NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label Politifact. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politifact. Show all posts

04 April 2013

Ex-Sen. Fred Thompson says Obamcare could raise premiums enough to pay for a new Ford Explorer 27MAR13

Maybe fred thompson has Alzheimer's, or maybe he is just a tea-baggin' liar, or it may be both. Whatever it is, he is deceiving people and causing unnecessary fear and anxiety with his comments concerning Obamacare and insurance premiums. From PolitiFact.....

The Truth-O-Meter Says:
Thompson

Says that under President Barack Obama’s health care law, "your insurance" premiums could go up by 200 percent and cost "as much as a new Explorer."

Fred Thompson on Wednesday, March 27th, 2013 in a tweet

Ex-Sen. Fred Thompson says Obamcare could raise premiums enough to pay for a new Ford Explorer

As District Attorney Arthur Branch on Law & Order, former Sen. Fred Thompson was always ready with a wisecrack. In a recentTwitter post, the Tennessee Republican offered a pointed barb about President Barack Obama’s health care law:
"Report: Obamacare could raise ins premiums by 200%. It's the ‘A-Ford-able Care Act’ -- your insurance costs as much as a new Explorer."
As we looked into whether Thompson’s comparison was accurate, we found a trail of facts twisted into a misleading narrative. Here’s how the tale was constructed, piece by piece.
Why premiums will go up
First, we should make clear that independent, credible experts do expect health insurance premiums to increase for many people once the mandates in the health care law take full effect, many of them in 2014.
As we have written previously, the health care law is so complex that it's difficult to predict its ultimate impact on premiums. Some parts of the law should reduce premiums (subsidies for lower-income Americans and rebates from insurers that charge too much for overhead) while other parts should increase premiums (a longer list of mandatory benefits). The overall impact will likely vary depending on your income and what type of insurance you buy.
Take special note of the "type of insurance" -- it proves to be crucial in analyzing Thompson’s claim.
There are three types of private-market insurance. Large-group plans supply coverage through an employer with more than 50 employees. Small group plans work the same way, but with the company employing fewer than 50 people. (For both types of group plans, the employees typically pay a portion of their health care premiums, and the employer pays the rest.) The third type of private insurance is in the nongroup market -- policies that people buy on their own, paying the entire cost themselves. Large group plans account for roughly 70 percent of private policies, with small-group plans accounting for about 13 percent and the nongroup market accounting for about 17 percent.
The health care law is expected to affect each of these three types of policies differently. In 2009, the Congressional Budget Office projected that by 2016, insurance premiums in the large-group market would either stay the same or drop by up to 3 percent, while the small-group market would see anywhere from a drop of 2 percent to an increase of 1 percent. The biggest rises would be felt in the nongroup market, where premiums were projected to rise by between 10 percent and 13 percent.
There’s a logic to this pattern: Currently, nongroup policies typically offer high-deductible coverage with low premiums. But under Obama’s law, all plans must provide a fixed list of benefits such as preventive care, and adding these services will come with a pricetag. So it’s reasonable for Thompson to point out that for this portion of the private-insurance market -- accounting for about one in every six private policies, many of them issued for younger and relatively healthy Americans -- will take a financial hit from the law.
The congressional Republicans’ report
We failed in our efforts to reach Thompson, but the first clue to figuring out his math is to look at the first part of his tweet: "Report: Obamacare could raise ins premiums by 200%."
We read the report, which was released in March 2013 by the Republican staffs of three congressional committees. This report is hardly a neutral document, given that it was written by staffers of a party that has worked to repeal the health care law since it was passed in 2010. Still, Thompson’s tweet goes much further than the report does, and it ignores some important qualifiers.
The Republican staff report says that "some estimates show some Americans facing startling premium increases of 203 percent because of the law."
Let’s parse this statement. First, "some estimates" refers to a January 2013 study done by former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who served as chief economist for the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush and as a top policy adviser to the presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. His survey asked a range of companies to share premium quotes for individuals with specific demographic characteristics in five cities, before and after the health care law took effect.
In Holtz-Eakin’s study, the numbers around 200 percent refer to "young adults in the individual market" for certain cities. For instance, in Chicago, a young adult in the individual market before Obamacare would pay a premium of $756, rising to $2,268 after the law -- an increase of 202 percent. In Milwaukee, a pre-Obamacare premium of $696 would rise to $2,100, a jump of 203 percent. In three other cities listed, the increases ranged from 179 percent to 183 percent.
Looking at these figures in isolation amounts to cherry-picking. To its credit, the Republican staff report made an effort to put this number into context by listing smaller projected increases as well. For instance, when the report lists projected increases in the 50 states for all people with individual insurance -- not just "young adults" -- these premium increases range from 30 percent to 100 percent. And the Republican report cites two studies that support figures on the low end of that spectrum: The Republican report cites a study by actuarial firm Oliver Wyman that suggests increases of 40 percent in the nongroup market, while the Society of Actuaries suggests a rise of 32 percent.
These are still large increases, but they are nowhere near the eye-popping 200 percent figure that landed in headlines on conservative news sites and blogs.
And there’s an additional level of cherry picking going on as well. The Republican report looks only at the nongroup market, which, as we noted, accounts for just 17 percent of the private-insurance market. The report says nothing about the large-group and small-group markets.
This is not to say there won’t be financial hardship among young, healthy people with health insurance; there will be, and probably among other groups of Americans as well. But Thompson ignored the nuances when he tweeted that "your insurance" could rise by 200 percent. That kind of increase would only affect a vanishingly small proportion of Americans (or Thompson’s 139,000 Twitter followers).
The cost of a Ford Explorer
Some may suggest that Thompson was being facetious with his comparison, but we concluded that it's a checkable claim. And this is the part of the tweet where Thompson really goes off the rails.
According to NADAguides.com, an online auto pricing service, the manufacturer’s suggested retail price for a four-wheel drive, four-door 2013 Ford Explorer ranges from $31,995 (for the basic model) to $41,675 (for the "sport" trim). For simplicity, we’ll choose the basic model. Is there any way that health premiums will zoom past $30,000 a year as a result of Obamacare?
We can’t find any.
The people in Chicago who could be seeing a 200 percent increase in their health insurances are currently paying annual premiums of $756. After the law hits, according to Holtz-Eakin, their premiums would go up to $2,268 -- an amount well short of the $30,000 pricetag for a new Explorer.
Perhaps Thompson looked at a different chart in the Republican report. This chart, titled "Obamacare Impact on Young Adults in the Small Group Market," shows that in Milwaukee, the costs for health insurance premiums in the small-group market would rise from $28,488 before the law to $78,744 after the law. The latter amount would be enough to buy two nicely pimped up Explorers -- but it refers to the cost of premiums for a business that employs 20 people. (The Republican report’s table doesn’t explain that, but we confirmed it with Holtz-Eakin.)
Our ruling
Thompson’s tweet takes a few snippets and spins them into a misleading tale.
By some estimates, premiums for certain Americans could go up by 200 percent -- but only for a very specific type of person, namely young, healthy people who have already bought insurance on the nongroup market and will continue to do so. Meanwhile, the people who could see that big an increase would end up paying $2,200 in premiums after the law, far less than the $30,000 an actual new Explorer costs.
Thompson’s tweet illustrates what can happen when eye-catching statistics are cherry-picked and repeated without the proper context. We rate the claim False.
About this statement:
Published: Wednesday, April 3rd, 2013 at 12:15 p.m.
Subjects: Health Care
Sources:
Fred Thompson, tweet, March 27, 2013

House Energy and Commerce Committee majority staff, Senate Committee Finance minority staff and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions minority staff, "The Price of Obamacare’s Broken Promises," March 2013




Kaiser Family Foundation/Health Research & Educational Trust, "Employer Health Benefits: 2012 Summary of Findings," accessed April 2, 2013

NADAguides.com, "New 2013 Ford Explorer Prices," accessed April 2, 2013

Email interview with Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum, April 2, 2013

Email interview with Debbee Hancock, press secretary with the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, April 2, 2013
Written by: Louis Jacobson
Researched by: Louis Jacobson
Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holan

21 March 2013

Michele Bachmann says 70 percent of food stamp funding goes to 'bureaucrats' &Michele Bachmann says Alzheimer's disease could be cured if not for government regulation, taxes and lawyers 16MAR13

FOTZE rep miclele bachmann r-tb MN is a hate filled, lying SCHLEMPE! I post these latest rants by her only because there are so many out there like her who will circulate these as the truth. Thank you PolitiFact....

The Truth-O-Meter Says:
Bachmann

Of every "three dollars in food stamps for the needy, seven dollars in salaries and pensions (go to) the bureaucrats who are supposed to be taking care of the poor."

Michele Bachmann on Saturday, March 16th, 2013 in a speech at the conservative CPAC conference

Michele Bachmann says 70 percent of food stamp funding goes to 'bureaucrats'

Federal bureaucrats are a favorite target at CPAC, the annual conservative conference that was held March 14-17, 2013. And in her address to the conference, U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., served up a doozy.
How does it help the poor, she asked, when "of every dollar that you hold in your hands, 70 cents of that dollar that's supposed to go to the poor doesn't. It actually goes to benefit the bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. Seventy cents on the dollar. That's how the president's caring works in practice. So three dollars in food stamps for the needy, seven dollars in salaries and pensions for the bureaucrats who are supposed to be taking care of the poor. So with all due respect, I ask you, how does this show that our president cares about the poor?"
Seventy percent of the food stamp budget goes to bureaucrats rather than beneficiaries? This sounded way off to us. So we looked into it.
The real numbers
We first turned to budget data for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which runs the food stamp program. (We should point out that the food stamp program has officially been known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, since October 2008).
In 2012, the Food and Nutrition Service spent a little over $112 billion, an amount that includes not only food stamps but also several smaller nutrition programs for low-income Americans. Of this, $136.5 million was spent on administration. That works out to one tenth of 1 percent -- nowhere near 70 percent.
The liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities came up with a somewhat larger percentage on administration in a 2012 briefing paper. The center came up with administrative costs of about 5 percent by including several other categories of spending, including state administrative costs and educational programs for SNAP participants.
Bachmann did mention "pensions," and if you add the retirement costs of SNAP employees it would boost the numbers a bit higher. But even the most generous accounting of SNAP’s administrative costs end up well short of 70 percent. What gives?
Where Bachmann went wrong
Bachmann’s office did not answer our inquiry, but experts say she probably got it from The Poverty of Welfare: Helping Others in Civil Society, a 1996 book by Michael Tanner of the libertarian Cato Institute. Tanner told PolitiFact that Bachmann is "misquoting me in a subtle but important way."
In his book, Tanner cited a claim by Robert L. Woodson -- president of the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise and author of Breaking the Poverty Cycle: Private Sector Alternatives to the Welfare State -- that in the 1980s, 70 percent of every dollar went "not to poor people but to government bureaucrats and others who serve the poor. Few private charities have the bureaucratic overhead and inefficiency of government programs."
In a footnote, Tanner added, "It is important to note that the 70 percent figure is not solely government administrative overhead. That figure also includes government payments to the non-poor on behalf of the poor. For example, Medicaid payments go to doctors. Housing subsidies are frequently paid directly to landlords."
So, we see three problems here.
First, Bachmann’s claim appears to be based on a 17-year-old study that cites data that may be a decade older than that. In an interview, Tanner said he quoted Woodson’s findings and then referenced a number of regional studies that reached similar conclusions.
Second, the footnote makes clear that not all the people receiving federal anti-poverty money are "bureaucrats."
And third, even if you assume Woodson and Tanner are correct, the finding still doesn’t apply to SNAP, which is a pure cash benefit system without payments made to intermediaries such as doctors or landlords.
Our ruling
Bachmann said that of every "three dollars in food stamps for the needy, seven dollars in salaries and pensions (go to) the bureaucrats who are supposed to be taking care of the poor."
That is ridiculously off-base. Even the broadest calculation of administrative costs for SNAP tops out at 5 percent of program costs, far below the 70 percent Bachmann claims. And the scholar behind the statistic she appears to have used as support said Bachmann has misquoted his work. Pants on Fire!
About this statement:
Published: Tuesday, March 19th, 2013 at 2:56 p.m.
Subjects: Federal BudgetPoverty
Sources:
Michele Bachmann, speech to CPAC, March 16, 2013
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Congressional Budget Justification, 2013
James Rolph Edwards, "The Costs of Public Income Redistribution and Private Charity" (Journal of Libertarian Studies), summer 2007
Email interview with Michael Wiseman, George Washington University economist, March 18, 2013
Email interview with John M. Palguta, vice president for policy at the Partnership for Public Service, March 18, 2013
Email interview with Michael Tanner, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, March 18, 2013
Written by: Louis Jacobson
Researched by: Louis Jacobson
Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holan
The Truth-O-Meter Says:
Bachmann

"Scientists tell us that we could have a cure in 10 years for Alzheimer's" were it not for "overzealous regulators, excessive taxation and greedy litigators."

Michele Bachmann on Saturday, March 16th, 2013 in a speech at CPAC

Michele Bachmann says Alzheimer's disease could be cured if not for government regulation, taxes and lawyers

Are bureaucrats, high taxation and trial lawyers keeping America from tackling Alzheimer’s disease? Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., said they are during aspeech to CPAC, the annual conservative conference.

After recalling the history of vaccinations against polio, Bachmann said, "We have another disease ... that's hurting us today. It's called Alzheimer's. ... There is no known treatment for Alzheimer's on the horizon. … Scientists tell us that we could have a cure in 10 years for Alzheimer's, if we'd only put our mind to it. So why aren't we seeking to cure diseases like Alzheimer's, or diabetes, juvenile diabetes, heart disease, cancer, Parkinson's disease? How did we possibly get to this point of political malpractice? Because our government, proclaiming to care so much, has created a cadre of overzealous regulators, excessive taxation and greedy litigators. That's not caring. It's time we care."

We wondered if it was accurate for Bachmann to say that "scientists tell us that we could have a cure in 10 years for Alzheimer's" were it not for "overzealous regulators, excessive taxation and greedy litigators." So we checked with a variety of Alzheimer’s researchers and policy experts. (Bachmann’s office did not respond to an inquiry for this article.)

We found a strong consensus among Alzheimer’s disease experts that Bachmann’s factors are either minor obstacles or not obstacles at all. Instead, they cited two primary concerns -- insufficient funding and the complexity of the disease itself.

First, let’s look at funding.

"The only thing keeping us from developing successful treatments for Alzheimer's disease is the lack of adequate funding for research from NIH and other federal agencies," said Robert A. Stern, a neurologist and neurosurgeon, as well as a director of the Alzheimer's Disease Center at the Boston University School of Medicine. "That has nothing to do with her naive and scary statements. It only has to do with Congress deciding that it is worth spending money on."

We should note that the Obama administration did shift $50 million into Alzheimer’s research for fiscal year 2012 and requested an additional $80 million for fiscal year 2013. It alsodedicated nearly $80 million in stimulus money to Alzheimer’s for each of two fiscal years, 2009 and 2010.

Still, these temporary increases were not built into the ongoing baseline. The baseline level has remained fairly constant since Obama took office, at about $450 million a year. And that amount is due to be cut back this year due to the across-the-board cuts known as sequestration.

"After many years of expansion under the Clinton administration, the budget for the National Institutes of Health has remained relatively stagnant for more than a decade," said Deborah E. Barnes, an Alzheimer’s specialist at the University of California, San Francisco. "This has put the squeeze on scientists. In the past, the top 25 percent to 30 percent of research proposals would receive funding. Now it is the top 5 percent to 10 percent. This means that a lot of really good research is not being funded, and our progress toward finding a cure for Alzheimer's and other important disorders has been slowed. The funding for NIH comes from taxpayer dollars, so excessive taxation is clearly not the problem."

The other key obstacle our experts cited is the nature of the disease itself.

If Bachmann is looking for diseases that have been sidetracked by bureaucratic or regulatory hurdles, "Alzheimer's is about the worst example she could give," said R. Alta Charo, a bioethicist at the University of Wisconsin.

The disease, she said, "develops over years from causes still unclear. The real dilemma for Alzheimer's drug trials -- or for trials of any disease that develops slowly with symptoms that may easily be due to other diseases and which may be of varying intensity -- is that there is no form of standard clinical trial that can test interventions and cures within a reasonable time frame."

As a result, she said, the FDA has allowed various kinds of abbreviated trials that don’t evaluate progress in slowing or reversing the disease itself. Instead, they track "surrogate markers" -- indicators that seem to suggest that a drug is helping. But not all markers translate over time into clinical benefit, she said.

Such practical challenges have produced a trail of broken hopes. In a 2012 "setbacks report" on Alzheimer’s drug research, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the nation’s leading trade group for drugmakers, tallied 101 "failed" Alzheimer’s drugs since 1998, with a rate of 34 setbacks for every drug approved. And even the medicines that have won approval have provided symptomatic relief to some patients, rather than actually rolling back the disease itself.

One might expect PhRMA, one of the most influential pro-business lobbying groups in Washington, to applaud the notion that overzealous regulation, high taxation and aggressive plaintiffs attorneys are curbing the industry’s efforts. But in the case of Alzheimer’s, at least, the "setbacks report" doesn’t even touch on those issues.

So what does the report point to instead? It talks largely about the practical challenges of dealing with a complicated disease.

"Scientists still do not fully understand the underlying causes and mechanisms of the disease, particularly when it comes to separating potential causes from effects of the disease. This makes selection of viable targets for new medicines very difficult," the report says. It adds that "the limited utility of current models of the human disease is a huge barrier in preclinical testing of drug candidates."

The difficulty of finding testable indicators of the disease, the report continues, "makes it particularly challenging to evaluate, enroll, follow up, and retain patients in clinical studies. Ultimately this leads to long and very expensive clinical trials."

Our ruling

Bachmann said that "scientists tell us that we could have a cure in 10 years for Alzheimer's" were it not for "overzealous regulators, excessive taxation and greedy litigators." The 10-year goal may or may not be plausible, but if it’s not, there’s wide agreement that the three factors Bachmann mentioned are not the primary obstacles.

Instead, researchers pointed to stagnant funding and the fact that Alzheimer’s is a particularly tricky disease to research, given its slow and stealthy advances. If Bachmann was looking to score points about bureaucracy and taxation, she has made a particularly poor choice of case study. Bachmann has taken a popular theme and assigned it to a complicated health condition, simply to score political points. The experts say her claim is unfounded. We rate her claim Pants on Fire!
About this statement:
Published: Wednesday, March 20th, 2013 at 4:55 p.m.
Sources:
Michele Bachmann, remarks to the CPAC conference, March 16, 2013


Department of Health and Human Services, "We can’t wait: Administration announces new steps to fight Alzheimer’s disease," Feb. 7, 2012

Department of Health and Human Services, "Fact Sheet: We Can’t Wait: Taking Action on Alzheimer’s Disease," Feb. 7, 2012

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, "Researching Alzheimer’s Medicines: Setbacks and Stepping Stones," 2012

Email interview with Erin Heath, associate director of the office of government relations for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, March 20, 2013

Email interview with Robert A. Stern, director of the Alzheimer's Disease Center at the Boston University School of Medicine, March 20, 2013

Email interview with R. Alta Charo, bioethicist at the University of Wisconsin, March 18, 2013

Email interview with Deborah E. Barnes, Alzheimer’s specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, March 20, 2013

Email interview with Gad A. Marshall, neurologist at Harvard Medical School and associate medical director of clinical trials at the Center for Alzheimer Research and Treatment at Brigham and Women's Hospital, March 20, 2013
Written by: Louis Jacobson
Researched by: Louis Jacobson
Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holan

28 June 2012

Facebook post claims nearly 60 percent of public housing residents are illegal immigrants 10 & 28JUN12

WHY do people post and forward such lies? It can only be because they are too lazy to research such an obvious falsehood, they are voluntarily ignorant and they are racist. From PolitiFact....

Facebook posts

"Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties in U.S. are illegals."

Facebook posts on Sunday, June 10th, 2012 in a widely circulated posting

Facebook post claims nearly 60 percent of public housing residents are illegal immigrants

One of the strongest charges aimed at illegal immigrants is that not only have they broken the law, but they are relying heavily on government handouts.

A PolitiFact reader sent us a link to a Facebook post that lists many such claims of unlawful residents benefiting from federal programs. Among them was the claim that, "Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD housing in U.S. are illegals." The post went up on June 10 and since then has been shared over 3,900 times.

To assess this statement, we looked at the total number of people using HUD subsidized housing. According to HUD’s website, the count was about 9.6 million in 2009, the most recent year for which they have data. That includes public housing, rent vouchers, Section 8 and a couple of other programs.

If the 60 percent claim were accurate, then there would be about 5.8 million illegal immigrants living in HUD properties. There are about 11.2 million illegal immigrants in the United States according to a 2010  Pew Hispanic Center estimate.

"It seems implausible on its face," says Chris Herbert, Research Director at the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University. "It would mean that about half of all the illegal immigrants in the country lived in assisted housing."

If the practice were so widespread, Herbert says, it  would come up often -- and he’s never heard any discussion of it. We checked with another of the country’s leading housing policy groups, the Furman Center For Real Estate and Urban Policy at New York University, and they too drew a blank.

We asked HUD ourselves. A spokesman could find no published report on illegal immigrants in HUD housing. HUD does require information on citizenship when people apply for assistance. Public housing and vouchers represent the bulk of HUD’s subsidized housing. The agency says 96 percent of those residents are citizens and about 4 percent are legal immigrants.

"The claim that 60 percent are illegal is certainly nonsensical," says Brian Sullivan, a HUD spokesman.

Applicants for subsidized housing must be citizens or legal immigrants. Sullivan notes that undocumented immigrants are allowed to live in subsidized housing if at least one member of the household is in the country legally. Typically, this happens when undocumented parents have a child in the U.S. Anyone born here is automatically a citizen and the parents could then rent in a HUD-subsidized property. In these cases, HUD reduces the subsidy for each undocumented person in the unit.

Sullivan says, "The taxpayer would not be on the hook for assisting in their housing."

We found one article that references an estimate of the number of illegal immigrants living in subsidized units. An item from the Associated Press says HUD pegged the number at about 30,000. That would be about 0.3 percent of all HUD residents -- a tiny fraction of 60 percent. An unconfirmed blog post in circulation on the Web mentions that Arizona HUD officials estimated that perhaps 10 percent of its occupants are in the country illegally.

To be complete, we should note that whatever housing benefits an illegal immigrant might enjoy -- such as being allowed to live in a HUD unit because a family member is a citizen -- those benefits don’t count in certain kinds of deportation hearings. The government can deport someone if it determines they are a "public charge" which is defined as someone who is "primarily dependent on the Government for subsistence."  HUD housing is not part of that calculation.

Clearly, there are some illegal immigrants living in HUD housing and there are rules that might allow them to stay, but in no way do the numbers match the claim that 60 percent of HUD housing residents are "illegals."

Our ruling

The Facebook post says "Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD housing in U.S. are illegals."

The closest but unverified estimate we could find for illegal occupants in HUD housing is less than 1 percent nationwide. The claim of 60 percent is ridiculously false.

Pants on Fire!
About this statement:
Published: Thursday, June 21st, 2012 at 6:07 p.m.
Subjects: Housing, Immigration
Sources:
Interview with Chris Herbert, Research Director, Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University, June 21, 2012

Interview with Brian Sullivan, spokesman, Department of Housing and Urban Development, June 21, 2012

Email correspondence with Meghan Lewit, Communications Associate, Furman Center For Real Estate and Urban Policy, New York University, June 21, 2012

Proration rules at HUD, HUD guidebook, accessed June 20, 2012
Restrictions on assistance to noncitizens, HUD guidebook, accessed June 20, 2012

2009 Data on HUD Residents, HUD web site, accessed June 21, 2012

Many illegal immigrants live in public housing, USA Today, January 1, 2009, accessed June 20, 2012

Email correspondence with John Goering, Public Affairs Department, City University of New York, June 21, 2012

Guidance on Public Charge, HUD, March 25, 2011, accessed June 21, 2012

Middle America News blog, February 2009 posting, accessed June 20, 2012

Estimate of illegal immigrant population, Pew Hispanic Center, 2010, accessed June 20, 2012
Written by: Jon Greenberg
Researched by: Jon Greenberg
Edited by: Bill Adair
 

Chain email says River School lip-reading instructor confirms first lady Michelle Obama said "All this for a damn flag" at 9/11 ceremonies 26JUN12

THE lengths some people will go to just to discredit someone they oppose politically is pathetic, and this is one of the most glaring examples of the lies, deception and manipulation right-wing extremist  will use to attack the Obamas. Only those that are racist, extremely stupid, and unpatriotic will believe this kind of trash. From PolitiFact.....

Chain e-mail

Says "a lip-reading instructor at the River School, a Washington, D.C., school for the deaf" has determined that during 9/11 ceremonies, Michelle Obama said, "All this for a damn flag."

Chain e-mail on Tuesday, June 26th, 2012 in a message forwarded to many people

Chain email says River School lip-reading instructor confirms first lady Michelle Obama said "All this for a damn flag" at 9/11 ceremonies

Authors of chain emails love to question President Barack Obama's patriotism.

They've said he refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance (False), that he "turns his back to the flag and slouches" (False), and that he complained that U.S. troops were whining about going to war. (Pants on Fire).

(We are not including the claim that Obama fits the biblical description of the Antichrist, since it's theoretically possible that you could be the Antichrist and still be patriotic.)

We've also noticed a sub-genre of emails that attack First Lady Michelle Obama for living a life of luxury, such as the claim that she ordered $400 worth of caviar and lobster at the Waldorf Astoria in New York (Pants on Fire).

Now comes a new twist on a claim that sprouted a year ago in the conservative blogosphere: the suggestion that during 9/11 memorial ceremonies, the first lady could be seen saying to her husband, "All this for a damn flag."

The controversy has been fueled by video that shows the first lady saying something to her husband. Because the comments are not audible, critics of the Obamas have speculated about her words. On YouTube, a video that has been seen 1.4 million times slows the exchange and declares the first lady said, "All this for a damn flag" and that the president replied "Hm … mn …. nnnn" and gave a "nod of disapproval."

The Blaze, Glenn Beck's website, invited readers to do their own lip reading and speculate what they thought Michelle Obama was saying. The results of the 38,706 votes:

"All this for a damn flag." 49 percent
"Look at how they fold that damn flag." 5
"Look at how they fold that flag." 22
Something else, but I'm not sure. 7
Come on, there's no way to tell. 17

The new email, which emerged about one month ago, indicates Michelle Obama's words have been confirmed by "a lip-reading instructor at the River School, a Washington school for the deaf."

Here's the full email (it has two subject lines because senders added a second line when forwarding it)::

Subject:  Obama's wife - Caught in the Act

You be the judge,
How much more disrespect can there be?

Subject: Obama's wife as seen by deaf people

READING HER LIPS !!
Obama and his wife were attending The 9/11 Memorial Ceremony and watched as the Color Guard folded the flag into a triangular shape, according to custom.

A video camera caught the two from the sidelines.  Obama's wife leaned over and said to him, "All this for a damn flag?"  Obama turned to her, smiled smugly and nodded his head in agreement.

How do we know what was said? The video was presented for translation to a lip reading instructor at The River School, a Washington D.C. school for the deaf.

The video is shown at normal speed, 3/4 speed, and 1/2 speed with no banners obstructing her lips.

The current Commander and Chief and the First Lady proud of being American? You be the judge...


Like many chain emails, this one has evolved since earlier versions. The detail about the lip-reading instructor at the River School was added recently, presumably to give the email more credibility.

But that credibility crumbled when we spoke with Nancy Mellon, director of the River School. She described it as a Washington school that serves a wide range of children from 18 months to third grade. It is known for its strong program for hearing-impaired children, but they account for just 15 percent of the students.

More importantly, the River School doesn't teach lip-reading, Mellon said, and no one from the faculty has provided any interpretation of the video.

"It's definitely not us," she said. "We would never try to do anything like this."

The school has gotten so many inquiries about the chain email that last week it posted this message on its website:

Please be advised that The River School was not involved in any translation services for a recent video clip currently circulating on the Internet.
So what did she really say? The consensus on All Deaf, a website for people who are hearing impaired, was that she said, "It's amazing how they fold that flag." (However, one person speculated that she told her husband, "This is the third time this week you left your underwear on the floor... I ain't your mother.")
Our ruling

Like many chain emails we've checked, this one is so flimsy that it needs to fabricate its credibility. Critics of Obama are free to speculate about the first lady's words, but the "damn flag" translation was not done by anyone at the River School.

So we give this one a nod of disapproval -- and a Pants on Fire!

About this statement:
Published: Tuesday, June 26th, 2012 at 12:34 p.m.
Subjects: Patriotism
Sources:
Interview with Nancy Mellon, founder and director of the River School,

YouTube, Michelle Obama's "All this for a damn flag" shown at three different speeds, accessed June 25, 2012

The River School, home page, accessed june 26, 2012

The Blaze, What Did Michelle Obama Say to the President During the 9/11 Ceremony? (Take the Poll), Sept. 15, 2011

TruthorFiction.com, Michelle's Flag Flap, accessed June 26, 2012
Written by: Bill Adair
Researched by: Bill Adair
Edited by: Aaron Sharockman

04 May 2012

Romney's Biggest Fib (on Obamacare)? from MOJO 4MAI12

mitt romney is unable to offer the American electorate anything that could be considered a positive alternative to Pres Obama's policies do he resorts to flat out lies and deception. Consider what Bruce Bartlett, of the reagan and george h w bush administrations, has to say about romney's claims on Obamacare.
Bruce Bartlett, who served as a senior economist in the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, was more blunt in his appraisal of Romney's assertion that Obamacare will lead to government control of half of the economy: "This analysis is so stupid it is hard to know where to begin." He notes:
Health spending has been rising for years for reasons unconnected to Obamacare. Why assume that all of any projected increase between now and 2020 results solely from that? Tossing in all private health spending as essentially part of government spending is fundamentally dishonest. Its only purpose appears to be to find some desperate way of lifting total spending above the 50 percent threshold. If you are going to do that, why not include every other sector of the economy subject to government control?
Here is the full article from MOJO....

Under Obama, the GOP candidate says, government will "control half the economy." Economic experts rate this scare tactic somewhere between "ridiculous" and "stupid."

mitt romneyInevitable Republican nominee Mitt Romney
On April 24, the night Mitt Romney triumphed in five primary contests and essentially clinched the Republican presidential nomination, the former Massachusetts governor delivered his victory speech in Manchester, the largest city in the swing state of New Hampshire. This address, CNN noted, marked Romney's "pivot to the general election campaign." WMUR, the ABC affiliate in New Hampshire, declared, "Romney Delivers Rousing Speech in Manchester." Fox Nation dubbed the address, "Romney's Killer Speech." The New York Times reported that Romney "laid out a succinct argument for his economic leadership."
There was not much media analysis of the substance of the speech—especially Romney's chief argument that he and Obama "have very different visions" of the United States. The core of Romney's case for himself was this:
Government is at the center of [Obama's] vision. It dispenses the benefits, borrows what it cannot take, and consumes a greater and greater share of the economy. With Obamacare fully installed, government will come to control half the economy, and we will have effectively ceased to be a free enterprise society.
With government controlling 50 percent of the entire economy, Romney said, "our lives will be ruled by bureaucrats and boards, commissions, and czars." But is it true that once Obamacare fully kicks in, government will have complete dominion over half the economy? Or might this be one of the biggest fibs of Romney's campaign?
I asked Romney HQ for an explanation, and it graciously replied with this:
In 2010, government expenditures as % of GDP were 38.13%. By 2020, with Obamacare in place, the government estimates that health care spending as a % of GDP will climb 1.84 points. This would bring government expenditures as % of GDP to 39.97%. In addition, private health care expenditures will be 10.03% of GDP in 2020. If we count that as under federal control, we get to 50.00% of GDP.
I ran this justification by several economists who are consulted on such matters by media fact-checkers, and—to various degrees—they took exception. There is, it seems, much wrong with Romney's statement and the analysis upon which it rests.
Eugene Steuerle, an economist with the Urban Institute (who says he doesn't fancy being drawn into dust-ups regarding statements from presidential candidates), notes that the Romney camp is adopting an unfair baseline. It's starting point is 2010, when, due to the recession, the US government was spending more (food stamps, unemployment benefits, other forms of assistance, and the stimulus) and the economy was lackluster. Consequently, government expenditures as a percentage of gross domestic product were higher than normal. Steuerle points out that it is wrong to assume this level will remain, and he notes that when "recessionary spending" ends, the overall government expenditures-to-GDP ratio is likely to drop.
This sort of statistics fudging is routine spin for a political campaign. Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution, explains that there are more fundamental problems with Romney's analysis. Romney claims that all private health care expenditures—such as those that occur when a Medicare beneficiary pays for a service not covered by the program or when a person with insurance at work obtains medical services—should be counted in the government-controlled category. This is "ludicrous," Burtless says.
"This analysis is so stupid it is hard to know where to begin," Bruce Bartlett said of Romney's assertion that Obamacare will lead to government control of half the economy.
Romney is assuming that under Obamacare, these health care transactions will be controlled by government, apparently accepting the premise that Obama's initiative is a total government takeover of the health care sector (a much-repeated conservative trope that PolitiFact.com declared the "lie of the year" in 2010). But, Burtless points out, private health care expenditures have long been subject to government regulations, and Obama's health care law does not "materially change the control of the health care sector that is considered private." He adds, "You can't move private dollars to 'government control' just because of health care reform. You can't just reclassify these private dollars under government control. The private dollars my mother spends outside Medicare are no more under government control now than when this was done in the Reagan years."
To recap: Romney rigs the baseline by predicating his analysis on that 38 percent government-expenditures/GDP figure. Then he adds 10 percent for private health care expenditures in a manner that Burtless calls "ridiculous."
There's more. Burtless contends that it is problematic to term making a transfer payment—for example, sending someone a Social Security check—an act of government control. "The government only has control in the sense that it is raising the money—or borrowing it—and sending it out to the recipients," he explains. "But it doesn't control how these people spend the money." His mother, he notes, receives Social Security, "and she can spend it any way she wants. She can give it to the Romney campaign." With Medicare, she can select her own doctor; the government doesn't control her choice.
"The government does control the Defense Department," Burtless notes. "It pays soldiers and general, pays for the supplies, tells the soldiers where they will be stationed. But when it gives me a transfer payment, does it really control the economy?" Given that there are federal laws regarding property, patents, interstate commerce, trading aboard (such as the prohibition on trading in Cuba), and other economic activity, he adds, "you could say government controls 100 percent of the economy."
Bruce Bartlett, who served as a senior economist in the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, was more blunt in his appraisal of Romney's assertion that Obamacare will lead to government control of half of the economy: "This analysis is so stupid it is hard to know where to begin." He notes:
Health spending has been rising for years for reasons unconnected to Obamacare. Why assume that all of any projected increase between now and 2020 results solely from that? Tossing in all private health spending as essentially part of government spending is fundamentally dishonest. Its only purpose appears to be to find some desperate way of lifting total spending above the 50 percent threshold. If you are going to do that, why not include every other sector of the economy subject to government control?
If Romney equates government involvement in an economic sector with control, Bartlett notes, then there's no limit to the nightmare Romney is promoting. "Agriculture is heavily controlled, so why don't we add all food consumption to government's share of GDP?" Bartlett asks. "Banking is also heavily controlled, so let's add that too. Ditto housing, manufacturing, etc. This doesn't pass the laugh test."
Yet no one is howling foul about Romney relying on this scary-sounding factoid to promote his claim that Obama is on the verge of destroying free enterprise in the United States. (PolitiFact has previously called out Romney for saying the United States is "inches away from no longer being a free economy.")
On the campaign trail, Romney touts his corporate credentials and argues he knows what's best for the ailing US economy. That's certainly fair play. But he has continuously accused Obama of not understanding the nation or its economy (while apologizing for the country overseas) and of desiring to turn the United States into an European-style state where poverty will spread. To level such an indictment credibly, it helps to toss out facts—or what seem to be facts. By charging Obama with a power grab that will place government in control of half of the economy, Romney positions himself as a savior for those voters who believe (maybe because of Romney's own demagoguery) that Obama is running amok and threatening the fundamental nature of the nation.
This claim was a supersize stretch of the truth. Yet nothing prevented Romney from making good use of it, for in this political culture there is often little, if any, penalty to be paid for hurling such reality-defying rhetoric. One can only wonder how big the whoppers will get by November.
 

31 March 2012

GEORGE ALLEN'S PANTS ON FIRE, FALSE AND MOSTLY FALSE COMMENTS FROM POLITIFACT

HERE are some tidbits from PolitiFact rating George Allen's political comments as pants on fire, false, and mostly false. Check out Tim Kaine's campaign website http://www.kaineforva.com/home 
to meet the candidate that can be trusted to best represent Virginia in the U.S. Senate.



President Obama, Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi passed a "$1.2 trillion stimulus bill."


**************************************************

"Our federal government has lent $2 billion to the state-owned oil company of Brazil to allow them to explore for oil and gas."  

**********************************

Takes credit for "reining in" state spending when he was governor.

**********************************

"China owns more of our bonds than do Americans."

**********************************

Sen. Jim Webb "persists on negating" Sen. Mark Warner’s votes 

**********************************

False

The debt is "nearly $6 trillion more than when President Obama was sworn into office."

***********************************************************

George Allen