the Census. And, of course, we think of the Census as just counting how many people live in your home. Unfortunately, the Census data has become very intricate, very personal (with) a lot of the questions that are asked. "And I know for my family the only question that we will be answering is how many people are in our home. We won't be answering any information beyond that, because the Constitution doesn't require any information beyond that." There's a lot wrong in her statement, so we divided it into two Truth-O-Meter items. You can read the one on ACORN's involvement in a different item . In this item, we'll address Bachmann's claim that she's only constitutionally obligated to provide the number of people in her household. Here's what the Constitution actually says: "Representation and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers ... the actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct." So the Constitution itself does not contain any requirement, as Bachmann claims. We draw your attention to the last clause, "in such a manner as they shall by law direct." The "they" in that sentence refers to members of Congress. They write laws about the content of the Census and require that people answer the questions. Even the very first census in 1790 included more than just the question of how many people lived in the household. According to a Census Bureau spokeswoman, the 1790 Census specifically asked about the number of free white males age 16 and over in order to assess the country’s military and industrial potential. That first Census also asked for the race and gender of household residents, and whether they were free or enslaved. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 Subsequent Census Acts expanded the number of questions exponentially. According to Census spokeswoman Stacy Gimbel, these laws came under the authority of the "Necessary and Proper" clause of the Constitution: "The Congress shall have the power . . . To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." Congress' use of the Census to ask questions well beyond just the number of people has been upheld several times by the Supreme Court, Gimbel said, citing several cases. What's more, a law passed by Congress requires people to answer "any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in connection with any Census" from the U.S. Census. So what if you don't? The law says those who refuse to fill out the entirety of their Census questionnaire or answer questions posed by Census takers could face fines of anywhere from $100 to $500. Honestly, Gimbel said, the U.S. Census doesn't often enforce those rules. "It is important to note that Census takers are not seeking to prosecute people; our goal is to gather and return to the public quality information that assures equal representation and determines how billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money is spent by their government," Gimbel said. Bachmann's claims that the Constitution only requires people to say how many people live in their household is "completely baseless," Gimbel said. Bachmann stuck to her misguided guns in a Fox interview on June 25, this time backing up her concerns about privacy by noting that in the 1940s the Census Bureau handed over information used to round up Japanese people and put them in internment camps. "I'm not saying that that's what the administration is planning to do," Bachmann said, "but I am saying that private personal information that was given to the Census Bureau in the 1940s was used against Americans to round them up, in a violation of their constitutional rights, and put the Japanese in internment camps. I am just not comfortable with the way this census is being handled, with associating with ACORN, with the questions that are being asked, with Americans being compelled to give this information. How will this be cross-checked? Will it be held privately?" Bachmann is right about how the Census was used to identify Japanese-Americans in the 1940s. Since then, however, Congress has passed laws to specifically protect the information it collects. Census employees take those privacy laws very seriously, she said. Employees found to have violated laws to protect people's personal identity face up to five years in jail and fines of up to $250,000. Bachmann is not only wrong here, she is engaging in fearmongering that encourages people to break the law. And in doing so, she's falsely telling people that the Constitution would support them. In fact, the Washington Times reporter followed her answer by saying, "Well, I'm going to take your hint then and that'll save me some time." And so we feel it's necessary to rate this one Pants on Fir

Says the Congressional Budget Office estimates a cap-and-trade program would cost the average family the equivalent of "a postage stamp a day. Responding to Republicans who have said a cap-and-trade bill could cost thousands of dollars a year for the average family, the Democratic sponsors of the bill are citing a new study from the Congressional Budget Office that they say shows their plan will be affordable. "For the cost of about a postage stamp a day, all American families will see a return on their investment as our nation breaks our dependence on foreign oil, cuts dangerous carbon pollution and creates millions of new clean-energy jobs that can't be shipped overseas," Rep. Edward Markey said in a June 22, 2009, news release jointly issued with the co-sponsor, Rep. Henry Waxman. Waxman and Markey, from California and Massachusetts respectively, are the authors of a bill that would set up a market for power companies and other polluters to buy and trade carbon credits. The goal is to force them to cut their harmful emissions and lower carbon pollution 83 percent by 2050. But critics say polluters will inevitably pass the cost of buying credits or cleaner technologies on to the consumer. Putting a price tag on such a complex plan is tricky and controversial, as we note in our article Your Guide to the Cap-and-Trade Estimates . The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, says that cap-and-trade could raise the average family's annual energy bill by $1,241. House Republicans have said that cap-and-trade could cost consumers up to $3,100, a figure they say came from a Massachusetts Institute of Technology report. But the writers of that report admonished the GOP for incorrectly interpreting their work; intially, the authors predicted it would cost consumers about $340 annually, and have since updated that estimate to $800. Waxman and Markey are relying on a June 19 Congressional Budget Office analysis of their bill. The CBO is a well-respected, independent arm of Congress, but we have found its findings are occasionally mischaracterized by members of Congress. So we wanted to check whether Waxman is correctly summarizing the CBO's findings. Indeed, the report cited by Markey and Waxman predicts the bill would have a net annual economywide cost of $22 billion — or about $175 per household — in 2020. Divide that number by 365 days, and you get about 48 cents. A first-class stamp costs 44 cents, so Waxman is close. The CBO's estimate includes several assumptions about important decisions that still must be made by Congress, such as how much energy companies will pay to buy and trade polluting credits. But it's worth reading the fine print on this one, because CBO notes that the actual cost per family will vary depending on income. For example, low-income consumers could expect to save $40 a year, while wealthy people will see a net increase for energy costs of $235 to $340 every year. And the analysis does not include the costs or benefits of other parts of the bill, such as government efforts to quickly develop new technology, wrote CBO director Douglas Elmendorf in a June 20 blog post. It's also important to note that the costs will vary year to year. As the bill stands, polluting allowances will initially be given away for free. But by 2035, about 70 percent of those allocations will be sold by the government. Supporters of the bill say federal revenue from the program would be used to pay for tax credits and rebates for the middle class. CBO chose 2020 as a milestone for its analysis because it's a point at which the program would have been in effect for eight years, giving the economy and polluters time to adjust. But had CBO chosen a later date, the cost per family may have been higher because the government would gradually be charging polluters more. Waxman and Markey are clear about these variables and omissions in their press statement. They note that the poorest people will gain from the bill, and point out that the study does not include every element that could contribute to cap-and-trade's cost. But critics are more skeptical of the report. By not including all variables, the CBO report "grossly underestimates costs of cap-and-trade," said a memo from the Heritage Foundation, which has published many articles opposing the proposal. Among other things, Heritage says the study is flawed because it doesn't address economic changes resulting from restricted energy use and potential job losses. For this Truth-O-Meter item, we are not addressing which study is best, but focusing on whether Markey correctly described the CBO's findings. He was close — off by just 4 cents — and he indicated it was an approximation because he said "about a postage stamp a day." So we find the statement True. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022

"Yes, this would be the same congressman (Rep. Pete Hoekstra) who last year Tweeted the whereabouts of a top-secret mission to Iraq. Once again, U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., is embroiled in a twitterversy. It centers on his Tweet likening the messages of disgruntled Republicans during a congressional squabble with the messages from bloodied Iranian protesters who say they were disenfranchised. Keith Olbermann, host of MSNBC's Countdown , noted on June 18, 2009, that this wasn't Hoekstra's first Twitter controversy. "This would be the same congressman who last year Tweeted the whereabouts of a top secret mission to Iraq," Olbermann said. Here's the background on that: Back in early February (not last year, as Olbermann said), Hoekstra was part of a legislative delegation that went to Iraq. The delegation included House Minority Leader John Boehner; House Minority Whip Eric Cantor; John McHugh, R-N.Y.; Jo Bonner, R-Ala.; and Tom Latham, R-Iowa. Some media learned or were told about the trip beforehand, but for security reasons agreed to keep the story embargoed until the group returned. But while on the trip, Hoekstra sent several Tweets. "Just landed in Baghdad," one said. And another: "Moved into green zone by helicopter. Iraqi flag now over palace. Headed to new US embassy. Appears calmer, less chaotic than previous." A Congressional Quarterly reporter took Hoekstra to task with a Feb. 6 story headlined, "So Much for Embargoed." That story, and a follow-up on Feb. 10, questioned whether Hoekstra broke protocol for such trips by providing sensitive information that could pose a security risk. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 17, 2022 in una publicación en Facebook "Ministros de Defensa de OTAN deciden invadir a RUSIA para prevenir ataque de Putin”. By Maria Ramirez Uribe • October 17, 2022 The story of Hoekstra's Tweets got picked up in media outlets around the globe. "Generally speaking, we encourage the members to hold off any communication until they are wheels down at Andrews," Courtney Littig, spokeswoman for Democrats on the intelligence committee, told the New York Times . Hoekstra called the controversy "nonsense," and noted that similar trips by congressional delegations had been preceded by news conferences. Some legislators have even invited the public to sign banners they could give to the troops. Hoekstra's staff provided reporters with citations showing instances in which Democrats have issued press releases prior to legislative trips to combat zones (including one from Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2005 prior to a trip to Iraq); or even held live press conferences from war zones (including one from then Sen. Barack Obama in Afghanistan in 2008, and a 2005 interview with then Sen. Hillary Clinton in Baghdad in 2005). "The only difference is the technology," said Dave Yonkman, a spokesman for Hoekstra. "He was trying to give his constituents as much information as he could about his congressional activities." Nonetheless, Hoekstra's Tweets prompted the Pentagon to review its policy on congressional delegations traveling to war zones. And on March 13, 2009, Department of Defense Legislative Affairs distributed this policy to all services: "In order to protect the movement of the CODEL (congressional delegation) and all of the associated supporting personnel in the combat zone, it is important to maintain strict operational security. Adherence to operational security complicates the enemy's targeting process by ensuring they do not have flight plans, travel times, or party composition specifics, all elements needed to prepare a successful attack on U.S. personnel. In addition to the individual losses, the enemy could easily exploit any successful attack against key U.S. lawmakers for propaganda purposes, possibly extending the conflicts. "To this end, CODELs or staffdels should not communicate — via any means — their movements in advance of the trip, communicate their current locations, or communicate future movements or method of movements while in the AOR (area of responsibility) . . . Again, DoD's goal is to ensure members are offered the opportunity to present their initial observations in the combat zone while ensuring the safety of everyone in the traveling party and those who are supporting the group." In other words, congressmen shouldn't be Tweeting about their whereabouts or where they are heading in a combat zone. And if they do want to make public statements — including live press conferences — those should be coordinated with military officials. But Olbermann is wrong to characterize the delegation's trip as a "top-secret mission to Iraq." The term "top-secret" means something in military and government circles. There is a hierarchy of classified information, beginning with "confidential," graduating to "secret," "top-secret" and "special classified information." You need varying levels of security clearance in order to be privy to classified information. This trip was none of those. But more to the point, "top-secret mission to Iraq" conjures images of rifle-toting troops on a highly sensitive military operation. This wasn't a military mission, it was a congressional visit. In fact, many in the news media knew about the trip, but just agreed to keep it embargoed. Hoekstra's staff knew about it. His wife knew about it. "We're not talking about something that was classified," said Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Les Melnyk. "Not at all. Top-secret? No. We see these reported all the time in the press." So Olbermann hasn't just exaggerated, he's incorrectly described the visit as a "top-secret mission." Without knowing the background, you might think Hoekstra spilled the beans on some covert military operation. We rule Olbermann's statement Fals

Even high estimates for an early draft of the health care plan are "less than the $1.8 trillion cost of the Bush tax cuts. Paul Krugman, a noted economist and a columnist for the New York Times , made the case in a recent column that Democratic senators need to unite to pass health care reform. "I'm not that worried about the issue of costs," Krugman wrote. "Yes, the Congressional Budget Office's preliminary cost estimates for Senate plans were higher than expected, and caused considerable consternation last week. But the fundamental fact is that we can afford universal health insurance — even those high estimates were less than the $1.8 trillion cost of the Bush tax cuts." We wanted to know if Krugman was right that the initial cost estimates for health care legislation by the Congressional Budget Office were less than "the $1.8 trillion cost of the Bush tax cuts." The CBO released its study of a draft bill from the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) on June 15, 2009. The report concluded that the plan would cost $1 trillion between 2010 and 2019. It also said the plan would reduce the rolls of the uninsured by 16 million, which is only about a third of those currently without insurance. (So the plan as rated is not "universal.") Those findings have fueled debate. Opponents of health care reform said they show the plan is too expensive and won't cover everyone. Health care supporters said that the draft legislation does not include all the major elements of health care reform that will increase coverage or reduce costs, such as a public option health insurance plan or requirements for employers to contribute to insurance plans. But the draft bill is the best we have to work with, because so far it's the only one rated by CBO, a nonpartisan group that estimates the cost of legislation. Next, we wanted to put a price tag on the Bush tax cuts. Krugman doesn't give a time frame for the $1.8 trillion price tag. The law was written so that the tax cuts expire in 2010, and we think that's the time frame he was talking about. (We e-mailed him about this but didn't hear back.) Looking back, how much have the Bush tax cuts cost us so far? There's not a CBO report on that puts a dollar figure on that, and different think tanks calculated the lost revenues different ways. Keep in mind, we're talking about estimating something that didn't happen: How much in revenues didn't the government collect? Economic conditions change over time, and changes in tax code can affect that. So it's not a straight-up calculation. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 The left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities agrees with Krugman. The center's 2009 report on the Bush tax cuts states: "The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts added about $1.7 trillion to deficits between 2001 and 2008. Because they (were) financed by borrowing — which increases the national debt — this figure includes the extra interest costs resulting from that additional debt. This figure also includes the cost of 'patching' the Alternative Minimum Tax to keep the tax from hitting millions of upper-middle-class households, a problem the tax cuts helped cause. Over the next decade (2009-2018), making the tax cuts permanent would cost $4.4 trillion, assuming that the tax cuts remain deficit-financed." We then asked the conservative Heritage Institute about the Bush tax cuts. Brian Riedl analyzes the federal budget for the group. He said Krugman's $1.8 trillion number only considers the government's lost revenue, and doesn't account for the economic activity that lower taxes generate. He said the number was "defensible, but an overstatement." He estimates there would be a stimulative effect from tax cuts that could shave about 25 percent off that tally. Still, he said, Krugman is in the right ballpark for a static score of uncollected revenues. "I can't believe I'm actually saying one of Krugman's numbers is defensible," he added. There's one other implicit assumption in Krugman's statement. He writes, "But the fundamental fact is that we can afford universal health insurance — even those high estimates were less than the $1.8 trillion cost of the Bush tax cuts." We know the CBO report scored the first draft at $1 trillion, but we also know that CBO determined the draft was not a "universal" plan — only about a third of the uninsured would be covered. But would a truly "universal" bill still come in under $1.8 trillion? "Absolutely," said Kenneth Thorpe, a health care expert at Emory University. He said draft version of the bill could be modified to expand coverage to everyone and trim costs, and he thinks the total cost of that would likely be just over $1 trillion. He said the Senate Finance Committee is working on a new plan, though it has not been released to the public. "I think that you can provide universal health care coverage for all 46 million of the uninsured for just over $1 trillion," he said. After reading many studies on the cost of the Bush tax cuts, it seems to us that Krugman is in the ballpark with his $1.8 trillion estimate. But we believe there are a couple of important caveats to his comparison. First, his wording implies that CBO's much-discussed estimate is for universal coverage, but it's not. Also, he doesn't offer a time frame for the Bush tax cuts, so we can't be sure he is comparing the same number of years. Finally, the health care plan is still very much in flux, and the CBO estimate is based on an early and incomplete bill. So we find Krugman's claim Mostly Tru

The war spending bill "actually spends more money on the International Monetary Fund than on the war. In an unusual role reversal, most Congressional Republicans recently voted against a war funding bill. Some said they opposed the bill because it had so much money for the International Monetary Fund, a coalition of 185 countries that tries to foster global economic growth. Among the Republicans sounding off was Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia, who wrote this on his party's blog: "We’re getting an alleged war spending bill that actually spends more money on the International Monetary Fund than on the war," he wrote. "We have the ability to bounce back out of this recession, but we can’t afford to pay for a global bailout – we have more than enough bailouts going on in our own country, thank you very much." All but five of the 178 Republicans in the House voted against the measure on June 16, 2009. The bill is at the White House awaiting President Barack Obama's signature. The IMF's profile has risen in recent months in the wake of the economic crisis, and some financial leaders want the agency to loan more money to jump-start the global economy. We wondered if it was possible that a war funding bill would have more money for the IMF than the wars. Overall, the bill costs about $106 billion, according to the House Appropriations Committee. Approximately $82 billion — or about 77 percent — is for war-related items, everything from new machinery to hospitals. And for the IMF? Zero dollars, according to the Appropriations Committee. So does that mean Westmoreland's claim is false? Not so fast. The bill does establish a $100 billion line of credit for the IMF that the agency could use to make loans to other countries. But the Congressional Budget Office has estimated the actual cost to the Treasury at approximately $5 billion. That sum is largely the product of some confusing budgetary gymnastics based on estimates of how dramatically the IMF would have to use the line of credit and how quickly loans would be repaid, the CBO explained on its Web site. "In forming this estimate, CBO envisioned various potential state of the world economy," wrote CBO director Douglas Elmendorf on May 19, 2009. "In the most likely situations, the IMF would draw against only a small portion of the U.S. commitment and, CBO assumes, the likelihood of those funds being promptly repaid would be high. Thus, the cost of the U.S. commitment would be close to zero in those cases." The CBO said there's a slight chance the IMF would need to loan most or all of the line of credit. In that case, the IMF might not recoup all of the money and the cost to the U.S. Treasury would therefore be higher. CBO noted that no IMF borrower has defaulted on its obligations, but many have had their loans extended or been late on their payments. We spoke with budget experts who said the CBO's estimate is reasonable because it reflects the likely risk to the taxpayers. Loans are a routine part of the annual appropriations process, and they are typically assigned some cost based on risk, said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation. If no money is paid back, "that does potentially make it the most expensive part of the bill. But the odds of it becoming the most expensive part of the bill are slim." The real cost to the Treasury Department all comes down to whether other countries pay back those loans, said Edwin Truman, who is an IMF expert with the Peterson Institute for International Economics, an economic think tank. "Since no country has ever lost money in [IMF's] history, the notion that we will lose $5 billion is a stretch," he said. So as for Westmoreland's claim, he's wrong that the appropriations bill spends more money on the IMF than for the war. Lawmakers aren't literally giving the organization a bundle of cash. But he's right that there's a potential for the U.S. Treasury, over time, to give the IMF quite a chunk of change as a result of the line of credit. However, Westmoreland's claim is based on the premise that countries borrowing from the IMF will never pay those loans back, which is a worst-case scenario that experts say is unlikely to occur. So we rate his claim Barely True. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 17, 2022 in una publicación en Facebook "Ministros de Defensa de OTAN deciden invadir a RUSIA para prevenir ataque de Putin”. By Maria Ramirez Uribe • October 17, 2022 Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly Fals

Under the "Cash for Clunkers" program, "all we've got to do is ... go to a local junkyard, all you've got to do is tow it to your house. And you're going to get $4,500. On his Fox News Channel program on June 18, 2009, political commentator Sean Hannity mocked the "Cash for Clunkers" program recently approved by Congress, saying a loophole would allow someone to buy an old heap at a junkyard, have it towed to his or her house, and the government would pay $4,500 for it. The Cash for Clunkers program is actually called the "Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act of 2009." Having passed the House and Senate, it now sits on the president's desk awaiting his signature. Under the program, people can get $3,500 to $4,500 if they trade in their old gas-guzzler for a more fuel-efficient new car. The idea is to boost the ailing auto industry while improving the environment. There are lots of eligibility rules, and you can read all about them here in a Web site created by the government. The bill provides $1 billion for the program from July through November. In an interview with Hannity, Sen. John McCain criticized the program as more "out-of-control spending" by the Obama administration. Hannity then added his claim about how it would be easy to game the system to soak the government. "Listen, all we've got to do is you got to go to a local junkyard — all you've got to do is tow (the car) to your house. And you're going to get $4,500," Hannity said. "I'm going to go do that." Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 Actually, legislators anticipated just such a scheme and included provisions to prevent it. First, the law requires that the vehicle must be in "drivable condition." So if it needs to be towed to your house, no dice. And second, the trade-in has to have been "continuously insured consistent with the applicable state law and registered to the same owner for a period of not less than one year immediately prior to such trade-in." In English: You have to have owned the car for a year, and you have to be able to prove it. Those safeguards were written into the bill to safeguard against the very scenario Hannity described, said Rae Tyson, a spokesman for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Hannity's statement is "not accurate," he said. You could always lie and forge documents. (Don't do it, Sean!) But that would be fraud. And the bill says anyone who knowingly violates the provisions of the program could face a fine of up to $15,000. The wording in the legislation makes this one an easy call for us. The bill is written to prohibit the very scenario Hannity describes as possible. His statement goes on the junk heap. We rule it False.

Says President Obama was wrong "about Muslims' historical contributions to mankind, such as algebra (actually that was the ancient Babylonians), the compass (that was the Chinese), pens (the Chinese again) and medical discoveries. Conservatives had lots of reasons to criticize President Barack Obama’s speech in Cairo. Some thought Obama went too far in praising his Muslim audience, some thought he was too harsh on Israel, and some thought he shouldn’t have been there in the first place. Ann Coulter had her own angle. She went after Obama's accuracy. "Obama listed, incorrectly, Muslims' historical contributions to mankind, such as algebra (actually that was the ancient Babylonians), the compass (that was the Chinese), pens (the Chinese again) and medical discoveries (huh?)," she wrote in a June 10, 2009, op-ed on the Human Events Web site. (The words in parentheses are Coulter's as they appeared in the column.) She said Obama was ingratiating himself to the same community that launched the 9/11 attacks. "All these inventions came in mighty handy on Sept. 11, 2001! Thanks, Muslims!!" she wrote. Here's exactly what Obama said in the Cairo speech: "As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam," said Obama in his June 4, 2009, speech. "It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. ... It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed." Obama's larger point is that elements of Islamic culture are found throughout Western society. "I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear," he said. So, what of these inventions that Obama praised and Coulter critiqued? Was he wrong? Our friends at FactCheck.org already did some digging and found he was generally correct, but we wanted to address Coulter's criticism more directly. Let's start with Obama's assertion about algebra. (Don't worry. We're dealing with history here, but no linear equations.) Indeed, algebra does have roots in Islam. Baghdad-born Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi is "the father of algebra" according to the United Kingdom-based Foundation for Science Technology and Civilization, an organization devoted to explaining Muslim contributions to science. His seminal work, Hisab al-jabr w'al-muqabala — or The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing — was written in 820 A.D. and is widely considered the first book on algebra. In fact, the world al-jabr from the title is the root of the word "algebra." Nevertheless, others have contributed to algebra, including Diophantus, a Greek who some historians say should share the prestige of being the father of algebra with al-Khwarizmi. Diophantus lived some time between 200 and 298 A.D., some 500 years before al-Khwarizmi. His book, Arithmetica , is significant because it prompted the rebirth of number theory, or the study of positive numbers, according to Encyclopedia Britannica . Regardless, al-Khwarizmi's role in developing algebra is largely without dispute. And though the Babylonians did live in what we consider modern-day Baghdad, Coulter incorrectly identifies the origins of algebra. Moving on to navigation and the creation of the compass, Coulter is correct that Obama is on shakier ground. While many cultures used primitive navigation devices, the Chinese are usually credited with popularizing the magnetic compass, which, in its earliest form, involved a magnetized spoon-shaped stone that aligned with Earth's magnetic field. There is strong evidence, however, that Muslims made navigation tools easier to use; an astronomer named Azarchel, for example, created an all-in-one astrolabe, a device used to determine direction using the constellations. Writing instruments come from ancient Egypt, where people used pens made from river reeds to inscribe papyrus. However, Al-Mu'izz, a Muslim who ruled Egypt from 953 to 975, is credited with inventing the fountain pen. So, Obama's claim that the "mastery" of pens originated in the Muslim world is in the ballpark. Printing, however, is decidedly of Asian origins; the Chinese and Koreans developed woodblock and movable type printing. And around 1440 A.D., a German named Johannas Gutenburg invented the printing press, his most well known project being the Gutenburg Bible. Obama overstates the role Muslims played in printing. He would have been more accurate if he pointed out that followers of Mohammed were instrumental in disseminating the printed word, according to Jonathan M. Bloom's Paper Before Print: The History and Impact of Paper in the Islamic World . Lastly, Obama contends that Muslims developed certain aspects of modern medicine, which is partly true. According to the National Institutes of Health, the Greeks influenced healing practices in the Islamic world, but then the work of many Muslims influenced the ideas and practices in late medieval Europe from which early modern medicine eventually arose. Dr. Max Gross of Georgetown University's Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding said it’s fair to say that Muslims created or contributed significantly to all the inventions Obama outlined in his speech. "I have no difficulties with what Obama said," said Gross. Nevertheless, Gross pointed out that innovation can develop in different places at nearly the same time, so there is inevitably some disagreement with where certain tools or ideas originate. He used the astrolabe to emphasize his point. Muslims did not "create all navigation tools, they refined the astrolabe," he said. "The astrolabe is what Europeans used to navigate the oceans." Let’s review this little history lesson by revisiting Obama's words. He didn't say Muslims were the sole inventors of these disciplines, he merely said their innovation contributed to the development of disciplines. We find Coulter is incorrect about Obama's statement about algebra, that she's largely right about navigation, that she's wrong about pens and that it's fuzzy about how much Muslims contributed to modern medicine. So we find her criticism to be Barely True. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.

"Why do we have automatic citizenship upon birth? We're the only country in the world that has it. On his June 10, 2009, Fox News program, host Glenn Beck raised an immigration hot button that has gained some legislative traction in recent months: the issue of whether the United States ought to continue to grant citizenship to any child born in the country, even if the parents are illegal immigrants. "You know, the anchor baby thing has always really hacked me off," Beck said. "You know the anchor baby. You know what that is. It's when a child that is born here, becomes a citizen and they help the illegal parents become citizens, right?" He continued, sarcastically, "Remember empathy. Oh, empathy. No one wants to separate that family. Oh, that baby is a child. It's an anchor. It's an anchor to stay here." "Why do we have automatic citizenship upon birth?" Beck asked. "Do you know? We're the only country in the world that has it. Why?" Beck went on to explain that the 14th amendment granting citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States" was drafted after the Civil War "to protect newly freed slaves and their children and guarantee their rights as citizens. Last I checked, I don't think we're having that problem anymore. Can we have some common sense?" Beck touches on an issue that has caught the attention of a growing number of Republicans in Congress. Featured Fact-check Blake Masters stated on October 15, 2022 in a tweet Immigrants illegally in the country are treated “better than military veterans.” By Jon Greenberg • October 21, 2022 In April, Rep. Nathan Deal, a Republican candidate for governor of Georgia, proposed H.R. 1868, the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009. It seeks to amend immigration law so that babies born in the United States would only be granted U.S. citizenship if one of the parents is 1) a U.S. citizen or national; 2) a legal permanent resident of the United States; or 3) is serving in the U.S. armed forces. The bill currently has 77 cosponsors, 76 Republicans and one Democrat. Every year, about 400,000 babies are born to mothers who are undocumented immigrants in the United States, acccording to Jon Feere, a legal policy analyst at the Center for Immigration Studies. Once those children become adults, they can sponsor their parents or extended family for legal permanent residency. Our aim is not to enter the fray over the proposed legislation but to check Beck's claim that the United States is the only country in the world that grants automatic citizenship to anyone born in the country. And to that end, we refer to a report from NumbersUSA, a group dedicated to reducing immigration levels, and which backs Deal's bill. They found that in addition to the United States, there are 33 countries that offer automatic, unconditional citizenship to children born within their borders. They offer several qualifiers. No European nations grant birthright citizenship (but we note that Romania is on the list). Canada is the only developed nation other than the United States. No nation in the group other than the United States has more than 200 million people. Only the United States, Pakistan and Mexico have 50 million or more. For the full list, go here . By way of reminder, Beck said, "We're the only country in the world that has it." We might be inclined to cut Beck some slack if the only other countries were Saint Lucia, Antigua and Lesotho. In fact, we'll even admit that we had to look up what continent Lesotho is even on (Africa). But Canada, Brazil, Romania? We didn't have to go looking for those. It might be surprising to Americans that automatic citizenship isn't more common in the developed world, but the bottom line is Beck made a blanket statement that is just wrong. We rate his statement Fals

"Some 500 detainees were released from Guantanamo during the Bush administration. For weeks, Republicans have questioned the wisdom of closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. President Barack Obama plans to transfer the approximately 230 remaining detainees to other countries or to prisons in the United States. Responding to the Republicans, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters on June 16, 2009, that it's important to consider Obama's plans in context with the overall number of releases in the past seven years. "Some 500 detainees were released from Guantanamo during the Bush administration," Hoyer said. We wondered if he was correct. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 Indeed, government documents indicate more than 500 detainees were released or transferred from Guantanamo while George W. Bush was president. A White House executive order issued on the second day of Obama's presidency said, " The federal government has moved more than 500 such detainees from Guantánamo, either by returning them to their home country or by releasing or transferring them to a third country." That's backed up by a fact sheet from the military task force that runs the detention camp, which says 520 detainees had been released or transferred by March 2009. Our only quibble with Hoyer is his use of the word "released." That could be interpreted to mean that under Bush, 500-plus detainees left the center and were immediately freed. But the Pentagon says there is a difference between a release and a transfer to another country. The vast majority of detainees leave Gitmo under a transfer, which means they are transported to another country that places them under some type of restrictions. Some are incarcerated in those countries because of criminal charges, while others face monitoring or travel limitations. But Hoyer only said "released," so we'll take him down a notch to Mostly True

"A new poll shows 62 percent support the president's plan to reform health care. That means ... letting you choose between keeping the private insurance you have and a public health insurance plan. A new ad urges support for President Barack Obama's push for major health care legislation. Created by the liberal group Americans United for Change, the ad argues that 62 percent of the public supports "the president's plan to reform health care," and that Republicans in Congress should too. Here's the full script of the ad; you can also watch it via YouTube : "In the Senate, they call 60 percent support a supermajority. Well, a new poll shows 62 percent of Americans support the president’s plan to reform health care. That means lowering costs, so everyone has access to quality, affordable care, protecting your choice of doctor, letting you choose between keeping the private insurance you have and a public health insurance plan. So if the Republicans in Congress ignore what 62 percent of us support, you gotta wonder: Who are they listening to?" It's true that polls show solid majorities of the American public think the health care system needs change. But there's a big difference between general support for health care legislation and the particulars of Obama's plan. The ad from Americans United for Change cites a Diageo Hotline Poll of June 10, 2009, saying that it showed 62 percent support for "the president's plan to reform health care." The actual question was this: "Do you support or oppose Congress and the president enacting a major overhaul of the U.S. health care system?" That question gauges whether people broadly support the president and Congress working together to change health care. (The poll was a random sample of 800 registered voters, and the Hotline is part of the nonpartisan news group National Journal.) But the ad repeatedly cites the number in a misleading way. It makes it sound as if the 62 percent singled out the president's plan for support. It further distorts the poll by saying that same 62 percent backs a public health insurance plan, sometimes referred to as a public option. When the ad mentions the public option, a big "62%" flashes on the screen. A public option is controversial in Congress. Democratic advocates for it say the public option would act as an insurer of last resort for people who have problems getting private insurance. Some Republicans say it will be a Medicare-style plan that will pay doctors and hospitals significantly less than private insurance, thus undermining the private insurance system. The devil is in the details here, and Congress is debating what a public option might look like. The ad from Americans United for Change implies that 62 percent support a public health insurance plan. But the Diageo Hotline poll did not ask specifically about the public option. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 A poll that did, the Rasmussen Reports poll of June 15, 2009, asked the question plainly — "Would it be a good idea to set up a government health insurance company to compete with private health insurance companies?" — and found support split, with 41 percent answering yes, 41 percent answering no, and 18 percent saying they weren't sure. That's nowhere near 62 percent support. It's true that large majorities of the public do want health care reform. The Diageo Hotline Poll showed that an even larger majority — 94 percent — said it was important or somewhat important that health care legislation pass this year. But it's not accurate to say that 62 percent favor Obama's plan above and beyond other ideas being considered in Congress. And it's incorrect to attribute that specifically to the public option. The ad gives the impression that rock-solid majorities are in favor of the specifics of Obama's plan. But the poll doesn't say that. We find their statement False. Update, June 22, 2009: We ruled this statement False because the ad distorted the results of the poll. Several days after we published this item a New York Times/CBS News poll showed 72 percent support for a public option. But we're not changing our ruling because the New York Times poll hasn't changed the circumstances our the original fact we checked: The ad distorted the facts about the poll that it referenced

Oil money from federal leases "can only be used to clean up the mess and damages from drilling. Floridians who support offshore drilling to rescue the crippled state budget will be disappointed, U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., warned this week. The federal government limits what the offshore drilling revenues can be used for, Nelson said, and it doesn't include things like paying for public schools. "I’ve had a few questions lately about this idea of Florida getting oil-drilling revenues to help with its sagging budget — and, things like schools," Nelson said in a statement on June 15, 2009. "If you’re swayed by this argument and big oil’s latest push to put rigs off the tourism state, then you need to know something: oil money from federal leases cannot be used for that kind of stuff. It can only be used to clean up the mess and damages from drilling. Here’s how the law allows royalty money to be used: mitigation of effects from drilling activities through onshore infrastructure projects; associated planning and administrative costs; coastal protection; and, mitigation of damage to animals or natural resources. There you have it. No budget windfall. Fact is — oil money won’t build schools, or roads or pay teachers. It’ll just 'mitigate' — slow down — the oil industry’s ruination of the fourth largest state’s economy and environment." Some background: In the Gulf of Mexico, which is the focus of the debate over more oil production, offshore drilling is banned within 230 miles of Tampa Bay and 100 miles of the Florida Panhandle through 2022. But in early June, the U.S. Senate energy committee approved a measure to allow oil and gas drilling just 45 miles off Florida's west coast. Nelson strongly opposes drilling off Florida's coast, and has threatened to filibuster if the amendment is attached to a broader energy bill. Nelson includes a key caveat in his warning about how Florida might be able to spend royalties from drilling. He notes that he's talking about federal leases. That's important because the federal government generally controls waters more than 10 miles offshore, while Florida and some other states control the waters inside 10 miles. So if Florida allowed drilling within those 10, it could use proceeds from oil leases however it sees fit, including for teacher salaries. (There's also a provision where the state could get some money for leases between 10 and 13 miles.) Currently, four states receive money from federal royalties — Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. Under federal law, that money can only be used for protecting and restoring the coast through projects such as conservation, coastal restoration, hurricane protection, and mitigation of damage to fish, wildlife, or natural resources. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 Nelson is generally correct about the requirements as they relate to those four states, said Eileen Angelico, a spokeswoman for the federal government's Gulf of Mexico Minerals Management Service. But you can't assume the same provisions will apply to Florida, she said. "There's no guarantee that if Florida is added that it'll have to go along with the same rules," she said. "(Congress) can write it however they want to." We think there's also a danger that people will misinterpret Nelson's comments, to assume that he means Florida schools could not profit from any offshore drilling. The fact is, Florida schools might benefit quite a bit if the state decided to allow drilling within 10 miles of its coast. States like Texas and Louisiana have reaped billions of dollars for their schools from offshore drilling leases. Texas, for example, has reaped more than $3.5 billion in revenues from offshore drilling. Most of that comes from drilling within 10 miles the coast. The money goes into an education investment fund. Every year, the state taps that fund for $800 million for public schools, said Jim Suydam, a spokesman for the Texas General Land Office. It translates to about $400 per student, and is sometimes referred to as the school's textbook fund. Texas also will get more than $35 million this year from the federal government for its share of royalties on drilling more than 10 miles offshore, he said. That money is limited to mitigation. So in fact, some gulf states have gotten quite a bit of money for their schools for allowing oil drilling off their coast. But that's mostly from drilling very close to the coast, within 10 miles. Nelson correctly specifies that the restrictions apply to federal leases. And the legislation being considered by the Senate is for drilling at least 45 miles off the western coast of Florida (in other words, entirely federal waters). We think many people might miss that distinction, however. Nelson's strongly worded statement will probably leave them with the impression that Florida couldn't get any education money from any drilling, when it could opt to do what Texas has done and use revenue from drilling within 10 miles for education. He also is extrapolating the rules from other states to apply to Florida when in fact Congress still must address how the state would be affected. And it's conceivable that Congress could change the rules for Florida or the other states, and allow that money to be spent for broader uses. So we subtract a few points and give Nelson a Mostly True

In Texas, "the No. 1 name for new male babies — many of whom will vote one day — is Jose. It's not unusual for a minority party to engage in soul-searching, finger-pointing and general agonizing over why it lost power. The Republican Party is in the midst of such a process right now. Mike Murphy, a GOP political strategist, has argued that the Republicans need to address why they lost so badly among two demographics: the young and Latinos. Obama crushed McCain among Hispanic voters by a 35-point margin, Murphy wrote in a column in Time magazine. "By 2030, the Latino share of the vote is likely to double," Murphy wrote. "In Texas, the crucial buckle for the GOP's Electoral College belt, the No. 1 name for new male babies — many of whom will vote one day — is Jose." Murphy added, "Latinos need to see a quick end to the Republican congressional jihad on immigration," Murphy concluded, adding that they should support immigration reform with a path to citizenship. "Republicans should differentiate themselves from the left by heating up the lukewarm American melting pot with a firm insistence on learning English and a rejection of the silly excesses of identity politics." Featured Fact-check Blake Masters stated on October 15, 2022 in a tweet Immigrants illegally in the country are treated “better than military veterans.” By Jon Greenberg • October 21, 2022 We were intrigued by his claim — which he repeated on Meet the Press on June 14 — that Jose was the No. 1 baby name for boys in Texas. We wondered if that could be proved with hard numbers or if it was mostly conjecture. It turns out that the Social Security Administration compiles baby names for infants born in the United States, based on applications for Social Security numbers. The administration includes a few caveats about the data — names are counted only when the year of birth, state, and gender are known, for example. But it's hard to think of a better source for name popularity. In 2008, the No. 1 name for a baby boy born in Texas was indeed Jose. (It's held the top spot since 1996.) Nationally, it was 41st. In Texas, Jose was followed by Jacob, Daniel, Christopher, Joshua, David, Angel, Ethan, Juan and Michael. In case you're wondering, that same year in Texas, the most popular name for a girl was Emily, followed by Isabella, Abigail, Emma, Madison, Sophia, Mia, Natalie, Ashley and Ava. We're not rating Murphy's political advice one way or the other. But the numbers confirm he had his facts right about Jose. We rate Murphy's statement Tru

"Obama has more czars than the Romanovs. How many czars does it take to run the federal government? More and more, it seems. In a Twitter message on May 30, 2009, Sen. John McCain took this poke at the Obama administration: "Obama has more czars than the Romanovs — who ruled Russia for 3 centuries. Romanovs 18, cyberczar makes 20." First of all, yes, John McCain — the guy criticized during the presidential campaign for being computer illiterate — is tweeting. But what about the czars? It sure seems like we keep reading about one czar after another being appointed to oversee the auto industry, the Great Lakes, and the closure of Gitmo, and we wondered: Just how many czars does the Obama administration actually have? First off, the Obama administration doesn't usually call any of these people czars. We only found two instances of President Barack Obama using the term, once in an April 15, 2009, interview with CNN En Espanol when he talked about the role of his "border czar," and once during the campaign when he promised to appoint an "autism czar" to coordinate a nationwide autism effort (he hasn't yet). And in announcing Obama's nomination of Gil Kerlikowske as director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Vice President Joe Biden referred to the position as "our nation's drug czar." We're sure there are more, but the point is that, by and large, you don't often hear the administration talking about its czars. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 In fact, the administration has at times gone to some lengths to avoid the moniker, as was the case in this somewhat humorous (in an inside-the-Beltway sorta way) exchange between a reporter and White House spokesman Robert Gibbs on June 10, 2009: Reporter: On Ken Feinberg, I think that he's maybe the 20th czar-type position you've named. Gibbs: No, I think the title is "special master." So who exactly qualifies as a czar? As best we can tell, it's whenever someone in the media says so. You can identify a guy as "Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology," but it's a lot easier on everyone to just say "Science Czar." And "Special Master" sounds like Richie Rich's best friend. So the title of czar is largely arbitrary media shorthand for "It's this person's job to make sure (blank) goes right." And we think everyone can agree that "Terrorism Czar" sounds way cooler than "Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security." Below, we have compiled a wildly unscientific list of Obama administration "czars." But we're not the first. Talking Points Memo has a slideshow of Obama's "czars." They count 23 . And ForeignPolicy.com came up with at least 18. We've got 28. Some of these "czars" are carryover positions from previous administrations. And "czars" go way back in presidential history. Roosevelt had a slew of so-called czars. But to the extent that Obama has created a number of new positions to oversee various issues and to cut through bureaucratic red tape, he seems to have a lot more czars than his predecessors. Or you could argue that the media has just seized on a new buzzword it likes. We're not going to wade into the debate about whether having more czars is a good idea, but Fox ran a story about concerns some lawmakers have with it. We're just fact-checking McCain's claim that Obama has more czars than the Romanovs. According to the World Book Encyclopedia , there were, as McCain said, 18 Romanov czars, starting with Michael Romanov in 1613 and ending with Nicholas II, who was killed by the Bolsheviks in 1918. As for Obama's czars, we've got 28 who have been referred to as a czar ... somewhere. Undoubtedly some will take issue with some of the "czars" on our list, but we think McCain is on solid ground. He earns a True. Name Czar Title Actual (boring) Title Herb Allison TARP Czar Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability Alan Bersin Border Czar Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and Special Representative for Border Affairs Dennis Blair Intelligence Czar Director of National Intelligence John Brennan Terrorism Czar Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security Carol Browner Energy Czar Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change Adolfo Carrion, Jr Urban Affairs Czar Director of the White House Office of Urban Affairs Ashton Carter Weapons Czar Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Aneesh Chopra Technology Czar Chief Technology Officer Jeffrey Crowley AIDS Czar Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy Cameron Davis Great Lakes Czar Special advisor to the U.S. EPA overseeing its Great Lakes restoration plan Nancy-Ann DeParle Health Czar Director of the White House Office of Health Reform Earl Devaney Stimulus Accountability Czar Chair of the Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board Joshua DuBois Faith-based Czar Director of the Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships Kenneth Feinberg Pay Czar Special Master on executive pay Danny Fried Guantanamo Closure Czar Special envoy to oversee the closure of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay J. Scott Gration Sudan Czar Special Envoy to Sudan Richard Holbrooke Afghanistan Czar Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan John Holdren Science Czar Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology Van Jones Green Jobs Czar Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality Gil Kerlikowske Drug Czar Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy Vivek Kundra Information Czar Federal Chief Information Officer George Mitchell Mideast Peace Czar Special Envoy to the Middle East Ed Montgomery Car Czar Director of Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers Dennis Ross Mideast Policy Czar Special Adviser for the Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia Gary Samore WMD Czar Coordinator for the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism Todd Stern Climate Czar Special Envoy for Climate Change Cass Sunstein Regulatory Czar Director of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Paul Volcker Economic Czar Chairman of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board

Under a public health care option, 120 million Americans will "lose what they now get from private companies and be forced onto the government-run rolls as businesses decide it is more cost-effective for them to drop coverage. Republican strategist Karl Rove argued against the Democrats' blueprint for health care, citing a Lewin Group study about what might happen under a public option for health care. The public option has become shorthand for the government offering an insurance plan to compete with private insurers. Advocates for the public option said it would be an insurer of last resort, such as for people who lose their health insurance when they lose their job. In a column in the Wall Street Journal, Rove said the public option would lead to America "becoming a European-style welfare state." "The Lewin Group estimates 70 percent of people with private insurance — 120 million Americans — will quickly lose what they now get from private companies and be forced onto the government-run rolls as businesses decide it is more cost-effective for them to drop coverage," Rove wrote. "They'd be happy to shift some of the expense — and all of the administration headaches — to Washington. And once the private insurance market has been dismantled it will be gone." The public option "is just phony," Rove wrote. "It's a bait-and-switch tactic meant to reassure people that the president's goals are less radical than they are. Mr. Obama's real aim, as some candid Democrats admit, is a single-payer, government-run health-care system." We'll note that President Barack Obama has said that is not his aim. But we were more interested in Rove's description of the study. The Lewin Group report, which we've looked at before, ran a number of different scenarios on what would happen if the government offered a public option. One scenario was a Medicare-style plan that was open to everyone. Under that type of public option, the government would pay health providers much less than private insurers and offer lower premiums to the public. The study model found that 118 million people would choose to drop their private coverage in favor of cheaper public coverage. (We'll note here that the Lewin Group is respected by many health care analysts and operates with editorial independence, but it is a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, which also offers private health insurance.) Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 But Rove misrepresents the report in a couple of significant ways. First, he neglects to mention that the 120 million number is only for the public option that is most like Medicare, and if everyone were allowed to enroll. That is the most extreme option that could drive the most people from private insurers. But there are other ways to set up a public option health care plan. Under the Lewin Group's estimates, if you restrict a Medicare-style public option only to individuals and small businesses, only 32 million would leave private coverage. And if the public option is less like Medicare and competes more like a private insurer, the number drops further. What a public option might actually look like is one of the biggest questions Congress is grappling with right now. A group of fiscally conservative Democrats known as the Blue Dogs have said they do not support a Medicare-style public option, and have laid out specifics for the kind of public option they would support. They envision a public option that operates more like a private insurer and would only be available as a last resort. Under that type of scenario, the study says the number of people who would switch from private to public insurance could be as low as 21.5 million or 10.4 million. Which brings us to another problem: Rove says people would "be forced" to switch, but the report is modeled on the idea that consumers choose health plans based on price and would opt for a public plan — not be forced into one. Rove's comments give the impression that 120 million people would be booted out of their private insurance and forced to turn to the government. That's not the scenario the report describes. When we've covered this issue before, some of our readers have argued that we're missing the point. If millions of people choose to leave private insurance, the readers say, that would injure the private system to the point that government would have to step in — Rove's "bait and switch" argument. After people leave their private insurance for the public option, it would become too expensive for employers to continue to offer coverage to smaller pools of employees. But that's not how Rove described the report. He said, "The Lewin Group estimates 70 percent of people with private insurance — 120 million Americans — will quickly lose what they now get from private companies and be forced onto the government-run rolls as businesses decide it is more cost-effective for them to drop coverage." That's wrong. The report said that people would choose to leave private insurance if given a cheaper option, but the report provided smaller numbers for other options. The debate in Congress over what a public option will look like is fierce and ongoing. So Rove is picking the worst-case scenario and then distorting the cause and effects. We rate Rove's statement Fals

Palin said stimulus money for weatherization required "universal energy building codes for Alaska, kind of a one-size-fits-all building code that isn't going to work up there in Alaska. In a Fox News interview with Sean Hannity on June 8, 2009, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin criticized the stimulus package as a "dizzying debt that we're handing to our kids." She said, "I vetoed a bucket of the money, not a whole lot, we did accept education dollars and infrastructure dollars, but dollars that were tied to universal energy building codes for Alaska, kind of a one-size-fits-all building code that isn't going to work up there in Alaska and really prohibits opportunity to build and to develop, and just wasn't going to work up there in Alaska, so I vetoed a bucket of that money. "...I don't think that it would be a healthy thing for our state to adopt because it would be a federal mandate, fixed, centralized government, telling Alaskan communities that have opted out of building codes for the most part. "Them telling us what's best for our businesses and residences, how to build them, and we're all for energy conservation. We have hundreds of millions of dollars, in fact, budgeted for programs there but we don't want those fat strings attached where centralized, big government is going to tell us what is best." We wondered if the building codes were as strict as Palin claimed. She did, in fact, veto $28.6 million in federal stimulus money for weatherization and other projects to make new and existing homes and buildings more energy efficient. But many state legislators in Alaska, including some of her fellow Republicans, say Palin has overstated the strings attached to the federal money. She initially promised to take a pass on as much as a third of the stimulus money. She later agreed to take all but 3 percent — the $28.6 million she vetoed. Palin was specifically concerned with a provision in the stimulus (it is Section 410, as she will refer it later) that ties the energy efficiency money to assurances that the state or local governments "will implement" a "building energy code for residential buildings that meets or exceeds the most recently published International Energy Conservation Code, or achieves equivalent or greater energy savings" as well as "a building energy code (or codes) for commercial buildings throughout the State that meets or exceeds the ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–2007, or achieves equivalent or greater energy savings." The provision also states that recipients of the federal money must implement a plan to achieve compliance with the building codes within eight years in at least 90 percent of new and renovated residential and commercial building space. That language seems pretty rigid, but then along came Missouri, which applied for the money, but instead of agreeing to the specifics of the building code, committed merely to "working with communities to create model energy efficiency standards that, if local units of government choose to implement (our emphasis), should reduce energy costs for Missourians." The Department of Energy approved the application. So Palin's chief of staff wrote to the Department of Energy to get some clarification about what exactly Alaska would be committing itself to if it accepted the money. In response, Steven G. Chalk of the DOE said the stimulus provision recognizes that not every state has statewide building codes, and that the governor does not have the authority to force local governments to implement building codes. In those cases, Chalk wrote, it's sufficient for the governor to simply "promote" the codes. It is enough, he wrote, for the state to work with local governments to create model energy efficiency standards, but no municipality would be forced to adopt any new codes. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 As for Palin's claims of "one-size-fits-all" building codes, Chalk wrote that the provision "provides flexibility with regard to building codes" and "expressly includes standards other than those cited so long as the standards achieve equivalent energy savings." So Palin is wrong. The municipalities are not forced to accept the specific standards and, given that local governments set their own codes, the feds would be satisfied if Alaska merely promoted such building codes. Despite these assurances from the Department of Energy, Palin vetoed the money and insisted the provision amounted to "big brother" government involvement. The state legislature is now threatening to pursue a very rare veto override. In a May 29, 2009, letter published in the Anchorage Daily News , Palin said, "Alaskans have a strong history of independence and opposition to Washington, D.C., meddling in local issues. Our constitution ensures 'maximum local self-government.' Our communities have had the option to adopt building codes for decades. Most have not done so. "Alaska communities have the right to determine for themselves whether to adopt building codes," she wrote. "I asked the feds to clarify their position. The Department of Energy finally admitted section 410 and their previous statements were 'inappropriate' for some states but still wanted an agreement to push model codes on all Alaskan communities. I said no. "Beware of Washington, D.C., trying to cajole local community leaders to eliminate the choices Alaskans have when building or renovating homes and businesses. These new codes are so detailed they would dictate the kinds of lights that can be installed in a home in Akutan, and how thick window panes must be in Chignik." But that's not what the DOE letter said. While it did say the governor should "promote" more energy-efficient building codes, local municipalities were under no obligation to implement new codes. And the letter was also very clear that it was not mandating a "one-size-fits-all" code, that local governments could tailor their own unique codes to meet their needs so long as the standards achieved similar energy savings. In other words, accepting the money would not have dictated "the kinds of lights that can be installed in a home in Akutan, and how thick window panes must be in Chignik." A strict reading of the requirements for the energy-efficiency money might give credence to Palin's concerns. But the experience of Missouri and the explicit letter from the Department of Energy to Palin's office made clear the feds are not imposing a "one-size-fits-all" building code. Palin sounds like someone looking for a fight when there isn't one. We find her statement to be Fals

Contends that President Obama "literally said (if) his cap-and-trade proposals were to pass, that utility rates, his words now, would, 'necessarily skyrocket.' With Congress debating a cap-and-trade plan to reduce global warming, House Republicans are touting an alternative that they say will be less expensive. Instead of regulating carbon dioxide by forcing power companies to buy and trade polluting credits, why not subsidize renewable fuel production and build new nuclear reactors, posited GOP Congressman Mike Pence on MSNBC's Morning Joe on June 10, 2009. Otherwise, he said, power companies will pass the cost of buying those credits on to the consumer, driving up the price of energy. Pence wanted to make clear that he was not taking credit for that economic prediction. "I don't think you need to look any further than the president himself ... who literally said [if] his cap-and-trade proposals were to pass, that utility rates, his words now, would, 'necessarily skyrocket,'" said Pence. He added that Democrat "John Dingle of Michigan and the Commerce Committee said people don't realize this is a tax, and a 'great big one.'" It didn't take us long to find Barack Obama's original quote, which came from a videotaped interview he did with the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board very early in the presidential campaign, January 2008. "Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket," Obama told the Chronicle . "Coal-powered plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers." While Obama was talking specifically about cap-and-trade, he was also making a larger point that the biggest challenge will be making sure voters understand why such a plan is necessary. "The problem is can you get the American people to say this is really important," Obama said. So, Pence is right. Obama did say that cap-and-trade would be costly to power plants and to consumers. What's fuzzy, however, is how costly. PolitiFact has already looked into the issue and found that estimates vary. Republicans say each household will pay $3,100 a year, a figure they came up with based upon a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study that predicted a cap-and-trade proposal would generate $366 billion annually. On March 24, 2009, we gave the claim a Pants on Fire ruling because the GOP's calculation was badly flawed and because the GOP used the figure even though the author of the MIT study had told them it was wrong. And in an April 1 letter to House Republicans, authors of the MIT study said that the report was being misinterpreted; by their count, estimates hover closer to $340 per family. Congress has its own estimate: A 15 percent cut in carbon emissions would cost the average household about $1,600, according to a March 12, 2009, Congressional Budget Office testimony. It is worth noting that the climate debate has changed substantially since Obama sat down with the Chronicle nearly a year and a half ago. Legislators have opted to give 85 percent of the polluting permits away for free instead of putting them up for sale, as Obama pledged to do on the campaign trail. In theory, this approach should reduce costs to consumers. Furthermore, revenue from auctioned permits will help consumers pay for increased energy prices, according to Obama's first budget. Despite those potential cost cuts, there's still little disagreement that consumers will pay for cap-and-trade, whether it's $3,100 a year or $340. Because that hasn't changed since Obama first said that utility rates would "necessarily skyrocket," and because Pence got Obama's words just right, we give Pence a True. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/6ffafdf4-5637-4e52-8ff3-7d5f0ecab7

"In the first round of repayments"  from financial institutions that received TARP money, "the government has actually turned a profit. Admit it: When the federal government decided last fall to spend hundreds of billions to stabilize banks through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, you thought the money was as good as gone. Not so, President Barack Obama said at the White House on June 9, 2009. "Several financial institutions are set to pay back $68 billion to taxpayers," he said. "And while we know that we will not escape the worst financial crisis in decades without some losses to taxpayers, it's worth noting that in the first round of repayments from these companies the government has actually turned a profit." A quick summary of how we got to this point: As part of the TARP, the government invested about $200 billion in 600 banks across the country, essentially buying up preferred stock. A lot of banks now want out. The government money came with strings, including restrictions on executive compensation. Plus, there was a stigma attached to participating in the government program. On June 9, the Treasury Department announced that 10 of the largest financial institutions that participated in the Capital Purchase Program (through TARP) have been approved to repay $68 billion. Yes, they had to be approved to repay the money. The companies had to prove they no longer needed the money, because the government doesn't want them begging for more down the road. To date, those 10 companies have paid dividends on their preferred stock to the Treasury totaling about $1.8 billion, the Treasury announced. Overall, dividend payments from all of the 600 bank participants has come to about $4.5 billion so far. That's commensurate with the 5 percent (annualized) dividend return that was part of the terms of the program. Now, the government borrowed the money it invested in the banks, and so dividends from the preferred stock are offset by interest the government has had to pay on its loans. But that interest rate has been lower than the 5 percent dividend rate. So when the companies repay the loans, it will result in some profit to the government, banking analysts told us. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 There's another potential profit center. As part of the deal with banks, the federal government received warrants to buy stock at a future date (with the hope that as the economy improved and bank stock value rose, the government could share in the bounty). According to the Treasury announcement on June 9, firms that repay their preferred stock have the right to repurchase those warrants at fair market value. Experts believe that could fetch the government several billion dollars. That's in addition to the dividends. David John, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said that while it's accurate to say the government is turning a profit on these specific transactions, it was so costly to create the TARP that "you can't say the overall program is a moneymaker." And, John said, the 10 financial institutions that will be repaying the Treasury are among the strongest. It remains to be seen how the others will fare, he said. "It's way too soon to judge the entire program," John said. "I'd be surprised if it ends up anything better than break-even." Still, the public too often tagged TARP as a bailout, said John Hall, a spokesman for the American Bankers Association. "It's as if people thought money was handed out to banks," Hall said. "It wasn't. And it drove us nuts. The government has turned a profit. It made money plus some." Bank analyst Bert Ely said while the government may end up losing money on investments in some financial firms, it's likely the entirety of the bank portion of the TARP will ultimately turn a profit. The 5 percent paid in dividends on preferred stock purchased by the Treasury will certainly outpace the interest rate on money borrowed to finance the program, he said. And the warrants could also prove profitable. "People think the government gave banks money," Ely said. "They made investments in banks." As for Obama's claim, he is careful to note that the overall program could still cost taxpayers money, but he is correct to say the government turned a profit on the first round of repayments. We rate his statement True

Says Vice President Joe Biden "admits that the American people are being scammed" with the economic stimulus package The White House has been trumpeting the success of its economic stimulus package. President Barack Obama claimed that in its first 100 days, the plan "saved or created" 150,000 jobs (which we rated Barely True ). On June 8, 2009, Obama promised that number would quadruple by the fall. Republicans are skeptical, however, saying the package hasn't delivered as many jobs as Obama claims. In response to Obama's latest promise, House Republican Minority Leader John Boehner offered this sharp criticism, calling the stimulus a "bloated government spending scheme" that hasn't helped the economy: "Democrats said [the stimulus] would immediately create jobs, yet nearly four months later unemployment has continued to climb and none of their rosy predictions have come true," he said in a statement. "Our plan to let the American people keep more of what they earn would have created twice the jobs at half the cost of the Democrats’ bloated government spending scheme. But instead of shifting course, Democrats are doubling down on their plan to spend taxpayer dollars as fast as possible, even as their own vice president admits that the American people are being scammed." We wondered if Boehner was right that Vice President Joe Biden had been so blunt in describing the legislative centerpiece of the Obama-Biden administration. Biden held a roundtable with business leaders on June 2 and discussed the stimulus plan and the administration's efforts to spend the money quickly but still avoid waste and fraud. An Associated Press account of that meeting said, "With so much money at stake, Biden said some waste was inevitable and that a team of federal auditors had already uncovered problematic projects. 'People are being scammed already,' Biden said, promising to expose abuses whenever they were detected." Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 Biden was referring to the fact that some people have been lured by con artists who promise big stimulus bucks in return for personal information or a fee. Take Kristann Hartley, an Ohio woman featured in a National Public Radio report from March 9, 2009. Hartley applied for a stimulus grant to weatherize her home only to find out that the Web site offering the money was a scam. But Boehner's statement suggests Biden had a whole other meaning when he talked about 'people being scammed.' In reading the full text of Boehner's statement it's clear that Boehner was suggesting the stimulus spending plan itself is a mistake and that White House claims of positive economic effects are misleading. Using Biden's "scammed" remark in that context makes it sound like Biden was saying the same thing, acknowledging that the White House "scamming" the public by pretending the stimulus spending has been working. That's not what Biden meant at all. In fact, news coverage indicates the scammers Biden was talking about are garden-variety con artists merely using the stimulus as a cover, and that the programs they seek to exploit are just a minuscule portion of the $787 billion package. The Obama administration has emphasized many other anecdotes and news stories that show the stimulus working the way it is supposed to in helping local government avoid layoffs and helping states balance their budgets. Boehner may be technically correct that Biden mentioned people being scammed in the roundtable meeting. But Boehner incorrectly suggests the vice president called the stimulus a scam and he fails to note that Biden promised "to expose abuses whenever they were detected," as the AP reported. We find Boehner's claim to be Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly Fals

Says he didn't call Dr. George Tiller a baby killer, as liberal groups charge, but was merely reporting what "some prolifers branded him. Liberals are criticizing conservative talk show host Bill O'Reilly for his harsh comments about Dr. George Tiller, who was shot to death while attending church on May 31, 2009, in Wichita, Kan. Their argument is that O'Reilly repeatedly named Tiller as a late-term abortion provider and called him a "baby killer." That publicity contributed to Tiller's death, they say. Antiabortion activist Scott Roeder, 51, has been charged with Tiller's murder. To be clear, we haven't found anyone saying that Roeder watched O'Reilly's show or was influenced by him directly. And we aren't attempting to check any claims or suggestions that O'Reilly's words incited violence. O'Reilly responded to his critics in an opinion article posted on BillOReilly.com and in the conservative journal Human Events . He began by saying that Tiller "did not deserve his fate" and was "an American citizen entitled to protection." "No matter what you think about abortion, it is a sad day for the country when vigilantism takes a life," O'Reilly wrote. O'Reilly said that liberal groups were targeting him unfairly. "Even though I reported on the doctor honestly, the loons asserted that my analysis of him was 'hateful,'" O'Reilly wrote. "Chief of among the complaints was the doctor's nickname, 'Tiller the baby killer.' Some prolifers branded him with that, and I reported it. So did hundreds of other news sources." O'Reilly went on to criticize media outlets for glorifying Tiller in order to silence those who oppose abortion, especially late-term abortion. We wanted to see what O'Reilly had said about Tiller, to see if O'Reilly was indeed being criticized for his reporting on other groups' characterization of Tiller as he said. We searched transcripts of The O'Reilly Factor , his show that appears on the Fox News Channel. We found at least 42 instances of O'Reilly mentioning Tiller by name, going back to 2005. In 24 instances, we found that O'Reilly referred to Tiller specifically as a "baby killer." Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 Most of the time, O'Reilly would simply refer to the Tiller as "Tiller the baby killer" or as "Dr. George Tiller, known as Tiller the baby killer" without attributing it to anyone. We found four times when O'Reilly said that "some" called him Tiller the baby killer. We did not find any instance where O'Reilly named an individual or a particular antiabortion group that referred to Tiller that way. Here is how O'Reilly has discussed Tiller in 2009, prior to Tiller's death: • May 15: O'Reilly discussed President Barack Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame University, saying he was troubled that a Catholic school would allow Obama to speak. "Barack Obama throughout his political career has enabled abortion. There's no doubt that he has. All right? He has recently appointed Gov. (Kathleen) Sebelius to (Secretary of) Health and Human Services. Gov. Sebelius is the most proabortion governor in the United States. Based upon Dr. Tiller, the baby killer in her state and all of that, all right." • May 11: O'Reilly wondered whom Obama would nominate to the Supreme Court, saying that he thought Obama was "callous" when it came to abortion. "I mean, the guy puts Sebelius in as the health — you can't get a more fanatically — and that woman is proabortion," O'Reilly said. "She wants the babies done for. She supported Tiller the Baby Killer out there. So, enough with her." • April 27: O'Reilly discussed Sebelius' nomination as secretary of Health and Human Services. O'Reilly said that Sebelius "recently vetoed a bill that placed restrictions on late-term abortions in Kansas. The bill was introduced because of the notorious Tiller the Baby Killer case, where Dr. George Tiller destroys fetuses for just about any reason right up until the birth date for $5,000. There's no question Ms. Sebelius is one of the most proabortion politicians in America." • March 27: Tiller was charged with misdemeanor offenses for violating Kansas law on late-term abortions. Tiller was acquitted. O'Reilly said, "Now, we have bad news to report that Tiller the baby killer out in Kansas, acquitted. Acquitted today of murdering babies. I wasn't in the courtroom. I didn't sit on the jury. But this, there's got to be a special place in hell for this guy." • March 26: O'Reilly talked about the ongoing trial: "Another revolting situation is Dr. George Tiller in Kansas, known as Tiller the Baby Killer, who's on trial for killing babies who are about to be born, late-term abortions." O'Reilly also said, "If you want to kill a baby, you hire Tiller, you've got to pay him 5,000 up front, and he'll kill the baby. ... You should know, his best friend is the governor of Kansas, Sebelius. ... She has taken specific steps to carve out the law so that it will protect Tiller the baby killer." • March 17: Still on the Tiller trial, O'Reilly said, "You know this George Tiller, called Tiller the baby killer, is charged with 19 misdemeanors. And what this guy does, and we have proven it beyond a reasonable doubt, Kelly, is that he kills babies in late term. He aborts them in late term. They're no longer fetuses. They're viable babies. He aborts them for any and all reasons if you pay him $5,000." • March 2: O'Reilly said Sebelius took "campaign money from George Tiller, known as Tiller, the baby killer. He's currently charged with a variety of crimes centering on his abortion practice. He aborts babies at any time for just about any reason if you pay him $5,000." • Jan. 26: O'Reilly discussed an executive order Obama signed allowing federal money to go to international family planning groups that provide abortions. O'Reilly complained that Obama quietly signed the order rather than publicizing it. "I wanted George Tiller the baby killer going, 'Yeah, can I make more money killing babies now,'" O'Reilly said. That's just from 2009. There were many other examples in previous years. These instances and others we reviewed clearly show that O'Reilly was not reporting the views of others, but was expressing his own views on the doctor. O'Reilly said in his column that "Some prolifers branded" Tiller a baby killer, "and I reported it," as if he were reporting the views of others. But the transcripts show O'Reilly repeatedly referred to Tiller as a baby killer without attribution. So we find his statement that liberal groups are targeting him for his reporting of what others said to be Fals

There are billions of barrels of oil beneath our oceans and in Alaska, and there is ample oil shale in the Rocky Mountain West, but Democrats "say all this American energy is off limits. Oil exploration is the subject of a perennial debate in Washington. As gas prices rise during the hotter months, so does the passion to drill for oil in the United States. And once again, Senate Republicans are contending that Democrats oppose domestic drilling. "Even if we double our nation's wind and solar energy, and then double it again, it won't be enough to meet our energy needs," said U.S. Sen. John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican, in the GOP's weekly radio address on May 26. "There are billions of barrels of oil in the outer continental shelf and there's even more in Alaska. There's enough oil shale in the Rocky Mountain West alone to power America for the next 100 years. The Democrats say all this American energy is off limits." We've previously checked claims about the extent of drilling , so in this item we'll be examining whether it is correct to say that Democrats, generally speaking, are against oil drilling in the ocean, in Alaska and in the Western United States. Barrasso's words echo a partisan battle from last summer, when gas prices reached $4 a gallon. House Republicans staged a chamber floor sit-in as a way to pressure Democrats into a debate over offshore drilling, which has been off limits in certain parts of the country. Democrats softened their stance at the end of 2008, when they agreed to let the prohibition expire. It's not the first time Democrats have wavered on energy issues. Around the time that Democrats and Republicans were battling it out over drilling, then-Senator Barack Obama backtracked on his opposition to offshore drilling as well. "My attitude is that we can find some sort of compromise," Obama told the St. Petersburg Times . "If it is part of an overarching package then I am not going to be rigid in preventing an energy package that goes forward that is really thoughtful and is going to really solve the problem." Once in the White House, Obama put the brakes on some Bush-era oil drilling plans, including 77 oil and gas leases in Utah. But the Obama administration nevertheless maintains that drilling will be part of the president's larger plan to expand energy production. And contrary to Barrasso's claim, Democrats have voted to loosen the offshore drilling rules. For example, in 2008, 224 of the 231 House Democrats voted for a bill to fund the government until March 2009 that did not include the drilling moritorium, a ban that has been renewed in annual spending bills since 1982. Only one Senate Democrat, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, voted against the measure. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 In fact, some Democrats have been advocates for even more domestic drilling. A year ago, Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Kent Conrad — a Republican and a Democrat, respectively — created a bipartisan coalition to advance energy production in the United States. Included in that plan was language that would allow drilling off the Gulf of Mexico, as well as off the coasts of Virginia, North and South Carolina and Georgia so long as their state legislatures agreed. The group included Democrats Evan Bayh, Amy Klobuchar, Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor, Ben Nelson, Tom Carper and Ken Salazar. Also among supporters was Louisiana Democrat Mary Landrieu, a longtime supporter of the oil industry, who said she supported the plan because it would allow the country to "begin to drill for oil and gas on vast tracts of American land using American workers and producing American oil and gas." So, Barrasso is wrong to say that Democrats do not support offshore drilling. Plenty of them have in the past, and still do. In Alaska, the issue is the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, a tract of land that could produce upwards of 16 billion barrels oil, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. Environmentalists fought development in that area, saying oil production would ruin the pristine habitat. Obama has long said he is against drilling in ANWR, and that stance has not changed since he has been in the White House. Democratic lawmakers feel the same, as a 2008 Senate vote on a GOP proposal to open up the refuge to drilling illustrates: Every Democrat except Landrieu voted against the plan. On this point, Barrasso is not so far off. As for oil shale, Democrats have taken a wait-and-see approach. In a 2008 op-ed, then Sen. Ken Salazar summed up an opinion held by many of his fellow Democrats, saying that technology was not nearly advanced enough to exploit the oily rock that lies under Colorado, Utah and other Western states, but that the idea shouldn't be ruled out. "Let's put the horse back in front of the cart and all start pulling in the same direction," wrote Salazar, who is now Obama's Interior Department secretary. "A reckless approach that heightens the risk of an oil shale bust would only set us back." And remember those Bush-era oil shale leases we mentioned earlier? After Obama canceled the former administration's effort to sell off land for oil development, the Interior Department announced that it would issue a new round of leases after getting public comment on the issue. So to review our findings: On offshore drilling, Barrasso is incorrect. Plenty of Democrats have supported finding more oil in our oceans. When it comes to drilling in Alaska, Barrasso is on firmer ground, since it is opposed by all but Landrieu. But on the last point — that Democrats don't support oil shale production — Democrats are cautious but not fully against it. So, all in all, Democrats may not be chanting "drill, baby, drill," but they aren't ruling out the possibility either. Barrasso gets a Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly Fals

"The Department of Justice, under the Obama administration, disagrees with the decision" Judge Sotomayor made in the Ricci vs. DeStefano case Judge Sonia Sotomayor's ruling in a case involving a group of New Haven, Conn., firefighters continues to be the most talked about of the Supreme Court nominee's past cases. Sen. Mitch McConnell sought to make Sotomayor's opinion look out of the mainstream by telling CNN that the Obama administration's Justice Department had disagreed. We find the truth is not so simple. First, a quick explanation of the case: Ricci vs. DeStefano involves a group of mostly white firefighters who claimed reverse discrimination after the city threw out the results of promotional exams because white firefighters fared significantly better than black firefighters. If accepted, the test would have resulted in no black firefighters being eligible for promotion. The New Haven Civil Service Board said it was concerned the test may have violated "anti-disparate-impact requirements" of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and that the city would face an employment discrimination lawsuit from nonwhite applicants who were not promoted. So the board decided not to certify the exam results, and no one was promoted. Eighteen firefighters — 17 whites and one Hispanic — filed a lawsuit against the city claiming the decision not to certify the exam results "amounted to intentional discrimination" against the white firefighters in favor of black firefighters due to their race and political support for the mayor, John DeStefano. A federal district court judge who heard the case ruled in favor of the city, saying the city had the right to throw out the exams. The firefighters appealed to the 2nd Circuit, the court on which Sotomayor sits, and Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel that upheld the district court decision. Now the case is being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court. On CNN's "State of the Union" program on May 31, 2009, McConnell, the Senate's Republican leader, was asked what troubled him most about the case. McConnell said he had not yet read the case but "the Department of Justice, under the Obama administration, disagrees with the decision" Judge Sotomayor made. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 We have previously dissected some of the legal issues of this case, so here we are examining whether the U.S. Justice Department disagreed with Sotomayor's decision. In February 2009, the U.S. Justice Department did, in fact, enter a "friend of the court" brief asking the Supreme Court to vacate the appeals court ruling and "remand" the case back to the district court for further consideration of some issues. But that doesn't mean they asked the Supreme Court to reverse the appeals court decision and rule in favor of the firefighters. In fact, the Justice Department brief backed up many of the arguments made by the district court judge that were later affirmed by Sotomayor's appeals court. In one of the central issues of the case, the Justice Department attorneys argued an employer does not violate discrimination laws "when it decides not to certify the results of a promotional test in order to comply with the statute’s disparate-impact prohibition." "Nor is declining to certify test results the equivalent of 'racial balancing' or imposing 'quotas,'" the brief stated. However, the Justice Department argued that the district and appeals court failed to "adequately consider" whether the city was hiding behind a civil rights argument, using it as a pretext for "intentional racial discrimination" against white employees. In oral arguments before the Supreme Court on April 22, 2009, Edwin S. Kneedler, deputy solicitor general for the Justice Department, said that, in particular, the district court ought to look further into whether the city's decision to throw out the test was motivated by such factors as wanting to promote minority role models. As for McConnell's statement that the Justice Department "disagrees" with Sotomayor's decision, we don't think that's accurate. The Justice Department largely supports the legal arguments that underpinned the district court position in favor of the city, and which were later incorporated by the appeals court. But ultimately, the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to send the case back to the lower court to reconsider some issues. And so we rule McConnell's statement Half True

"President Obama will now own 60 percent of GM, and his union buddies will own almost 20 percent. Shortly after General Motors filed for bankruptcy, a plan that will involve significant government ownership of the auto company, Republicans went into attack mode. The General Motors restructuring plan "is nothing more than another government grab of a private company and another handout to the union cronies who helped bankroll his presidential campaign," said Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele in a statement accompanying a newly minted ad. "President Obama will now own 60 percent of GM, and his union buddies will own almost 20 percent. And what do the taxpayers get? They’ll get stuck with up to a $50 billion tab for the taxpayer dollars Obama is using to pay for his takeover of GM." In its bankruptcy filing, the company said it has $172.81 billion in debt and $82.29 billion in assets — all that despite a $20 billion General Motors has already received from the government, money that was initially earmarked for buying bad mortgages from banks. Now, the company will adopt a restructuring plan that is "tailored to the realities of today's auto market," said Obama. It's "a plan that positions GM to move toward profitability, even if it takes longer than expected for our economy to fully recover; and it's a plan that builds on GM's recent progress in making better cars." So, there's no dispute that the government is invested in General Motors — it has already shelled out $20 billion in loans — but is Steele correct about the government's new financial ties to the ailing company? We assume that by referring to President Obama owning 60 percent of the automaker, Steele means that the government as a whole will own that stake under the restructuring plan. In fact, the White House was the first to state this fact, during a May 31 briefing with reporters. By the administration's own words, the RNC is correct on this point. Steele goes on to say that Obama's "union buddies will own almost 20 percent." To be exact, the United Auto Workers will get 17.5 percent of General Motor's common stock, plus cash to help pay for a $20 billion health care trust fund for retirees. Whether this is a boon to Obama's "union buddies," as Steele's statement says, is a matter of opinion. However, it's worth noting that the UAW endorsed Obama for president and spent more than $4 million to assist his candidacy, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. So Steele is right that the administration will have a 60 percent ownership in the new General Motors and that the union will have nearly 20 percent. Steele earns a True. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022

In the 100 days since its passage, the economic stimulus has "saved or created nearly 150,000 jobs. Now that it's been 100 days since the economic stimulus package was signed into law, President Barack Obama is praising the measure for its job-creating impact. "In these last few months, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has saved or created nearly 150,000 jobs — jobs building solar panels and wind turbines, making homes and buildings more energy efficient," Obama said during a visit to Las Vegas. "They're the jobs of teachers and police officers and nurses who have not been laid off as a consequence of this Recovery Act. They're the jobs fixing roads and bridges, jobs at start-ups and small businesses, and jobs that will put thousands of young Americans to work this summer." We were intrigued by that number of 150,000 jobs. Note the crucial point that it's jobs created or "saved." That means they're counting people who have avoided layoffs because of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. How do you count that? It's actually an estimate created by White House economists. Jared Bernstein, the chief economic adviser to Vice President Joe Biden, explained the number during a conference call with reporters on May 27, 2009. "The 150,000 is a number that is derived relative to what's called a baseline, that is, relative to the amount of jobs we think we would be losing were the act not in place," Bernstein said. His argument is that even though the number of unemployed is increasing across the United States, the numbers would be bigger without the stimulus package. If you compare where employment is relative to where it would have been, "that gap between those two, that's the 150,000 thus far," Bernstein said. "We're looking at saving or creating another 600,000 over the next hundred days." A reporter asked Bernstein where the administration thought the baseline would be in 100 days. But Bernstein said he couldn't project out that far. We've long been skeptical when public officials throw out big numbers without explaining that they're talking about estimates. We're particularly wary of baselines, as we were for a previous ruling on Obama's claim about deficit reduction , because they can be unrealistic and exaggerate the impact of a policy. In the case of the stimulus, we're talking about the most significant economic downturn since the Great Depression and an unprecedented amount of government spending in an effort to get the economy going again. Certainly, the stimulus is creating some jobs. Anecdotal evidence from around the country, compiled by the Obama administration to promote its efforts, makes that case by showing that public employees in some cities and states have avoided layoffs. But those are just anecdotes. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 So can there be 150,000 in the first 100 days? "It's certainly plausible given the consensus of most economists believe will be the result of the stimulus over the next few years," said James Horney, director of federal fiscal policy for the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. He pointed to testimony from Douglas Elmendorf, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan arm of Congress. Elmendorf said the recovery act should boost employment between 900,000 and 2.3 million by the end of the 2009. "So 150,000 seems clearly within reason," Horney said. But a policy expert from a right-leaning think tank told us that Obama's number is ridiculous. "They're just making up numbers and trying them out," said J.D Foster, senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation who studies fiscal policy. "In a period when the economy is bleeding 2 million jobs, to suggest that you can identify 150,000 jobs that you've saved or created is pure fantasy." The economy has indeed lost 1.9 million jobs in February, March, and April, according to preliminary data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The May numbers will be announced June 5, 2009. We also talked with an economist at Moody's Economy.com, a business-oriented research group. Gus Faucher, the site's director of macroeconomics, said the stimulus has improved people's confidence about the economy, but he said it's not yet possible to put a firm number on jobs created. The data just isn't there yet, he said, and the Labor Department will continue to adjust its unemployment data over the course of many months. "The answer is, it's too soon to tell," he said. "We may not have an answer in months or even years in terms of an exact number." Indeed, 100 days is a relatively small window to measure a package that will roll out over several years. It's important to note that the government itself has issued confusing data about what has been spent and not. On May 21, for example, the Recovery.gov Web site corrected a report that said that it had paid out $8.9 billion in unemployment money, when that was actually still money sitting in the bank waiting to be tapped. The recovery act has many reporting requirements, and states and localities are required to report on job creation. But much of that data is still coming in. (For even more details on how job data will be reported, check out this ProPublica story, Is the Stimulus Stimulating Jobs? We May Never Know for Sure .) We find that the stimulus is a complicated, ongoing effort and data collection is just getting started. The Obama administration does not provide a solid accounting for either the jobs "created" or "saved." Yes, there is anecdotal evidence that jobs are being saved, such as the 25 police recruits in Columbus, Ohio, in an example cited by Obama. But the 150,000 figure sounds specific and verifiable when actually it's the administration's best guess for a relatively small snapshot in time. Because it's not much better than a guess presented as a fact, we rate his statement Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly Fals

Sotomayor "ruled against the white firefighter — Ricci and other white firefighters — just on the basis that she thought women and minorities should be given a preference because of their skin color and because of the history of discrimination in the past. The law was totally disregarded. While many Republican leaders have been publicly cautious with their opinions about President Barack Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh has been crystal clear about his opposition. "Do I want her to fail to get on the court? Yes," Limbaugh said on his show on May 26, 2009. "She'd be a disaster on the court." In making his case, Limbaugh cited a Sotomayor ruling that has drawn scrutiny from critics this week. "She ruled against the white firefighter — Ricci and other white firefighters — just on the basis that she thought women and minorities should be given a preference because of their skin color and because of the history of discrimination in the past," Limbaugh said. "The law was totally disregarded." Limbaugh is referring to Ricci vs. DeStefano , a case involving firefighters in New Haven, Conn. A group of mostly white firefighters claimed reverse discrimination after the city threw out the results of promotional exams because white firefighters fared significantly better than black firefighters. Here's what happened. In late 2003, 118 New Haven firefighters took written and oral exams for promotion to the ranks of captain and lieutenant. Among the 41 who took the captain exam (eight of them black), no blacks and at most two Hispanics would have been eligible for promotion to captain. And of the 77 who took the lieutenant exam (19 of them black, 15 Hispanic), the results indicated that no blacks or Hispanics would be promoted to the rank of lieutenant. The New Haven Civil Service Board worried the test may have violated "anti-disparate-impact requirements" of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and that the city would face an employment discrimination lawsuit from nonwhite applicants who were not promoted. So the board decided not to certify the exam results, and no one was promoted. The white firefighters, naturally, were ticked off. One of them, John Ricci, is dyslexic, and studied hard to score highly on one of the exams, only to have it invalidated. Eighteen firefighters, 17 whites and one Hispanic, filed a lawsuit against the city claiming the decision not to certify the exam results "amounted to intentional discrimination" against the white firefighters in favor of black firefighters due to their race and political support for the mayor, John DeStefano. The federal district court judge who heard the case ruled in favor of the city. The firefighters appealed to the 2nd Circuit, the court on which Sotomayor sits. A three-judge panel that included Sotomayor upheld the district court ruling with a one paragraph explanation: "We affirm, substantially for the reasons stated in the thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion of the court below. In this case, the Civil Service Board found itself in the unfortunate position of having no good alternatives. We are not unsympathetic to the plaintiffs' expression of frustration. Mr. Ricci, for example, who is dyslexic, made intensive efforts that appear to have resulted in his scoring highly on one of the exams, only to have it invalidated. But it simply does not follow that he has a viable Title VII claim. To the contrary, because the Board, in refusing to validate the exams, was simply trying to fulfill its obligations under Title VII when confronted with test results that had a disproportionate racial impact, its actions were protected." The brevity of that response, and its lack of analysis, rankled one dissenting appeals court judge, Jose Cabranes. "The opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case, and a casual reader of the opinion could be excused for wondering whether a learning disability played at least as much a role in this case as the alleged racial discrimination," Cabranes wrote. "This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal." Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 Subsequently, the Supreme Court decided to take up the case, and heard arguments in April. But back to Limbaugh's claim. That Sotomayor ruled against "white firefighter Ricci and other white firefighters" is undisputed. But this is a very complex legal case and Limbaugh misleads when he boils down the ruling by Sotomayor (and two other appeals court judges), saying it was made "just on the basis that she thought women and minorities should be given a preference because of their skin color and because of the history of discrimination in the past. The law was totally disregarded." The ruling by the three-judge panel makes no mention of giving preferential treatment to women or minorities, as Limbaugh suggested. Rather, it upholds a district court decision that the city had the right to throw out a test it felt led to racially disparate results. The first sentence of the panel's statement is also significant. The judges begin by saying they agree with the district court ruling "substantially for the reasons stated in the thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion of the (district court)." In other words, without laying out all those opinions, they were essentially incorporating what the district court said. So we took a look at the opinions delivered by District Judge Janet Arterton on Sept. 28, 2006. The first thing we note is that the opinion cites numerous other cases to back up various points. That alone weakens Limbaugh's claim that "the law was totally disregarded." Moreover, Judge Arterton lays out very specific legal reasons for her decision. "Nothing in the record in this case suggests that the City defendants or CSB (Civil Service Board) acted 'because of' discriminatory animus toward plaintiffs or other non-minority applicants for promotion," Arterton wrote. "Rather, they acted based on the following concerns: that the test had a statistically adverse impact on African-American and Hispanic examinees; that promoting off of this list would undermine their goal of diversity in the Fire Department and would fail to develop managerial role models for aspiring firefighters; that it would subject the City to public criticism; and that it would likely subject the City to Title VII lawsuits from minority applicants that, for political reasons, the City did not want to defend." The judge cites several cases which, she wrote, "clearly establish" that a public employer faced with the threat of a lawsuit over a test with racially disparate results does not violate civil rights laws by taking "neutral, albeit race-conscious, actions to avoid such liability." The judge argued the white firefighters could not claim to have been discriminated against because "here, all applicants took the same test, and the result was the same for all because the test results were discarded and nobody was promoted." In siding with the city, the judge wrote that the city's "motivation to avoid making promotions based on a test with a racially disparate impact, even in a political context, does not, as a matter of law, constitute discriminatory intent, and therefore such evidence is insufficient for plaintiffs to prevail on their Title VII claim." We cite some of this not just to make your head hurt, or to make the case that the ruling was correct — that will ultimately be up to the Supreme Court — but to show the complicated legal issues involved, as well as the fact that the district court did, in fact, make reasoned legal arguments and cited numerous legal cases to underpin its decision. In other words, you may not agree with the conclusions, but it's wrong to suggest the judges "totally disregarded" the law. Nor did Sotomayor's panel or the district court ever suggest that the city ought to give preferential treatment to women and minorities. And so we rule Limbaugh's statement Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.

"Sotomayor has had her rulings thrown out by the court a troubling four times. Shortly after President Barack Obama announced Sonia Sotomayor as his pick for the Supreme Court, conservatives pulled this bit out of their arsenal: Sotomayor is not up to the job because some of her cases have been thrown out by the Supreme Court. Wendy E. Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network was one of the first to knock Sotomayor's record, saying that she "has an extremely high rate of her decisions being reversed, indicating that she is far more of a liberal activist than even the current liberal activist Supreme Court." Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America echoed that talking point, saying that Sotomayor's "high reversal rate alone should be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record." Then there was this from the Libertarian National Committee: " Sotomayor has had her rulings thrown out by the court a troubling four times." We learned pretty quickly that the veracity of this statement depends on a few variables. Let's start by looking at Sotomayor's 11-year tenure on the 2 nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. We found that she has authored hundreds of officially published majority opinions — the White House puts the exact number at 380 — and of those, six have been heard by the Supreme Court. Three have been reversed: Riverkeeper Inc. vs. EPA ; Merrill Lynch vs. Dabit ; and Malesko vs. Correctional Services Corp . Among the other three cases: The Supreme Court affirmed her ruling in Empire Healthchoice Assurance Inc. vs. McVeigh . It affirmed her ruling but but unanimously rejected her reasoning in Knight vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue . The sixth case, Ricci vs. DeStefano , is still pending. So her record so far at the appellate level is three reversals, two upheld and one pending. There's also her time on the U.S. District Court between 1992 and 1998. One of her rulings, Tasini vs. New York Times, et al. , was reversed by the Supreme Court in 1997. That's how the Libertarian Party gets to its total of four reversed opinions. Keep in mind that other Supreme Court justices have seen their share of reversals. For the sake of comparison, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, like Sotomayor, wrote hundreds of majority opinions during his 16-year tenure on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. At least two of those were heard by the Supreme Court and both were reversed: Jo Anne B. Barnhart , Commissioner of Social Security, Petitioner vs. Pauline Thomas and Rompilla vs. Beard . We were also caught up by the word "troubling" in the Libertarian Party's statement, so we turned to Stephen Wermiel , a law professor at American University Washington College of Law, for some perspective. In fact, the Supreme Court increasingly has a reputation for reversing most of the approximately 80 cases it hears every term, Wermiel said. Indeed, according to data compiled by SCOTUSblog .com, the Supreme Court's reversal rate in 2008 was 85 percent, 61 percent in 2007, and 72 percent in 2006. Having a case reversed "is not a badge of shame, or a stigma of stupidity or inferiority," Wermiel said. "It's a sign that reasonable minds had a different approach to the issue." Tom Goldstein , a partner at law firm Akin Gump and author of SCOTUSblog .com, agreed. "In a career as long as [ Sotomayor's ], she's easily in the mainstream," compared to the reversal rate of other judges. "The numbers game is childish," said Michael Greve, a legal scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. "You are dealing with all of six cases. What of it?" The best way to evaluate Sotomayor — or anyone else nominated to the highest court — is to look at individual opinions, he added. So the Libertarian Party is correct that Sotomayor was reversed four times: three at the appellate level and one at the district court level. But this is out of hundreds of potential cases. Furthermore, the Libertarian Party's implication that four cases represents a high rate of reversal just doesn't hold up. Her record is not far off from another well-known justice, Samuel Alito , nor is it at all unusual for the Supreme Court to reverse most of the cases it hears every year, according to legal experts we spoke to. We rate their statement Half True. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022

Sotomayor thinks "that one’s sex, race and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench. If you've been following the story of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor via cable news, you've undoubtedly heard this sound bite from a 2001 Sotomayor speech: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." For many conservative detractors, the quote has formed the centerpiece of their opposition. In a released statement, Wendy E. Long, counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, a conservative nonprofit, said, "Judge Sotomayor is a liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important than the law as written. She thinks that judges should dictate policy, and that one’s sex, race and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench." Previously, we have looked at the issue of Sotomayor's statement about judges making policy . Here we look at the claim that Sotomayor thinks "that one’s sex, race and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench." A number of Republicans have expressed concern about the statement. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., said that due to Sotomayor's comments, the Senate will need to weigh "her ability to rule fairly without undue influence from her own personal race, gender or political preferences." On his blog, Newt Gingrich wrote this about Sotomayor's nomination: "Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman' Wouldn't they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old racism. A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw." Asked repeatedly about Sotomayor's comments during the daily White House press briefing on May 27, 2009, spokesman Robert Gibbs admonished reporters not to make a judgment on an 8-second sound clip from a 40-minute speech. Gibbs said he was confident that when people looked at the totality of Sotomayor's speech, and the context of the comment in question, they would "come to a reasonable conclusion on this." So we read the whole speech, titled "A Latina Judge's Voice," which was delivered by Sotomayor at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law in 2001, and was later published in the Spring 2002 issue of Berkeley La Raza Law Journal. The purpose of the speech, she said, was to "talk to you about my Latina identity, where it came from, and the influence I perceive it has on my presence on the bench." She described herself as "Newyorkrican," a born and bred New Yorker of Puerto Rican-born parents, and talked about her close affinity to the Puerto Rican culture as well as her love of America, and how being Latina helped to shape who she is. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 She then begins to discuss what it will mean to have more women and people of color on the bench. "While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge (Miriam) Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law," Sotomayor said. "Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. Whatever the reasons why we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning, are in many respects a small part of a larger practical question we as women and minority judges in society in general must address. I accept the thesis of a law school classmate, professor Steven Carter of Yale Law School, in his affirmative action book that in any group of human beings there is a diversity of opinion because there is both a diversity of experiences and of thought." "I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions," Sotomayor said. "The aspiration to impartiality is just that — it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others." Sotomayor spoke briefly about the contributions of women judges and attorneys in race and sex discrimination cases, while acknowledging that Supreme Courts made up completely of white men have made seminal decisions on those issues. It's in that context that Sotomayor made the statement heard round the world via YouTube. "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences ... our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. ... I am ... not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life. "Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown ." Sotomayor later concludes that "personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage. ... I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences, but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate." You can read the whole speech for yourself right here . Tom Goldstein, a partner at Washington law firm Akin Gump and the founder of ScotusBlog, a widely read blog on the Supreme Court, read the speech and concluded it amounted to little more than Sotomayor acknowledging that judges, like anyone, are products of where and how they grew up. "Having that context can be valuable for a judge," Goldstein said. "There are some cases, like cases of discrimination, where if you have been in someone's shoes, you can better understand it." By way of reminder, we are fact-checking the statement from the Judicial Confirmation Network that Sotomayor's statement shows that she thinks "that one’s sex, race and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench." We think the key words in that sentence are "ought to." To the contrary, Sotomayor says several times that she agrees judges should aspire to "transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices." However, she acknowledges that we are all informed by our experiences and that "personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see." And, she concludes, when it comes to things like race and sex discrimination, that kind of diversity of experience can be an asset. In context, it's clear that Sotomayor isn't suggesting the intellect of Latina women is superior to that of white men, only that a greater diversity of experience and thought would be a valuable addition to the court system. And so we rate the Judicial Confirmation Network's statement Half True

"Walking in the door (Sonia Sotomayor) would bring more experience on the bench, and more varied experience on the bench, than anyone currently serving on the United States Supreme Court had when they were appointed. President Barack Obama introduced his first nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court with much praise. "It's a measure of her qualities and her qualifications that Judge Sotomayor was nominated to the U.S. District Court by a Republican president, George H.W. Bush, and promoted to the Federal Court of Appeals by a Democrat, Bill Clinton," Obama said. "Walking in the door she would bring more experience on the bench, and more varied experience on the bench, than anyone currently serving on the United States Supreme Court had when they were appointed." Listening to that quote, you might think Sotomayor was way ahead of the other justices when they were nominated. But after our review of the current justices, we find that Sotomayor has roughly the same experience they had. Nevertheless, Obama's statement is technically accurate. Here's why: It appears Obama is only counting legal experience obtained on the federal district courts or courts of appeal. It may surprise you to know that a judge need not sit on the district court level before being named to the higher appellate court. Compared with the sitting Supreme Court justices, Sotomayor is the only one to have experience on both the district court level and the appellate level. Hence Obama's claim that she has "more varied" experience. But drill down into the numbers, and Sotomayor has more total federal court experience only by a single year, and two justices have more appellate experience than she does. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 Sotomayor served six years on the district court level and 11 years on the appellate level for a grand total of 17 years. Contrast this with Samuel Alito, who sat on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for 16 years, or Stephen Breyer, who sat on the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals for 14 years, with four of those as the chief judge. If you consider Sotomayor more experienced than these justices, it's only by a margin of a year or two. And constitutional lawyers (or the judges' moms) might argue that Alito and Breyer's additional appellate experience is more relevant than experience at the district court level. If we take a broader view of experience than only federal court service, Sotomayor is about the same as most of her would-be fellow justices. (We have compiled a detailed chart on the professional experience of Sotomayor and the Supreme Court justices and have included it at the end of this article.) This year, Sotomayor will have graduated from law school 30 years ago, with a full legal career under her belt. This is very close to the average number of years of experience we calculated for other justices at the time they were nominated. We calculated the average working experience of the current justices — omitting David Souter, whom Sotomayor may replace — and found that the average professional career prior to Supreme Court appointment was 28.7 years. By our count, four justices have slightly more years than Sotomayor in their legal careers: John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Chief Justice John Roberts and Alito. To be clear, people could argue a lot over what kind of legal experience is more relevant or important to serving on the Supreme Court. Our analysis is based on years of service, and doesn't reflect the quality of the work of any of the justices. Listening to what Obama said, though — "Walking in the door she would bring more experience on the bench, and more varied experience on the bench, than anyone currently serving on the United States Supreme Court had when they were appointed" — you might conclude that Sotomayor is more qualified than previous nominees to be a Supreme Court Justice. In fact, her legal career and years of experience are in line with the other justices. Obama's statement is technically accurate, but also implies she's more qualified. We don't find that to be the case. We rate Obama's statement Half True. Editor's note: For brevity, we've omitted some details of their experience, such as additional educational credentials or service on some boards and commissions. John Paul Stevens Took seat on court: Dec. 19, 1975, at age 55 Appellate court: 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 1970-1975 Private practice: partner, Rothschild, Stevens, Barry & Myers, 1952-1970; associate, Poppenhusen, Johnston, Thompson & Raymond, 1949-1952 Teaching: Lecturer, antitrust law, Northwestern University School of Law, 1953-54; University of Chicago Law School, 1955-58 Federal government experience: associate counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Study of Monopoly Power, 1951–1952; member of the Attorney General’s National Committee to Study Antitrust Law, 1953–1955 Other experience: U.S. Navy, 1942-1945; clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Wiley Rutledge, 1947 Degrees: AB from the University of Chicago, 1941; JD from Northwestern University School of Law. 1947 Total federal court experience: 5 years PolitiFact's estimate of relevant experience: 33 years Antonin Scalia Took seat on court: Sept. 26, 1986, at age 50 Appellate court: U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 1982-1986 Private practice: associate, Jones Day Cockley & Reavis, 1961-1967 Teaching: professor, University of Chicago Law School, 1977-1982; professor, University of Virginia Law School, 1967-1974 Federal government experience: general counsel, Office of Telecommunications Policy, 1971–1972; chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States from 1972–1974; assistant attorney general, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Justice Department, 1974-1977 Degrees: AB, Georgetown University, 1957; LLB, Harvard University, 1960 Total federal court experience: 4 years PolitiFact's estimate of relevant experience: 26 years Anthony Kennedy Took seat on court: Feb. 18, 1988 at age 51 Appellate court: 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 1975-1988 Private practice: attorney, 1961-1967; partner, Evans, Jackson & Kennedy, 1967-1975 Teaching: professor, McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific, 1965-1988 Other experience: California Army National Guard, 1961 Degrees: AB, Stanford, 1958; LLB, Harvard, 1961 Total federal court experience: 13 years PolitiFact's estimate of relevant experience: 27 years Clarence Thomas Took seat on court: Oct. 23, 1991 at age 43 Appellate court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, 1990-1991 Private practice: attorney with the Monsanto Company, 1977-1979 State government experience: assistant attorney general of Missouri, 1974-1977 Federal government experience: legislative assistant to U.S. Sen. John Danforth, 1979–1981; assistant secretary for civil rights, U.S. Department of Education, 1981-1982; chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1982–1990 Other experience: Degrees: AB, Holy Cross College, 1971; JD, Yale, 1974 Total federal court experience: 1 year PolitiFact's estimate of relevant experience: 17 years Ruth Bader Ginsburg Took seat on court: Aug. 10, 1993, at age 60 Appellate court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, 1980-1993 Teaching: various research and teaching positions at Columbia University School of Law, 1961-1963 and 1972-1980; professor, Rutgers University School of Law, 1963-1972 Other experience: law clerk for federal court judge, 1959-1961; general counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union, 1973-1980 Degrees: AB, Cornell University, 1954; LLB, Columbia Law School, 1959. Total federal court experience: 13 years PolitiFact's estimate of relevant experience: 34 years Stephen Breyer Took seat on court: Aug. 3, 1994, at age 55 Appellate court: 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 1980-1994 (chief judge, 1990-1994) Teaching: various positions, Harvard Law School, 1967-1994; Harvard University Kennedy School of Government, 1977–1980 Federal government experience: special assistant to assistant attorney general (antitrust), U.S. Justice Department, 1965-1967; assistant special prosecutor, Watergate Special Prosecution Force, 1973; special counsel, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, 1974-1975; chief counsel, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, 1979-1981 Other experience: law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, 1964 Degrees: AB, Stanford University, 1959; BA, Oxford University, 1961; LLB, Harvard University, 1964 Total federal court experience: 14 years PolitiFact's estimate of relevant experience: 30 years Samuel Alito Took seat on court: Jan. 31, 2006, at age 55 Appellate court: 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 1990-2006 Federal government experience: assistant U.S. attorney, District of New Jersey, 1977–1981; assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Justice Department, 1981–1985; deputy assistant attorney general, U.S. Justice Department, 1985–1987; U.S. attorney, District of New Jersey, 1987–1990 Other experience: law clerk for U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit, 1976–1977 Degrees: AB, Princeton, 1972; JD, Yale University, 1975 Total federal court experience: 16 years PolitiFact's estimate of relevant experience: 31 years John Roberts Took seat on court: Sept. 29, 2005, at age 50 Appellate court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, 2003-2005 Private practice: partner, Hogan & Hartson LLP, 1986–1989 and 1993–2003 (associate, 1986-1987) Federal government experience: special assistant to the attorney general, U.S. Justice Department, 1981–1982; associate counsel, White House Counsel’s Office, 1982–1986; principal deputy solicitor general, U.S. Justice Department, 1989–1993 Other experience: law clerk for U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, 1979–1980; law clerk for then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist of the U.S. Supreme Court, 1980-1981 Degrees: A.B., Harvard, 1976; JD, Harvard Law School, 1979 Total federal court experience: 2 years PolitiFact's estimate of relevant experience: 31 years Sonia Sotomayor Age: 54 Appellate court: 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 1998-2009 Federal court: U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 1992-1998 Private practice: partner, Pavia & Harcourt, 1988-1992; associate, Pavia & Harcourt, 1984-1987 Teaching: adjunct professor, New York University Law School, 1998-2009; lecturer, Columbia Law School, 1999-2009 Local government experience: assistant district attorney, New York City, 1979-1984 Degrees: BA, Princeton University, 1976; JD, Yale University, 1979 Total federal court experience: 17 years PolitiFact's estimate of relevant experience: 30 years

Judge Sotomayor has said "that policy is made on the U.S. Court of Appeals. On the day President Barack Barack Obama announced Sonia Sotomayor as his Supreme Court nominee, many conservative opponents seized on a Sotomayor statement they say revealed her as someone who thinks judges make laws. While Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele struck a measured pose — saying Republicans would "reserve judgment on Sotomayor until there has been a thorough and thoughtful examination of her legal views" — the RNC also sent around a talking points memo to the press and hundreds of influential Republicans that claimed "Judge Sotomayor has also said that policy is made on the U.S. Court of Appeals." And Wendy E. Long, counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, called Sotomayor a "liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important than the law as written. She thinks that judges should dictate policy." The conservative blogosphere is full of similar sentiments, all based on the Sotomayor statement, "The Court of Appeals is where policy is made." So we decided to take a look at the context of Sotomayor's statement. It came during a presentation at Duke University in February 2005. Sotomayor was one of three judges who participated in a panel discussion for law students thinking about applying to be judicial law clerks. Snippets of Sotomayor's comments have been popular on YouTube; see the full, unedited video here (the pertinent part starts around the 43-minute mark). Sotomayor was asked about the differences between clerking for judges in the federal district courts as opposed to those in federal appeals court. "The Court of Appeals is where policy is made," said Sotomayor, a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. "And I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law. I know … I know. (some laughs) I'm not promoting it. I'm not advocating it. I'm … you know. Okay. (more laughs) "Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. It's interpretation. It's application." So keep in mind the audience and the question here, said Tom Goldstein, a partner at Washington law firm Akin Gump and the founder of ScotusBlog, a widely read blog on the Supreme Court. Goldstein watched the full video, and simply sees it as Sotomayor noting that in comparison to district court judges, "there's more policy involved" in the appeals courts. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 "The truth of the matter is, in the court of appeals, they are dealing with gaps and ambiguities in the law," Goldstein said. There's a lot for judges to interpret. Appeals court judges often have to make a call when a statute is unclear. In a sense, the policy is set by those calls made by the judges, even if they don't want to. To use that one line from Sotomayor to paint her as an activist judge is misleading, he said. "She's not a sweeping visionary ideologue in any way," Goldstein said. "Conservatives who are genuinely concerned about the direction of the Supreme Court, they are sort of grasping at straws here. That's an awful lot to put on one sentence." David Garrow, a historian who follows the Supreme Court, agrees. There has always been two schools of thought on the role of judges, Garrow said: those who see the law almost as an academic exercise, trying their best to mechanically apply the law; and the legal realists, who believe interpreting the law involves making choices, discretion. "What she (Sotomayor) said there is simply the honest version of what any judge knows and realizes," Garrow said. But "you're not really supposed to acknowledge it on the record." It's unfair to extrapolate that comment to suggest Sotomayor would mandate policy, he said. "To anyone who knows the intellectual history of judicial decisionmaking, she's just being honest, not activist," Garrow said. In short, the quote in question is the first line of a larger discussion about the differences between clerking for a district court rather than an appeals court judge. And Sotomayor goes on to detail those differences. In full context, it's clear that she is making the point that there are more decisions about interpreting and applying policy at the appeals court level. To the extent that the RNC raises the point to suggest it means she would be an activist judge on the Supreme Court, we think that's misleading. Sotomayor even noted that judges don't make law, that she was talking about interpreting and applying it. And so we rule the RNC's statement Half True

Cheney is "disagreeing with President Bush's policy. President Bush stated repeatedly to international audiences and to the country that he wanted to close Guantanamo. In a much anticipated interview on CBS's Face the Nation on May 24, 2009, former Secretary of State Colin Powell fired back at former Vice President Dick Cheney's public criticism of President Barack Obama's decision to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In a speech on national defense on May 21, Cheney said Obama's announcement of his intent to close Gitmo "came with little deliberation and no plan" and might result in terrorists being brought to the United States. "The administration has found that it's easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo," Cheney said, "but it's tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America's national security." Cheney has argued that Guantanamo needs to stay open. "If you didn't have it, you'd have to invent it," Cheney said in a Fox News interview on May 12, 2009. "It's a good facility, it's an important program, and we ought to continue it." But Powell said on Face the Nation that position runs counter to that of Cheney's old boss, President George W. Bush. "Mr. Cheney is not only disagreeing with President Obama's policy," Powell said. "He's disagreeing with President Bush's policy. President Bush stated repeatedly to international audiences and to the country that he wanted to close Guantanamo. The problem he had was he couldn't get all the pieces together. "Secretary Rice, Secretary of State Rice and Secretary of Defense Gates had come forward with plans, but the plans ran into difficulties with Department of Justice and others. "So it is a complex problem, and President Bush wasn't able to close Guantanamo on his watch. And President Obama came in saying he would close Guantanamo, and he has run into some of those same sorts of problems. So I think we need to kind of take the heat out of this issue." Powell is correct that several times during 2006 and 2007, President Bush publicly expressed his desire to close Gitmo. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 17, 2022 in una publicación en Facebook "Ministros de Defensa de OTAN deciden invadir a RUSIA para prevenir ataque de Putin”. By Maria Ramirez Uribe • October 17, 2022 Here are a few examples: * "I’d like to close Guantanamo. But I also recognize that we’re holding some people that are darned dangerous, and that we’d better have a plan to deal with them in our courts." — Bush in a White House news conference on June 14, 2006 * "I'd like to end Guantanamo. I'd like it to be over with." But, he said, there are some "cold-blooded killers" who need to be tried in U.S. courts. The United States is "not going to let people out on the street who will do you harm." — Bush in a speech after talks with European Union leaders at a one-day summit in Vienna, June 21, 2006. * "I did say it should be a goal of the nation to shut down Guantanamo. I also made it clear that part of the delay was the reluctance of some nations to take back some of the people being held there. In other words, in order to make it work, we've got to have a place for these people to go. ... We are working with other nations to send folks back. Again, it's a fairly steep order. A lot of people don't want killers in their midst, and a lot of these people are killers. "Secondly, of course, we want to make sure that when we do send them back, they're treated as humanely as possible. The other issue was whether or not we can get people to be tried. One of the things I'm anxious about, want to see happen, is that there to be trials. Courts have been involved with deciding how to do this, and Defense is trying to work out mechanisms to get the trials up and running. And the sooner we can get that up and running, the better it is, as far as I'm concerned. I don't want to make any predictions about whether Guantanamo will be available or not. I'm just telling you it's a very complicated subject. "And I laid out an aspiration. Whether or not we can achieve that or not, we'll try to. But it is not as easy a subject as some may think on the surface." — Bush in a news conference Aug. 9, 2007 So Bush had an "aspiration" to close Gitmo. But by the fall of 2008, the New York Times reported, Bush became resigned that "closing Guantanamo would involve too many legal and political risks to be acceptable, now or any time soon," according to senior administration officials. And, obviously, it did not close. Powell isn't entirely correct when he says Cheney is disagreeing with Bush's policy. Bush always qualified statements about his desire to close Gitmo with warnings that legal complications presented huge obstacles. And ultimately, Bush decided those complications meant that Gitmo remained necessary and had to remain open. That's an awful lot like what Cheney has been saying. It's one thing to say you want to close Gitmo, Cheney said last week, "but it's tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America's national security." So yes, Powell is right that Bush said he wanted to close Gitmo. But it's not as simple as Bush wanting to close Gitmo and Cheney wanting to keep it open. Because, in fact, Bush did leave it open. Bush said legal issues — and the fear of terrorists being brought to the United States — led him to keep the facility open. Again, that sounds like what Cheney has been saying. We rule Powell's statement Half True

"President Obama's own director of national intelligence, Admiral Blair, put it this way: 'High-value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaida organization that was attacking this country.' In a speech on national security, former Vice President Dick Cheney argued that despite all the controversy about the propriety of waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation" techniques used on terror suspects in the wake of 9/11, one fact has been lost — the techniques worked. And Cheney cited comments from an appointee of President Barack Obama to back up his point. "President Obama's own director of national intelligence, Admiral Blair, put it this way: 'High-value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaida organization that was attacking this country,' " Cheney said in a May 21, 2009, speech at the American Enterprise Institute. "Admiral Blair put that conclusion in writing, only to see it mysteriously deleted in a later version released by the administration, the missing 26 words that tell an inconvenient truth." Cheney is right about there being two different versions of an April 16 memo sent by Adm. Dennis C. Blair, President Obama’s director of national intelligence. In a private version of the memo sent to his colleagues, Blair says it's important to remember the context of events that led to the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. "All of us remember the horror of 9/11. For months afterwards we did not have a clear understanding of the enemy we were dealing with, and our every effort was focused on preventing further attacks that would kill more Americans. It was during these months that the CIA was struggling to obtain critical information from captured al-Qaida leaders, and requested permission to use harsher interrogation methods. ... High-value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided deeper understanding of the al-Qaida organization that was attacking this country." Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 17, 2022 in una publicación en Facebook "Ministros de Defensa de OTAN deciden invadir a RUSIA para prevenir ataque de Putin”. By Maria Ramirez Uribe • October 17, 2022 That last sentence wasn't included in an abbreviated form of the memo that was released to the public. You can check out both versions here . Here's another line that was cut: "I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past, but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time." But the administration isn't the only one guilty of truncating Blair's full position. Cheney failed to mention this statement released by Blair on April 21, "I also strongly supported the president (Obama) when he declared that we would no longer use enhanced interrogation techniques. We do not need these techniques to keep America safe. The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means. The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security." So Cheney mentioned the quote from Blair that the enhanced interrogations provided "high-value information," but failed to mention Blair's later clarification that while the techniques did provide information, there is no way of knowing if that information could have been obtained through other means. Cheney also failed to mention that Blair opposes the use of the controversial interrogation techniques, that he thinks the damage they have caused far outweigh the benefits gained and that they "are not essential to our national security." Cheney neglected to give a full account of Blair's comments. But even that additional context does not refute the core point that Cheney attributes to Blair. Even if Blair has misgivings about the techniques, he has still acknowledged the information from them "was valuable in some instances." We find Cheney's statement Mostly True

"You've heard endlessly about waterboarding. It happened to three terrorists. President Barack Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney squared off in dueling speeches on national security on May 21, 2009. Not surprisingly, Cheney defended the controversial interrogation techniques used during the Bush administration on some terror suspects after the 9/11 attacks. And, he said, despite all the hand-wringing and public debate about waterboarding over the last couple years, the technique was used on only three detainees. "You've heard endlessly about waterboarding," Cheney said in his address at the American Enterprise Institute. "It happened to three terrorists. One of them was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, who has also boasted about his beheading of Daniel Pearl. "We had a lot of blind spots after the attacks on our country, things we didn't know about al-Qaida. We didn't know about al-Qaida's plans, but Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and a few others did know. "And with many thousands of innocent lives potentially in the balance, we did not think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time, if they answered them at all." Public records support his claim about the three detainees, who collectively were subjected to waterboarding at least 267 times. The use of waterboarding — an interrogation technique that simulates drowning — was first publicly acknowledged by then-CIA director Michael Hayden during a Senate intelligence hearing on Feb. 5, 2008. He said it was used on three terror suspects in 2002 and 2003. "Let me make it very clear and to state so officially in front of this committee that waterboarding has been used on only three detainees," Hayden said. "It was used on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. It was used on Abu Zubaydah. And it was used on (Abd al-Rahim al-)Nashiri. The CIA has not used waterboarding for almost five years." Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 According to a memo released by the Attorney General's Office in April 2009, waterboarding was removed from CIA’s authorized list of techniques sometime after 2005. Also in April 2009, the Justice Department released 2005 legal memos that detailed the use of the waterboarding technique in 2002 and 2003, including the revelation that it had been used 183 times against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-described planner of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Cheney is correct that during a military tribunal in 2007, Mohammed claimed responsibility for the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in Pakistan in 2002. The memos also noted that the CIA used waterboarding at least 83 times in August 2002 against Abu Zubaydah, described by the CIA as one of Osama bin Laden's key lieutenants. And lastly, the technique was used on Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the alleged mastermind of the 2000 USS Cole bombing. In all three cases, Hayden said, "We used it against these three high-value detainees because of the circumstances of the time. Very critical to those circumstances was the belief that additional catastrophic attacks against the homeland were imminent." There has been no information publicly released that any other terror suspects have been subjected to waterboarding. "We only know of those three being waterboarded," said Joanne Mariner, a counterterrorism expert with Human Rights Watch. "That's all that's on the public record." In short, Cheney is on solid ground with this statistic. We rate his statement True

"Nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal 'supermax' prisons. In a speech defending his plans for the detainess at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, President Barack Obama said Americans should not be concerned about them being transferred to the United States because federal prisons are secure. "Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders — highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety," Obama said. "Bear in mind the following fact: Nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal ' supermax ' prisons." First, we should note that Obama's comment suggests there is more than one federal "supermax " facility. But there's actually just one, the Administration Maximum Facility in Florence, Colo., according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Some states have built their own maximum security prisons, but it's clear Obama was referring to federal facilities because they would be the ones to house the suspected terrorists. The security of the "Alcatraz of the Rockies," as the Florence prison is known among correctional program professionals, has been cited frequently by Democrats as lawmakers and the administration battle over where to relocate the detainees. Obama is seeking to close the Guantanamo prison by January 2010. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 Many Republicans believe it should remain open, and many Democrats have also grown wary. A bipartisan group of lawmakers blocked funding to close the facility until Obama comes up with a more detailed plan on what would happen to the detainees. Meanwhile, some Senate Democrats, including Assistant Majority Leader Richard Durbin and California Sen. Dianne Feinstein , have suggested that a supermax prison is the best place to house the suspected terrorists. As you might expect, living is austere at the Alcatraz of the Rockies. Prisoners are kept in small cells and have limited contact with others. Florence is already home to several widely known international and domestic terrorists, including the "shoe bomber" Richard Reid, and Zacarias Moussaoui , a man sentenced to life in prison for his involvement in the 9/11 attacks. As for Obama's statement, federal prison officials confirmed that he is correct. No prisoner has ever escaped from the only federal supermax facility since it was opened in 1994, no doubt thanks to the $10 million perimeter fence and the remote-controlled steel doors. We find his statement True

ACORN "could get up to $8.5 billion more tax dollars despite being under investigation for voter registration fraud in a dozen states. U.S. Rep. Michelle Bachmann's latest outrage focuses on an old nemesis: ACORN. Not only are there new charges in two states related to fraudulent voter registration efforts by ACORN and its employees during the 2008 presidential election, she said, it now appears the group could tap into billions of dollars of federal money in the economic stimulus and the Obama administration's proposed 2010 budget. In a May 6 news release, Bachmann sounded the alarm: "At least $53 million in federal funds have gone to ACORN activists since 1994, and the controversial group could get up to $8.5 billion more tax dollars despite being under investigation for voter registration fraud in a dozen states. The economic stimulus bill enacted in February contains $3 billion that the nonprofit activist group known more formally as the Association for Community Organizations for Reform Now could receive, and 2010 federal budget contains another $5.5 billion that could also find its way into the group's coffers." She has since thrown these numbers out several times in interviews, including ones with Lou Dobbs on CNN and Glenn Beck on Fox. In January, we addressed a piece of this when we fact-checked a claim from House Republican Leader John Boehner, who warned the economic stimulus package "could open billions of taxpayer dollars to left-wing groups like the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)." Boehner was referring to $2.2 billion in the stimulus package for "neighborhood stabilization," essentially money doled out to groups to buy up abandoned and foreclosed homes, to rehabilitate them and then sell or rent them out. ACORN said it had no plans to apply for the funding, and if it did, the money would have to be used to buy and fix abandoned houses, not for voter registration efforts. We ruled that claim Barely True . This latest claim from Bachmann follows the same tortured logic on an even grander scale. A spokesman from Bachmann's office said the congresswoman got her data from a May 6, 2009, Washington Examiner commentary written by Kevin Mooney, who got the $8.5 billion figure from Matthew Vadum, a senior analyst and editor with Capital Research Center, a conservative think tank. Let's first look at how they arrived at that number. It includes, of course, the same $2.2 billion that Boehner cited from the stimulus package. Vadum also adds $1 billion in the stimulus for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. ACORN could potentially tap into that, he said. The remaining $5.5 billion comes from the Obama administration's proposed 2010 budget, specifically the budget for Housing and Urban Development. The budget plan includes $1 billion for an Affordable Housing Trust Fund, plus $4.5 billion more for CDBGs. CDBGs have been around since 1974. Obama is seeking to increase the CDBG budget from about $3.6 billion in 2009 to $4.2 billion next year. And then there's the additional $1 billion for CDBGs in the stimulus. But the point is, this isn't some new pot of money that hasn't been available in years past. To the extent ACORN has been eligible for CDBG money for decades, it is available to ACORN now. But the fact is, ACORN isn't eligible for CDBG funding. At least not for the controversial voter registration efforts that Republican leaders claim are a willful effort to forward the group's liberal agenda. ACORN has a complex corporate structure. It's actually a network of affiliates. The ACORN that Republicans love to hate gets involved in political activity like voter registration. But there are other entities, like the sister company, ACORN Housing Corporation, a nonprofit that provides free housing counseling to low and moderate income homebuyers. Some of the ACORN Housing affiliates have also dabbled in affordable housing projects and have received federal funding. But ACORN Housing doesn't get involved in voter registration activities. CDBG money is given to local governments and states to use as they see fit for community development projects. But there are strings attached. CDBG rules list eligible uses of the money, including such things as building sidewalks, sewers and affordable housing, mostly. Specifically ineligible: "political activities." In other words, ACORN can't use the money for voter registration. According to the Washington Examiner 's report, ACORN and its affiliates have received $53 million from the federal government since 1994. Most of that federal money went to the ACORN Housing Corporation, which by law could not be used for voter registration. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 We checked, and there is no money in the stimulus package or the budget for voter registration programs. So if ACORN Housing was to apply for and receive CDBG money, it would be for a very specific project. And legally, it could not be transferred to other ACORN affiliates to perform political activities like voter registration. But some ACORN opponents allege that's exactly what would happen. "ACORN is constantly shifting funding," Vadum said. If ACORN Housing were to get federal funding, "we don't know where it would go. The problem is that ACORN transfers vast sums of money around in its network all the time. We don't know whether the money would be spent on voter registration or other activities." According to a July 2002 report from the Employment Policies Institute called "Rotten ACORN, America's Bad Seed," tax forms show that since 1997, the ACORN Housing Corporation has paid more than $5 million in fees or grants to other ACORN entities. The report does not claim, however, that federal tax dollars were shifted into ACORN voter registration efforts. Asked what funds ACORN Housing has transferred to other ACORN affiliates, Vadum said ACORN Housing has paid over $1.5 million to Citizens Consulting Inc., which he describes as "the shadowy part of the ACORN network where money seems to disappear into." That's absurd, said ACORN executive director Steven Kest. Citizens Consulting Inc. is the accounting arm of the ACORN organization. CCI handles bookkeeping, payroll accounting and other financial management services for ACORN and its many affiliates. And ACORN Housing doesn't even use CCI anymore, as it now does its accounting in-house, Kest said. Bottom line, we don't see any evidence that ACORN Housing has transferred money to ACORN for voter registration, so we think it's incorrect for Bachmann to link federal money that ACORN Housing might receive with the more controversial voter registration activities performed by sister organization ACORN. Even more ridiculous is the suggestion that ACORN or any of its affiliates might actually get $8.5 billion in federal tax dollars. Vadum said his report has been misrepresented by many on that point. "The key word here is eligible," Vadum said. "Eligible is a pretty expansive word. I made it clear they are not going to get that full amount." Yes, he made that point in the Washington Examiner. But when Bachmann says ACORN could get that amount, it assumes the group would get every single dime in the stimulus for fixing up abandoned homes. And remember, they said they don't even have plans to apply for any of it. "We think it's a great program," Kest said. "But that's not money we are applying for." And they'd also need to get every single dollar allocated through the CDBG program. That's beyond preposterous. Those grants are allocated to thousands of organizations around the country to perform very specific community development projects. "These are competitive grants for very specific projects," Kest said."The money can only be used for the project you bid for. It can't go to voter registration. If you've ever had any experience with grant funding from the federal government, they do a good job of making sure the money is used for the purposes it was intended. You can't use the money for any other reason. You can't transfer the money to other vehicles for other purposes." Charges of voter registration fraud by members of ACORN during the 2008 elections are a serious matter. Investigators allege ACORN employees tried to fraudulently register thousands of ineligible voters. Among them, one Mickey Mouse. But Bachmann's statement is irresponsibly misleading on several levels. She says the group under indictment for voter registration fraud could tap into billions of federal dollars. In fact, none of the federal money can be used for voter registration activities. An affiliate like ACORN Housing could conceivably apply for a grant to build an affordable housing project, or to buy, fix and sell abandoned homes, but that's exactly what the money would have to be used for. Suggestions that one of the affiliates might funnel money to ACORN for political activity is, so far, unsubstantiated conjecture. And then there's the matter of trying to make a splash by throwing out the massive $8.5 billion number, suggesting ACORN "could get" it, as in all of it. That's absurd. We rule Bachmann's statement False

"The reality is, we are holding some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world right now in our federal prisons, including the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 'shoe bomber,' the 'Unabomber,' and many others. Republicans have been complaining for several weeks that President Barack Obama's plan to close the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, would force the government to bring dangerous terrorists to prisons in the United States. They've even introduced a bill that would put restrictions on the transfers called the "Keep Terrorists Out of America Act." In response to the criticism, Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, the assistant majority leader, declared on the Senate floor May 20, 2009, "The reality is, we are holding some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world right now in our federal prisons, including the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 'shoe bomber,' the 'Unabomber,' and many others." We started by doing a little digging at the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Indeed, Richard Reid — a.k.a. the "shoe bomber" — is being held at the Administration Maximum Facility in Florence, Colo., which, according to the bureau's Web site, "houses offenders requiring the tightest controls." It is the only one of its kind in the United States. The Florence facility houses several other people that Durbin mentioned and characterized as terrorists: Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, the "mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing," and Ted Kaczynski, the "Unabomber" who killed three people and injured 28 others in a string of bombings over the span of 18 years. So Durbin is right about them. Others convicted of terrorist crimes are housed in the same federal prison, including Wadih El-Hage, Osama bin Laden's former secretary, and Zacarias Moussaoui, who was convicted for his role in the 9/11 attacks. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 All told, the federal prisons hold 347 people convicted of international or domestic terrorism, according to Durbin's office, citing Federal Bureau of Prisons statistics. The Florence location is where the most violent prisoners — and those most likely to escape — end up. Living conditions are sparse; inmates are housed in 86-square-foot cells and have limited contact with other people. Democrats such as Durbin say facilities like the one in Florence are well-suited for detainees from Guantanamo Bay. "Some of my Republican colleagues argued that Guantanamo is the only appropriate place to hold the detainees because 'we don’t have a facility that could handle this in the United States' and American corrections officers would 'have no idea what they are getting into,'" Durbin said. "They ought to take a look at some of our secured facilities in the United States and they ought to have a little more respect for the men and women who are corrections officers." As for Durbin's claim, it appears he did his homework. Given that all the terrorists he named in his statement are in fact held in the United States, we find his statement True

A public option for health care would end private insurance "because the private insurance people will not be able to compete with a government option. With high-profile support from President Barack Obama, Congress is preparing a major overhaul of the nation's health care system. The details have yet to be revealed, but that hasn't stopped critics in Congress from going on the attack. Obama and the Democratic leadership have proposed broad outlines for the overhaul. The centerpiece of their plan remains the employer-based system, where most people have private health insurance through work. To rein in costs, the government would invest in electronic medical records and encourage efficiency and preventive care. To get coverage for people who don't have health insurance, the plan would increase eligibility for the poor and children to enroll in initiatives like Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Finally, the plans seek to create a health insurance exchange, where individuals and small businesses can easily comparison shop for insurance coverage. One of the exchange plans would be a public option run by the government. It's the public option that has fueled Republican attacks. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said on Fox News Sunday that a public option would destroy the private insurance system. It "would mean a government plan that would inevitably put the government between you and your doctor, and there would be no more private insurance," McConnell said. Asked why by interviewer Chris Wallace, McConnell said, "Because the private insurance people will not be able to compete with a government option." McConnell is incorrect — the Democratic plan does not intend to do away with private insurance. His statement that private insurance "will not be able to compete with a government option" is challenged by nonpartisan health care experts who disagree. McConnell's view is that if the government offers a cheaper, public plan, people will dump their private insurance to get lower health care premiums. Over time, this would errode the private health care system. In theory, it makes sense that people would want the health plan that saves them the most money, and experts do say some private insurance companies might struggle to survive against a government competitor. In practice, however, researchers don't believe public options would destroy the private insurance industry. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 "Every time I hear these claims I'm astonished," said Cathy Schoen, senior vice president for the Commonwealth Fund, a foundation that studies health care and advocates more coverage for the uninsured, minorities and people with low incomes. She said a public plan could pressure private insurers to lower premiums or negotiate better rates with hospitals, but it would not put private companies out of business. "The public plan could get a reputation of not being good. The private plans could say, 'Let's change our behavior so we don't lose business,'" Schoen said. Another nonpartisan research group, the Urban Institute, reached similar conclusions. "Private plans would not disappear. Private plans that offer better services and greater access to providers, even at somewhat higher costs than the public plans, would survive the competition in this environment," wrote John Holahan and Linda Blumberg of the Urban Institute's Health Policy Center. One of the problems right now is that private insurance is not as competitive as you might think. Both the Commonwealth Fund and the Urban Insitute have noted that most health care markets are dominated by a small number of big insurers. "The increased concentration has made it difficult for the nation to reap the benefits usually associated with competitive markets," Holahan and Blumberg wrote. Not that a public option will solve all problems. They concluded that a public plan is not sufficient to control growing health care costs, and that other cost-containment strategies would be necessary. Finally, we should point out that it remains to be seen how the Democratic plan will deal with the public option, which could be structured in several different ways. McConnell flatly states that the public option would run private plans out business because they "will not be able to compete with a government option." Even though we have limited details on how the plan would be implemented, there is enough in the administration proposal to conclude that McConnell's worst-case scenario is unlikely. That brings us to Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly Fals

The Democrats propose "a government-controlled health care plan that will deprive roughly 120 million Americans of their current health care coverage. With high-profile support from President Barack Obama, Congress is preparing a major overhaul of the nation's health care system. The details have yet to be revealed, but that hasn't stopped critics in Congress from going on the attack. Obama and the Democratic leadership have proposed broad outlines for the overhaul. The centerpiece of their plan remains the employer-based system, where most people have private health insurance through work. To rein in costs, the government would invest in electronic medical records and encourage efficiency and preventive care. To get coverage for people who don't have health insurance, the plan would increase eligibility for the poor and children to enroll in initiatives like Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Finally, the plans seek to create a health insurance exchange, where individuals and small businesses can easily comparison shop for insurance coverage. One of the exchange plans would be a public option run by the government. It's the public option that has fueled Republican attacks, leading to charges that it would destroy the private system, that millions would lose their current coverage, and that Democrats don't have a way to pay for it. Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana described the Democratic health care plan as "a government-controlled health care plan that will deprive roughly 120 million Americans of their current health care coverage and lead to federal bureaucrats denying critical care for patients." That "120 million" number jumped out at us. That's a big number, representing roughly three-quarters of those who now have employer-provided health insurance. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 We asked Pence's staff about the number, and they referred us to a report from the Lewin Group, a health care consulting firm. The report ran a number of scenarios, including what would happen if the government offered a public option that was a Medicare-style plan open to everyone. Their model found that 118 million people would choose to drop their private coverage in favor of cheaper public coverage. But there's a hitch: That's what the Lewin Group believed would happen under the plans that were the most like Medicare, and if everyone were allowed to enroll. As we noted before, it's possible to set up a public option where only some people are allowed to enroll. Under the Lewin Group's estimates, if you restrict a Medicare-style public option only to individuals and small businesses, only 32 million would leave private coverage. And if the public option is less like Medicare and competes like a private insurer, the number drops further. We'll grant that Congress could come up with a Medicare-style plan and open it to everyone, but it doesn't seem likely. Pence appears to be picking the worst number he can choose. And he doesn't mention the fact that under the scenario laid out by the Lewin Group, people would still have health care coverage and their premiums reduced by 30 to 40 percent. He says the government would "deprive" people of health insurance, when actually the scenario is that they would choose a different option. Even if you believe that an expansive government health care plan would drive private insurers out of business, that still doesn't account for Pence's "deprive" claim, because the Lewin report he cites is focused on people who have chosen the government plan, not people who were left to the government plan after private options disappeared. Finally, we have to include a caveat about the Lewin Group. The group says it operates with editorial independence, but it is a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, which also offers private health insurance. Given all this background and explanation, we rated Pence's statement that the government would "deprive" 120 million people of their "current health care coverage" False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/d3dff281-ba69-4fa7-b09c-de38ed52a7

"Democrats have failed to answer the most basic question of how they want to pay for the more than $1 trillion of health care spending. With high-profile support from President Barack Obama, Congress is preparing a major overhaul of the nation's health care system. The details have yet to be revealed, but that hasn't stopped critics in Congress from going on the attack. Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri said Democrats haven't come up with a way to pay for their ambitious health plan. "We agree that reform is needed, but Democrats have failed to answer the most basic question of how they want to pay for the more than $1 trillion of health care spending they’re advocating," Blunt said. It's not clear how much the health care plan will cost. During the presidential campaign, Obama estimated his plan could cost $50 billion to $65 billion a year. That could come to $1 trillion over about 15 to 20 years. But independent sources that favor a health care overhaul put the expense much higher, at about $150 billion a year. That comes to $1.5 trillion over 10 years. Blunt says that "Democrats have failed to answer the most basic question" of how they want to pay for health care. But Obama has put forward some relatively concrete proposals. His current budget includes a $635 billion fund for health care that includes savings from greater efficiencies and changing the tax code so the wealthy don't get as much in deductions. It's not clear if Congress will go along with the tax changes, though, and analysts have questioned whether the savings will be as great as Obama says. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 Democrats in Congress are still debating how they want to pay for health care. Sen. Max Baucus of Montana of held a hearing on May 12, 2009, to discuss ways of financing health care, and senators during the hearing expressed a great deal of skepticism about new taxation strategies. After Blunt made his comments, Baucus put forward a policy paper that included several ways to potentially pay for health care, including modifying tax exemptions on employer-provided insurance and taxing alcohol and soda. Len Berman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, who testified during the hearing, said later Congress seems unsure how it will pay for health care. He wrote in a blog post that they seemed to be in the grip of "magical thinking." "If there was the easy answer they'd have figured it out already," Berman told PolitiFact. "The idea of a new federal tax terrifies legislators. ... If they're serious, and it's not going to be smoke and mirrors, then they're going to have to make decisions that they haven't been willing to make so far." So Blunt is largely correct that that Democrats "have failed to answer" how to pay for health care. But they are putting forward ideas, and the Obama administration has identified $635 billion — perhaps optimistically — to get a plan started. So we rate Blunt's statement Mostly True

"Our government has now 'spent, lent, or committed' $12.8 trillion in its attempt to blunt the recession. South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford has been highly critical of the Obama administration for spending too much on the economic stimulus. Recently, Sanford cited a statistic compiled by the Bloomberg news service that "our government has now 'spent, lent, or committed' $12.8 trillion in its attempt to blunt the recession." It's a figure Sanford used in a commentary for Human Events , a conservative publication, and again in a letter to the editor of the State Journal-Register in Springfield, Ill. It is taken from a March 31, 2009, Bloomberg story that begins, "The U.S. government and the Federal Reserve have spent, lent or committed $12.8 trillion, an amount that approaches the value of everything produced in the country last year, to stem the longest recession since the 1930s." At the bottom of the story is a chart breaking down how the number was derived. The lion's share — $7.7 trillion — comes from money lent or committed by the Federal Reserve for such things as credit discounts, debt purchases and bailouts of several financial institutions. Another $2 trillion relates to the FDIC, including liquidity guarantees and the purchase of risky bank assets. And lastly is the money the federal government is spending through the two stimulus packages (the $168 billion stimulus under President George W. Bush and the $787 billion stimulus under President Barack Obama), as well as the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, used to buy toxic assets, the mortgage-backed investments that triggered the nation's financial crisis. Economists caution that the government is not necessarily "out" all of that money. In the case of TARP money, for example, "the estimates are that we will get most of the money back," said Jim Horney, director of federal fiscal policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. And in the case of collateral extended to the Federal Reserve and FDIC, "that's basically pledging to back up the operations of those organizations. We're pledging this money as collateral for that organization." It doesn't mean the money will ever be spent. And in the case of things like auto company bailouts, for example, the federal government got company stock and it's too early to know how much the government will get back on that. But presumably some. "At the end of the day, a large portion of that won't end up getting spent," Horney said. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 We had initially set out to fact-check Sanford for comment he made in a May 13, 2009, Fox Business Network interview when he said, "This stimulus package, this federal effort ... at some point you know we spent about 20 percent of world GDP on this thing. You look at about $13 trillion last year and it's almost like you know Soviet-era grain quotas are saying you will produce this amount of grain in Kazakhstan, never mind the realities of what is going on, on the ground." He's right that $13 trillion represents about 20 percent of the world GDP, but he left out the all-important qualifiers for the $13 trillion number, that it is money "spent, lent or committed," instead characterizing all of it as money the federal government "spent." Economists hopped all over him for that one. "If you are talking about an FDIC line of credit, there's a huge difference between that and spending X amount of dollars," Horney said. "Calling it spending is just wrong." The comment even drew rebuke from the conservative American Enterprise Institute. "Saying $13 trillion has been spent is definitely misleading," said Alan Viard, a resident scholar at AEI. "It's not fair to combine all that with the word 'spent.'" The actual amount spent by the federal government to slow the recession is closer to $2 trillion, he said. Sanford spokesman Joel Sawyer acknowledged that Sanford left out the "spent, lent or committed" qualifiers in the Fox interview. In TV interviews, he said via e-mail, "questions come fast and furious and it's easy to leave out some words." But, he said, it'd be unfair to judge Sanford on that lone response when he had twice cited the statistic correctly, in writing. We agree, although we'll be watching carefully to make sure Sanford includes the proper caveats. Economists may disagree with this $13 trillion figure. There are many ways to calculate the amount the United States has pledged to stem the recession. But we think the Bloomberg calculation is one legitimate way. And we think it was certainly fair for Sanford to cite it, so long as he includes those all-important qualifiers. And on two occasions at least, he did. So we rate his comment Tru

The federal Hate Crimes Prevention Act bill would create "special protection for pedophiles. With the federal Hate Crimes Prevention Act moving swiftly through Congress, and President Barack Obama committed to sign it, opponents have ratcheted up their rhetoric and complained about a provision that would add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to the list of hate crime categories. In a Fox News interview on May 6, 2009, Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said the "sexual orientation" wording would provide "special protection to pedophiles." "The definition for sexual orientation was defined by one of the principal authors, Tammy Baldwin of Madison, Wisconsin, as being either heterosexual or homosexual. Well, so within that definition, though, of sexual orientation by the American Psychological Association you've got a whole list of proclivities — they call them paraphilias — and in that list, among them are pedophiles. "And so I don't want special protective status for a pedophile when a regular person would get less — lesser protection under this law. ... This sets up sacred cows in this legislation. So some people are protected more than others in this society." King was so concerned about that possibility that he sought to amend the bill to specifically exclude pedophiles. On the House floor on April 29, 2009, King argued that the lack of a definition of "sexual orientation" in the law would open the door to special protections for people with all kinds of deviant sexual proclivities. "My amendment does not specifically define sexual orientation, although I've tried to do that," King said. "But what it does do is say it doesn't include pedophiles because I think the intent of this committee is clearly that we don't want to provide a, let's just say, a sexual — a special protected status for pedophiles. There are others that I would put in that list as well, but this is the one that stands out to me that should be beyond question that this committee should be able to take a look at this amendment and conclude that whatever we might think about proclivities, pedophiles is not one that should be included." Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, went one step further, suggesting that victims of sex crimes could be guilty of a hate crime if they tried to defend themselves or retaliate against an attacker. "If a mother hears that their child has been raped and she slaps the assailant with her purse, she is now gone after as a hate criminal because this is a protected class. There are other protected classes in here. I mean, simple exhibitionism — I have female friends who have told me over the years that some guy flashed them and their immediate reaction was to hit them with the purse. Well, now, he's committed a misdemeanor. She has committed a federal hate crime because the exhibitionism is protected under sexual orientation," Gohmert said. "The plain meaning of sexual orientation is anything to which someone is sexually oriented. That could include exhibitionism. It can include necrophilia. It could include ... voyeurism. You see somebody spying on you changing clothes and you hit them, they've committed a misdemeanor. You've committed a federal felony under this bill." Their arguments gained a wider audience through postings on the conservative Web site RightMarch.com, which were e-mailed to subscribers of the conservative publication Human Events . The King amendment failed. Opponents said it was unnecessary, that pedophilia was not covered under the definition of sexual orientation. And the Hate Crime Prevention Act passed the House 249-175. A similar bill is pending in the Senate. Many legal scholars we spoke with said King and Gohmert were wrong that pedophiles and other sexual deviants would get special protections from the bill. And supporters of the bill were more blunt, saying the arguments were ridiculous scare tactics. Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 15, 2022 in Instagram post Seattle authorities are investigating a string of serial killings. By Michael Majchrowicz • October 17, 2022 The opponents' arguments display a fundamental misunderstanding of the words "sexual orientation," said Arthur Leonard, a professor of law at New York Law School and an expert in gay rights and discrimination based on sexual orientation. "Pedophilia and sexual orientation are two different things," Leonard said. Sexual orientation, he said, relates to the gender to which a person is romantically attracted while pedophilia relates to age, adults who are sexually fixated on children. Leonard believes it is an attempt by legislators to appeal to their constituents' "yahoo mentality." James Jacobs, an adjunct professor of law at New York University Law School, has been an outspoken critic of hate crime laws. He thinks they are unnecessary, amount to "recriminalizing activities that are already criminal" and are the product of political grandstanding. But even he doesn't buy King's arguments about pedophilia. "I don't think pedophilia would count as sexual orientation," Jacobs said. "It's not a very persuasive argument." We went to Black's Law Dictionary , which defines sexual orientation this way: "A person's predisposition or inclination toward a particular type of sexual activity or behavior; heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality." That first part seems to lend some weight to King's argument. But that ignores the working definition used by the federal government for years, said Michael Lieberman, Washington counsel for the Anti-Defamation League, which has fought for the federal legislation for years. The FBI's Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines, prepared in response to the 1990 Hate Crime Statistics Act, defines "sexual orientation bias" as "a preformed negative opinion or attitude toward a group of persons based on their sexual attraction toward, and responsiveness to, members of their own sex or members of the opposite sex, e.g., gays, lesbians, heterosexuals." Furthermore, Lieberman said, it ignores decades of history with state hate crime laws. There are currently 31 states that have hate crime laws that include sexual orientation. "There are no cases, zero, at the federal or state level that even remotely resemble what Rep. King and other opponents have talked about," Lieberman said. "It's make-believe." "It's laughable," said Jack Levin, professor of sociology and criminology at Northeastern University and co-chair of the Center on Violence and Conflict. "Why should it happen at the federal level when it hasn't happened at the state level. They are setting up a straw man. ... It's a convenient way of arousing public fear about something that is quite benign." Said Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino: "The assertion that the law is designed in an effort to protect pedophiles is not only without merit, it is an affront to anyone who has been a victim of a hate crime. I think it's a bigoted a scare tactic designed to further denigrate gay and lesbian Americans. I'm disgusted that this has become a part of the debate." So we've found nothing to support the opponents' claims that pedophiles would be protected by the hate crimes bill. The experience of 31 states that have similar laws, the FBI's definition of sexual orientation and the opinions of legal experts have persuaded us not only that the opponents are wrong, but that their arguments are preposterous. We find King's claim to be Pants on Fire

Democrats in Congress "had control since January of 2007. They haven't passed a law making waterboarding illegal. They haven't gone into any of these things and changed law. Under pressure of a lawsuit, the Obama administration recently released memos on the interrogation of terror suspects during the Bush administration. The memos detailed techniques that included waterboarding, a simulated drowning maneuver widely considered to be torture. Some torture opponents have called for the prosecution of Bush administration officials. Republicans, meanwhile, are firing back at Democrats in Congress, saying that they implicitly condoned the actions. Democrats "had control since January of 2007," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said in a television interview. "They haven't passed a law making waterboarding illegal. They haven't gone into any of these things and changed law." There is a grain of truth in his claim, but he conveniently ignores the actions of the Democratic Congress. Democrats did pass legislation in 2008 that would have had the effect of outlawing waterboarding by restricting U.S. agents to interrogation methods outlined in the Army Field Manual. The manual specifically forbids waterboarding. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 But President George W. Bush vetoed the bill and Democrats were not able to muster the two-thirds majority necessary to override the veto. This was a big issue during the 2008 presidential campaign, because Sen. John McCain opposed the bill, even though he had said waterboarding is torture. At the time, McCain said he wasn't comfortable restricting intelligence personnel to the Army Field Manual. It's worth noting that some elected officials do not believe that Congress needed to pass a law saying that waterboarding was illegal. McCain, for example, said in 2007 that waterboarding already was illegal. "It's in violation of the Geneva Conventions. It's in violation of existing law," he said at a debate in St. Petersburg. After the Bush administration memos were released, McCain said the legal reasoning behind them was "deeply flawed," though he did not call for prosecutions. So Democrats did try to change laws to end waterboarding after gaining control of Congress and initially passed the law. But they were stopped by a presidential veto. So Gingrich's statement that they " haven't passed a law making waterboarding illegal. They haven't gone into any of these things and changed law," is only true because of the veto. The Democrats certainly tried to pass a law that would have had the effect of outlawing waterboarding. We rate his statement Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly Fals

"The president of the United States ... agrees with me" that marriage should be between a man and a woman It's not often that we can check a Miss USA contestant with our Truth-O-Meter. So when Miss California USA Carrie Prejean, the runner-up in the Miss USA competition, likened her much-discussed, pageant-night response to a question about gay marriage to President Barack Obama's beliefs, we decided it was time. The similarity of the statements made by Miss California and Obama was raised during a May 12 news conference in which pageant owner Donald Trump announced that Prejean could retain her crown as Miss California USA even though she failed to reveal she had posed in her underwear as a teenager. The Donald also came to Prejean's defense about her gay marriage comments. "It's the same answer that the president of the United States gave," Trump said. "She gave an honorable answer. She gave an answer from her heart." Said Prejean: "I was given a question asking for my opinion and I stated my honest belief. Not only do I hold this belief but, as Mr. Trump said, the president of the United States, the secretary of state and many Americans agree with me in this belief." Let's roll the tape on Prejean's statement during the Miss USA competition on April 19, 2009. One of the celebrity judges, Perez Hilton, asked whether other states should follow Vermont's lead in legalizing same-sex marriage. Here's the part of Prejean's answer that matters: "I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised." Controversy followed. So let's see how that stacks up to Obama's stated position on same-sex marriage: * "You know, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman." (an interview with ABC's Jake Tapper, June 16, 2008) Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 * "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it's also a sacred union. You know, God's in the mix." (an interview with Rev. Rick Warren, Aug. 16, 2008) * "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage." (an MTV interview, Nov. 1, 2008) Sounds about the same to us. Now, we should note that with all of these quotes during the presidential campaign, Obama quickly followed up by noting his support for civil unions. The Jake Tapper interview is as representative of Obama's fuller position as any. In it, Obama said, "I'm a strong supporter of civil unions. ... You know, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I also think that same-sex partners should be able to visit each other in hospitals, they should be able to transfer property, they should be able to get the same federal rights and benefits that are conferred onto married couples. And so, you know, as president, my job is to make sure that the federal government is not discriminating and that we maintain the federal government's historic role in not meddling with what states are doing when it comes to marriage law." Compare that to Prejean's comments to Fox's Greta Van Susteren on April 30. "My thought on civil unions? You know what, Greta, I don't have the answers to everything. I'm not running for political office. I don't have the answers to everything, you know, in the world out there. But I think that there should be rights for people, you know, especially in California. I think that people that are homosexual should have some rights, you know, hospital rights, and things like that." Granted, her answer may not be as nuanced as Obama's. As she said, she's not running for public office. Still, her fuller position also sounds an awful lot like Obama's. But what Prejean said after the pageant isn't the issue. Prejean and The Donald said the position she took the night of the pageant is consistent with President Obama's position. And we rate that claim True.